Explosion at the Boston Marathon.

Checkmite said:
Scientific method - okay. Perhaps you'd care to explain your test's control, independent, and dependent variables?
Click to expand...
You have a puckered view of the scientific method. I used data to draw an inference. Additional data led me to discard my initial hypothesis. Not all science takes place in the lab with controls; sometimes, you infer from observations in the field.
 
The FBI said that they know the street and direction that white hat used when leaving the blast area (his final exit from the area), but they don't know where dark hat went.

Maybe the public can now track them further than the FBI did. It's just a shame that the world doesn't get to see the crisp high-definition stuff that is the source material. If you simply use the pics that the FBI posted you wouldn't even know the hat brands.
 
Checkmite said:
Provide a more complete picture for whom? How is a distant, fuzzy picture supposed to help someone that wouldn't identify a person close up in sharp definition? Why does the person need to be seen again near the other person when there are plenty of much closer, much clearer images of exactly that? And most importantly, who exactly is benefitting from the speculation in this thread? Nobody here was there.



Who in this thread will ask him? Nobody in this thread was there; nobody knows who he is. So what is the real point?
Click to expand...


as linked above, a new photo has emerged from social media discussing it and passing it around. which is what the FBI wanted when they released them. i think from my point of view its just a discussion. but as a whole, new information can and has come up.

whats the point of people communicating?
 
Hello, my name is Inigo Montoya...

attachment.php
 
Checkmite said:
Why does the person need to be seen again near the other person when there are plenty of much closer, much clearer images of exactly that?
Click to expand...
If they were together after the explosions, that supports one set of conclusions.

If they weren't, that might suggest other conclusions.


Checkmite said:
Who in this thread will ask him? Nobody in this thread was there; nobody knows who he is. So what is the real point?
Click to expand...
It's possible that he will read this thread, or someone who knows him will read something similar elsewhere on the internet.

Like I say, it couldn't hurt. Unlike that stick you're clutching...
 
MattusMaximus said:
That's obviously because they thought that people were going to do the crazy kind of "photo investigation" going on in this thread. In short, give the FBI data so that they can analyze it; don't try to analyze it for them.
Click to expand...
We're analyzing it for ourselves. Funny thing about human beings. we're curious creatures.

I really doubt anyone here is rushing to contact the FBI with our internet sleuthing skills.
 
Last edited:
MattusMaximus said:
So, if nobody actually feels like they're doing anything to help the FBI here, it's all just... mental masturbation?

Why not just

a) send in photos/video if you have it like they asked, and

b) let them do their job?

Why all the pseudo-sleuthing?
Click to expand...
You may as well ask why anyone here discusses sports strategy unless they're the manager of a professional team.
 
Something is going down in Watertown, a suburb of Boston. Heavy police presence, gunfire, and reports of explosions. No idea of what is happening.
 
William Parcher said:
It's just a shame that the world doesn't get to see the crisp high-definition stuff that is the source material. If you simply use the pics that the FBI posted you wouldn't even know the hat brands.
Click to expand...

I don't understand your statement here. Are you saying that the FBI has high resolution images of the suspects, but chose to only provide the public with blurry images? That doesn't make sense.
 
zeggman said:
You have a puckered view of the scientific method. I used data to draw an inference. Additional data led me to discard my initial hypothesis. Not all science takes place in the lab with controls; sometimes, you infer from observations in the field.
Click to expand...

Yes, but you don't draw a conclusion from the same data that inspired your hypothesis; that's not actually doing anything at all except deciding to call your hypothesis a conclusion. Nor is having other people look at the same data that inspired your hypothesis to see if they agree an "experiment" or "test". Tests are something you're supposed to design in order to produce data that doesn't exist at the time you make your hypothesis.

What you're doing is looking at a photo and forming an opinion, asking others to form opinions in the same manner, and then sitting around comparing each other's opinions. That's not the scientific method, that's The View.
 
Doghouse Reilly said:
I don't understand your statement here. Are you saying that the FBI has high resolution images of the suspects, but chose to only provide the public with blurry images? That doesn't make sense.
Click to expand...

What I meant was that possibly the best photo of white hat is on JREF (elsewhere too), but not the FBI site.
 
Checkmite said:
Yes, but you don't draw a conclusion from the same data that inspired your hypothesis; that's not actually doing anything at all except deciding to call your hypothesis a conclusion. Nor is having other people look at the same data that inspired your hypothesis to see if they agree an "experiment" or "test". Tests are something you're supposed to design in order to produce data that doesn't exist at the time you make your hypothesis.
Click to expand...
It isn't the same data, it's a clearer picture.

You can think of the blurry picture as a sample and the clear picture as a larger sample.

Checkmite said:
What you're doing is looking at a photo and forming an opinion, asking others to form opinions in the same manner, and then sitting around comparing each other's opinions. That's not the scientific method, that's The View.
Click to expand...
It's peer review. Present company excepted, of course.

Frankly, your opinion of whether or not this constitutes sufficiently critical thinking no longer interests me.
 
This here is the best quality picture yet of White Hat Suspect. So good that you can clearly see the number 3. But it isn't on the FBI website.


whitehat_zps0bc2c643.jpg
 
CNN is reporting that the suspect in the police shooting was forced to undress completely and then was taken away in a police car.

ETA: They're saying they can't confirm that the two guys taken into custody are directly related to the shooting.


Steve S
 
Last edited:
steve s said:
CNN is reporting that the suspect in the police shooting was forced to undress completely and then was taken away in a police car.

ETA: They're saying they can't confirm that the two guys taken into custody are directly related to the shooting.


Steve S
Click to expand...


Two suspects in the shooting incident apparently taken into custody. Heavy police and reportedly FBI presence.

A coincidence?
 
Last edited:
zeggman said:
If they were together after the explosions, that supports one set of conclusions.

If they weren't, that might suggest other conclusions.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't. It doesn't suggest anything useful whatsoever in terms of identifying them. It's actually quite meaningless in the grand scheme of things.

The fact that you have to use such vague and nebulous terms to describe the possible "help" you might-possibly-conceivably-I-don't-know be providing really should tell you something.



zeggman said:
It's possible that he will read this thread, or someone who knows him will read something similar elsewhere on the internet.

Like I say, it couldn't hurt. Unlike that stick you're clutching...
Click to expand...

I am not holding any sticks.

I am dubious about your intellectual honesty when you say your pointless and wild speculation all this time has been made with the "possibility" that an unknown person you haven't even described or mentioned until literally just now, out of all the people on the planet, might happen upon this thread in the JREF forum, on your mind.

Although I suppose your right that it "couldn't hurt". Indeed, where's the harm?

Already one innocent person has been impugned by the work of Internet detectives that were doing something which "couldn't hurt".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom