Mr. Cruel Jonbenet Ramsey thought experiment proves the intruder theory

Go down

Mr. Cruel Jonbenet Ramsey thought experiment proves the intruder theory

Post by redpill on Wed Jun 29, 2016 10:08 pm

take the blue pill and believe the ramsey's did it. the parents did it. it was an inside job
there was no intruder.

take the red pill,

this a thought experiment

this thought experiment will establish the intruder theory on scientific forensic grounds.

the thought experiment has to be defined, described in detail, and explained.

the thought experiment is to be done as described by wikipedia

first let's discuss what a thought experiment is, from wikipedia

A thought experiment considers some hypothesis, theory,[1] or principle for the purpose of thinking through its consequences. Given the structure of the experiment, it may or may not be possible to actually perform it, and if it can be performed, there need be no intention of any kind to actually perform the experiment in question.

The common goal of a thought experiment is to explore the potential consequences of the principle in question: "A thought experiment is a device with which one performs an intentional, structured process of intellectual deliberation in order to speculate, within a specifiable problem domain, about potential consequents (or antecedents) for a designated antecedent (or consequent)" (Yeates, 2004, p. 150).


Thought experiments, which are well-structured, well-defined hypothetical questions that employ subjunctive reasoning (irrealis moods) – "What might happen (or, what might have happened) if . . . " – have been used to pose questions in philosophy at least since Greek antiquity, some pre-dating Socrates (see Rescher 1991). In physics and other sciences many famous thought experiments date from the 19th and especially the 20th Century, but examples can be found at least as early as Galileo.

In thought experiments we gain new information by rearranging or reorganizing already known empirical data in a new way and drawing new (a priori) inferences from them or by looking at these data from a different and unusual perspective. In Galileo’s thought experiment, for example, the rearrangement of empirical experience consists in the original idea of combining bodies of different weight.[10]

Thought experiments have been used in philosophy (especially ethics), physics, and other fields (such as cognitive psychology, history, political science, economics, social psychology, law, organizational studies, marketing, and epidemiology). In law, the synonym "hypothetical" is frequently used for such experiments.

Regardless of their intended goal, all thought experiments display a patterned way of thinking that is designed to allow us to explain, predict and control events in a better and more productive way.
Theoretical consequences

In terms of their theoretical consequences, thought experiments generally:

challenge (or even refute) a prevailing theory, often involving the device known as reductio ad absurdum, (as in Galileo's original argument, a proof by contradiction),
confirm a prevailing theory,
establish a new theory, or
simultaneously refute a prevailing theory and establish a new theory through a process of mutual exclusion.

Practical applications

Thought experiments can produce some very important and different outlooks on previously unknown or unaccepted theories. However, they may make those theories themselves irrelevant, and could possibly create new problems that are just as difficult, or possibly more difficult to resolve.

In terms of their practical application, thought experiments are generally created in order to:

challenge the prevailing status quo (which includes activities such as correcting misinformation (or misapprehension), identify flaws in the argument(s) presented, to preserve (for the long-term) objectively established fact, and to refute specific assertions that some particular thing is permissible, forbidden, known, believed, possible, or necessary);
extrapolate beyond (or interpolate within) the boundaries of already established fact;
predict and forecast the (otherwise) indefinite and unknowable future;
explain the past;
the retrodiction, postdiction and hindcasting of the (otherwise) indefinite and unknowable past;
facilitate decision making, choice and strategy selection;
solve problems, and generate ideas;
move current (often insoluble) problems into another, more helpful and more productive problem space (e.g., see functional fixedness);
attribute causation, preventability, blame and responsibility for specific outcomes;
assess culpability and compensatory damages in social and legal contexts;
ensure the repeat of past success; or
examine the extent to which past events might have occurred differently.
ensure the (future) avoidance of past failures.

In science

Scientists tend to use thought experiments in the form of imaginary, "proxy" experiments which they conduct prior to a real, "physical" experiment (Ernst Mach always argued that these gedankenexperiments were "a necessary precondition for physical experiment"). In these cases, the result of the "proxy" experiment will often be so clear that there will be no need to conduct a physical experiment at all.

Scientists also use thought experiments when particular physical experiments are impossible to conduct (Carl Gustav Hempel labeled these sorts of experiment "theoretical experiments-in-imagination"), such as Einstein's thought experiment of chasing a light beam, leading to Special Relativity. This is a unique use of a scientific thought experiment, in that it was never carried out, but led to a successful theory, proven by other empirical means.
Relation to real experiments

The relation to real experiments can be quite complex, as can be seen again from an example going back to Albert Einstein. In 1935, with two coworkers, he published a famous paper on a newly created subject called later the EPR effect (EPR paradox). In this paper, starting from certain philosophical assumptions,[11] on the basis of a rigorous analysis of a certain, complicated, but in the meantime assertedly realizable model, he came to the conclusion that quantum mechanics should be described as "incomplete". Niels Bohr asserted a refutation of Einstein's analysis immediately, and his view prevailed.[12][13][14] After some decades, it was asserted that feasible experiments could prove the error of the EPR paper. These experiments tested the Bell inequalities published in 1964 in a purely theoretical paper. The above-mentioned EPR philosophical starting assumptions were considered to be falsified by empirical fact (e.g. by the optical real experiments of Alain Aspect).

Thus thought experiments belong to a theoretical discipline, usually to theoretical physics, but often to theoretical philosophy. In any case, it must be distinguished from a real experiment, which belongs naturally to the experimental discipline and has "the final decision on true or not true", at least in physics.
Causal reasoning

The first characteristic pattern that thought experiments display is their orientation in time.[15] They are either:

Antefactual speculations: those experiments which speculate about what might have happened prior to a specific, designated event, or
Postfactual speculations: those experiments which speculate about what may happen subsequent to (or consequent upon) a specific, designated event.

The second characteristic pattern is their movement in time in relation to “the present moment standpoint” of the individual performing the experiment; namely, in terms of:

Their temporal direction: are they past-oriented or future-oriented?
Their temporal sense:

(a) in the case of past-oriented thought experiments, are they examining the consequences of temporal “movement” from the present to the past, or from the past to the present? or,
(b) in the case of future-oriented thought experiments, are they examining the consequences of temporal “movement” from the present to the future, or from the future to the present?

Seven types
Temporal representation of a prefactual thought experiment.[16]

Generally speaking, there are seven types of thought experiments in which one reasons from causes to effects, or effects to causes:[17]

Prefactual (before the fact) thought experiments — the term prefactual was coined by Lawrence J. Sanna in 1998[18] — speculate on possible future outcomes, given the present, and ask "What will be the outcome if event E occurs?"
Temporal representation of a counterfactual thought experiment.[19]

Counterfactual (contrary to established fact) thought experiments — the term counterfactual was coined by Nelson Goodman in 1947,[20] extending Roderick Chisholm's (1946) notion of a "contrary-to-fact conditional"[21] — speculate on the possible outcomes of a different past;[22] and ask "What might have happened if A had happened instead of B?" (e.g., "If Isaac Newton and Gottfried Leibniz had cooperated with each other, what would mathematics look like today?").[23]

The study of counterfactual speculation has increasingly engaged the interest of scholars in a wide range of domains such as philosophy,[24] psychology,[25] cognitive psychology,[26] history,[27] political science,[28] economics,[29] social psychology,[30] law,[31] organizational theory,[32] marketing,[33] and epidemiology.[34]
Temporal representation of a semifactual thought experiment.[35]

Semifactual thought experiments — the term semifactual was coined by Nelson Goodman in 1947[36][37] — speculate on the extent to which things might have remained the same, despite there being a different past; and asks the question Even though X happened instead of E, would Y have still occurred? (e.g., Even if the goalie had moved left, rather than right, could he have intercepted a ball that was traveling at such a speed?).

Semifactual speculations are an important part of clinical medicine.
Temporal representation of prediction, forecasting and nowcasting.[38]

The activity of prediction attempts to project the circumstances of the present into the future. According to David Sarewitz and Roger Pielke (1999, p123), scientific prediction takes two forms:

(1) “The elucidation of invariant — and therefore predictive — principles of nature”; and
(2) “[Using] suites of observational data and sophisticated numerical models in an effort to foretell the behavior or evolution of complex phenomena”.[39]

Although they perform different social and scientific functions, the only difference between the qualitatively identical activities of predicting, forecasting, and nowcasting is the distance of the speculated future from the present moment occupied by the user.[40] Whilst the activity of nowcasting, defined as “a detailed description of the current weather along with forecasts obtained by extrapolation up to 2 hours ahead”, is essentially concerned with describing the current state of affairs, it is common practice to extend the term “to cover very-short-range forecasting up to 12 hours ahead” (Browning, 1982, p.ix).[41][42]
Temporal representation of hindcasting.[43]

The activity of hindcasting involves running a forecast model after an event has happened in order to test whether the model's simulation is valid.

In 2003, Dake Chen and his colleagues “trained” a computer using the data of the surface temperature of the oceans from the last 20 years.[44] Then, using data that had been collected on the surface temperature of the oceans for the period 1857 to 2003, they went through a hindcasting exercise and discovered that their simulation not only accurately predicted every El Niño event for the last 148 years, it also identified the (up to 2 years) looming foreshadow of every single one of those El Niño events.[45]
Retrodiction (or postdiction)
Temporal representation of retrodiction or postdiction.[46]

The activity of retrodiction (or postdiction) involves moving backwards in time, step-by-step, in as many stages as are considered necessary, from the present into the speculated past, in order to establish the ultimate cause of a specific event (e.g., Reverse engineering and Forensics).

Given that retrodiction is a process in which “past observations, events and data are used as evidence to infer the process(es) the produced them” and that diagnosis “involve[s] going from visible effects such as symptoms, signs and the like to their prior causes”,[47] the essential balance between prediction and retrodiction could be characterized as:

retrodiction : diagnosis :: prediction : prognosis

regardless of whether the prognosis is of the course of the disease in the absence of treatment, or of the application of a specific treatment regimen to a specific disorder in a particular patient.[48]
Temporal representation of backcasting.[49]

The activity of backcasting — the term backcasting was coined by John Robinson in 1982[50] — involves establishing the description of a very definite and very specific future situation. It then involves an imaginary moving backwards in time, step-by-step, in as many stages as are considered necessary, from the future to the present, in order to reveal the mechanism through which that particular specified future could be attained from the present.[51]

Backcasting is not concerned with predicting the future:

The major distinguishing characteristic of backcasting analyses is the concern, not with likely energy futures, but with how desirable futures can be attained. It is thus explicitly normative, involving 'working backwards' from a particular future end-point to the present to determine what policy measures would be required to reach that future.[52]

According to Jansen (1994, p. 503:[53]

Within the framework of technological development, “forecasting” concerns the extrapolation of developments towards the future and the exploration of achievements which can be realized through technology in the long term. Conversely, the reasoning behind “backcasting” is: on the basis of an interconnecting picture of demands which technology has to meet in the future — “sustainability criteria” — to direct and determine the process that technology development must take and possibly also the pace at which this development process must be put into effect.
Backcasting [is] both an important aid in determining the direction technology development must take and in specifying the targets to be set for this purpose. As such, backcasting is an ideal search toward determining the nature and scope of the technological challenge which is posed by sustainable development, and it can thus serve to direct the search process toward new — sustainable — technology.

In philosophy

In philosophy, a thought experiment typically presents an imagined scenario with the intention of eliciting an intuitive or reasoned response about the way things are in the thought experiment. (Philosophers might also supplement their thought experiments with theoretical reasoning designed to support the desired intuitive response.) The scenario will typically be designed to target a particular philosophical notion, such as morality, or the nature of the mind or linguistic reference. The response to the imagined scenario is supposed to tell us about the nature of that notion in any scenario, real or imagined.

