[ Home | Contents | Search | Post | Reply | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: Junot
Date: 7/18/03
Time: 7:12:46 PM
Remote Name: 198.49.222.20
Jasper wrote:
Does this look familiar…?
“I cannot give a satisfactory answer to your challenge because I don’t accept the premise."
The premise is that if one has a theory of any kind, one is obligated to have some idea of what would disprove the theory. You have not provided such.
"I do not believe in “proving” theories.... I predict that no matter what I say, if it doesn’t tell you, “Kato did it,” you will find it irrelevant, silly, coincidental, inconclusive or wrong..."
you mean, like when I just asked you how Shipp could know Kaelin was in his room , and you replied that Shipp must have been bugging his phone. BTW, I just kne, JUST KNEW, you were going to come back with that lame-ass explanation.
"You also have me at a colossal disadvantage in terms of the speed with you processes complex information, respond to it and forget it....”
I am not going to apologize for seeming to be more intelligent than you, or in being able to type faster than you. For the most part, though, the holes in your assertion are so big that it would take a blind man to NOT immediately see them.
“If you want the truth you have to use theories ONLY long enough to disprove them..."
Until you run across one you can't disprove. Then you se if you can make predictions with it. Or you simultaneously submit it to your peers for criticism.
"You ask a question (If O.J. didn’t….?) or make an assumption (If Kato did…). Then you plot the corollaries for EVIDENCE THAT YOU DON’T HAVE YET.."
Are you saying that you go looking for 'evidence' to support your theory. Sounds like that to me.
".. but evidenced that must exist if your theory is correct (Heidstra’s real ally rout, the Bundy curve, Fuhrman’s partner, Fuhrman’s alibi, his SUV, where he lived, etc.)...
"You thought that most of this reply was incomprehensible. You labeled it an evasion and dismissed it..."
it is an evasion of the root question: WHAT EVIDENCE WOULD YOU ACCEPT TO ABANDON YOUR THEORY???!!!
"..I tried again and again. You never seemed to catch on to the fact that I look for things that would cause me to abandon my theories as soon as I propose them..."
That, my friend, is a job best left for others. Never underestimate your ability to fool yourself.
"Remember this…?
“I use theories to TEST assumptions,..."
You shouldn't do that. You shouldn't start with an assumption.
"not to prove conclusions…..."
An 'assumption' is a type of 'conclusion'.
"To rule out bias,..."
Can not be done with any degree of confidence by oneself. it hs to be offered to others for criticism.
"..I then I attack each theory zealously..."
Can't be done by anyone with one's own creations. Psycholigically impossible.
"..by proposing questions that I don’t already have the answer to..."
But you started with an anser, or assumption, to begin with.
“For instance, when my Kato-did-it theory required that someone drove the Bronco to Bundy and back to Rockingham I looked hard for objective evidence that THE BRONCO DID NOT MOVE. If such evidence didn’t exist..."
And you can not understand that such evidence CAN NOT exist. For what you are truly saying is that it is possible to park a car in such a way that no one can drive the car and then put it back in the exact position it was originally parked in.
But, if that was the case, how did the car get parked in the first place? it started out being driven on the street. Then it was parked. You hae taken the patently absurd position that it could not have been driven on the stree again and not be put back in its originally parked position! Even if I grant your asertion that the Bronco could only have been in it's position by having been pulled out of the Rockingham driveway -- which I don't, BTW -- then what is wrong with my counter assertion that someone then drove the Bronco, put it back into the Rockingham driveway, and pulled it out in the tight right turn again.?
'..I couldn’t have found it...."
Well, friend, I just did. if you did, it was because you were subconsciously ignoring a very obvious point.
"If it did exist, the nature of prejudice dictated that this was the only way I’d be likely to see it..."
Except by offering it to others. Like now.
“The Bronco result was starling..."
Well, YOUR result is, indeed, startling.
"I got the same startling results when I looked into O.J.’s claim that the photos of him wearing the Lorenzos were faked. These and other finding that I didn’t expect forced me to scrap a terrific “Kato-did-it” theory (Your theory minus the stuff you have from Mark Elliot)..."
My 'stuff in Marc Eliot' wa esential to the theory.
"...and a Shipp-did-it theory that was almost as good.
“…I have already asked HUNDREDS of question that would have caused me to abandon Fuhrman as the killer if the answer to any of them had been “no.” I did this for over five years. I think that’s enough.”
Well, you sure thought wrong. But don't feel bad; it only means you're human.
"To see the whole string of replies you have to go to the Messiah Board where you started the string. It ended with my “nut and bolt” analogy, which you accepted.
"Unfortunately, my brother died two years ago so I can’t help you there...."
I'm sorry I didn't know. I regret any aditional psychological pain my mentiong him may have caused.
"...You made a false analogy, anyway. Kato did not approach Fuhrman. Fuhrman approached Kato – and he went though a considerable amount of trouble to do it. --Jasper"
We are back to the old question of who first asked about the thump noise. Of the five or six publicly available versions of the moment, only the Eliot version even suggests that Fuhrman may have brought up the subject. All the rest say that Fuhrman was asking totaly routine questions and kaelin volunteered the information.