Are You A Quack?

[DaveC426913]

How do you know? UFO's don't appear that often. And by the time you see it, you don't have time to point your phone at it to take a picture. 78 good photos is about right.Not to mention the thousands we don't know about.

You're missing the point. This is straight math.

Say a white apparition has been spotting fluttering by my (extended) family's window at what seems to be hundreds of times in a year, though we have no idea when it will go by.

For the first year, I check the window every few minutes, and I only have my camera with me 10% of that time.
For the second year, all 10 of my family check the window, and we all have cameras 100% of that time.

If I managed to get 10 shots of this 'ghost' in the first year, the math shows that, between us, we will manage to get 100 shots in the second year, just by the fact that our opportunity to take a pic is 100x greater.

The math is inescapable. Few samplings = poor representation (such as a false positive). More samplings = more accurate results (a false positive, if it exists, will be eliminated).

This works the other way too. If I am at the window 100x more often, and I see a white ghost less often, that strongly indicates that the sightings are a false positive.


Let me re-iterate: if - as the number data points increase (in this case - cameras-in-hands) - the results do not go up - or worse go down - that is a very strong indicator that the original sparse data was finding a false positive.

So, profoundly fewer pics, despite an (orders of magnitude) increase in opportunity, is a strong indicator of false positives.

 

[Magical Realist]

If I managed to get 10 shots of the horse in the first year, the math shows that, between us, we will manage to get 100 shots in the second year, just by the fact that our opportunity to take a pic is 100x greater.

Depends entirely on the frequency of the appearances of the horse. Maybe he doesn't make 100 appearances. Maybe he makes only about 30 appearances in a year. Maybe he runs by late at night many times. Getting 10 was pretty good then. And 10 more family members not getting many shots doesn't mean the horse wasn't there. Factor in that catching a ufo on camera is far less likely than photographing a known horse running by your window and we get a sense of the problem here.

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

Depends entirely on the frequency of the appearances of the horse. Maybe he doesn't make 100 appearances.

and again, you missed the point
if you have only 1 horse in a field, but the population is orders of magnitude higher than the last time said horse was in said field...

but you're not ready to actually follow the evidence because you want so strongly to believe in your delusion

Factor in that catching a ufo on camera is far less likely than photographing a known horse running by your window and we get a sense of the problem here.

except that you're making a claim that UFO's are far more prevalent than the one horse a century ....

 

[billvon]

and again, you missed the point.

I don't think math is his strong point; your efforts may be to no avail.

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

I don't think math is his strong point; your efforts may be to no avail.

LMFAO
great point
but it is primarily DaveC426913

 

[Magical Realist]

 

[Magical Realist]

Note also more cellphones means more people looking down all the time and not observing strange things in the sky. It's a matter of paying attention, which cellphones definitely do not encourage.

 

[DaveC426913]

Here's a gallery of 9000 ufo photos. Somebody's capturing them on camera..

http://www.worldufophotos.org/#/gal...r-sadelegg-switzerland-billy-meier-copyright/

Actually it's a gallery of 9000 UFO/CGI/Photoshop pictures in an unknown ratio:

The curator makes no attempt to distinguish between bona fide incidents and known fakes. For example:

http://www.worldufophotos.org/#/gal...6-07-capitola-calif-ufo-casebook-billy-booth/

or birds:

http://www.worldufophotos.org/#/gallery/ufo-gallery-2/5-16-09-phoenix-arizona-mufon/

or lenticular clouds:

http://www.worldufophotos.org/#/gallery/ufo-gallery-1/3-10-02-calais-region-france/

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

There is a debate section here I notice...it is a long time since it has been used.
It is a pity this stuff is not taken there as the premise of the op seems well established.
I enjoy the nonseness but I believe so much is lost when the science section drops to what we are seeing here.
MR could you think about something you would like to debate?

Alex

 

[Magical Realist]

There is a debate section here I notice...it is a long time since it has been used.
It is a pity this stuff is not taken there as the premise of the op seems well established.
I enjoy the nonseness but I believe so much is lost when the science section drops to what we are seeing here.
MR could you think about something you would like to debate?

Alex

No, I'm fine. Is there something you want to debate? Then go start a debate.

