A pair of explosions rocks the finish line at the Boston Marathon, injuring at least a half-dozen people.

If i measure the distance from the earth to some star in the galaxy and compare that with the length of some just born kid over a period of time, what would be the odds those two would be highly correlated? And if the results of such an experiment repeated X times still shows a high correlation with a very low margin of error, have I then proved there is a relation between the distance to the star and the length of that kid ( or hundreds of stars and hundreds of kids for that matter)? Nope.

Again, this is a place for lawyerly evidence, not Bayesian statistics. People don't get jailed because of statistics. If they were, you could lock up all kids who got butchered by their parents when they were young. Is that justice?

  On 5/22/2013 at 6:00 AM, LimpyLoo said:

 

Walk me through the math(s). Walk me through the factors.

 

 

 

let's start with:

 

How often do simulations happen?

 

How often do attacks happen during simulations?

 

How often do attacks happen not during simulations?

 

Now, you can't really use Bayes to prove theories, because the same argument would apply for any theory which gives the same predictions as mine. Including an aliens-did-it theory. But that's where the lawyerly argumentation that goDel mentions comes in.

  On 5/22/2013 at 6:10 AM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 5/22/2013 at 6:07 AM, Joseph said:

The compelling evidence is the simulation, taken alone it is not enough, but in conjunction with all the others

 

If this really qualifies as compelling evidence then we kinda have to believe every single conspiracy theory that's ever been put forth.

 

And every alien abduction too.

 

No, wrong. Come on, this is really basic. If a laboratory experiment gave a different result from what quantum theory predicts, we would not accept that as disproof of quantum theory. But if numerous other laboratories reported the same peculiar result, then we would be forced to invent a new theory which explained the oddities. The situation here is directly analogous.

  On 5/22/2013 at 6:11 AM, John Ehrlichman said:

but I don't even think there is convincing evidence there was a simulation going on. Where is it?

The evidence is the eyewitness report you mentioned, the early press reports of controlled explosions at the library, and the images of an exploded backpack which is clearly the kind worn by the blackwater/craft people and not the tsarnaev backpacks.

  On 5/22/2013 at 8:43 AM, goDel said:

If i measure the distance from the earth to some star in the galaxy and compare that with the length of some just born kid over a period of time, what would be the odds those two would be highly correlated? And if the results of such an experiment repeated X times still shows a high correlation with a very low margin of error, have I then proved there is a relation between the distance to the star and the length of that kid ( or hundreds of stars and hundreds of kids for that matter)? Nope.

 

Again, this is a place for lawyerly evidence, not Bayesian statistics. People don't get jailed because of statistics. If they were, you could lock up all kids who got butchered by their parents when they were young. Is that justice?

I can't understand what you're talking about in the first paragraph. I think it's a convoluted way of saying correlation does not imply causation. This is correct but irrelevant.

What I'm saying doesn't depend on "Bayesian statistics" at all. You can use statistics to convince yourself the official stories are wrong, or you can use your common sense. Either way, you're facing a huge hole in your explanation of choice unless it explains the coincidences. A lawyerly argument is indeed required. That is, once you have rejected the official story with Bayes, you have to conjecture various alternative theories, ones that predict the anomalies, and argue with whatever you have to try to find the best one.

You're also wrong that people aren't jailed from statistics, they are, but that doesn't mean you break out the formulas in court. We use heuristic, intuitive statistical reasoning constantly, including in court. You can use the same intuitive reasoning to understand that the coincidences refute the official stories.

i was trying to speak to Joseph on his side of the fence, but i dont know if he'll listen. 

I think that there is already so much stigma attached to conspiracy theories (which their shouldn't be, either you believe them or you don't) that it only helps increase the stigma by having the attitude Joseph displayed in the thread.

