Comments by "Mark Armage" (@markarmage3776) on "" video.

First of all, this is a clickbait, he can't catch serial killers, he can only identify regions where they are active. And pretty sure that the FBI can, too. But they can't do anything about it. The guy they caught was a fluke. Serial killers are only noticeable if they work constantly, in span of years, not decades. Simply, you can't have a decades long investigation, because only after 30 years do you realize that it's a serial killer. And at that time, there would be no proof left of the cases, and the data of people during that 30 years is impossible to gather. Listen to the informant? For what? You have a serial killer? What you're going to do? No proof, no record, no suspect, you're just supposed to do what, exactly?
6
First of all, this is a clickbait, he can't catch serial killers, he can only identify regions where they are active. And pretty sure that the FBI can, too. But they can't do anything about it. The guy they caught was a fluke. Serial killers are only noticeable if they work constantly, in span of years, not decades. Simply, you can't have a decades long investigation, because only after 30 years do you realize that it's a serial killer. And at that time, there would be no proof.
1
@justanotherhappyhumanist8832 No, he can not, he identify a city, you call that identify, go back to school, kid. This guy hadn't done anything before this, he has no credibility, you say that your program works just because you think that it works? It's called lack of credibility, otherwise anybody could sue the government of ignoring testimony of Area 51. First off, you can not prove that there were a serial killer before you accidentally catch him, therefore your thesis is based on a false claim. It wasn't information, it's a speculation, study some law. The information was vague and completely useless. "You have a serial killer". That's it? Nothing else? I don't know if you went to college or not and even if you did, had you majored in history or anything but that's not how the law works. They didn't ignore it, there isn't anything there valid or useful to notice. Go back to school, kid.
1
@justanotherhappyhumanist8832 You claimed that you went to college, but judging by your way of analyzing something, you didn't go to a good one. Pathetic! First off, if you can't find holes in reasoning but can only find holes in grammar, it's best not using it as your only argument. It's just desperation. Second, no you can't prove that the program works. You can't say that something works just because it got something right, how about things that it got wrong? Ever heard of polygraph? You're going to judge a person's life based on a machine that you can only determine to be correct if you already know the result? Go to back to school and choose something better than English, idiot. That journalist has no credibility, he can a life long reporter on dairy product and his claim would still be as worthless as his claim when he is a criminal reporter. He reports, not investigate, he doesn't have any prove to link those cases, he isn't a witness in any case. The only thing he has is a sheet of data spanning decades of similar homicide cases, which the police also has but can't do anything. I don't know whether that "psychology" major taught you this, but evidence and crime scenes aren't preserved over decades. If the killer threw the body in the river then that river spot is now an entirely different spot. Here's some scientific knowledge, water moves in a river. And that's just it, it destroy any argument that you can make up to save your face. The crime scene was destroyed, damaged, witnesses are lost, that psychology major didn't do much as in how you thought that witnesses have memories going back decades. And then your thesis of serial killer being around just because you have cases with similarities? By following that theory, you ignore every other possibility, such as there's a hitmen for hire using the same method, strangling is not that uncommon. You have to reopen a case that you have nothing to go on, there's no witness, no evidence left, nothing, no connections between victims as in how serial killers choose victims at random. So there, kid. Your thesis is as dumb as it gets. But go ahead, I dare you to sue the police department, if you're confident on your "legal" opinion, publish an article, you're going to be ignored, as in how like I pointed out, your opinion is pure trash. Your major in English doesn't do you any good except finding grammatical mistake, which you can also do with a free software online. Go back to school and study something that can contribute to the society, idiot. Stop promoting delusional action. Police are supposed to look at credible lead, this guy is a reporter whose lead is nothing except his self-made algorithm, worked on using his and his opinions alone, that's not a lead, that's a farce. Actual leads are evidence, footage, murder weapons found, not opinion. IDIOT! You think that something will definitely work just because it worked once or twice without any reasons to back it up? How about getting a job in economics and see how that kind of thinking destroy markets when you don't think before applying a principle.
1