Obama used terrorist Ayers as a ghostwriter

[DrBaltar]

You missed the point. The article did not do a cusum analysis.

If you wish to start another thread about cusum analysis, I encourage you to do so. This thread is discussing a hack article smearing Obama, not an analysis that the article never actually performed.

Once you establish the validity of a cusum analysis, then you can begin to discuss whether the article has merit.

 

[DavidJames]

BaC & DrBaltar & Iamme meet - it was inevitable. Now, why don't all of you head on over the the CT forum where you will be much more comfortable with the topics.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

Ayers and Obama have a good deal in common. In the way of background, both grew up in comfortable white households and have struggled to find an identity as righteous black men ever since.

What the heck?????

Bill Ayers is black?

 

[GreyICE]

Once you establish the validity of a cusum analysis, then you can begin to discuss whether the article has merit.

You are missing the point Baltar. I'm beginning to think intentionally, so we have to cross this hurdle in order to debunk an article that is full of garbage.

It doesn't matter whether cusum is valid, period or not, becaues he didn't do one. Period. You might as well ask me to determine the validity of String Theory, loop quantum gravity, and solve the Navier-Stokes equation before I consider the article, because he didn't use any of those either.

When the author of an article lies to you about whether he used a method of analysis, it doesn't matter whether the method of analysis is valid or not. He didn't do one. If I claim that I did a bloodspatter analysis to determine how someone was killed, and all I did was smoke weed in my room while playing Half Life, it doesn't matter whether bloodspatter analysis works or not - I didn't do one.

You've repeated your stupid claim so many times you're just running interference for the article. The author is lying, it's a smear, and he didn't perform a cusum analysis. Sorry, period, the end.

 

[DrBaltar]

You are missing the point Baltar. I'm beginning to think intentionally, so we have to cross this hurdle in order to debunk an article that is full of garbage.

I hear you. You (and now Cleon) seem to think that your point is the only point that is important. Again. I think we have two different goals here. You're trying to show that the 'rag' is complete BS. I'm trying to find out if something like the cusum analysis could actually work reliably. Because if it can't the whole premise of the article is moot. If it can, then correctly applying the analysis could put the article to the test. That's how science is done. Repeat the experiment.

Your method shows that the article is inconclusive. My method determines if what the article says is possible if done correctly. Then, if it is possible, you have tools that are validated to test the article's claim and reach a conclusion. Just accept that we have two different goals here and move on.

 

[Cleon]

I hear you.

No, you don't.

Here's the issue:

The article has not a hint of truth in it. Not one iota.

According to you, this means it may still have merit.

According to the rest of the world, the article's existence only means that hard drive and bandwidth were wasted.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

I hear you. You (and now Cleon) seem to think that your point is the only point that is important. Again. I think we have two different goals here. You're trying to show that the 'rag' is complete BS. I'm trying to find out if something like the cusum analysis could actually work reliably. Because if it can't the whole premise of the article is moot. If it can, then correctly applying the analysis could put the article to the test. That's how science is done. Repeat the experiment.

Your method shows that the article is inconclusive. My method determines if what the article says is possible if done correctly. Then, if it is possible, you have tools that are validated to test the article's claim and reach a conclusion. Just accept that we have two different goals here and move on.

Which means you need to post elsewhere as this thread address the article being wrong.

 

[GreyICE]

I hear you. You (and now Cleon) seem to think that your point is the only point that is important. Again. I think we have two different goals here. You're trying to show that the 'rag' is complete BS. I'm trying to find out if something like the cusum analysis could actually work reliably. Because if it can't the whole premise of the article is moot. If it can, then correctly applying the analysis could put the article to the test. That's how science is done. Repeat the experiment.

Here's what I think: Start a new thread. Yes, if cusum analysis works, you could theoretically perform one. The article in the OP didn't This is not a thread about Cusum analysis. This is a thread about "Obama used terrorist Ayers as a ghostwriter"

 

[DrBaltar]

Which means you need to post elsewhere as this thread address the article being wrong.

Translation: We don't much care for your kind around these parts. [spits tobacco] And there's one thing we don't allow... messin' with our women. Now, if you want to keep all your limbs, you better keep walkin.

That is what everyone with a knee-jerk reaction to the article would like to believe. I am taking a more rational, unbiased step by step look, starting with the plausibility of the analysis mentioned in the article. Apparently, no one can get past their emotions to think about that. I could talk about how it's common practice in technical papers to survey previous work, but again that assumes I'm talking to educated intelligent people capable of discussing subjects like this rationally.

I have every right to pose the question as it does relate to the article brought up by the OP. If someone has an answer, I would be interested to hear about it.

 

[GreyICE]

Translation: We don't much care for your kind around these parts. [spits tobacco] And there's one thing we don't allow... messin' with our women. Now, if you want to keep all your limbs, you better keep walkin.

That is what everyone with a knee-jerk reaction to the article would like to believe. I am taking a more rational, unbiased step by step look, starting with the plausibility of the analysis mentioned in the article. Apparently, no one can get past their emotions to think about that. I could talk about how it's common practice in technical papers to survey previous work, but again that assumes I'm talking to educated intelligent people capable of discussing subjects like this rationally.

I have every right to pose the question as it does relate to the article brought up by the OP. If someone has an answer, I would be interested to hear about it.

Emotional, right. Well you got the buzzwords down pat, I'll give you that. The meaning takes a bit longer, but good luck!