For example, a thought experiment might present a situation in which an agent intentionally kills an innocent for the benefit of others. Here, the relevant question is not whether the action is moral or not, but more broadly whether a moral theory is correct that says morality is determined solely by an action's consequences (See Consequentialism). John Searle imagines a man in a locked room who receives written sentences in Chinese, and returns written sentences in Chinese, according to a sophisticated instruction manual. Here, the relevant question is not whether or not the man understands Chinese, but more broadly, whether a functionalist theory of mind is correct.

It is generally hoped that there is universal agreement about the intuitions that a thought experiment elicits. (Hence, in assessing their own thought experiments, philosophers may appeal to "what we should say," or some such locution.) A successful thought experiment will be one in which intuitions about it are widely shared. But often, philosophers differ in their intuitions about the scenario.

Other philosophical uses of imagined scenarios arguably are thought experiments also. In one use of scenarios, philosophers might imagine persons in a particular situation (maybe ourselves), and ask what they would do.

For example, John Rawls asks us to imagine a group of persons in a situation where they know nothing about themselves, and are charged with devising a social or political organization (See the veil of ignorance). The use of the state of nature to imagine the origins of government, as by Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, may also be considered a thought experiment. Søren Kierkegaard explored the possible ethical and religious implications of Abraham's binding of Isaac in Fear and Trembling Similarly, Friedrich Nietzsche, in On the Genealogy of Morals, speculated about the historical development of Judeo-Christian morality, with the intent of questioning its legitimacy.

An early written thought experiment was Plato's allegory of the cave.[54] Another historic thought experiment was Avicenna's "Floating Man" thought experiment in the 11th century. He asked his readers to imagine themselves suspended in the air isolated from all sensations in order to demonstrate human self-awareness and self-consciousness, and the substantiality of the soul.[55]

The scenario presented in a thought experiment must be possible in some sense. In many thought experiments, the scenario would be nomologically possible, or possible according to the laws of nature. John Searle's Chinese room is nomologically possible.

Some thought experiments present scenarios that are not nomologically possible. In his Twin Earth thought experiment, Hilary Putnam asks us to imagine a scenario in which there is a substance with all of the observable properties of water (e.g., taste, color, boiling point), but which is chemically different from water. It has been argued that this thought experiment is not nomologically possible, although it may be possible in some other sense, such as metaphysical possibility. It is debatable whether the nomological impossibility of a thought experiment renders intuitions about it moot.

In some cases, the hypothetical scenario might be considered metaphysically impossible, or impossible in any sense at all. David Chalmers says that we can imagine that there are zombies, or persons who are physically identical to us in every way but who lack consciousness. This is supposed to show that physicalism is false. However, some argue that zombies are inconceivable: we can no more imagine a zombie than we can imagine that 1+1=3. Others have claimed that the conceivability of a scenario may not entail its possibility.
Famous examples of thought experiments include Schrödinger's cat, illustrating quantum indeterminacy through the manipulation of a perfectly sealed environment and a tiny bit of radioactive substance, and Maxwell's demon, which attempts to demonstrate the ability of a hypothetical finite being to violate the second law of thermodynamics.

here is a thought experiment

this is a documentary on Mr. Cruel

this is the thought experiment

Suppose Mr Cruel

saw Jonbenet Ramsey participate in this

pictures of Jonbenet

he is standing outside the Ramsey home on Dec 25, 1996

he's wearing hi-tech shoes
he has nylon cord ligature
he has suretape
he is wearing light brown cotton gloves that shed light brown cotton fibers
he is carrying a blunt instrument, possibly a heavy flashlight or baseball bat as weapon
his fur coat is made of beaver hair
he has a stuffed bear made of unidentified animal hair
rag made of dark blue fibers

as he told Sharon Wills his intention

As he carried her to the car he reassured her that he wasn’t going to hurt her and stated he was going to give her parents a ransom note and that he would return her in the morning when the banks opened and he got his ransom money.

he intends to leave a handwritten ransom note, making a ransom demand, but he does not bring one with him to the crime scene, which was the case for Nicola Lynas and Karmein Chan.

every aspect of his known crimes

the thought experiment is to be structured as described by wikipedia, and primary sources and scientific literature on thought experiments. i.e