It just seems like instead of swinging for the fences with the most convincing evidence he's vigorously punted with nothing that hasn't already been passed around in this thread


edit: sorry i just saw you replied before i finished posting. Ok, the eye witness testimony is compelling. I will admit that it needs to be followed up on more. I would like to know what if any information or foreknowledge Boston PD had of the bombing, regardless if it was a 'staged event' or not, i think this is something the public deserves to know.
The other things you mentioned, the bombs going off at the library and the backpacks, im not convinced at those theories. I've looked at all the pictures of the supposed kraft service people wearing backups, and i can't say one way or the other definitively if the backpacks belong to them or the Tsarnevs.  That's part of the reason I'm not 100% convinced of the Tsarnev's guilt, because all we've seen is the blown up backpack and the video footage of them walking. It could be anyone's backup honestly
The 'bombs' going off at the library, seem to me at this point to be just shitty jump the gun scoop style reporting. There were reports of an explosion *After* (not before) the bombing at the library, and it was later revealed there were no explosions it was a supposedly unrelated fire. I do agree this is strange, and I wish our TV media didn't suck ass so much to be able to explain to us why they never totally explained in detail their reported story of a bombing at the library.
I don't think these things even when you add them up make a convincing case that this had inside involvement.   Just think about this scenario for a second, if 2 assholes really did want to set off a bomb and get famous for it, would it really be that hard to fill pressure cookers with black powder and blow them up at a large outdoor event? No not at all actually, it would be far too easy, which sort of goes back to a point I make often on this forum, that if terrorism was a legitimate threat we'd see far more attempts or successful attacks on soft targets, which to this date there have been virtually none

edit2: all i'm trying to convey to you is that conspiracy theories can be powerful weapons against the powerful, as long as they are convincing with evidence to support it. I'm totally down with the idea of reporters doing investigative work to dig to the bottom of some of these theories and other inconsistencies (which i agree there are some) with the way the Boston bombings went down. but this is the leg work that needs to be done before just a simple picture collage investigation. To me that's investigative reporting in the alpha form, it's not even in beta stage yet.

  On 5/22/2013 at 9:11 AM, John Ehrlichman said:

i was trying to speak to Joseph on his side of the fence, but i dont know if he'll listen.

 

I think that there is already so much stigma attached to conspiracy theories (which their shouldn't be, either you believe them or you don't) that it only helps increase the stigma by having the attitude Joseph displayed in the thread.

 

It just seems like instead of swinging for the fences with the most convincing evidence he's vigorously punted with nothing that hasn't already been passed around in this thread.

 

I'm sorry but you basically asked me to toe the line so as not to stigmatize other political dissidents. I won't do that. And as for your not believing there was a drill, there is good reason to believe there was for reason I've already posted. Sure, it's not as watertight as for 9/11. And sure, like you say, it should be followed up on. But IF there was a drill, then we can confidently place BMB in the same class as the other false flag simulation coincidences, and conclude that it was an inside job.

I did not read most of this thread, so I don't know what has been passed around already. But the evidence I'm looking at is statistically way more significant than fake blood, supposed "crisis actors", etc etc.

Despite how formal and proper your presentation is, it's terribly unscientific. If you don't know how often drills/simulations are run then you have don't have a leg to stand on.

You are the one making the claim that this was a government conspiracy so unfortunately the burden of proof is on you.

  On 5/22/2013 at 9:23 AM, LimpyLoo said:

Despite how formal and proper your presentation is, it's terribly unscientific. If you don't know how often drills/simulations are run then you have don't have a leg to stand on.

 

You are the one making the claim that this was a government conspiracy so unfortunately the burden of proof is on you.

You can't possibly believe the probabilities for coincidence are higher than the ones in my toy model, I have to conclude that you didn't read it. If the odds were much higher we'd see terror exercises weekly, everywhere. That's highly counter to common sense and, on the contrary, I am not required to refute it just like I'm not required to refute that aliens are responsible, or any of the infinitely many other bizarre assertions you might make.

I'm out of this thread, there's not enough substantive argumentation here to justify the time. I will read all future posts however, and respond to the substantive ones.

  On 5/22/2013 at 9:21 AM, Joseph said:

 

  On 5/22/2013 at 9:11 AM, John Ehrlichman said:

i was trying to speak to Joseph on his side of the fence, but i dont know if he'll listen.

 

I think that there is already so much stigma attached to conspiracy theories (which their shouldn't be, either you believe them or you don't) that it only helps increase the stigma by having the attitude Joseph displayed in the thread.

 

It just seems like instead of swinging for the fences with the most convincing evidence he's vigorously punted with nothing that hasn't already been passed around in this thread.