 

[Dr Adequate]

But even without Ayers being Obama's ghostwriter ...

Let me stop you there. Without reference to Ayers being Obama's ghostwriter, the regurgitation of your usual sorry crap is off-topic. Surely we have a thread for generalized shrieking and whining about Ayers?

 

[Puppycow]

Really? Your link does NOT lead to Obama's writings

Actually it does.

but to an article discussing a couple of his essay questions.

There are links in that article to his writings.

So-

1. The content of your link is unrelated to the wording of the link.
2. Your conclusion is supported by the following facts you provided -

None.

Wrong. So sorry. Try again.

 

[Darat]

...snip... That's how science is done. Repeat the experiment.

...snip...

To repeat the "experiment" as is described in the article would mean again not using "cusum analysis". So the validity of cusum analysis is irrelevant to anything arising from the article.

Only if the author of the article had correctly used cusum analysis would the validity of cusum analysis be relevant in assessing and determining if the conclusion is valid or not but since no cusum analysis was carried out the validity of cusum analysis is an irrelevance when determining if the claim in the article is supported by the evidence or not.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Bill Ayers can write (not that what he writes about is worth anything), but he's got this huge stigma behind him, so anything he writes will never be taken seriously. The concept that he would use a promising student with similar (to what extent, only they know) views on things as an outlet he can use to get his message out is not all that laughable.

Ah, it all makes sense now. Ayers wrote twenty books under his own name, despite knowing that they could never be taken seriously. But, after all, they were only about education, the subject to which he has devoted the less regrettable parts of his adult life and of which he is a professor.

However, there were some views he had that he wanted taking seriously, and about which he really wanted to "get his message out", such as his views on growing up in Indonesia and Hawaii, which he didn't do, his "message" about Barack Obama's family, who he hasn't met, his feelings about being black, a color which he is not, his views on his trip to Africa to look for his roots, which he did not undertake, and so forth.

Funny sort of "message", but then Ayers is a funny sort of man.

So then he looked around his radical terrorist pals to see whose work he could pass it off as, and Obama said: "Hey, you know, that sounds so like my biography would that I bet we could kid people I wrote it."

And Ayers said: "Great, because the imprimature of an obscure law professor no-one's ever heard of is just what I need to give my book credibility."

Yes, it all fits together like an intricate jigsaw. "Laughable"? Heavens, no.

I think an impartial observer would have to first decide how well cusum analysis can fingerprint an author. The author of the article says it's not perfect at identifying who wrote what, but I would like to know what the certainty of the cusum analysis rubric is.

Ah yes, of course, the way to test this non-laughable hypothesis is to enquire as to the validity of a method of authorial fingerprinting which has not actually been used to test it.

If only Sherlock Holmes wasn't as fictional as the rest of this preposterous tarradiddle, you could give him lessons.

 

[DrBaltar]

I have found in this page titled WebForensicSites:

According to its authors, the Cumulative sum technique was capable of determining whether a piece of text was written by one, or more than one author.

Morton claimed that the Cusum Technique, as it became known, was capable of separating individuals by their writing styles with Forensic accuracy (Morton & Michaelson, 1990, Morton, 1991). The practical importance of this claim meant that during the early 1990’s Morton’s services were sought in many cases of legal disputed authorship, for example, in the case of Carl Bridgewater, and the appeal of the Birmingham Six. Later in the 1990’s however, this technique fell into disrepute, due to research that suggested that it was not measuring what it claimed to measure.

Looks like the Cusum Technique was declared a success by the developers of the technique, which in turn made a profit based on their study of their own technique. Later research showed it to be inaccurate though. Still no info on how inaccurate.

In the "Who Wrote Dreams From My Father?" article, Jack Cashill claims to have done preliminary cusum analysis by comparing average sentence lengths. That is part of the cusum analysis, but as has been noted in this thread, not a complete cusum analysis. Ed Gold, an expert in image and signal processing, etc, did do a more thorough cusum analysis, and while he says it shows a very close match, again acknowledges the cusum technique's shortcomings. He says he'll make the raw data available, but no word on if that has happened. He also recommended to Cashill that he continue doing the 'literary detective work'. But that sounds pretty subjective to me, especially when the author has a personal interest in connecting Obama and Ayers. It would be better if a data driven analytic method like cusum analysis could be used, except one that has been proven to be accurate.

 

[Darat]

I have found in this page titled WebForensicSites:



Looks like the Cusum Technique was declared a success by the developers of the technique, which in turn made a profit based on their study of their own technique. Later research showed it to be inaccurate though. Still no info on how inaccurate.


...snip...

What that got to do with the article and claim in the opening post?

 

[DrBaltar]

What that got to do with the article and claim in the opening post?

I'm sorry if you came into the thread late and haven't followed all the discussions, but if you really want to know how it relates, you can read the thread. No guarantee that you'll figure it out, but the answer I would give to your question is all there.

 

[Darat]

I have read the entire thread and that is why I am asking you what it has to do with the opening post and what the article claims.

 

[DrBaltar]

I think post 48 and 69 sum it up.

Or I could grunt my approval or disapproval based on a quick skim of the article or even based on only the source as others do here. But had the impression that JREF was a forum where discussion was encouraged.

 

[Cleon]

So, the evidence that Obama's book was ghostwritten by Ayers amounts to doodly-squat.

Case closed.