Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Yeah, there's really no point in posting a video of people talking about things which they present no evidence to substantiate.
Ah! So you have watched that video?Yeah, there's really no point in posting a video of people talking about things which they present no evidence to substantiate.
Yeah, there's really no point in posting a video of people talking about things which they present no evidence to substantiate.
Of course there are expert opinions of animal predation proffered, just like there were expert opinions suggesting some of the wounds were human bight marks previously, but in both cases there's a dearth of actual evidence to substantiate those opinions.Are you saying there were no expert opinions proffered which suggested the injuries are compatible with postmortem animal predation?
Nonsense. If you've found a video where actual evidence is presented to substantiate the animal predation claims, then for the love of God, please post it. However, having researched the topic considerably, I suspect I've already seen the video you allude too, and even quoted from it on this forum on multiple previous occasions.No, I'm not going to post it because no matter what it is, you'll say there is no evidence
I hear a lot of people's opinions aside from own, but I'm far more interested in the facts on which conclusions are based than the conclusions themselves, and I'm saddened by how many people take issue with me for that.I like to hear ALL opinions. It's just sad that you'll only hear your own and no one elses.
Of course there are expert opinions of animal predation proffered, just like there were expert opinions suggesting some of the wounds were human bight marks previously, but in both cases there's a dearth of actual evidence to substantiate those opinions.
I'm saying that people in fancy robes claiming the emperor's new clothes look splendid on him doesn't constitute evidence that the emperor has anything on at all. People with notable qualifications are often good at presenting relevant evidence in their specialized field which might otherwise go overlooked, but that doesn't rightly make any conclusion evidence in itself regardless of credentials of the person offering their opinion.
Well to put it simply, I was noting the importance of distinguishing between evidence and opinion when looking for the truth, much like you recommend in your signature.Im sorry again, But this just does not make any sense. Not to me anyway.
Rather, there's a vast difference between what you consider evidence and the standards of evidence by which our justice system operates.There is evidence that someone else was there. There is an immense lack of evidence that puts them at the scene or with the boys.
I suspect you're alluding to Paid's thread over at the Blackboard which was discussed on this forum after CR alluded to it and Gescho later linked to it in [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=9862584#post9862584"]this post[/ame]. However, last I saw of it Paid only had one photograph of the dentures which didn't include any ruler in it aside from when he pasted a copy of one from the autopsy photo onto it, and he claimed he determined the scale from a Marlboro box which was a part of the picture but which he never provided an uncropped image of for his work to be checked. But regardless of scale there's the issue the angles of indecent Paid suggests being wildly inconsistent with what can be accomplished within the confines of a human mouth, as I demonstrated later in that thread.One minor little detail that you, kyleb, maybe missed it was only in the public domain for a short period.
But regardless of scale there's the issue the angles of indecent Paid suggests being wildly inconsistent with what can be accomplished within the confines of a human mouth, as I demonstrated later in that thread.
The credibility of conclusions is only rightly assessed with respect to to the evidence on which they're based, not the credentials of those making them. The problem with doing the latter is that one can easly wind up mislead, as many were back when most astronomers agreed the Earth was at the center of our planetary system for example.The problem becomes one of credibility.
Where exactly can one find this demonstration which you allude to?The angles were discussed in depth and further demonstrations showed that one didn't have to remove and reattach the jaw in another location as your demonstration suggested.
The credibility of conclusions is only rightly assessed with respect to to the evidence on which they're based, not the credentials of those making them. The problem with doing the latter is that one can easly wind up mislead, as many were back when most astronomers agreed the Earth was at the center of our planetary system for example.
I am glad I was not alone being unable to unscramble that post!
One minor little detail that you, kyleb, maybe missed, it was only in the public domain for a short period. Extensive work has been done by an odontologist matching the alleged bite mark (upper teeth) with the upper partials of one of the suspects. It was painstaking work as only photographs were made available but they included the usual ruler in the shots for the scales to be matched. Interestingly, the ME on the case did consider the 'wound' as possible bite mark, but disgarded it.
The credibility of conclusions is only rightly assessed with respect to to the evidence on which they're based, not the credentials of those making them. The problem with doing the latter is that one can easly wind up mislead, as many were back when most astronomers agreed the Earth was at the center of our planetary system for example.
Where exactly can one find this demonstration which you allude to?
Where exactly can one find this demonstration which you allude to?
People believing the Earth was at the center of our planetary system isn't really an accent matter, it was a popular consensus just a few hundred years ago(popular consensus like the WM3 committed the crimes decades ago). It wasn't really new evidence which disproved it either(just as it's not "new" evidence that will solve this crime, just old evidence that people have to be willing to look at), as the phases of Venus are viable enough with the naked eye for those who cared to look, what Galileo's telescope revealed and other advancements just eventually drove the point home(such as DNA testing). And the problem was that people took the opinions of those they considered credible(such as burnett, fogleman and the WMPD) on faith rather than assessing those conclusions with respect to to the evidence on which they were based(such as pushing satanic panic instead of looking at the actual evidence which underlie those claims), as has been the problem in this case with both the claims of human bite marks and animal predation.
I'm always happy to adopt the conclusions of those who substantiate them. I'm just not one espouse opinions on faith, regardless of the standing of those pronouncing them. Besides, there's plenty of others here who selectively disregard the expert proclamations of animal predation being responsible for all the wounds, those who embrace claims of Hobbs beating the boys to death and his dentures being consistent with wounds on Stevie Branch's forehead for example.It was his way of simply saying he doesn't care how well respected certain experts are, how much experience they have, how much more information they have had to review than the average citizen, he's not going to buy into their opinions.
Gheckso claimed [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=9866187#post9866187"]the issue I demonstrated[/ame] regarding the notion that the wounds are constant with a human bite mark has already been demonstrated incorrect, so what are you suggesting should "play itself out" other than such a demonstration being presented here to prove as much?I think it's probably just best to let anything having to do with those tests/demonstrations to play itself out on it's own.