"Charity collectors" data

[G-Unit]

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

You can believe there's no problem with data collection if you wish. I know better because I googled unreliable statistics;

crime statistics unreliable
animal testing unreliable statistics
why are unemployment statistics unreliable
misuse of statistics example
statistical fallacies examples
how can statistics be misused
misuse of statistics in advertising
misleading statistics examples

[Mr Gray]

You can believe there's no problem with data collection if you wish. I know better because I googled unreliable statistics;

crime statistics unreliable
animal testing unreliable statistics
why are unemployment statistics unreliable
misuse of statistics example
statistical fallacies examples
how can statistics be misused
misuse of statistics in advertising
misleading statistics examples

you obviously havent understood my posts...there is a massive problem with data collection...lets look at the data that supports eddies's 100% record...no proper data collection...


real science has very precise rules on data collection... i don't need to google anything to tell you exactly why all those statitistics are unreliable


everything I do professionally is evidenced based and i understand how to assess or dismiss evidence

that's why I believe my opinion is worth far more than others on this and other forums

[G-Unit]

you obviously havent understood my posts...there is a massive problem with data collection...lets look at the data that supports eddies's 100% record...no proper data collection...


real science has very precise rules on data collection... i don't need to google anything to tell you exactly why all those statitistics are unreliable


everything I do professionally is evidenced based and i understand how to assess or dismiss evidence

that's why I believe my opinion is worth far more than others on this and other forums

Please elaborate on the bolded text.

[Mr Gray]

Please elaborate on the bolded text.

It speaks for itself if you know anything about science...anything published in a reputable journal is peer reviewed

[G-Unit]

It speaks for itself if you know anything about science...anything published in a reputable journal is peer reviewed

Reputable Journals being?

[Mr Gray]

Reputable Journals being?

do you not know

[slartibartfast]

you obviously havent understood my posts...there is a massive problem with data collection...lets look at the data that supports eddies's 100% record...no proper data collection...


real science has very precise rules on data collection... i don't need to google anything to tell you exactly why all those statitistics are unreliable


everything I do professionally is evidenced based and i understand how to assess or dismiss evidence

that's why I believe my opinion is worth far more than others on this and other forums

Why the move from data and statistics to evidence?

[G-Unit]

do you not know

I don't know which journals you consider reputable. How could I? There are many types of science, some of which you will class as 'real', some you won't. Each one has more than one journal, some of which you will say are 'reputable', some you won't. I'm not a scientist, but I do like to be precise in my thinking.

[Mr Gray]

I don't know which journals you consider reputable. How could I? There are many types of science, some of which you will class as 'real', some you won't. Each one has more than one journal, some of which you will say are 'reputable', some you won't. I'm not a scientist, but I do like to be precise in my thinking.

I'm not sure if you are trolling or do not understand what a reputable journal is....anyone who understands science and scientific evidence understands what a reputable journal means

[Mr Gray]

Why the move from data and statistics to evidence?

#
#if you read the thread you will see there is no movement from me..gunit talked about statisics several posts ago

[G-Unit]

I'm not sure if you are trolling or do not understand what a reputable journal is....anyone who understands science and scientific evidence understands what a reputable journal means

I don't troll, I wouldn't know how. You are the one who made the sweeping statement about 'real' science and 'reputable' journals. If I comment on any science or it's journal no doubt your answer will be words to the effect of not that science, not that journal. That's why I want precise information. I'll throw in this as a gesture of goodwill;

Peer review is generally considered necessary to academic quality and is used in most major scientific journals, but does by no means prevent publication of all invalid research.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review

[pathfinder73]

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.

Your scenario is not possible because it doesn't connect to the evidence. The father checked on Madeleine and said the bedroom door had moved. MO checks next and the same door had moved again - no draughts, no open window, raised shutters or whooshing curtains.

Many would question a scenario of Madeleine waking up at two different times between checks to move the door. Many would question a door that moves by itself when that didn't happen on other nights    Unconvincing arguments to try and explain a moving door without an abductor being present. So evidence suggests an abductor moving the door but there is no evidence of an open window or a shutter being raised at these times. MO saw them closed at around 9 only minutes before Gerry said the door had moved.

You should stick to the facts to get to the truth and if it doesn't add up then you question the sources. Unseen shadows passing through unlocked windows leaving no trace is at the bottom of my list of possibilities.

[Mr Gray]

I don't troll, I wouldn't know how. You are the one who made the sweeping statement about 'real' science and 'reputable' journals. If I comment on any science or it's journal no doubt your answer will be words to the effect of not that science, not that journal. That's why I want precise information. I'll throw in this as a gesture of goodwill;

Peer review is generally considered necessary to academic quality and is used in most major scientific journals, but does by no means prevent publication of all invalid research.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review

you assume wrong...if you quoted a journal I would look at the qualifications of the editorial board....it really is that simple...it still does not prevent publication of invalid research...no system is perfect...a good example is the Lancet and the article on the realtionship between mmr and autism...again I don't need wiki to state the obvious

[stephen25000]

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".

Unfortunately, you do not know what took place.

We do not know which witnesses told the truth or which lied.

Likewise, you do not know the movements of the mccanns after Madeleine's disappearance. There are numerous contradictions as to the hours previous to her disappearance as well.

[Mr Gray]

Unfortunately, you do not know what took place.

We do not know which witnesses told the truth or which lied.

Likewise, you do not know the movements of the mccanns after Madeleine's disappearance. There are numerous contradictions as to the hours previous to her disappearance as well.

all the mccanns official statements are hearsay...fact