 

[Magical Realist]

Actually it's a gallery of 9000 UFO/CGI/Photoshop pictures in an unknown ratio:

The curator makes no attempt to distinguish between bona fide incidents and known fakes. For example:

http://www.worldufophotos.org/#/gal...6-07-capitola-calif-ufo-casebook-billy-booth/

or birds:

http://www.worldufophotos.org/#/gallery/ufo-gallery-2/5-16-09-phoenix-arizona-mufon/

or lenticular clouds:

http://www.worldufophotos.org/#/gallery/ufo-gallery-1/3-10-02-calais-region-france/

You used the plural "known fakes". Perhaps you could point them out to us now

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

No, I'm fine. Is there something you want to debate? Then go start a debate.

No ...just asking.
I have never been in a real debate.
I suggested considering it because I thought you may enjoy it.
Maybe the debate section should be closed as there is no participation.
Alex

 

[iceaura]

I don't think "quack" is the right term, though.

Here's 78 photos of ufos since the year 2000. Doesn't look like fewer to me.

http://www.ufoevidence.org/photographs/decadepage/post2000/0.htm

It looks like fewer to me. A couple of dozen of the same fuzzy little round blobs and lights somewhere in the distance we've been getting since Polaroid became a household word, plus a barrage of better photoshop scams. When was autofocus invented, anyway?

 

[Magical Realist]

It looks like fewer to me.

Really? How many photos from the 1980's before there were cellphones?

I don't think "quack" is the right term, though.

It looks like fewer to me. A couple of dozen of the same fuzzy little round blobs and lights somewhere in the distance we've been getting since Polaroid became a household word, plus a barrage of better photoshop scams. When was autofocus invented, anyway?

LOL! You've obviously never photographed a quickly moving object before. You can't autofocus that away. Oh and a blurry ufo is still a ufo. Blurriness doesn't mean it wasn't real. And tell me which were photoshopped. You seem to be an expert in this area.

 

[wegs]

Am I open minded enough to think that UFO's and alien life exists in the universe? Yes. But, when I see so many of these types of circulated photos about ''sightings''...it just seems like there is a more likely explanation, as in someone tampering with special effects, etc..

 

[Magical Realist]

Am I open minded enough to think that UFO's and alien life exists in the universe? Yes. But, when I see so many of these types of circulated photos about ''sightings''...it just seems like there is a more likely explanation, as in someone tampering with special effects, etc..

There IS no more likely explanation for a metallic disc flying in the sky. We can CLAIM photoshopping, but then we have photos and eyewitness accounts going all the way back to the 40's on these. People SEE flying saucers, especially pilots, and they capture pictures of flying saucers, even before the age of photoshop. That's pretty compelling stuff..

 

[billvon]

There IS no more likely explanation for a metallic disc flying in the sky.

Other than a photographic artifact. Or an actual flying silver disk. (We built quite a few of them.) Or a frisbee. Or fraud. All are all more likely explanations, since all of them have in fact happened in reality, whereas alien UFO's have happened only in your imagination.

People SEE flying saucers, especially pilots, and they capture pictures of flying saucers, even before the age of photoshop.

The first fraudulent UFO was created in 1897. Lots of people saw it. No "photoshop" needed. In 1947 the first "alien autopsy" fraud was created. Again no "photoshop" needed.

 

[Magical Realist]

Wegs, here's the first video footage ever made of ufos.

 

[Magical Realist]

Other than a photographic artifact. Or an actual flying silver disk. (We built quite a few of them.) Or a frisbee. Or fraud. All are all more likely explanations, since all of them have in fact happened in reality, whereas alien UFO's have happened only in your imagination.

LOL! No..none of those explain a metallic disk FLYING IN THE SKY. A frisbee wouldn't, a metal pan wouldn't, and no not even a hoax would. When you see a metallic disk FLYING IN THE SKY, you're talking only one thing---a type of technology humans don't have. There IS no rationalizing it away no matter what you want to believe. It is what it is, and has been witnessed and photographed and videotaped thousands upon thousands of times. And because it has, you can now confidently say, "I have seen a flying craft not from this world, just as so many others have for over 70 years now around the world."

 

[Daecon]

Why do you think it's technology and not magic?