[ Home | Contents | Search | Post | Reply | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: bj
Date: 9/24/2005
Time: 3:01:08 PM
[¶àýÌåÊÓƵ|http://digital.azshop.cn/multys.html [ÊÓƵ²É¼¯¿¨|http://digital.azshop.cn/cjk.html [Íþ·¢ÒôÏä|http://digital.azshop.cn/yx.html [¿Ì¼»ú|http://digital.azshop.cn/cdrw.html [MP4|http://digital.azshop.cn/mp4.html [±Ê¼Ç±¾Åä¼þ|http://nb.azshop.cn/pj.html [±Ê¼Ç±¾|http://nb.azs
From: Jasper
Date: 4/13/02
Time: 7:20:21 PM
Rovaan,
I know how complex things can get where people are involved. You have an ALMOST infinite array of psychological, physiological and sociological variable that have to be taken into account - not to mention theological and political. The way to deal with messy variables like that is to box them into arenas of known limitations where they cannot assert themselves, like putting a piano player's hands and fingers in plaster casts before setting him down in front of a piano.
This is what you get with Robert Heidstra's hundreds of dog-walks with the same dogs along the same course (up to the point where he turned around) for over a decade. His estimate of time at this point matches Denise Pilnak's time, which can be confirmed with the phone bill for the call she made to her mother. This puts all of the things that Heidstra might have seen, heard and done in a pretty rigid cast.
Heidstra knew what was the same about his walk. He knew what was different and he looked at his watch before he left the house. Anything he might have done between checking his watch and arriving at the turnaround point is therefore irrelevant and any estimate of time that he makes between the turnaround point and the sighting of the SUV is only a guess. But when you factor in the news program that was about to come on when he got home, you can backtrack the time (as he did) from then to the time he saw the SUV and the time in between brackets itself. Every new piece of information is another Heidstra timeline conformation.
A few decades ago, when I was building a clay model from a blueprint to see if the drawing could be used to build a real vehicle) an "old guy" stopped me. I was in the middle of cutting and fitting a template every two millimeters around a pocket to insure that the angels from the top of the pocket to the bottom matched up in all views. The old guy asked me if I knew the shape of the top, he shape of the bottom and whether I cold locate them. This was a no-brainer - so was the solution to the problem once I had established those two things IN THE CORRECT SEQUENCE. When I connected a line from the top perimeter to the bottom perimeter all the way around, the correct angles fell into place automatically - because they couldn't do anything else.
That the short answer to by model-building technique. You will find the rest in any leadership manual or scientific procedural guide dealing with problem solving minus the additional admonition to be HONEST. Whatever you do, DON'T CHEAT! Not even a "little bit." No matter how much you want to believe something, if the facts don't support it, you have to set it aside. If your exploration of a delicate question leads you away from your comfort zones, you're probably on the right track (this is how I came to Fuhrman as a suspect. For a lot of reason's, I didn't want it to be him).
I gave one summary of the standard problem-solving protocol in my post about what it was going to take to get a "fact database" about the Bundy murders set up before that board when down (I thought it was something I screwed up but it's my server). I'll put up another one on this board.
Meanwhile, don't be alarmed if you don't here from me for a couple of days. While we're waiting for our server to fix whatever they screwed up I'll be putting in overtime to tighten up the animations and maybe add a couple. --Jasper