AaronD Posted April 15, 2014 Share Posted April 15, 2014 ^^ You're making less sense as we go, let's just agree to dis not understand each other and get back to the OP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohiobill Posted April 15, 2014 Share Posted April 15, 2014 @Ohio Bill Enjoy 20-30 mpg w/all the neato computer parts in the engine. My advice to you is get educated and stop using History Channel as your source. Just responding to you in the same vain as you addressed me. As for statistics, it's pretty basic. How many unique sightings can we safely assume there to be. Add quite a few for those that have never reported and I'd probably double the uniques sightings. Then do a SWAG calc by what percentage of the bigs we're lucky enough to spot. Divide all your unique sightings by that number for the estimated population in that geography. Please explain how that methodology somehow falters Bill since your a statistics expert and a real world mathematician. I use the sources that are available which are thousands and certainly should pass the law of large numbers test. Here we have thousands of accounts where we can deduct a certain percentage for dups and a certain percentage for misidentification. So please indicate why would throw our hands up and say "hey there's no real world numbers here. " Explain that to me Bill. I need an education cuz I'm just an unschooled boy from Geeeooogia. Help me out man Alex, I get 22mpg in a full size pickup and 52mpg in my car because they run on diesel and are more efficient by design with less wasted heat. I will be happy to discuss it sometime but lets get the statistics out of the way before we start on physics. I will point out that even though I own neither of the vehicles I referenced I did do a little research and provide hard numbers rather than SWAG anything. I certainly didn't make a blanket statement of an industry-wide conspiracy with no proof and no rebuttal when given verifiable facts to debate. Statistics are basic formulas applied to numbers subsets to provide specific information with a high degree of correctness. Feel free to run the numbers but understand that even the founder of this forum is nowhere near as confident as you are in the correctness of sighting reports. Without knowing which reports are correct and which are false any information you come up with will essentially be worthless. I understand you are approaching this like a case but that is not how science or statistics works. Trials often get the outcome wrong with apparently lucid eyewitnesses - we have modern proof of this in death row inmates being set free due to DNA or other forensic science being applied. Our history contains witch trials - how good were those eyewitnesses? As far as large number test go over 54% of Iceland believed in fairies in a 1998 survey. Can you run the numbers - absolutely! Would you be able to trust the numbers based on unverified accounts - absolutely not! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohiobill Posted April 15, 2014 Share Posted April 15, 2014 Really, I guess we should let all the killers out of the jails where there were eyewitness accounts but no camera footage. You guys kill me. ZERO LOGIC. Analytics is what I do for a living buddy. I put together cases against corporate attorneys all the time. You folks fail to exhibit any logic as it relates to admissible evidence. The bigfoot world is full of a bunch scientists wannabe's that think that denying logical evidence or eyewitness accounts is being intelligent or scientific. They've already cleared 316 at http://www.innocenceproject.org/ if you would like to check it out and they didn't even need cameras - amazingly they used science! Here's a little tidbit... Eyewitness MisidentificationEyewitness misidentification is the single greatest cause of wrongful convictions nationwide, playing a role in nearly 75% of convictions overturned through DNA testing. While eyewitness testimony can be persuasive evidence before a judge or jury, 30 years of strong social science research has proven that eyewitness identification is often unreliable. Research shows that the human mind is not like a tape recorder; we neither record events exactly as we see them, nor recall them like a tape that has been rewound. Instead, witness memory is like any other evidence at a crime scene; it must be preserved carefully and retrieved methodically, or it can be contaminated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Alex MW Posted April 15, 2014 Share Posted April 15, 2014 sounds like the exception to me but you make it sound like the rule. You and Paulides should write a book together Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohiobill Posted April 15, 2014 Share Posted April 15, 2014 I do a little writing from time to time but you would probably find it a little dry. I might be able to dig up an old statistics textbook if you are looking for something to read? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Llawgoch Posted April 15, 2014 Share Posted April 15, 2014 ^^ You're making less sense as we go, let's just agree to dis not understand each other and get back to the OP. I'm not going to agree that I'm making no sense simply because you seem to fail to understand a simple statement. If you don't understand, please ask for clarification of the part you do not understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Alex MW Posted April 15, 2014 Share Posted April 15, 2014 "Statistics are basic formulas applied to numbers subsets to provide specific information with a high degree of correctness. Feel free to run the numbers but understand that even the founder of this forum is nowhere near as confident as you are in the correctness of sighting reports. Without knowing which reports are correct and which are false any information you come up with will essentially be worthless. " I agree that you have to be dealing w fairly accurate subsets and can certainly apply a conservative corrective ratio to the whole. However, my point is you folks want to simply dismiss eyewitness accounts as a whole like all people are