Here we go again with your evaluation of me. I am aware of your opinion of me. I have heard it many a time.
Did I say I had offered the McCanns my services and the offer had been rejected? No I didn't, so even on this you have the wrong end of the stick. What I said was that I had sent an offer, by a standard channel used to funnel information to McCann supporters. That my offer was, should another PI team be set up, to take them on tour in Luz, as a method of getting them up to speed quickly and saving cash.
Have the Mccanns appointed new PIs? I don't know for certain, but I don't think so. It would be difficult for a non-appointed team to take up the offer of a tour round Luz.
Have the McCanns, or those working the communication channel responded in any form. No. I have not had acceptance or rejection, and not even acknowledgement that the McCanns have been made aware of my offer.
Personally, I would not expect anything, other perhaps than the civility of an acknowledgement of receipt of the communication. I would not expect the McCanns to reveal their intentions to a total stranger. Further, if a new team is appointed, I would expect them to have a significant say in whether they took a tour or not. After all, the conduct of such a tour places in my hands considerable knowledge of the team and what is of interest to them. AKA a valuable news story.
Should this offer come to be relevant, I would expect some form of vetting and quite possibly a non-disclosure agreement.
Here is my offer to you. Stop banging on about your opinion of me, and I will be happy to stop responding about what I think of your opinion. I would think other forum members would be quite appreciative of this.
Now lets get back to probability theory, shall we?
I explained right at the start that if the model was to be credible that the total probability of all alternatives should add to 1 or 100%. I further explained, right at the start, that my model probably comes to about 40%. And that as a result of this, my model cannot possibly be accurate. All of that came out in my first post re probabilities.
You then took the incorrect step of saying that either I did not understand probability theory (which I clearly do) or that to make the figures add up to 100%, there should be manipulation of my probability estimates (which clearly demonstrates a lack of what one can and cannot do in probability theory).
Probability theory prohibits me from manipulation, such as taking every figure and multiplying it by 2.5 to increase from 40% to 100%, and then claiming a good model. It insists that I point out there must be stuff going on here that I am not aware of. And that fact is as clear to me as the nose on my face. And that fact came out in my first post.
You, on the other hand, assert you have a good model, that it is 1% McCann and 99% abduction, and provide absolutely zero to support this. This is as bad as asserting it is 99% McCann and 1% abduction, with absolutely zero to support this. Two models, both supposedly good based on them adding up to 100%, and each almost completely the opposite of the other. Pure nonsense.
You need to think about this more clearly and look exactly at what I have said.
If...that is if....the McCanns are not involved we are left with two main possibilities.You must accept that these must add up to close to 100%. Abduction or woke and wandered...the archiving report dismissed w and w....so have the mcccanns...that makes abduction itself close to 100...perfect logic.
All this relies on the McCanns being ruled out. As I have said for a very long time if Kate is telling the truth then Maddie was probably abducted and the shutter was open. I would say that SY have spoken to the mccanns and decided they are telling the truth and that is why they are investigating abduction.
You have suggested a lie detector...do you not realise they are not reliable...your apparent belief reduces your credibility...as does your inference that Kate should take one....
would you share your model that adds up to 40
