Post by Drifter on Jul 29, 2013 7:33:42 GMT
Cerulean ...
I think the disagreement here is a matter of definition. You put a very literal, and strict, interpretation to the concept of ... theory. That's one legitimate definition of theory, as in Einstein's general and special theories of relativity. These kinds of theories are mathematically exact. Proof is indeed a requirement.
But in the context of what is known about the EAR/ONS, no such literal or strict theory is possible. We cannot assign an algebraic equation that would define his personality, his behavior, his profession, his schooling, his background. Even his age is something of a mystery. As other posters have said ... he's a ghost.
So what we try to do is examine what is known about him and his behavior and suggest possible personalities, behaviors, professions, schooling, and background. And we come up with a ... theory ... based on evidence and extrapolations in logic.
My theory, and the theories of poster A and poster B and poster C are only possibilities. There are no certainties, no proof, sometimes super thin evidence. All of these theories, including mine, have holes in them. But they are attempts to create some semblance of order in a case that has through the years become chaotic, as you imply when you state:
"Because this case can go off in 1000 different directions ..." Yes, it already has ... specifically because there is no unifying theory.
A theory is our way of trying to minimize all these directions, all this chaos. And no theory that I can come up with, or anyone else, is one that will be airtight.
Ideally, we can toss around several theories of the guy's skills and job. All of us can critique these various theories. Gradually, over time, it will become apparent that one or more of these theories doesn't quite work. And that theory drops off. So by process of elimination, we propose, examine, and make judgments on theories until we arrive at the most robust theory attainable (given the information we have), a unified theory that most of us can agree on. That process of narrowing down is what we want. That may not be possible; but that's the ideal outcome.
Regarding the "telephone technician" theory in particular, though not totally satisfying, it helps me to make sense of how the guy might have eavesdropped on potential victims to get private information that he somehow obtained. Similarly, he might have acquired tech skills while being somehow connected to the military. And LE themselves entertained the possibility that EAR was in the military, even a fellow cop. So LE maintains theories too, possibilities, that are the bases for investigation.
The couple of witness comments in S.T. that refer to "belts" and "lineman" are part of the historical record; that is evidence. And you can't just throw it away so casually. To try to get around that evidence because it suggests, but does not prove, "telephone technician" (TT), you contort the evidence in such a way as to dismiss TT as a viable possibility.
-------------------------------------------------
"I dont have to have a theory"
No you certainly do not. But I'd be curious to know how you organize and conceptualize what you know about the guy. Fractured, jumbled, random pieces of information are like the pieces to a jigsaw puzzle. They're not too meaningful until you can put the pieces together to create a unified picture (or theory).
"I just have to see if yours measures up". I agree. But measures up to what ... Einstein's theory of relatively? Lord I hope not!
"supposition is more shaky because you have to prove things". Again, we're not trying to prove anything. This isn't a court of law. Our goal is more modest ... to make some sense out of chaos.
"With deduction, you just measure things and throw out what doesnt work."
There's that word again ... "measure". We cannot turn this case into an algebraic equation.
I'll let you have the last word.
Drifter
I think the disagreement here is a matter of definition. You put a very literal, and strict, interpretation to the concept of ... theory. That's one legitimate definition of theory, as in Einstein's general and special theories of relativity. These kinds of theories are mathematically exact. Proof is indeed a requirement.
But in the context of what is known about the EAR/ONS, no such literal or strict theory is possible. We cannot assign an algebraic equation that would define his personality, his behavior, his profession, his schooling, his background. Even his age is something of a mystery. As other posters have said ... he's a ghost.
So what we try to do is examine what is known about him and his behavior and suggest possible personalities, behaviors, professions, schooling, and background. And we come up with a ... theory ... based on evidence and extrapolations in logic.
My theory, and the theories of poster A and poster B and poster C are only possibilities. There are no certainties, no proof, sometimes super thin evidence. All of these theories, including mine, have holes in them. But they are attempts to create some semblance of order in a case that has through the years become chaotic, as you imply when you state:
"Because this case can go off in 1000 different directions ..." Yes, it already has ... specifically because there is no unifying theory.
A theory is our way of trying to minimize all these directions, all this chaos. And no theory that I can come up with, or anyone else, is one that will be airtight.
Ideally, we can toss around several theories of the guy's skills and job. All of us can critique these various theories. Gradually, over time, it will become apparent that one or more of these theories doesn't quite work. And that theory drops off. So by process of elimination, we propose, examine, and make judgments on theories until we arrive at the most robust theory attainable (given the information we have), a unified theory that most of us can agree on. That process of narrowing down is what we want. That may not be possible; but that's the ideal outcome.
Regarding the "telephone technician" theory in particular, though not totally satisfying, it helps me to make sense of how the guy might have eavesdropped on potential victims to get private information that he somehow obtained. Similarly, he might have acquired tech skills while being somehow connected to the military. And LE themselves entertained the possibility that EAR was in the military, even a fellow cop. So LE maintains theories too, possibilities, that are the bases for investigation.
The couple of witness comments in S.T. that refer to "belts" and "lineman" are part of the historical record; that is evidence. And you can't just throw it away so casually. To try to get around that evidence because it suggests, but does not prove, "telephone technician" (TT), you contort the evidence in such a way as to dismiss TT as a viable possibility.
-------------------------------------------------
"I dont have to have a theory"
No you certainly do not. But I'd be curious to know how you organize and conceptualize what you know about the guy. Fractured, jumbled, random pieces of information are like the pieces to a jigsaw puzzle. They're not too meaningful until you can put the pieces together to create a unified picture (or theory).
"I just have to see if yours measures up". I agree. But measures up to what ... Einstein's theory of relatively? Lord I hope not!
"supposition is more shaky because you have to prove things". Again, we're not trying to prove anything. This isn't a court of law. Our goal is more modest ... to make some sense out of chaos.
"With deduction, you just measure things and throw out what doesnt work."
There's that word again ... "measure". We cannot turn this case into an algebraic equation.
I'll let you have the last word.
Drifter