stupid or liars....wrong assumption. You folks take the extreme and erroneous approach to the problem. We d be in a hell of a lot of trouble if you folks wrote criminal law books. You d be requiring people to wear cameras on their heads just so that you could see any event....logic no longer in existence Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AaronD Posted April 15, 2014 Share Posted April 15, 2014 I'm not going to agree that I'm making no sense simply because you seem to fail to understand a simple statement. If you don't understand, please ask for clarification of the part you do not understand. Ok, try this--I'm bored with the conversation and wish to move on 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stan Norton Posted April 15, 2014 Share Posted April 15, 2014 I'd say we'd be in a whole world of trouble if affairs were left to folks who think it is logical that Spanish speaking sasquatch migrated to the US via a land bridge to Europe and who fails to comprehend simple mathematics because it grates with a figure plucked out of the air. Which specific dialect of Spanish do they speak by the way? You do understand that Spain has many different dialects? Which do sasquatch speak and how did they come by that particular one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted April 15, 2014 Share Posted April 15, 2014 @AaronD-LOL! Hilarious! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Llawgoch Posted April 15, 2014 Share Posted April 15, 2014 (edited) Ok, try this--I'm bored with the conversation and wish to move on Then move on without the insults and attempts to belittle me. Instead of telling me I am making no sense, simply admit you can't counter the argument, or leave it without making your snide remarks. Admin or no. If you wanted to move on all you had to do was stop misstating my position in your replies. @AaronD-LOL! Hilarious! No, pathetic. if you want to stop having a conversation on the internet, all you have to do is stop contributing to it. Edited April 15, 2014 by Llawgoch 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Llawgoch Posted April 15, 2014 Share Posted April 15, 2014 "Statistics are basic formulas applied to numbers subsets to provide specific information with a high degree of correctness. Feel free to run the numbers but understand that even the founder of this forum is nowhere near as confident as you are in the correctness of sighting reports. Without knowing which reports are correct and which are false any information you come up with will essentially be worthless. " I agree that you have to be dealing w fairly accurate subsets and can certainly apply a conservative corrective ratio to the whole. However, my point is you folks want to simply dismiss eyewitness accounts as a whole like all people are stupid or liars....wrong assumption. You folks take the extreme and erroneous approach to the problem. We d be in a hell of a lot of trouble if you folks wrote criminal law books. You d be requiring people to wear cameras on their heads just so that you could see any event....logic no longer in existence It's not "all people". It's "all people reporting Bigfoot". (And "mistaken or liars" rather than "stupid or liars") Seriously, if you can't see the difference this makes, you have no understanding at all of statistics and sampling. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Alex MW Posted April 15, 2014 Share Posted April 15, 2014 @llawgoch And you have no understanding of the normalization factors commonly used in statistics to take out the widely varying exceptions. You see, I do. I use this type of statistical correction method with weather normalization that is embedded within our software platform, so you're mistaken when you say that I know nothing about statistics. Maybe you can give me your background in statistics and how you utilize in your profession. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AaronD Posted April 15, 2014 Share Posted April 15, 2014 Then move on without the insults and attempts to belittle me. Instead of telling me I am making no sense, simply admit you can't counter the argument, or leave it without making your snide remarks. Admin or no. If you wanted to move on all you had to do was stop misstating my position in your replies. No, pathetic. if you want to stop having a conversation on the internet, all you have to do is stop contributing to it. How did I insult you? I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings in any way. I thought I was leaving the conversation by saying I was bored. Now, who are you calling pathetic? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Llawgoch Posted April 15, 2014 Share Posted April 15, 2014 I was calling your comment pathetic; surely that was clear from the context. If you don't think saying "You are making less and less sense as this goes on" is insulting then I don't know what you think is. The fact is I was making sense, and your failure to understand is your problem, not mine, so if you want to back out of the conversation just do so without trying to have a dig at the other person. @llawgoch And you have no understanding of the normalization factors commonly used in statistics to take out the widely varying exceptions. You see, I do. I use this type of statistical correction method with weather normalization that is embedded within our software platform, so you're mistaken when you say that I know nothing about statistics. Maybe you can give me your background in statistics and how you utilize in your profession. Tell me how the normalization factors apply to this situation then, and how my lack of understanding has caused any issues. I've explained exactly how your lack of understanding of how the Bigfoot sighting sample is obtained leads to a problem. Incidentally my knowledge of statistics is very limited and I do not use it at all in my profession, but that doesn't stop me giving you clear examples of why you are making an error here. So argue with the points I make instead of trying to argue from a claimed authority. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts