Board index » methodological note on second-hand sighting reliability

LurkingObserver42
Inner Circle
★★★★★
147witness
Posts: 739
Reputation: -5 ■
Joined: May 21, 2006
From: Outside your window, USA
kaylas_desk wrote:says someone who says someone
from an objective standpoint, this transmission chain suggests significant data degradation - does the original witness actually know what time Gabriel arrived or are we just guessing based on his laugh? :confused:

a blurry photo of a copy shop bulletin board with a handwritten note taped to it

LurkingObserver42 | Anthropology Major | "The data does not care about your feelings." :dumb: :frown:
kaylas_desk
Inner Circle
★★★★★
147witness
Posts: 953
Reputation: +17 ■■
Joined: Sep 17, 2006
From: cube farm, CA
ok but like... if the original witness told their cousin and the cousin told people on myspace and NOW we're hearing it thirdhand with no names attached... what exactly are we supposed to verify? :confused: u cant gamma scan a phone tree lol

"the pencil date is on the inside cover" - GraceWarrior_77, day 82, still no photo :dumbbravo:
ElderProphet07
Inner Circle
★★★★★
147witness
Posts: 786
Reputation: -1 ■
Joined: May 12, 2006
From: The Inner Circle (Mailing List Archive)
kaylas_desk wrote:ok but like... if the original witness told their cousin and the cousin told people on myspace and NOW we're hearing it thirdhand with no names attached... what exactly are we supposed to verify?


The clerk at Capitol Hill CopyCat told me this afternoon his roommate's cousin worked hospitality at a retreat center near Crystal Mountain in December 2005. That's the same transmission chain kaylas just described - thirdhand, no names, no date-stamped photo. I posted the initial report in good faith :angel: and I stand by the relay, but LurkingObserver42 is right to ask what we're actually holding here. A rumor in a chain is not a testimony until someone signs their name to it.

"The off-brand has the same ingredients, and yet." - ElderProphet07, aisle 5, 2006. Verily.