Plausible vs. Implausible Theories, Started by ED5000

[ED5000]

Feb 24, 2014 14:15:02 GMT redding said:

Feb 24, 2014 8:30:42 GMT ED5000 said:

No, it's rather when a theory is repeatedly shot down with only a "but it's unlikely" as the reason, that becomes annoying.....

We're talking about mere human beings here: not science fiction..... We really only know what's "unlikely" when we have facts, and the facts we do have in this case leave A LOT of room for speculation, therefore it is not productive to shoot theories down as simply being "unlikely" when we know so little..... Especially when theories being shot down as "unlikely" or "implausible" are done so with little or no evidence to support their implausibility or unlikeliness..... 

So, as an addition to your post:

Unfortunately some people (I would never be so dishonest as to say "most people") can not separate themselves from their opinions regarding any given theory as being unlikely. So, they become angry if you point out that their doubts regarding a given theory are based upon nothing but their own opinion which they can not separate themselves from. So good luck.

Also, might I be so annoying as to pose the "should be obvious here" question?: ..... so, just where have all the "most probable theories about this guy" gotten LE over the past 30+ years? 

......... crickets ....... crickets ......

And people say that I like to argue.  Thank you for proving my point.  Ironically you and I seem to agree on every issue of this case.  You just seem to enjoy acting like all ideas are just as  likely.  I don't.  Also you tend to make it personal always saying that I am attacking other posters etc.  When in fact all I am doing is taking a close look at the ideas that they propose.  You believe that we can not determine if a theory is plausible or not.  I think that we can.  But not when people let their emotions and personal attachment to an idea get in the way.  You describe this as shooting down someones ideas.  I would describe it as using logic and critical thinking skills to sort the plausible from the implausible.  You keep trying to win this argument with me.  In fact many of the ideas posted here can be shown to be implausible if one takes the time to really consider them.

"Implausibility" is not a conclusion but rather another discussion point..... That is all I am really trying to say.... And, let's get real here... There is no "winning" a single damn thing here ( whatever the hell that even means in context) until this guy is caught/ identified and the facts start to float to the surface

[leviathan]

As someone who will toss out the "unlikely" challenge on more than a few theories, please allow me to elaborate/defend/clarify;

With human imagination anything is "possible." It is theoretically "possible" that GSK was possessed by Zuul and looking for the gatekeeper to unleash Gozer. It is "possible" that GSK was an alien who avoided detection by hot-wiring UFO's. At some point, to prevent us going so far down the rabbit hole we never emerge, theories need to be prioritized based upon the likelyhood that they could bear investigative fruit.

If a theory is "unlikely" based on available evidence, than it is the obligation of the theorizer to address why it deserves further scrutiny. It's not enough to just toss out something like "maybe GSK was a carny worker" and then demand others disprove it. There are an infinite # of "GSK could be..." scenarios.

I am not writing this to be directed at any specific person or theory. It's a general statement.

[ED5000]

Yeah, but no one here has suggested GSK was an alien or a UFO hot-wire expert.....

Things like wondering if he knew his victims somehow or if it wasn't him who dropped the lace at the Maggiori scene are written off as implausible...... What sort of evidence does one need to present something as merely possible? Until we know more there is no reason to write off any such theories, since there is no actual evidence that suggests they are unlikely ..... other than personal opinion.

If you ask me 50+ rapes and 12 murders, 30+ years of LE efforts and still no capture ........ is in itself implausible......

I'm beginning to wonder if we're (and LE) just plain wrong about a lot of things we take for granted with this case .... And I'm beginning to suspect that his (murder victims at least) victims were not exactly random..... ONE possible reason for his stopping in 86 would be because they were not random: he had gotten a bit too brazen at this point and hit a bit too close to home for comfort and the fear of God made him stop ..... I this theory likely? Plausible? ..... Well yes! And what is my evidence? ......... 

....... He stopped ........ And there has to be a reason why.

[leviathan]

Feb 24, 2014 22:15:34 GMT ED5000 said:

Yeah, but no one here has suggested GSK was an alien or a UFO hot-wire expert.....

Things like wondering if he knew his victims somehow or if it wasn't him who dropped the lace at the Maggiori scene are written off as implausible...... What sort of evidence does one need to present something as merely possible? Until we know more there is no reason to write off any such theories, since there is no actual evidence that suggests they are unlikely ..... other than personal opinion.

If you ask me 50+ rapes and 12 murders, 30+ years of LE efforts and still no capture ........ is in itself implausible......

No of course no one is suggesting an alien... I was using hyperbole.

A person needs to point to evidence in the case to champion a theory over another. Otherwise, there are infinite possibilities. Time and resources are limited (even if you're involvement doesn't extend beyond participating on this board) and at some point priorities and probabilities need to be established if any work is to ever get done.  Also, disproving a negative beyond any possible doubt is a fundamental impossibility based on simple logic principles.


Furthermore a theory has to be able to provide something tangible to the investigation in order to (hopefully) ID a suspect. For example, we could all go back and forth over the issue of whether GSK was abused by a parent or not. That might be interesting academically, but until he's caught there is no way to resolve the argument. AND, on top of that, being abused (or not) by a parent proves nothing and won't generate new names for POI's.

The real issue with "theories" isn't whether or not it's possible. It's whether or not that information could lead to his capture. That should be the determining criteria.

[ED5000]

Feb 24, 2014 22:31:36 GMT leviathan said:

Feb 24, 2014 22:15:34 GMT ED5000 said:

Yeah, but no one here has suggested GSK was an alien or a UFO hot-wire expert.....

Things like wondering if he knew his victims somehow or if it wasn't him who dropped the lace at the Maggiori scene are written off as implausible...... What sort of evidence does one need to present something as merely possible? Until we know more there is no reason to write off any such theories, since there is no actual evidence that suggests they are unlikely ..... other than personal opinion.

If you ask me 50+ rapes and 12 murders, 30+ years of LE efforts and still no capture ........ is in itself implausible......

No of course no one is suggesting an alien... I was using hyperbole.

A person needs to point to evidence in the case to champion a theory over another. Otherwise, there are infinite possibilities. Time and resources are limited (even if you're involvement doesn't extend beyond participating on this board) and at some point priorities and probabilities need to be established if any work is to ever get done.  Also, disproving a negative beyond any possible doubt is a fundamental impossibility based on simple logic principles.


Furthermore a theory has to be able to provide something tangible to the investigation in order to (hopefully) ID a suspect. For example, we could all go back and forth over the issue of whether GSK was abused by a parent or not. That might be interesting academically, but until he's caught there is no way to resolve the argument. AND, on top of that, being abused (or not) by a parent proves nothing and won't generate new names for POI's.

The real issue with "theories" isn't whether or not it's possible. It's whether or not that information could lead to his capture. That should be the determining criteria.

I'm not law enforcement and am under no illusions that I'm part of any "investigation" ...... Therefore, I can dream up any possibility I want .... Sorry. This is reality ...... Any/all theories I've put out there are indeed likely and plausible.... And I disagree about evidence needing to be there before a theory can possibly lead to his capture.... Yes, that is one route, but there is also the possibility that a theory when looked into might LEAD TO EVIDENCE being discovered.

[leviathan]

Please know that I'm not talking about any of your specific theories here- I'm talking in generalities.

Of course you can dream up any possibility you want. But in order for a theory to be valid (even just in the theoretical world of this board) you need to be able to
A) Point to why you have this theory
B) Be able to translate that theory into investigative action (even if you never actually take that action).


For example, I propose GSK simply stopped killing in 81 only to have a momentary relapse and kill Janelle Cruz.

A) Because other serial killers have demonstrated this pattern or behavior, there are no linked killings aside from Cruz after 81, had he been arrested and/or incarcerated it is more likely he would have been id'd.

B) Investigators should not rule out a POI just because he lived a quiet life in the years following '81.

As you can see A) is based on objective information about the case (other serial killers, lack of crimes) as well as some speculation (had he been arrested his name would have come up). B) details why this information would be important going forward in the investigation.

That is how theories put on this board need to work. If you can't do those two steps with your theory, sure it could be right, but it gets us nowhere.

[ED5000]

OK, then by that same token it should be a requirement to articulate just why one views any given theory as implausible or unlikely..... Either of those words alone or together do not cut it.

[leviathan]

Feb 24, 2014 22:58:47 GMT ED5000 said:

OK, then by that same token it should be a requirement to articulate just why one views any given theory as implausible or unlikely..... Either of those words alone or together do not cut it.

Absolutely. I apologize but I assumed that was a given.

[ED5000]

It hasn't been a given on this board, but I hear you......

[ED5000]

Here's an example of where I disagree with your approach..... Or rather, I don't disagree with it but don't think it has to be the only approach....

I happen to think that the Zodiac Killer simply stopped after he was just about caught in North Beach after shooting Paul Stine ...... Perhaps, it was similar with GSK: after killing Janelle Cruz, something happened in relation with this crime that put the fear of God into him ...... There is no hard evidence to support this. All we can do right here and now is wonder.... Did his wife start asking too many questions? Did LE come by and question him? ..... Here's the thing: though there may be no evidence to support this theory: what if action was taken to question people who were neighbors of Janelle's at that time or who were neighborhood friends (even going back to when she was little) and then perhaps someone will remember a Dad from a few blacks away who leered a bit too much or this or that, and then THIS will result in evidence?

All guesses but still the point should be clear.

[Deleted]

"No of course no one is suggesting an alien... I was using hyperbole."

Darnit, Leviathan...I LIKE the "GSK was an alien who avoided detection by hot-wiring UFO's" theory....

[ED5000]

Anyone got UFO sighting stats from 1976 - 86 in Nor and So Cal?

[leviathan]

Feb 24, 2014 23:18:20 GMT ED5000 said:

Here's an example of where I disagree with your approach..... Or rather, I don't disagree with it but don't think it has to be the only approach....

I happen to think that the Zodiac Killer simply stopped after he was just about caught in North Beach after shooting Paul Stine ...... Perhaps, it was similar with GSK: after killing Janelle Cruz, something happened in relation with this crime that put the fear of God into him ...... There is no hard evidence to support this. All we can do right here and now is wonder.... Did his wife start asking too many questions? Did LE come by and question him? ..... Here's the thing: though there may be no evidence to support this theory: what if action was taken to question people who were neighbors of Janelle's at that time or who were neighborhood friends (even going back to when she was little) and then perhaps someone will remember a Dad from a few blacks away who leered a bit too much or this or that, and then THIS will result in evidence?

All guesses but still the point should be clear.

As to your Zodiac point

A) Due to the fact that he interacted with police immediately after the commission of this crime and- despite his continued correspondence with the media- he stopped providing reliable evidence to any new crimes (which he had always done prior) it is likely that "Z" stopped after Stine.
B) LE should de-emphasize trying to link the vague clues in his subsequent letters to unsolved crimes and instead focus on other elements of the letters.

See, your theory is just fine.

As to investigating the neighbors- well there is nothing speculative about suggesting a course of action and then following where it leads.  However saying "We should interview the neighbors" (which you did) is very different from saying "Janelle Cruz knew her killer from the neighborhood."

[ED5000]

well put Leviathan

[albion]

I want to say I am really appreciating the discussion going on. I think ED5000 and Leviathan are discussing a topic that many of us could learn from. I say thank you gentlemen.

For those of you who haven't read Arthur Jones' memoirs, he has his moments. I included Reddings post also, it was the second one
in the thread. Jones was an intelligent hardworking egomaniac. He was also suspected by his own family of being a hitman. One of his best friends was said to have hunted south american villagers for sport. I found this stuff by ignoring what Redding says. Having rules are great if everyone follows them. But gsk didnt follow them. LE didnt. And lately it seems G has gone over the edge.

From Arthur Jones memoirs, Hetrick's father in law.
Such patterns of irrational behavior are obviously stamped into our genes; why else would we so consistently fail to learn from our
mistakes? People generally go through life as if they were a small cart with four flanged wheels running downhill along rails like a
train; seldom knowing what to expect next, and unable to avoid it even if they do know. Like a train, they do not seem to be able to get off that track without a wreck; whatever lies ahead of them they seemingly cannot avoid, and as they used to say on old maps . . . “In this area there be dragons.”
I have certainly met far more than my fair share of dragons, and usually could not avoid them even when I knew they were waiting just ahead. “When you step out of your house at night into the deep snow, and when you see the giant tracks of a dragon in the snow that are clearly revealed by the bright moonlight, and when you see the glow from the burning village, and hear the screams of the ravaged virgins, then why are you always surprised when you turn a corner and find yourself face to face with a dragon? You should be surprised if you did not meet a dragon.” A personal quote. One I should have paid more attention to myself.

Post by Redding.
"I like the idea of trying to identify the most probable theories about this guy. Unfortunately most people can not separate themselves from a theory that they are putting forward. So they become angry if you point out that their theory while possible is really not very likely. It seems like in my experience the more implausible the theory the angrier the poster gets when someone offers a counter point. So good luck."


From Wiki
A theory can be "normative (or prescriptive),[5] meaning a postulation about what ought to be. It provides "goals, norms, and standards".[6]

A theory can be a body of knowledge, which may or may not be associated with particular explanatory models. To theorize is to develop this body of knowledge.[7]