ticket stubs, ripped off badge,watch, veins ( doesn't work irl btw) all were hidden information. The show needs to make it seem like an amazing deduction is made and that sherlock is an extremely smart detective but if the audience can figure it out before sherlock then it doesnt create that effect.
@@ZqTi0 I think the show would be much better served if they were to give you a 3d scan of the body in excruciating detail as well as surrounded evidence of the crime scene and then allow the audience 30 minutes of time to themselves, all so they can solve the death of a minor character whose mainly there to set up the rest of the subplot and show how the smart guy is smart.
@@deadluk3 What is more fun; learning about the details of the crime at the same time as Sherlock, watching him analyze them, and then still being impressed when he shows how the information led to conclusions we didn't even think to consider, or watching Sherlock internally use his mental superpowers to think for a minute, ramble off a bunch of details that we haven't seen, and then make a massive amount of completely unfounded assumptions that end up being right only because the writers need him to be right? The former is what made Sherlock Holmes a household name the world over for 140 years because every generation since then has been able to enjoy that experience. The latter is flashy, insubstantial, and giving the impression of crafting a well-made mystery without having actually done it. The BBC's Sherlock is, to quote Shakespeare, "...a walking shadow; a poor player, that struts and frets his hour upon the stage, and then is heard no more: it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."
Sherlock is extremely observant and knowledgeable, he observes every details carefully to look for clues and proceed to link them together after thorough thinking and reasoning
Read the books - these programmes are shite - you do need a victorian vocabulary though - hope you are good at English. Sherlock is not extremely observant and knowledgable - he didn't exist - Arthur Conan Doyle was and did indeed solve some mysteries the police couldn't -IN REAL LIFE. Remember the difference between reality and fiction. I bet you think star destoyers exist - wake up.
Fun fact! Sherlock is not using deductive reasoning here! In fact, one of his most repeated quotes "When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." perfectly describes abductive reasoning. Just remember deductions are things that cannot be false inductions are things we have no evidence against and abductions are what ever is most likely to be true
The victim was dressed as a security guard. From the attire, his ID badge that says 'Security Guard' and the fact that written in his last moments in an attempt to identity the killer, written in the sand was 'I am a security guard.' Of course, this is a fabrication. A misdirection. The body was dead for over 24 hours and the tide in the bay rises 4 inches per hour until 4 am. The body was definitely below the standard sea level 24 hours ago so how could the indentations in the sand be visible even after covered by sea water? Simple. It was a set-up. Something to cover the killer's tracks. He wanted us- the police to realise he was a security guard, dressing him up in excessively large clothing to make us THINK he was a security guard as is a standard issue uniform. 'But Sherlock... what if the guy just likes baggy clothes?' Nonsense. No one likes baggy clothes. It's definitely a false front. And according to my deduction, I believe I know who is the killer. 'Who... who could it be?' Since the killer recently returned to the crime of the scene to set up false evidence in the sand and the police have set up cameras around the scene as means of capturing evidence in the past hours, the killer must be- 'It can't be. It was an inside job?' No. Don't be ridiculous. There's a surveillance there, is there not? The killer was captured on tape. Case solved. 'Brilliant deduction Sherlock.'
Something i noticed about the reaction that Sherlock had with John's exclamation of “Fantastic!” After Sherlock just deduced all of this and John thought it was fantastic but Sherlock didn’t notice the admiration in johns statement he thought this whole fake painting business was “Meretricious.” And yes a good joke was said, but in actual true meaning of Sherlock's word choice He was referring to Watson no the fake painting is not fantastic Watson or is any of this is close to being fantastic it’s Meretricious So what’s an example of meretricious behaviour? Have you ever heard the phrase "fake it until you make it"? That is advice that encourages you to be meretricious, pretending to be something you aren't, like the meretricious flaunting of gigantic fake diamond earrings, pretending they are real - and that you can afford them. Sherlock never noticed the compliment John said “Fantastic”
@@SubduedRadicaltrue, but then again. You can, for example, blunt idea, bring Irene Adler back as Sherlock's love interest, and that John's bus girl as his, and have it go in that direction
1:18 "He's been in the river a long while..." 3:01 "No no, the buttons are stiff, hardly touched." I wonder if being in a river for a long while could make buttons sticky, Sherlock.
Only the ticket stub one seems reasonable. Many people just don't get shirts that are the proper size. Maybe then a normal cop would go to the place where he got the ticket with a picture of his face and immediately find out he worked there. Then maybe you could say that they must have killed him on his shift. I don't think it's easy to know they were interrupted when undressing him. I wouldn't know to undress the guy. But if you know there was a crime that took place during his shift then you could lock the place down and stop all current auctions. Sherlock is hardly needed.
Joke's on Sherlock, the killer deducted that Sherlock would deduce that so he staged the killing like that to send him on the wrong quest! Moriarty is brilliant
Omg the bloke dressed as a security guard who's been in the water a wee while - is a security guard that works nearby! Shocking. The rest is nonsense. You can't assume a dude was murdered by an assassin cause he was strangled. And you also can't assume it's that specific security guard without seeing his face to confirm.
You can. Missing persons report gives age and body type most often, along with what the person was last seen wearing. I doubt there are many fat security guards working alongside the river that just so happen to be reported missing just that morning
@@kiratherenegade1561 yes, but it gives you a starting point to begin investigating with. Sherlock doesn't solve the whole case by looking at 1 body, each clue is a piece of a puzzle. Without that assumption, you'd have to wait days, maybe weeks for DNA/dental analysis to come back with who the body belonged to, and by then the trail would have gone cold
@@kiratherenegade1561 if we followed your method instead of Sherlock's, you'd have lost track of the suspect. There's a reason why you aren't writing detective novels or scripts, because a passive protagonist who does nothing but wait is fucking boring
It's absolutely hilarious how they try to sell basic most obvious deductions as some kind of genius logic. THE GUY WAS LITERALLY DRESSED LIKE A SECURITY GUARD.
I think that was the point of Sherlock’s whole “meretricious” comment when John said the deduction was fantastic. It looks fancy on the surface to John and Lestrade in the moment, but there’s really not much to it.
@@Karie62983 True, but part of it is also how quickly he figured it out, and the specifics he got from it. Not only did he figure out it was a security guard with no emblem, badge, or iconography, but he further deduced - and confirmed - what he might have been a security guard of, what was going on at that venue that might have been important, how he died, who probably killed him, and why. Not to mention "security guard" and "normal person in business casual" look fairly similar in this case, so it could easily have NOT been a security guard, as he notes with John's suggestions of alternatives. It's one thing to say "Well, yeah, he's dressed kind of like a security guard". It's quite another to say "I've confirmed he's a security guard, specifically missing from this specific museum, which is doing this specific thing, how he was killed is the trademark of this specific assassin, and if he was assassinated, the most likely conclusion has to do with this new unveiling."
What always get me it when Sherlock lay it all out, it seems so simple and easy.
Sherlock hid the ticket stubs though. That was the key piece of evidence to tie him to a gallery and that's what makes this conclusion make sense.
ticket stubs, ripped off badge,watch, veins ( doesn't work irl btw) all were hidden information. The show needs to make it seem like an amazing deduction is made and that sherlock is an extremely smart detective but if the audience can figure it out before sherlock then it doesnt create that effect.
@@ZqTi0no no, he just is the smart, don't ruin the fun!
@@ZqTi0 I think the show would be much better served if they were to give you a 3d scan of the body in excruciating detail as well as surrounded evidence of the crime scene and then allow the audience 30 minutes of time to themselves, all so they can solve the death of a minor character whose mainly there to set up the rest of the subplot and show how the smart guy is smart.
@@deadluk3 What is more fun; learning about the details of the crime at the same time as Sherlock, watching him analyze them, and then still being impressed when he shows how the information led to conclusions we didn't even think to consider, or watching Sherlock internally use his mental superpowers to think for a minute, ramble off a bunch of details that we haven't seen, and then make a massive amount of completely unfounded assumptions that end up being right only because the writers need him to be right? The former is what made Sherlock Holmes a household name the world over for 140 years because every generation since then has been able to enjoy that experience. The latter is flashy, insubstantial, and giving the impression of crafting a well-made mystery without having actually done it. The BBC's Sherlock is, to quote Shakespeare, "...a walking shadow; a poor player, that struts and frets his hour upon the stage, and then is heard no more: it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."
3:48
(J) Fantastic!
(S) Meretricious.
(L) And a happy new year!
One of the best bits in the show XD
i don't get it. is this a kind of joke? can you explain?
@@MissKshesinska The point is that Lestrade thinks he says "Merry Christmas", and responds accordingly
@@gracenewsom4694Not only Lestrade, but I just realized that since 10 years years ago the first time I'm watching. 😂
Fun fact: Even Lestrad is a detective 🙏
Haha good one
How is that a "fun" fact - have you read the books - "Inspector Lestrade" f**k your emojis.
@@DavidHarvey-po9le 🤗
Sherlock is extremely observant and knowledgeable, he observes every details carefully to look for clues and proceed to link them together after thorough thinking and reasoning
Nothing gets past you! 😂
you sound like chatgpt 😂
Read the books - these programmes are shite - you do need a victorian vocabulary though - hope you are good at English. Sherlock is not extremely observant and knowledgable - he didn't exist - Arthur Conan Doyle was and did indeed solve some mysteries the police couldn't -IN REAL LIFE. Remember the difference between reality and fiction. I bet you think star destoyers exist - wake up.
Fun fact! Sherlock is not using deductive reasoning here!
In fact, one of his most repeated quotes "When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." perfectly describes abductive reasoning.
Just remember
deductions are things that cannot be false
inductions are things we have no evidence against
and abductions are what ever is most likely to be true
No Abductions is kidnapping - SHERLOCK.
John: "Alright, girls...calm down!" 🤣🤣🤣🤣
Since when Sherlock is a girl
@@Ghostbusters4life Since Lestrade is one too, apparently.
Sherlock: What do you know about the Gollum?
John: He likes riddles.
Sherlock: No, "l-l-u-m" not "l-e-m"
John: Oh! Then nothing
You have it backwards. Golem is the one from the show. Gollum is lord of the rings.
The victim was dressed as a security guard. From the attire, his ID badge that says 'Security Guard' and the fact that written in his last moments in an attempt to identity the killer, written in the sand was 'I am a security guard.'
Of course, this is a fabrication. A misdirection. The body was dead for over 24 hours and the tide in the bay rises 4 inches per hour until 4 am.
The body was definitely below the standard sea level 24 hours ago so how could the indentations in the sand be visible even after covered by sea water? Simple. It was a set-up. Something to cover the killer's tracks. He wanted us- the police to realise he was a security guard, dressing him up in excessively large clothing to make us THINK he was a security guard as is a standard issue uniform.
'But Sherlock... what if the guy just likes baggy clothes?'
Nonsense. No one likes baggy clothes. It's definitely a false front. And according to my deduction, I believe I know who is the killer.
'Who... who could it be?'
Since the killer recently returned to the crime of the scene to set up false evidence in the sand and the police have set up cameras around the scene as means of capturing evidence in the past hours, the killer must be-
'It can't be. It was an inside job?'
No. Don't be ridiculous. There's a surveillance there, is there not? The killer was captured on tape. Case solved.
'Brilliant deduction Sherlock.'
It's quite similar to when David Tennant's 10th Doctor used to reason through something.
Something i noticed about the reaction that Sherlock had with John's exclamation of “Fantastic!”
After Sherlock just deduced all of this and John thought it was fantastic
but Sherlock didn’t notice the admiration in johns statement
he thought this whole fake painting business was “Meretricious.”
And yes a good joke was said, but in actual true meaning of Sherlock's word choice
He was referring to Watson
no the fake painting is not fantastic Watson
or is any of this is close to being fantastic it’s Meretricious
So what’s an example of meretricious behaviour?
Have you ever heard the phrase "fake it until you make it"? That is advice that encourages you to be meretricious, pretending to be something you aren't, like the meretricious flaunting of gigantic fake diamond earrings, pretending they are real - and that you can afford them.
Sherlock never noticed the compliment John said “Fantastic”
Sherlock and Watson are like House and Wilson😂
House is inspired by Sherlock so i assume Wilson would be inspired by Watson it’s so great lol
Came to see Sherlock doing some fun “deductions” and found out aMaZiNg detectives in the comments
Bring it back!
To be fair, it's probably difficult to consistently make something of this high quality and good stories.
@@SubduedRadicaltrue, but then again. You can, for example, blunt idea, bring Irene Adler back as Sherlock's love interest, and that John's bus girl as his, and have it go in that direction
@@angelic_bloodbaththe girl on the bus was euros??
Fuck no. The last seasons went to absolute shit
True. But I meant bring IT ⬆️ back, as it was
1:18 "He's been in the river a long while..."
3:01 "No no, the buttons are stiff, hardly touched."
I wonder if being in a river for a long while could make buttons sticky, Sherlock.
Gerçekten inanılmaz bir sahne
Only the ticket stub one seems reasonable. Many people just don't get shirts that are the proper size. Maybe then a normal cop would go to the place where he got the ticket with a picture of his face and immediately find out he worked there. Then maybe you could say that they must have killed him on his shift. I don't think it's easy to know they were interrupted when undressing him. I wouldn't know to undress the guy.
But if you know there was a crime that took place during his shift then you could lock the place down and stop all current auctions. Sherlock is hardly needed.
Nice observation on the bruises 👌 👍🏼 👏 😀
Çekim falan çok güzel de şu 1:57 deki ne ya :D. Bütün ciddiyetimi kaybettim orada
Now people find most of the deduction fake 😂😂
Joke's on Sherlock, the killer deducted that Sherlock would deduce that so he staged the killing like that to send him on the wrong quest! Moriarty is brilliant
I am there right now
meretricious not MERRY XMAS!!
which season and episode is this????
season 1 episode 3 the greatest game
Series Name??
BBC Sherlock. I must warn you there isn't all that much detective work, you get one of these scenes per episode if you're lucky
Omg the bloke dressed as a security guard who's been in the water a wee while - is a security guard that works nearby!
Shocking.
The rest is nonsense. You can't assume a dude was murdered by an assassin cause he was strangled. And you also can't assume it's that specific security guard without seeing his face to confirm.
You can. Missing persons report gives age and body type most often, along with what the person was last seen wearing. I doubt there are many fat security guards working alongside the river that just so happen to be reported missing just that morning
@@ironboy3245
Assumptions, however unlikely, form an incomplete analysis.
@@kiratherenegade1561 yes, but it gives you a starting point to begin investigating with. Sherlock doesn't solve the whole case by looking at 1 body, each clue is a piece of a puzzle. Without that assumption, you'd have to wait days, maybe weeks for DNA/dental analysis to come back with who the body belonged to, and by then the trail would have gone cold
@@ironboy3245
"Yes, but" 🤫
@@kiratherenegade1561 if we followed your method instead of Sherlock's, you'd have lost track of the suspect. There's a reason why you aren't writing detective novels or scripts, because a passive protagonist who does nothing but wait is fucking boring
O.O
buggers not burgers. Seriously!
Benedict cumberbatch mon amour j'aime trop forts non amour rêve toi corps ❤❤❤❤❤ trop forts beaux amoureux Benedict cumberbatch ❤❤❤❤lolo
john knows nothing. Greg has to tell him. What a loser. He says, Sherlock tells us the story. I thought you were a colleague. NOT!!
It's absolutely hilarious how they try to sell basic most obvious deductions as some kind of genius logic. THE GUY WAS LITERALLY DRESSED LIKE A SECURITY GUARD.
I think that was the point of Sherlock’s whole “meretricious” comment when John said the deduction was fantastic. It looks fancy on the surface to John and Lestrade in the moment, but there’s really not much to it.
@@Karie62983 True, but part of it is also how quickly he figured it out, and the specifics he got from it. Not only did he figure out it was a security guard with no emblem, badge, or iconography, but he further deduced - and confirmed - what he might have been a security guard of, what was going on at that venue that might have been important, how he died, who probably killed him, and why. Not to mention "security guard" and "normal person in business casual" look fairly similar in this case, so it could easily have NOT been a security guard, as he notes with John's suggestions of alternatives.
It's one thing to say "Well, yeah, he's dressed kind of like a security guard". It's quite another to say "I've confirmed he's a security guard, specifically missing from this specific museum, which is doing this specific thing, how he was killed is the trademark of this specific assassin, and if he was assassinated, the most likely conclusion has to do with this new unveiling."
People miss out the obvious all the time
hmm kk@@Karie62983
Sherlock Holmes 1984 is still better.
What episode is this??
Season 1 episode 3