 

I'm sorry but you basically asked me to toe the line so as not to stigmatize other political dissidents. I won't do that.

I'm not actually asking you to do that, i'm just stating it as a something i've seen play out over and over again being inside the 9/11 truth movement and having to deal with space-beams and hologram plane assholes as well as outside of it. I just want you to be aware of it.

Don't worry, I am aware of it, and I appreciate what you've said here.

  On 5/22/2013 at 9:31 AM, Joseph said:

 

  On 5/22/2013 at 9:23 AM, LimpyLoo said:

Despite how formal and proper your presentation is, it's terribly unscientific. If you don't know how often drills/simulations are run then you have don't have a leg to stand on.

 

You are the one making the claim that this was a government conspiracy so unfortunately the burden of proof is on you.

You can't possibly believe the probabilities for coincidence are higher than the ones in my toy model, I have to conclude that you didn't read it. If the odds were much higher we'd see terror exercises weekly, everywhere. That's highly counter to common sense and, on the contrary, I am not required to refute it just like I'm not required to refute that aliens are responsible, or any of the infinitely many other bizarre assertions you might make.

 

I'm out of this thread, there's not enough substantive argumentation here to justify the time. I will read all future posts however, and respond to the substantive ones.

 

I haven't made a single assertion.

If I did, though, I would make sure to back it up with evidence. (And if I didn't have sufficient evidence, I wouldn't have made the assertion. In fact, I wouldn't believe the assertion in the first place.)

drills: not even once.

  Quote

A lawyerly argument is indeed required. That is, once you have rejected the official story with Bayes,

No, a lawyerly argument is needed regardless of some Bayesian rejection of the story. No need for Bayes at all.

  On 5/22/2013 at 9:21 AM, Joseph said:

Joseph, on 22 May 2013 - 3:21 PM, said:

 

 

I did not read most of this thread, so I don't know what has been passed around already. But the evidence I'm looking at is statistically way more significant than fake blood, supposed "crisis actors", etc etc.

 

you wouldn't know a standard deviation if it bit you in the ass.

we would not see drills "every day" in this case since the boston marathon does not in fact happen every day. the fact that it is new england's most widely-viewed sporting event and that it is held on "patriot's day" makes it quite obvious target for such an attack. that there would be a drill for such an attack on that day seems highly likely and that an attack would eventually occur at such an event in this day and age is also not really a surprise. in any case i'd need some considerable evidence before i could begin to waste my time thinking this might be a government conspiracy and Joseph has provided no evidence whatsoever. so, obv he's not serious.

to me the official story seems convincing. i think we should be far more concerned about the government's response here, specifically the holes in the official story, the incarcerated kid that luke brought up, and the fact that the greater boston area immediately went into martial law with police bashing into people's homes and shit.

Once again, Joseph, thanks for not lowering the discourse and responding faithfully to all of our skepticism. However, when I go over your points, they still don't convince me. The issue isn't your use of statistics - it's the things you take as facts before computing them.

1. As a resident of NYC, I have no evidence that drills aren't occurring constantly. In fact, if I were to approach it with the attitude of "it looks like it, so it is", it would be easy to conclude that they are. Homeland security with full automatic weaponry are posted at large subway stops all the time. Sometimes there are dogs. Sometimes I see a huge police response with no clear objective! Trains run slowly "because of an incident at xyz street". Random searches on trains. You get the idea. Maybe you would think it's a leap to conclude that these are terror drills; I agree, and so far I think it's a leap to conclude that there was a drill that day in Boston.

2. I can't accept on faith that there was a bombing drill that day in Boston from the evidence you've posted and some rudimentary googling. Most of the drill claims I saw were based on the misleading timestamps on the Boston Globe tweet about the controlled explosion done by a bomb squad after the initial explosions. There were one or two eyewitnesses who said "drill" about the event, but their evidence was mostly that there were dogs at the event. I don't see it.

3. You say "Please don't say that we can't assign odds, watch me!" and then proceed to assign odds based on your gut feelings and inferences. You say that you are making them lower than you think they should be as a defense against them possibly being wrong. I can't accept this as scientific.