Albert Einstein did a thought experiment of what happens when you travel at the speed of light.

the thought experiment plus facts from Mr Cruel's known crimes and the Jonbenet crime scene

are relevant data that goes into this thought experiment. specifically, while he will leave a ransom note, making ransom demands, and no, he didn't write one before hand and bring it to the crime scene, his actual interest is sexual. he intends to engage in sexual activity with Jonbenet Ramsey.
This sexual activity includes Mr Cruel taking off his gloves, pulling down Jonbenet's longjohns and panties, engaging in oral sex on Jonbenet's vagina, then inserting objects into her vagina, and photographing it. he then wipes Jonbenet genitals, as he has done with Jill, Sharon Wills, Nicola Lynas, Karmein Chan with the blue rag, in an attempt to remove his saliva and his DNA.

we are going to assume as in Lower Plenty, Jill, he is on a tight schedule, he as to catch an airplane at 8am leaving at 10am for Melbourne Australia on Dec 26, 1996 so he is unable to take the Jonbenet body with him. He will leave it in the Ramsey home. Note in Lower Plenty Jill and other crimes he left the child in the home.

What evidence will be left behind in this thought experiment. How does it compare with the actual evidence they found in the crime scene?

How would the evidence Mr Cruel would leave behind in Jonbenet Ramsey thought experiment, compare with the actual evidence they found in the Jonbenet murder investigation?

What would the crime scene look like if Mr Cruel were to commit the crime as described above? What would Mr Cruel leave behind? How does it compare with what was actually found in the Jonbenet murder investigation?

Specifically what kind of shoeprint would Mr Cruel, who is wearing a hi-tech shoe, leave behind close to Jonbenet's body in the basement? How does it compare with what was actually found in the Jonbenet murder investigation?

What kind of fibers would Mr Cruel leave on Jonbenet's body and clothing, as he wore light brown cotton gloves. How does it compare with what was actually found in the Jonbenet murder investigation?

What kind of fibers would they find in Jonbenet's genitals if Mr Cruel wipes it down with blue rag? How does it compare with what was actually found in the Jonbenet murder investigation?

What kind of DNA evidence would they find if Mr cruel performs oral sex on Jonbenet's vagina? How does it compare with what was actually found in the Jonbenet murder investigation?

What kind of DNA would they find if Mr Cruel removes his gloves, and uses his bare hands to pull down Jonbenet's long johns and then pulls it up as he redresses her? How does it compare with what was actually found in the Jonbenet murder investigation?

What kind of injuries to Jonbenet's vagina would MR Cruel inflict if he inserts his finger and objects into it? How does it compare with what was actually found in the Jonbenet murder investigation?

How would the ligature be tied around Jonbenet if Mr Cruel took the nylon cord and bound her? How does it compare with what was actually found in the Jonbenet murder investigation?

How would Mr Cruel murder Jonbenet, based on how Karmein Chan was killed. How does it compare with what was actually found in the Jonbenet murder investigation?

Since Mr Cruel in this thought experiment left a ransom note, but his actual intention is sexual assault on a child, what would the ransom note content be like? How does it compare with what was actually found in the Jonbenet murder investigation?

Since Mr Cruel wrote the ransom note in his own handwriting, in this thought experiment, what conclusions would 6 ABDFE FDE who examined the originals conclude regarding whether Patsy or John Ramsey wrote the ransom note? How does it compare with what was actually found in the Jonbenet murder investigation?

Since Mr Cruel wrote the ransom note, in this thought experiment, what conclusions would a forensic linguists Gerald McMerminin arrive it regarding whether either John or Patsy Ramsey wrote the ransom note. How does it compare with what was actually found in the Jonbenet murder investigation?

the conclusion of the thought experiment is clear

redpill's redpill is not only was Jonbenet murdered by an intruder, the intruder was none other than Mr. Cruel Like a Star @ heaven Like a Star @ heaven Like a Star @ heaven Like a Star @ heaven

If you only knew the POWER of the Daubert side

Posts : 2285
Join date : 2012-12-08

Back to top Go down

Back to top

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum