Replies

Why does the Factcheck COLB have a higher number than the Nordyke BC’s even though it claims to have received that number 3 days earlier than theirs?

That’s not a perceived anomaly; that is a real anomaly, based on what the HDOH itself has said. So explain that anomaly to me. Tell me what happened, to create that result.

If this was an episode of CSI the case would already be solved. But all I have asked for is an investigation because of the incompatible claims and because of the laws and rules documentably broken in this whole process.

The standard of evidence you seem to be expecting is that if the killer doesn’t come forward out of the goodness of his heart and tell the whole world that he committed the crime, then all you have are “suspicions, allegations and accustions based on perceived anomalies and your interpretations of people’s comment. Not proof.”

Apply that standard everywhere in your life and you’ll be left spinning in the middle of the room wondering which direction is up.

“Why does the Factcheck COLB have a higher number than the Nordyke BC’s even though it claims to have received that number 3 days earlier than theirs?

That’s not a perceived anomaly; that is a real anomaly, based on what the HDOH itself has said. So explain that anomaly to me. Tell me what happened, to create that result.”

I do not know. But there are a number of rational ways that it could have happened in 1961. Whether or not this is an anomaly depends on an exact knowledge of what was actually done in 1961. You've been presented with a number of possibilities but have chosen to reject them in favor of your conspiracy.

So I say that it remains a perceived anomaly because you are are making the assumption that it should have been done a certain way but have never bothered to show that it actually was done that way. We've discussed this before. If you actually had a few dozen BC’s from August of 1961 and could show that they should be sequential based on birth date and time then you'd have something. But you don't, instead you try to draw a conclusion from a sample of three and the statement of someone who has no knowledge of the process as it was done before she was born. Read up on aliasing errors in data acquisition and you'll hopefully get the idea.

“If this was an episode of CSI the case would already be solved.”

That's because CSI is a TV show where the writers can use whatever trope or deus ex machina they need to wrap things up in 46 minutes.

“The standard of evidence you seem to be expecting is that if the killer doesn’t come forward out of the goodness of his heart and tell the whole world that he committed the crime, then all you have are “suspicions, allegations and accusations based on perceived anomalies and your interpretations of people’s comment. Not proof.””

My standard of evidence is actually evidence.

“Apply that standard everywhere in your life and you’ll be left spinning in the middle of the room wondering which direction is up.”

And yet I seem do be doing surprisingly well...

I remain hopeful that things will clear up for you when you see the Whitehouse, Lord willing, change hands and the nutty idea pendulum swings Left again.