"Charity collectors" data

[Mr Gray]

Popper for example began some of his lectures asking the public to look with attention all the things they can perceive in the room, during 5 minutes. Then he asked "which is your conclusion?". Nobody answered, and Popper said "you see, empiricism is false".

I try to analyze scientifically, not interested in other methodologies.

more likely the public were not scientists and unable to draw any conclusions...

to draw any examples from Popper's single example is an example of empiricism and no scientific conclusions can be drawn from it

[Mr Gray]

If raw data seems to suggest you a theory is because you analyzed the data with a theory in your mind, consciously or unconsciously. See modern philosophers of science like Popper, Bunge, etc. or read scientific papers of any science. It is not possible to analyze naively data with an innocent or empty mind.

#I completely disagree. Scientists looked at the data on average temperature and saw it was rising. The quest was then to find out why. I am afraid you are wrong on this one

[Heriberto Janosch]

Scientists are collecting data all the time. The daily average temperature is a good example....it was recorderd way before anyone even thought of global warming

infant mortality rates are recorded as are many others...if these deviate from accepted norms an investigation is launched

Yes, i suggest you to collect any data you imagine (you have infinite candidates here) and then see what theory you can deduce from it ... Simply science does not work in that way. When people began collecting temperature or mortality rates they ALREADY had an idea, a theory of what they wanted to explain ...

[Heriberto Janosch]

more likely the public were not scientists and unable to draw any conclusions...

to draw any examples from Popper's single example is an example of empiricism and no scientific conclusions can be drawn from it

Popper was NOT doing a demonstration. He was showing to the public that is not possible to draw a conclusion only from raw data, because the amount of raw data is overwhelming. You can say "select only the relevant data". But to select you need a previous idea. A previous theory. It was a pleasure to discuss with all of you 😊.

[Brietta]

Forget statistics of past unrelated cases. Consider this case as unique. So, which are the physical, time and space possibilities of this person who opens a window to steal money or phones to abduct a child if he interprets the task as easy?

The motivation? Nobody can understand all the aspects of the human mind. Maybe he was scared to be recognized later, maybe he was also a paedo, maybe she shouted and he put his hand on her face asphyxiating her ...


But why losing time guessing about the thoughts of a person that is almost unknown to us? A human being could be able to think, feel and act in many ways unthinkable to us.

But you can say why thinking it was a burglary that went wrong? Because we have past and maybe RELATED cases: the thefts / attempt to theft in 5L, 5G, Casa Maria ... Plus "charity collectors" (also a type of crime which could be associated to burglary) at Casa da Aventura, Ashton, Cooper ...

So, my questions are: was Madeleine exposed to be snatched? It was physically possible? Forget the motivations of a dark human mind for a moment ...

I can assure you the motivations is the less important aspect of crime investigation ... Many times it is a mislead.

Even if a perpetrator has a specific modus operandi and signature every case is unique even if the outcome may appear to be similar.

By definition anyone committing the petty thefts which occurred in the Mark Warner complex was not very high up in the hierarchy of criminals.

Possibly young, certainly agile and possibly desperate on occasion particularly if stealing was to feed a drug habit.

He or she might have acted alone or may have acted with accomplices.

If insurance was involved there must have been police involvement and it seems to have been known to the complex management and staff that burglaries were happening.
If burglaries were endemic and if Mark Warner and the police were aware and treated each incidence as a petty crime they may have underestimated the seriousness of the situation.
Maybe it was thought stealing watches, cameras or even plasma screens was harmless and sustainable as items could be replaced without too much upset and without it becoming generally known.

It should have been a logical assumption that it was only a matter of time till the petty crimes escalated into something far more serious.

Whether by accident or by design is debatable ... but I would imagine anyone risking having his or her collar felt for the few euros petty burglary might realise could be tempted to consider how easy it might be to make thousands with just one 'big job'.

[Mr Gray]

Popper was NOT doing a demonstration. He was showing to the public that is not possible to draw a conclusion only from raw data, because the amount of raw data is overwhelming. You can say "select only the relevant data". But to select you need a previous idea. A previous theory. It was a pleasure to discuss with all of you 😊.

no one has said you can draw a conclusion from raw data but raw data can suggest a theory

[Mr Gray]

Yes, i suggest you to collect any data you imagine (you have infinite candidates here) and then see what theory you can deduce from it ... Simply science does not work in that way. When people began collecting temperature or mortality rates they ALREADY had an idea, a theory of what they wanted to explain ...

they had no idea...average daily temperatures have been recorded long before climate change was suspedcted

[G-Unit]

Scientists are collecting data all the time. The daily average temperature is a good example....it was recorderd way before anyone even thought of global warming

infant mortality rates are recorded as are many others...if these deviate from accepted norms an investigation is launched

The minute you decide to collect something you have to make decisions about how you collect it and what you include or exclude. Get that wrong and your results will be wrong or misleading. So will any theories based on the statistics.

[G-Unit]

Yes, and I used the same methodology. My first theory was that the McCann did it. No trying to guess motivations. They found her dead (or they killed her) and then hid her body, it was physically possible? If you read the first three volumes of PJ files, and know about eyewitness testimony dynamics, your unique conclusion should be: physically impossible.

That is why I discard the McCann. Not for their "motivations".

Do you have a link to your reasoning on the physical impossibility of the MxCann's involvement please?

[Mr Gray]

The minute you decide to collect something you have to make decisions about how you collect it and what you include or exclude. Get that wrong and your results will be wrong or misleading. So will any theories based on the statistics.

thats what science is all about..analysing data properly. Proper scientific research takes all that into consideration

[Brietta]

Do you have a link to your reasoning on the physical impossibility of the MxCann's involvement please?

In my opinion you may find something of interest here ...hope it helps.
http://espacioexterior.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/the-madeleine-mccann-abduction-janosch.html

[Mr Gray]

The minute you decide to collect something you have to make decisions about how you collect it and what you include or exclude. Get that wrong and your results will be wrong or misleading. So will any theories based on the statistics.

this is where I feel the sceptics have made so many mistakes

[ferryman]

Do you have a link to your reasoning on the physical impossibility of the MxCann's involvement please?

Whilst I would be interested in Heri's evidence, you don't need to rule out the McCanns' involvement (in anything nefarious) as impossible; you need to adduce the evidence of their involvement.

If it doesn't exist (it doesn't!) that's enough.

[G-Unit]

In my opinion you may find something of interest here ...hope it helps.
http://espacioexterior.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/the-madeleine-mccann-abduction-janosch.html

Thank you Brietta. Heriberto did a system analysis of all witness statements for the period 20.50 to 22.10 on 3rd May and concluded that stranger abduction was the only answer. He discarded two major discrepancies and adjusted minor discrepancies but doesn't say what he classes as minor and why.

[Brietta]

Thank you Brietta. Heriberto did a system analysis of all witness statements for the period 20.50 to 22.10 on 3rd May and concluded that stranger abduction was the only answer. He discarded two major discrepancies and adjusted minor discrepancies but doesn't say what he classes as minor and why.

Perhaps he will get back to you on that if you give him specific problematic areas ... I read what he had to say about his work on the case and had no particular difficulty with any of it so I am afraid I couldn't begin to assist one so well versed as you in your own analysis of the files.