4. As far as gut feelings go, I think if I had a gut feeling that there might be an attack, I might order "a drill" going on that day, at that event. It wouldn't make sense to have a drill on the wrong side of the country like on 9/11. I'd be more curious about your theory if the supposed drill had happened in the wrong city.

Anyway, thanks for stirring the pot. It's not that I think we shouldn't be vigilant about such things; it's essential to democracy to question your leaders. Just that in this case I think you're being too eager to fit this into a larger narrative you have accepted and live in as truth. If you want me to live there with you, I'll need more than this to convince me.

A/D, do you happen to be a diplomat of some kind? Holy shit, dude. I mean that in a good way, of course.

Heh. Thanks. I don't know why I diplomat, except that I find it fun, especially where there are interesting arguments to be had.

my 2 cents, it took me quite some time to figure out what follows:

if you're skeptical about official stories, official history and such things, think twice before discussing it publicly. for the simple reason that you will meet a fair amount of incredulity, which could be constructive for both parties but in general, it's quite the opposite. people simply won't believe you, and most of the time they will have perfectly legitimate reasons to do so, because you haven't shown them convincing evidence to back up your point of view. so, what is it that you could have done to convince them that your skepticism was justified?

- choose a specific research field, i.e. history, economics, geopolitics, etc;

- become a freaking expert on specific topics (aka academic research): choose a topic that inspires you, investigate it under every possible angle. this only should take a few years (at least);

- don't waste your time and energy with persons who are incompetent in your topic, use that time and energy with competent persons;

- always triple-check your sources;

- hold your mouth until you're 100% sure that you can back up your point of view no matter the contradiction you meet;

- once all conditions are met (years later if you follow that scenario), don't make allegations publicly. debate those topics; it'll be 100 times more constructive for your audience; try to keep an open mind;

- if your audience is still not convinced, punch those pricks in the face, they deserved it;

- repeat procedure until all enemy is crushed.

in other news, the FBI just gunned down a person (not a suspect apparently) who knew one of the Tsarnev brothers. What was expected to be a routine questioning turned into a death. The FBI says he lunged at them with a knife after seeming totally calm when they arrived

i like how you don't mention that dead guy apparently confessed to a triple homicide in 2011, that Tsarnev was apparently a part of.

That's not what i heard in the soundbites all day long, i don't doubt it. but i think you're suggesting that i purposefully omitted to prove a point is insulting, when i had no idea that was the case. All i heard on the news is that the FBI ended up shooting suspect in the middle of questioning him/signing a confession, i had no idea what the confession was for. Still doesn't really make it anymore ok that this is the 2nd person who's been killed involved in the Boston incident before they were brought to trial. If that's ok with you, i can respect that opinion but don't share it.

ok, fair enough, sorry if I pre-judged. I felt like you were insinuating that they killed an innocent guy and were trying to cover something up.

That's within the realm of possibility, but for now I'll go with the more likely possibility that they were a bit trigger happy and responded to a provocation with excessive force. But remember, the guy was a martial arts dude who:

  Quote

 

was arrested this month on a charge of aggravated battery after getting into a fight over a parking spot with a man and his son outside an Orlando mall. The son was taken to a hospital with head injuries, a split upper lip and several teeth knocked out of place, the Orange County Sheriff's Office said in a report.

 

You can sort of understand the fbi being jumpy around the guy.

I'll need to read more about this because there are a lot of WTFs. I wish law enforcement was better trained to shoot to disable. Then again it's hard to fault anyone for shooting in self-defense (assuming that's the case).

  On 5/23/2013 at 5:36 AM, A/D said:

 

  Reveal hidden contents

Shh do not want /: I enjoy this place much more with no responsibility. Also, I have respectfully disagreed with some policies, it could be a conflict of interest. Thank you very much for the vote of confidence though.

 

 

I'll need to read more about this because there are a lot of WTFs. I wish law enforcement was better trained to shoot to disable. Then again it's hard to fault anyone for shooting in self-defense (assuming that's the case).

I'm curious what would happen if all law enforcement started using non-lethal rounds.

what's a non-lethal round? Paintballs?

I was very impressed the cops didn't kill those 2 guys. Wish the US forces were like that, rather than using the latest "super-head-exploder-Talon-round" aimed directly at a person's vital organs

rubber bullets sandbags and tasers