Testing RDI spin theory that PR and JR wrote the RN

"listen carefully"

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DVbEnZgNn1I&feature=PlayList&p=E0C1812906D706F9&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=19"]YouTube - The work of the forensic linguist[/ame]

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acHg0L5ky30"]YouTube - Solved- Wife's Murder[/nomedia]

I must admit, my trust in the RDI spin team has been shaken.

Remember back to your first teachings, all who gain power are afraid to lose, even the RDI spin team. Good is a point of view. The RDIST and the JIDI are alike in almost every respect, including their quest for greater justice.

Did you ever hear of John Olsson? I thought not. It's not a story the RDI spin team would tell you. He's a JIDI legend. John Olsson is a dark lord so wise and so powerful, he could even demonstrate whether PR and JR wrote the RN together. He has such a knowledge of forensic linguistics even could even save the ones he cared for from RDI spin. Dark side of the forensic linguistics is pathway to many interpretations some would consider to be unnatural. Would it be possible to learn this power? Not from an RDI spin team.

One RDI spin theory is that the note consists of dual authors, such as JR dictating to PR or PR and JR working on the RN together.

http://www.thetext.co.uk/john_olsson.html

John Olsson "John Olsson has published in the Forensic Linguistics peer reviewed professional journal, is the author of a well-known university textbook, Forensic Linguistics (subtitled An Introduction to Language, Crime and the Law), now in its second edition."


"Olsson's forensic analysis has been submitted for evidence before the U.S. Supreme Court and a U.S. District Court. In addition, he has been admitted as an expert in an Australian Federal Court in connection with copyright infringement and has written a number of reports in connection with copyright and trademark infringement."

http://books.google.com/books?id=i3...esult&ct=result&resnum=6#v=onepage&q=&f=false

scroll to page 81-85, based on localized distribution, he rejects the null hypothesis of dual authors.

Trust me,you don't want us to start talking about the SPIN in this case.
What's your point anyway.Did these guys come public to state that PR DIDN'T write the note?Did they come public and state WHO DID?Having an OPINION is easy.I'll wait until the IDI theory is officially backed up by these experts.(I'll die waiting)



Until there's a DNA match (I'll die waiting) ,until there's an arrest (I'll die waiting) and until they got another suspect (I'll die waiting) whose handwriting they can analyse.....................until then.....you're free to SPIN it my friend.Why do you need 100 threads on the same subject anyway,it's getting messy.

You do realise, Voynich, that you are making a rod for your own back with this focus on one aspect of the ransom note (as opposed to the graphology, location of letter etc)? It'll come and bite you on the bum one day.

Sophie said:

You do realise, Voynich, that you are making a rod for your own back with this focus on one aspect of the ransom note (as opposed to the graphology, location of letter etc)? It'll come and bite you on the bum one day.

Click to expand...

I have in the past addressed other topics feel free to consult it.

Now you bring people that wrote books that JR or PR couldn't had wrote the RN and even wrote this in books but yet we have Tom Miller that the R's dream team set out to ruin this man and then Don Foster that the DA tried to ruin so why should we believe these you bring up cause actually did they have all the evidence the LE had before they made the decision....

voynich said:

VICTORY!

Click to expand...

I wouldn't celebrate just yet. I read the pages. My biggest problem is that he seems to assume that whole "we-I" deal was on the square.

I see you have constructed a new lightsaber.

Click to expand...

And I know how to use it.

madeleine said:

Trust me,you don't want us to start talking about the SPIN in this case.

Click to expand...

Yeah, he REALLY doesn't. I tried to explain to him that RDI doesn't HAVE a spin team and that we're the ones trying to cut through the spin. Seems to have fallen on deaf ears. Maybe if I applied a Force-choke, his ears would open up! It tends to have that effect on people!

Having an OPINION is easy.

Click to expand...

Especially when it's so easy to just repeat what someone else says.

I'll wait until the IDI theory is officially backed up by these experts.(I'll die waiting)

Click to expand...

I'm not holding my breath, either. (Though that's kind of hard to do with this mask!)

Why do you need 100 threads on the same subject anyway,it's getting messy.

Click to expand...

No consideration for efficiency.

Ravyn said:

Now you bring people that wrote books that JR or PR couldn't had wrote the RN and even wrote this in books but yet we have Tom Miller that the R's dream team set out to ruin this man and then Don Foster that the DA tried to ruin

Click to expand...

IDI's not too keen to touch those particular subjects, I notice.

so why should we believe these you bring up cause actually did they have all the evidence the LE had before they made the decision....

Click to expand...

I would doubt it.

SuperDave said:

. Seems to have fallen on deaf ears. Maybe if I applied a Force-choke, his ears would open up! It tends to have that effect on people!
.

Click to expand...

LMAO! The last words you hear

"apology accepted captain dave" to the sound of a mechanical respirator



popper falsification

[ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability[/ame]
Falsifiability Falsifiability

Falsifiability (or refutability) is the logical possibility that an assertion can be shown false by an observation or a physical experiment. That something is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false; rather, that if it is false, then this can be shown by observation or experiment. Falsifiability is an important concept in science and the philosophy of science. The term "testability" is related but more specific; it means that an assertion can be falsified through experimentation alone.

For example, "all men are mortal" is unfalsifiable, since no finite amount of observation could ever demonstrate its falsehood: that one or more men can live forever. "All men are immortal," by contrast, is falsifiable, by the presentation of just one dead man. Not all statements that are falsifiable in principle are falsifiable in practice. For example, "it will be raining here in one million years" is theoretically falsifiable, but not practical.

Popper stressed that unfalsifiable statements are still very important for science and are often contained in scientific theories as unfalsifiable consequences. For example, while "all men are mortal" is unfalsifiable, it is still contained as a consequence of the falsifiable theory that "every man dies before he reaches the age of 150 years". Similarly, the ancient metaphysical idea of the existence of atoms has led to corresponding falsifiable modern theories. Popper invented the notion of metaphysical research programs to name such ideas.

In contrast to Positivism, which held that statements are senseless if they cannot be verified or falsified, Popper denied that falsifiability somehow makes scientific theories special. According to Popper, falsifiability is merely a special case of the much more general notion of criticizability, even though he admitted that falsification is one of the most effective methods by which theories can be criticized.

Use in courts of law

Falsifiability was one of the criteria used by Judge William Overton in the McLean v. Arkansas ruling to determine that 'creation science' was not scientific and should not be taught in Arkansas public schools. In his conclusion related to this criterion he stated that "While anybody is free to approach a scientific inquiry in any fashion they choose, they cannot properly describe the methodology as scientific, if they start with the conclusion and refuse to change it regardless of the evidence developed during the course of the investigation."[2]

It was also enshrined in United States law as part of the Daubert Standard set by the Supreme Court for whether scientific evidence is admissible in a jury trial.


VICTORY!

While RDI spin team could revise their spin, Forensic linguistics, weapon of the JIDI knight. I see you have constructed a new lightsaber.

voynich said:

LMAO! The last words you hear

"apology accepted captain dave" to the sound of a mechanical respirator

Click to expand...

Got your attention, didn't it?

SuperDave said:

Got your attention, didn't it?

Click to expand...

SW and forcespeak always do :woohoo:

voynich said:

SW and forcespeak always do :woohoo:

Click to expand...

I know. I just hope you appreciate the message I was trying to convey.

SuperDave said:

I know. I just hope you appreciate the message I was trying to convey.

Click to expand...

Dave search your feelings, you know, don't you?

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGBFasDG31I"]YouTube - Anakin and Palpatine at the Opera[/ame]

RDI spin team want to spin this investigation. They are planning to spin scientific evidence
JIDI use scientific evidence for justice.

The Dark Side of the Forensic linguistics is a pathway to many conclusions the RDI spin team would consider to be unnatural.

Would it be possible to learn this power?

Not from a RDI spin team.

voynich said:

"listen carefully"

YouTube - The work of the forensic linguist

YouTube - Solved- Wife's Murder

I must admit, my trust in the RDI spin team has been shaken.

Remember back to your first teachings, all who gain power are afraid to lose, even the RDI spin team. Good is a point of view. The RDIST and the JIDI are alike in almost every respect, including their quest for greater justice.

Did you ever hear of John Olsson? I thought not. It's not a story the RDI spin team would tell you. He's a JIDI legend. John Olsson is a dark lord so wise and so powerful, he could even demonstrate whether PR and JR wrote the RN together. He has such a knowledge of forensic linguistics even could even save the ones he cared for from RDI spin. Dark side of the forensic linguistics is pathway to many interpretations some would consider to be unnatural. Would it be possible to learn this power? Not from an RDI spin team.

One RDI spin theory is that the note consists of dual authors, such as JR dictating to PR or PR and JR working on the RN together.

http://www.thetext.co.uk/john_olsson.html

John Olsson "John Olsson has published in the Forensic Linguistics peer reviewed professional journal, is the author of a well-known university textbook, Forensic Linguistics (subtitled An Introduction to Language, Crime and the Law), now in its second edition."


"Olsson's forensic analysis has been submitted for evidence before the U.S. Supreme Court and a U.S. District Court. In addition, he has been admitted as an expert in an Australian Federal Court in connection with copyright infringement and has written a number of reports in connection with copyright and trademark infringement."

http://books.google.com/books?id=i3...esult&ct=result&resnum=6#v=onepage&q=&f=false

scroll to page 81-85, based on localized distribution, he rejects the null hypothesis of dual authors.

Click to expand...

IMO the 'she dies' repetition is an attempt by the RN author to employ style and rhythm in a composition. The RN was, after all, a composition more than it was a ransom note. Who knows, voinich maybe someday we'll find something under a linguistic stone. Keep up the good work.

Ok so this just says one author I can take that but now can you show the pages where he ruled out the Ramsey's cause we have alot said PR wrote it...And I'm sure it would be safe to say that anyone wouldn't want to face the Dream team cause who would be crazy enough to set themselves up to be ruined....But yet still they didn't have all the LE had we they came up with their decisions but yet write books about it...

SuperDave said:

I wouldn't celebrate just yet. I read the pages. My biggest problem is that he seems to assume that whole "we-I" deal was on the square.

And I know how to use it.

Click to expand...

...like a youngling! :dance:

I don't quite understand what you mean "My biggest problem is that he seems to assume that whole "we-I" deal was on the square."

His argument is that "no single section is structurally different from the rest" so there is no support for the RDI spin that JR dictated to PR. In absence of this, and the positive presence of "localized distribution" he has eliminated a specific mode of construction or suggested association.

voynich said:

Dave search your feelings, you know, don't you?

YouTube - Anakin and Palpatine at the Opera

RDI spin team want to spin this investigation. They are planning to spin scientific evidence
JIDI use scientific evidence for justice.

The Dark Side of the Forensic linguistics is a pathway to many conclusions the RDI spin team would consider to be unnatural.

Would it be possible to learn this power?

Not from a RDI spin team.

Click to expand...

Make sure you don't misread your prophecy.

voynich said:

I don't quite understand what you mean "My biggest problem is that he seems to assume that whole "we-I" deal was on the square."

Click to expand...

Sorry. I should have been more specific. I just mean that whomever was writing it most likely was not part of a group, and that the "we" was an attempt to sound impressive, whereas the "I" was more a slip-up.

His argument is that "no single section is structurally different from the rest" so there is no support for the RDI spin that JR dictated to PR. In absence of this, and the positive presence of "localized distribution" he has eliminated a specific mode of construction or suggested association.

Click to expand...

Hey, I can buy it.