Bill Ayers admits he wrote "Dreams From My Father"

[kookbreaker]

Please keep the "evidence" coming. I was going to say this thread is your Waterloo but that doesn't really fit. Napoleon won a lot of battles before Waterloo.

Yeah, I'm thinking more of a Charles of Lorraine quality, not Napoleon.

 

[timhau]

Since the computations in this article are based on the dishonest moron Cashill's assessment of the "striking similarities" between the two books, they are most likely garbage.

Hey, it's got numbers! It's exact science! Like football. Ryan Leaf has 3666 career passing yards, Randall McDaniel has zero. Yet people never drag McDaniel's name through the mud, Leaf takes all the heat because he's white.

 

[Upchurch]

Hey, it's got numbers! It's exact science! Like football.

Or numerology. More like numerology.

 

[Disbelief]

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/04/the_mathematics_of_dreams_from.html



And since it's highly unlikely that Obama wrote Fugitive ...

Why are you using the "analysis" of a proven liar?

 

[LukeB]

Why are you using the "analysis" of a proven liar?

Like calls to like.

 

[Upchurch]

Is BAC using this guy as his source? This liar?

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201104070013?sms_ss=facebook&at_xt=4d9dd4952cfb0d98%2C0

This is too funny.

Huh.

Hey, BAC! Have an explanation for why Cashill claimed a real photo was photoshopped, and promoted an obviously-photoshopped photo as real?

Doesn't that kind of say something about either Cashill's honesty, or his analytical abilities?

Bumpity-bump-bump

eta: Here is the original article from Jack Cashill, master analyst.

 

[joobz]

Bumpity-bump-bump

eta: Here is the original article from Jack Cashill, master analyst.

WOW!
I never saw this.

That's a horrible job at photoshopping. There's tons of copy/paste artifacts in the brick.

 

[BeAChooser]

Beware any model that results in exactly 1 or 0 probability

Actually, it doesn't, showing that you haven't a clue what was calculated nor did you bother to read the linked article. Figures.

 

[CptColumbo]

Hey, it's got numbers! It's exact science! Like football. Ryan Leaf has 3666 career passing yards, Randall McDaniel has zero. Yet people never drag McDaniel's name through the mud, Leaf takes all the heat because he's white.

SKOL!

I'm sorry at the mention of any of the Minnesota Vikings (past and present) I need to write it.

 

[Chaos]

Actually, it doesn't, showing that you haven't a clue what was calculated nor did you bother to read the linked article. Figures.

Actually, it does, right there in the part you quoted, showing that you are, once more, lying through your teeth in a particularly obvious way.

 

[LukeB]

Actually, it doesn't, showing that you haven't a clue what was calculated nor did you bother to read the linked article. Figures.

Talking about not reading something, how are you going with the book in question?

 

[NotJesus]

Actually, it does, right there in the part you quoted, showing that you are, once more, lying through your teeth in a particularly obvious way.

What the mathematics is really proving is both Dreams and Fugitive are written by the same author with a probability of 100% out to many significant figures.

What, "out to many significant figures," is supposed to mean, I don't know. Surely, if it's 100%, you don't need any more figures than that.

 

[BeAChooser]

Actually, it does, right there in the part you quoted, showing that you are, once more, lying through your teeth in a particularly obvious way.

No, it doesn't. Haven't you ever heard of rounding? And as far as reading and lying are concerned, I'll just give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you just missed this statement in the linked article:

The probability of event B happening if event A1 is assumed, that is if you assume that Obama actually is the author of Dreams, is small. Very small. Using my 40 year old copy of Abramowitz and Stegun, it is one divided by ten to the power of fifty using only the "striking similarities" quoted by Mr. Cashill as event B. To give you a feel of the size of ten to the power of fifty, that is comparable to an estimate of the number of atoms in the universe. If you use all 759 similarities observed by Mr. Southwest, the probability is one divided by ten to the power of approximately twelve hundred. Both are ridiculously small numbers. Both are zero to 50 significant digits or more.

Because if you didn't, then that either makes you a liar or as comprehension challenged as Upchurch.

 

[Disbelief]

Because if you didn't, then that either makes you a liar or as comprehension challenged as Upchurch.

Speaking of liars, what do you think of Cashill's obvious photoshopping? Why do you support this liar? Why do you believe him on this particular topic?

 

[cyborg]

Haven't you ever heard of rounding?

Rounding out to the sort of number of significant figures you're talking about makes it pretty much irrelevant.

You're not rounding 99% to 100% here, you're talking about rounding something to fifty places. That's pretty damn accurate. Assuming this analysis wasn't done by hand but by a computer then basically you are talking about a result that is basically as accurate as you're going to get.

I mean it's completely ridiculous of course - I doubt you'd get that sort of level of confidence doing an analysis of something like the Lord of the Rings trilogy to show Tolkien wrote all of them - but it's even more ridiculous to pretend that variations in results to the 50th significant figure are at all relevant.

 

[joobz]

No, it doesn't. Haven't you ever heard of rounding?

So, you admit he rounded his value to 100%. As such, upchurchs point stands.

 

[Chaos]

No, it doesn't. Haven't you ever heard of rounding? And as far as reading and lying are concerned, I'll just give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you just missed this statement in the linked article:



Because if you didn't, then that either makes you a liar or as comprehension challenged as Upchurch.

Apparently you didn´t even read the part you quoted, because it features probabilities of 0% and 100% quite prominently.

 

[BeAChooser]

You're not rounding 99% to 100% here, you're talking about rounding something to fifty places. That's pretty damn accurate.

Indeed, but nevertheless, Baye's Theorem is not a methodology that "results in exactly 1 or 0 probability", as was claimed by Upchurch. Thus, the argument he used to simply dismiss the analysis is bogus. It shows a lack of understanding concerning the methodology and an inability to read.

 

[Horatius]

Bumpity-bump-bump

eta: Here is the original article from Jack Cashill, master analyst.

Just driving by to say, "Holy crap, did he really cite Orly Taitz?"

 

[Upchurch]

Indeed, but nevertheless, Baye's Theorem is not a methodology that "results in exactly 1 or 0 probability", as was claimed by Upchurch. Thus, the argument he used to simply dismiss the analysis is bogus. It shows a lack of understanding concerning the methodology and an inability to read.

This easily resolved by examininging the math. Where are the calculations?