This is another one of those pieces of evidence when, taken by itself, isn't that big of a deal. But when taken into a grander context it becomes rather meaningful. It's like a sentence in a growing essay that has as it's position that James Alefantis may be a pedophile. Any single piece of evidence can be explained away, but when those more and more pieces keep being added to the pile, all that confirm the position, it becomes harder and harder to explain away.
It becomes statistically less and less likely that the common theme across all these connections (paedophilia) is completely coincidental. Someone should do the stats on it so we can have some maths to back it up, like 'the chances of all these different things being unrelated to one another in a meaningful context, and only related to one another purely by chance, is 1 in seven thousand trillion" or something.
That's easier said than done. When you deal with such a complex series of events, there are a thousand ways to come up with the numbers and therefore it begins to appear subjective rather than objective, and defeats the purpose of the whole thing. For example, you could say that there are X-million statues in the world, the chances that Jimmy chose that statue by mere chance are 1 in X-million. But then somebody might argue that Jimmy has a long lost brother who lives in the same city as that museum. All of a sudden the numbers are not so bulletproof. It's better to just let the facts speak for themselves and let people come to their own conclusions. Trying too hard to be indisputable could backfire.
Yeah you're right, see, this is why I am not a very good statistician! It seems like most people will be able to see how small the chances are though anyway, of it all being a coincidence. That's if they bother looking into it instead of reading one article in the MSM about it. :-(
view the rest of the comments →
Wage_Slave217 ago
This is another one of those pieces of evidence when, taken by itself, isn't that big of a deal. But when taken into a grander context it becomes rather meaningful. It's like a sentence in a growing essay that has as it's position that James Alefantis may be a pedophile. Any single piece of evidence can be explained away, but when those more and more pieces keep being added to the pile, all that confirm the position, it becomes harder and harder to explain away.
SpikyAube ago
It becomes statistically less and less likely that the common theme across all these connections (paedophilia) is completely coincidental. Someone should do the stats on it so we can have some maths to back it up, like 'the chances of all these different things being unrelated to one another in a meaningful context, and only related to one another purely by chance, is 1 in seven thousand trillion" or something.
SnapeDoggyDogg ago
That's easier said than done. When you deal with such a complex series of events, there are a thousand ways to come up with the numbers and therefore it begins to appear subjective rather than objective, and defeats the purpose of the whole thing. For example, you could say that there are X-million statues in the world, the chances that Jimmy chose that statue by mere chance are 1 in X-million. But then somebody might argue that Jimmy has a long lost brother who lives in the same city as that museum. All of a sudden the numbers are not so bulletproof. It's better to just let the facts speak for themselves and let people come to their own conclusions. Trying too hard to be indisputable could backfire.
greenlentils ago
If there was this much circumstantial evidence against one of us, we would be sunk!!!
SpikyAube ago
Yeah you're right, see, this is why I am not a very good statistician! It seems like most people will be able to see how small the chances are though anyway, of it all being a coincidence. That's if they bother looking into it instead of reading one article in the MSM about it. :-(