You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

RweSure ago

1/ Who says they have 4 granddaughters when they actually have 5!!!! It may be a legitimate mistake but could it be because they are not her grandchildren. Easy to forget when they are not yours.

You've misread this.

2/ The oldest two are just turning 5 - THIS MAKES THEM TWINS!!! If they were actually related she would have said the twins are turning 5. I am guessing these are two unrelated little girls who happen to be 5 years old and NOT her granddaughters either.

I think you have misread this as well.

3 and 4 are oddly written, but I believe you have misread this as well.

Here's how I read this

PS: Thought I would send some photo updates on the granddaughters - I now have 4 granddaughters -looks like there will be no grandsons - oldest two are just turning 5 and were in a ballet recital together and the other two are 18 months and youngest just turned 1.

The four granddaughters are (5 and 5) + (18 months and 1 year) = 4.

5 and 5 does not equal twins. It doesn't even equal siblings. This easily could be the daughter of her son and the daughter of her daughter. You don't know how many children the grandmother has. The granddaughters could be four separate one child families.

You are misreading the email and the speculating on top of it.

Mammy ago

I will address your points in quotes first and respond in BOLD.

1/ Who says they have 4 granddaughters when they actually have 5!!!! It may be a legitimate mistake but could it be because they are not her grandchildren. Easy to forget when they are not yours. >

The woman clearly states she has four grandchildren and that they are all girls: > Thought I would send some photo updates on the granddaughters - I now have 4 granddaughters>

3 and 4 are oddly written, but I believe you have misread this as well. Here's how I read thisPS: Thought I would send some photo updates on the granddaughters - I now have 4 granddaughters -looks like there will be no grandsons - oldest two are just turning 5 and were in a ballet recital together and the other two are 18 months and youngest just turned 1.>

Upon a second read of the original lines, I think you may be right about her wording being awkward and your interpretation make sense of the mathematical confusion. However, this email still draws suspicion and is worthy of further investigation, imho.

RweSure ago

What draws suspicion?

Mammy ago

IMO, The mere fact that John Podesta is included in an email correspondence where children are mentioned is reason enough for suspicion. For further thoughts, see my original reply to whatgives in this thread.

RweSure ago

Yeah.

So you have free standing suspicion that has nothing to do with this email and that in turn affects how you read this email.

This is basically original pizzagate sin. I don't like these people, so they must be speaking in code.

Mammy ago

Maybe so, but at least I have the decency to admit where and when I have perhaps been wrong.

Are_we_sure ago

That's an admirable quality to have.

I think most folks in here are simply unaware of the cognitive biases that people have and how easy it is to fall for something that doesn't hold up logically. Basically we are far, far less rational than we think we are and our brains have certain things that make us believe.....not what is objectively true, but what we are telling ourselves.

Two things are brains love is making connections and finding patterns and making up stories/being told stories.

If I give you three random pieces of information, you can easily connect them into a story that feels "right." Even if they have nothing to do with each other.

Look at this. What is this a picture of? Look how fast your brain made connections and filled out the rest of the image.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/98/30/59/9830597bbd6c66354efd3306b6326579--connect-the-dots-exercise.jpg

This one is interesting. https://gdt.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/lavabo.jpg

Mammy ago

Yea, "sometimes a banana is just a banana." But wait, who said that quote? Sigmund Freud, I believe. Ahem. ; )