Search this Topic:
Jul 31 11 4:14 PM
For what reason do these aliens need to abduct so many modern humans,
why are most of them native to North America
Jul 31 11 4:27 PM
No they can't. Obviously you haven't read their reports. If you had, there would be no doubt in you mind that no other explanation is possible. They reported facts, not theories. And the facts are amazing.
The facts may be amazing, that however does not mean the phenomena reported is explained as Alien/Super advanced technology, and does not rule out Misinterpretation of natural phenomena.
These pesky aliens spend a lot of time teasing us don't they.
It seems it's possible for humans using current technology to observe each other and go undetected, yet these aliens, with their ever so advanced and clever technology don't seem able to manage simple stealth technology. Yet we appear to have done a much better job even with our current level of science and technology.
Jul 31 11 5:04 PM
Custodian of Castle Anthrax
witch doctors on dream quests are eliminated. _DG
"Asshemble da Minyons!!!!" - Dispicable me.Come to Woody's Diner for Classic Hot Discussions.Ask for the Secrent Ingredient Soup
Jul 31 11 6:35 PM
Nope. Never said that. You too are using it wrong. I gave a proper use example in my math model thread for using project blue book stats. There the question I answered was the probability of experiencing one or more events that would result in being classified as "unknown" -- such as approximately 700 out of 13,000 investigated cases recorded in project blue book. However, in regard to bigfoot, I'll leave the term "bigfoot" to mean anything left once all otherwise native creatures such as bears, deer, moose or witch doctors on dream quests are eliminated.
As I've already stated, it is your assumptions that are wrong. the probability of what is left after you've manage to sift out anything that can be explained being anything other than Unexplained (or unexplainable, from the known facts) is zero.
In other words to assume that because the residue cannot be explained in terms of misinterpreted natural phenomena or ordinary human technology, from the facts, as related, is in fact anything other than misinterpreted natural phenomena or ordinary human technology, is wrong. With no evidence that the unexplained residue are other than misinterpreted natural phenomena or ordinary human technology you cannot reasonably assume that the unexplained residue is Alien/Super advanced technology.
The fact that there is an unexplained residue does not preclude the probability that they are, in fact misinterpreted natural phenomena or ordinary human technology, and the probability of them being Alien/Super advanced technology is still the same as it was before you began the sorting process, that is to say so close to zero there's no practical difference.
The same argument applies to "Big Foot". The fact that there are some reports that cannot, from the facts presented, be explained as misinterpreted natural phenomena/human artifacts, does not preclude the probabilty that they are in fact misinterpreted natural phenomena/human artifacts, and not a species of Ape native to North America.
Given the evidence presented by Rambo re Apes native to Northa America, I'd have to say that the probability of the unexplained UFO sighting actually being Alien/Super advance technology, is considerably higher than the probability of the unexplained "Big Foot" sightings being an Ape native to North America.
Jul 31 11 8:55 PM
Jul 31 11 9:00 PM
It appears then, that this is even more pointless than I thought.
Jul 31 11 9:04 PM
Jul 31 11 9:07 PM
Jul 31 11 9:21 PM
Aug 1 11 4:01 AM
Aug 1 11 4:39 AM
the main purpose of science is to be able to predict and model things. Some members here seem to think its function is just hypothesis verification.
Where your past data is composed of strictly Xs and Ys, you can use my equation of establishing the probability of encountering one or more Xs given n new trials.
In my use for bigfoot at POW Island, I admittedly make the assumption that the natives can tell the difference between bears, deer, moose and the like. They live very directly with nature in a way far more intimate than most of us. Thus I further assume that they are encountering something not explainable as bears, deer, moose and the like.
Aug 1 11 8:20 AM
Aug 1 11 11:26 AM
"witch doctors on dream quests are eliminated. _DGDon't forget shamans on Vision Quests either."same thing. This is a known activity in the Vancover region.
generalizing ...assuming that a body of trials data consisting of Xs and Ys outcomes exists for a region or group, one can anticipate the probability of finding one or more Xs in any new set of similar data in accordance with the same equation: P = [1 - (1 - pX)^n] where pX is the ratio of Xs/(Xs + Ys) of the original data set.Example:Let X represent a random encounter in which X is thought to not be any common creature currently known to humanity. And let Y be random encounters thought originally to be of X but later confirmed/explained as not X. Then given an original data base of Xs and Ys, one can predict the probability of getting one or more new X cases given n new cases using the general equation listed above.
Aug 1 11 11:38 AM
Aug 1 11 12:25 PM
Aug 1 11 12:40 PM
Aug 1 11 12:49 PM
Aug 1 11 1:05 PM
The question then becomes what is the probability P that one or more valid "bigfoot" creature sightings has been experienced in a particular region over time via different witnesses on different days...
From the numbers, one readily observes that any reasonably large sample of reported sightings by different witnesses yields a conclusion near certainty, even when the probability of misidentification is unreasonably high... From this information, I feel it is reasonable to conclude that some kind of ape or ape-man type creature does live in seclusion in various wild, lowly populated regions where game/food is abundant and where civilization is scarce. (emphasis added)
You continue to miss the point. I do not contend that things classified as "unknown" are anything other than unknown. And I do accept that which is labeled(sic) as "explainable" as simply that (whether I agree with the explanation or not). Thus when I make the ratio of past unknown to past total events reported, that is exactly all that is and nothing more (by definition). Then by subtracting this ratio from 1, I resolve the value for pa. Once this is defined from past history, I go forward with my equation to determine if when given n new events reported, what would be the probability of having one or more new cases (of the sample n) that will eventually be resolved as "unknown."
Aug 1 11 5:11 PM
The Out Campaign
© 2017 Yuku. All rights reserved.