
Re: LUCY: ``Yes, we have no bananas!"
Ed Conrad (edconrad@prolog.net)
22 Nov 1996 09:06:03 GMT
Kathy McIntosh <postmaster@vineries.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <3289792b.3697880@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
> fmurray@pobox >writes:
>>what i find interesting here is that the ratio of the largest
>>refuter's figure to the smallest refuter's figure is larger than the
>>ratio of ed's figure to the largest refuter's figure...this becomes
>>true if we take socrates "few hundred yards" to mean a figure above
>>approx. 132 feet...as we use a larger value for socrate's "few hundred
>>yards" (his phrase justifies using a larger value), the ratio between
>>the largest of the refuter's figure and the smallest of the refuter's
>>figures becomes a multiple of the ratio between ed's figure and the
>>largest of the refuter's figures....
>>
>>perhaps something might be wrong with the refuter's figures??...
>>
>>frank
>My God! I didn't know you needed a higher degree in convoluted logic to
>read this newsgroup!
>Couldn't you have put the above in plain English?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Kathy, you're perfectly right. But don't be too hard on Professor
Murray. After all, he has had a lot on his mind, what with the new
baby.
I'll do my best to simply it for you.
What Professor Murray was trying to say is that
the ratio of the largest refuter's figure (in the vast area of where
all of the bits and pieces that make up approximately 37.85 percent of
Lucy were found, even though some certainly weren't part of
him/her/it, since they weren't the right size or didn't quite match
the aging fossilization coloration of many of the larger bits and
pieces thought to be part of the actual skeleton (which, incidentally,
had been on display for quite time in the American Museum of Natural
History) to the smallest refuter's figure actually reveals that the
larger of the ratio of the figure to which I had alluded (when making
the statement, challenging the size of the geographical area in which
various bones that constitute the Lucy skeleton was found 
supposedly as wide as a square mile  only to be confronted with
criticism in certain circles by those who insisted that incorrect
figures and information had been used in my calculations, and that
they, not I, was correct in the implying that the ratio information
supposed pertinent to the case, had been gathered out of context),
therefore negating the news group item originally posted that the
largest refuter's figure does indeed fail to match the ratio of the
figure first presented by the original refuter.
The plain and simple fact is that, if we want factual information
about the ratio of the discovery of all of the bits and pieces that
constitute approximately 37.85 percent, more or less, of Lucy,
because of their importance, we can take socrates' statement, based on
what he has read about this discovery in several books and periodicals
over the past few years, of a "few hundred yards" to mean a figure
above approximately 132 feet, or, if we wish, to use a larger value
for socrate's "few hundred yards" (to justify his phrase in which he
 correctly (possibly incorrectly), uses a larger value, hence
reducing the ratio of the orginal refuter's figure in a comparison
with the smaller ratio figure, or by simply taking 67 percent
(actually 66.7334621 percent) of both numbers and dividing by 4.652 in
which the difference in ratio would preclude an answer that would be
more in line with the square footage of the area in which Lucy was
found.
Hence, the ratio figure presented by the presenter of the largest
ratio figure, when compared with the figure given for the largest
ratio figure, emphaticlly proves the point that they either are using
incorrect data, improper figures or had their cerebellum whacked out
because of lack of oxygen at 35,000 feet on the flight back from
Africa.
As you can see, Kathy, it's really very simple. You do not have to be
a rocket scientist to figure this one out.
Cordially,
Ed Conrad
