Testing RDI spin theory that PR and JR wrote the RN

Discussion in 'JonBenet Ramsey' started by voynich, Oct 1, 2009.

?

Did you read page 81-85 of Olsson's book on the RN?

  1. yes

    50.0%
  2. no

    50.0%
  1. voynich

    voynich Former Member

    Messages:
    1,015
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    "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.

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
  2. Loading...


  3. madeleine

    madeleine New Member

    Messages:
    4,970
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  4. Sophie

    Sophie New Member

    Messages:
    1,019
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  5. voynich

    voynich Former Member

    Messages:
    1,015
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I have in the past addressed other topics feel free to consult it.
     
  6. Ravyn

    Ravyn New Member

    Messages:
    1,040
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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....
     
  7. SuperDave

    SuperDave Active Member

    Messages:
    13,263
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    38
    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.
     
  8. SuperDave

    SuperDave Active Member

    Messages:
    13,263
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    38
    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!

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

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

    No consideration for efficiency.
     
  9. SuperDave

    SuperDave Active Member

    Messages:
    13,263
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    38
    IDI's not too keen to touch those particular subjects, I notice.

    I would doubt it.
     
  10. voynich

    voynich Former Member

    Messages:
    1,015
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  11. SuperDave

    SuperDave Active Member

    Messages:
    13,263
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Got your attention, didn't it?
     
  12. voynich

    voynich Former Member

    Messages:
    1,015
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    SW and forcespeak always do :woohoo:

    [​IMG]
     
  13. SuperDave

    SuperDave Active Member

    Messages:
    13,263
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    38
    I know. I just hope you appreciate the message I was trying to convey.
     
  14. voynich

    voynich Former Member

    Messages:
    1,015
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  15. Holdontoyourhat

    Holdontoyourhat Former Member

    Messages:
    5,299
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  16. Ravyn

    Ravyn New Member

    Messages:
    1,040
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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...
     
  17. voynich

    voynich Former Member

    Messages:
    1,015
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    ...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.
     
  18. SuperDave

    SuperDave Active Member

    Messages:
    13,263
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Make sure you don't misread your prophecy.
     
  19. SuperDave

    SuperDave Active Member

    Messages:
    13,263
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    38
    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.

    Hey, I can buy it.
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice