Driver to drive?

[Sam Wormley]

john wrote:

On Oct 21, 7:19 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
john wrote:
The interpretaion is this; extraterrestrial humans have
been trying to advance our scientific knowledge with
basically the same bunch of drawings
for 20,000 years.
Good luck. We're real slow.
john
shaking head> Scientific evidence? None!

What do you have against our planet
being just one of many containing
human beings, Sam?

I have no problem embracing the possibility of live all over
the cosmos including other places in the solar system, and
look forward of EVIDENCE of live in other places.

The probability that other life had identical DNA as humans
is just about ZERO.

Evolutionary processed in different places produce different
life forms and species. Humans would not have survive on our
planet in many earlier epochs.

Relativity petty much prohibits advance technical civilization
(assuming such exist) from any reasonably fast travel even between
stars. Alien spacecraft, the probability, thereof, is just about
ZERO.

John, you have a tough time sorting science from science fiction
and speculation.

I'll bet that the cosmos is teaming with life... but it doesn't
visit here on spaceships. Perhaps microbial life on a meteor,
but not what you fantasize about. John.

If you find a blueberry bush in
a field do you say, "OMG!! This could
only happen once? Or do you
expect to find more blueberries?

I would think it comforting.

john

 

[Sam Wormley]

john wrote:

On Oct 21, 8:45 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
john wrote:
On Oct 21, 7:19 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
john wrote:
The interpretaion is this; extraterrestrial humans have
been trying to advance our scientific knowledge with
basically the same bunch of drawings
for 20,000 years.
Good luck. We're real slow.
john
shaking head> Scientific evidence? None!
What do you have against our planet
being just one of many containing
human beings, Sam?
I have no problem embracing the possibility of live all over
the cosmos including other places in the solar system, and
look forward of EVIDENCE of live in other places.

The probability that other life had identical DNA as humans
is just about ZERO.

Evolutionary processed in different places produce different
life forms and species. Humans would not have survive on our
planet in many earlier epochs.

Relativity petty much prohibits advance technical civilization
(assuming such exist) from any reasonably fast travel even between
stars. Alien spacecraft, the probability, thereof, is just about
ZERO.

John, you have a tough time sorting science from science fiction
and speculation.

I'll bet that the cosmos is teaming with life... but it doesn't
visit here on spaceships. Perhaps microbial life on a meteor,
but not what you fantasize about. John.

Is this a fantasy?
http://www.lucypringle.co.uk/photos/2009/uk2009ci.shtml
This is a picture of a crop circle 2 months ago.
Nice, eh?

Nice work

http://www.csicop.org/si/show/circular_reasoning_the_mystery_of_crop_circles_and_their_orbs_of_light/

Does this contain any scientific information?
Is it from off-planet or from some force/intelligence on or within
the planet?
Browse through all the other pictures.
Pretty impressive work, no?

john

 

[Sam Wormley]

john wrote:

On Oct 21, 9:28 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
john wrote:
On Oct 21, 8:45 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
john wrote:
On Oct 21, 7:19 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
john wrote:
The interpretaion is this; extraterrestrial humans have
been trying to advance our scientific knowledge with
basically the same bunch of drawings
for 20,000 years.
Good luck. We're real slow.
john
shaking head> Scientific evidence? None!
What do you have against our planet
being just one of many containing
human beings, Sam?
I have no problem embracing the possibility of live all over
the cosmos including other places in the solar system, and
look forward of EVIDENCE of live in other places.
The probability that other life had identical DNA as humans
is just about ZERO.
Evolutionary processed in different places produce different
life forms and species. Humans would not have survive on our
planet in many earlier epochs.
Relativity petty much prohibits advance technical civilization
(assuming such exist) from any reasonably fast travel even between
stars. Alien spacecraft, the probability, thereof, is just about
ZERO.
John, you have a tough time sorting science from science fiction
and speculation.
I'll bet that the cosmos is teaming with life... but it doesn't
visit here on spaceships. Perhaps microbial life on a meteor,
but not what you fantasize about. John.
Is this a fantasy?
http://www.lucypringle.co.uk/photos/2009/uk2009ci.shtml
This is a picture of a crop circle 2 months ago.
Nice, eh?
Nice work

http://www.csicop.org/si/show/circular_reasoning_the_mystery_of_crop_...

Look at the sun's reflection off those circles.
They are perfectly alike.
Look from this other angle;
http://www.lucypringle.co.uk/photos/2009/uk2009ci.shtml#pic2
Every one shines like a frying pan's
bottom.
Sam, that field is not a billiard table, man, how does
a hoaxer do that?

john

Good Hoaxer fool a lot of people, John. Always have, and
always will.

 

[john]

On Oct 21, 7:19 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:

john wrote:
The interpretaion is this; extraterrestrial humans have
been trying to advance our scientific knowledge with
basically the same bunch of drawings
for 20,000 years.

Good luck. We're real slow.

john

   <shaking head> Scientific evidence? None!

What do you have against our planet
being just one of many containing
human beings, Sam?
If you find a blueberry bush in
a field do you say, "OMG!! This could
only happen once? Or do you
expect to find more blueberries?

I would think it comforting.

john

 

[john]

On Oct 21, 8:45 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:

john wrote:
On Oct 21, 7:19 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
john wrote:
The interpretaion is this; extraterrestrial humans have
been trying to advance our scientific knowledge with
basically the same bunch of drawings
for 20,000 years.
Good luck. We're real slow.
john
   <shaking head> Scientific evidence? None!

What do you have against our planet
being just one of many containing
human beings, Sam?

   I have no problem embracing the possibility of live all over
   the cosmos including other places in the solar system, and
   look forward of EVIDENCE of live in other places.

   The probability that other life had identical DNA as humans
   is just about ZERO.

   Evolutionary processed in different places produce different
   life forms and species. Humans would not have survive on our
   planet in many earlier epochs.

   Relativity petty much prohibits advance technical civilization
   (assuming such exist) from any reasonably fast travel even between
   stars. Alien spacecraft, the probability, thereof, is just about
   ZERO.

   John, you have a tough time sorting science from science fiction
   and speculation.

   I'll bet that the cosmos is teaming with life... but it doesn't
   visit here on spaceships.  Perhaps microbial life on a meteor,
   but not what you fantasize about. John.

Well, we sure have thousands of hoaxers, then.

In all the ages.

Why would we want such a bunch of liars to
travel off-planet, then?

Leave them to their fate.

john

 

[john]

On Oct 21, 8:45 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:

john wrote:
On Oct 21, 7:19 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
john wrote:
The interpretaion is this; extraterrestrial humans have
been trying to advance our scientific knowledge with
basically the same bunch of drawings
for 20,000 years.
Good luck. We're real slow.
john
   <shaking head> Scientific evidence? None!

What do you have against our planet
being just one of many containing
human beings, Sam?

   I have no problem embracing the possibility of live all over
   the cosmos including other places in the solar system, and
   look forward of EVIDENCE of live in other places.

   The probability that other life had identical DNA as humans
   is just about ZERO.

   Evolutionary processed in different places produce different
   life forms and species. Humans would not have survive on our
   planet in many earlier epochs.

   Relativity petty much prohibits advance technical civilization
   (assuming such exist) from any reasonably fast travel even between
   stars. Alien spacecraft, the probability, thereof, is just about
   ZERO.

   John, you have a tough time sorting science from science fiction
   and speculation.

   I'll bet that the cosmos is teaming with life... but it doesn't
   visit here on spaceships.  Perhaps microbial life on a meteor,
   but not what you fantasize about. John.

Is this a fantasy?

http://www.lucypringle.co.uk/photos/2009/uk2009ci.shtml
This is a picture of a crop circle 2 months ago.
Nice, eh?
Does this contain any scientific information?
Is it from off-planet or from some force/intelligence on or within
the planet?
Browse through all the other pictures.
Pretty impressive work, no?

john

 

[john]

On Oct 21, 9:13 pm, john <vega...@accesscomm.ca> wrote:

Is this a fantasy?http://www.lucypringle.co.uk/photos/2009/uk2009ci.shtml
This is a picture of a crop circle 2 months ago.
Nice, eh?
Does this contain any scientific information?
Is it from off-planet or from some force/intelligence on or within
the planet?
Browse through all the other pictures.
Pretty impressive work, no?

Let me interpret the above crop circle for you:
( http://www.lucypringle.co.uk/photos/2009/uk2009ci.shtml )
Two orthogonal rotations, one moving five times while
the other moves ten times.
And the tiny circles indicate that this arrangement repeats
at smaller scales.
What I been sayin', man.
john

 

[john]

On Oct 21, 8:45 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:

john wrote:

I need to make sure you
see this whole thing, Sam.
Sorry to repeat:
On Oct 21, 9:13 pm, john <vega...@accesscomm.ca> wrote:

Is this a fantasy?http://www.lucypringle.co.uk/photos/2009/uk2009ci.shtml
This is a picture of a crop circle 2 months ago.
Nice, eh?
Does this contain any scientific information?
Is it from off-planet or from some force/intelligence on or within
the planet?
Browse through all the other pictures.
Pretty impressive work, no?

Let me interpret the above crop circle for you:
( http://www.lucypringle.co.uk/photos/2009/uk2009ci.shtml )
Two orthogonal rotations, one moving five times while
the other moves ten times.
And the tiny circles indicate that this arrangement repeats
at smaller scales.
What I been sayin', man.
john

On Oct 21, 7:19 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
john wrote:
The interpretaion is this; extraterrestrial humans have
been trying to advance our scientific knowledge with
basically the same bunch of drawings
for 20,000 years.
Good luck. We're real slow.
john
   <shaking head> Scientific evidence? None!

What do you have against our planet
being just one of many containing
human beings, Sam?

   I have no problem embracing the possibility of live all over
   the cosmos including other places in the solar system, and
   look forward of EVIDENCE of live in other places.

   The probability that other life had identical DNA as humans
   is just about ZERO.

   Evolutionary processed in different places produce different
   life forms and species. Humans would not have survive on our
   planet in many earlier epochs.

   Relativity petty much prohibits advance technical civilization
   (assuming such exist) from any reasonably fast travel even between
   stars. Alien spacecraft, the probability, thereof, is just about
   ZERO.

   John, you have a tough time sorting science from science fiction
   and speculation.

   I'll bet that the cosmos is teaming with life... but it doesn't
   visit here on spaceships.  Perhaps microbial life on a meteor,
   but not what you fantasize about. John.



If you find a blueberry bush in
a field do you say, "OMG!! This could
only happen once? Or do you
expect to find more blueberries?

I would think it comforting.

john- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

 

[john]

On Oct 21, 9:28 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:

john wrote:
On Oct 21, 8:45 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
john wrote:
On Oct 21, 7:19 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
john wrote:
The interpretaion is this; extraterrestrial humans have
been trying to advance our scientific knowledge with
basically the same bunch of drawings
for 20,000 years.
Good luck. We're real slow.
john
   <shaking head> Scientific evidence? None!
What do you have against our planet
being just one of many containing
human beings, Sam?
   I have no problem embracing the possibility of live all over
   the cosmos including other places in the solar system, and
   look forward of EVIDENCE of live in other places.

   The probability that other life had identical DNA as humans
   is just about ZERO.

   Evolutionary processed in different places produce different
   life forms and species. Humans would not have survive on our
   planet in many earlier epochs.

   Relativity petty much prohibits advance technical civilization
   (assuming such exist) from any reasonably fast travel even between
   stars. Alien spacecraft, the probability, thereof, is just about
   ZERO.

   John, you have a tough time sorting science from science fiction
   and speculation.

   I'll bet that the cosmos is teaming with life... but it doesn't
   visit here on spaceships.  Perhaps microbial life on a meteor,
   but not what you fantasize about. John.

Is this a fantasy?
http://www.lucypringle.co.uk/photos/2009/uk2009ci.shtml
This is a picture of a crop circle 2 months ago.
Nice, eh?

   Nice work

http://www.csicop.org/si/show/circular_reasoning_the_mystery_of_crop_...

Look at the sun's reflection off those circles.

They are perfectly alike.
Look from this other angle;
http://www.lucypringle.co.uk/photos/2009/uk2009ci.shtml#pic2
Every one shines like a frying pan's
bottom.
Sam, that field is not a billiard table, man, how does
a hoaxer do that?

john

 

[Dirk Bruere at NeoPax]

Sam Wormley wrote:

john wrote:


Homet wrote a book and
supplied pictures of
all his 20,000 year old glyphs.
Written in stone, buddy.
john

John, have you any idea how much out right fraud is published in books?

And he knew they were 20,000 years old because he carbon dated the rock????

--
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show

 

[Martin Brown]

Dragonblaze wrote:

On Oct 22, 12:51 am, john <vega...@accesscomm.ca> wrote:

[snip]

Marcel Homet was a widely-travelled doctor of
archaeology, and author whose book containing his
pictures of all the petroglyphs I read back before computer fakery.
There were plenty of pictures- see "Sons of the Sun(?)
by Marcel Homet
I'm pretty sure he showed these rocks to others who would
probably be able to determine if he had just recently carved
them with his little scout knife.
I'm sure after the effort it takes getting to some
of those places in Brazil, he would be in good enough shape to do that
after supper. As would you, I'm sure.

Curious. A rather extensive search of journal databases - a few French
ones thrown in for a good measure - failed to reveal a single peer-
reviewed publication by Homet. Nor am I able to find any PhD of that
name in archaeology.

There is one Marcel Homet, a former SOE agent and topographer,
connected to a Portuguese university. That guy was born in 1897, and
would have been a bit too old for strenuous field archaeology in the
1960's.

Unless you can provide credentials for the guy, I will be forced to
suspect the writer was most likely a fraudster. There are many who
claim false credentials to advance their spurious hypotheses.

You might hazard a guess from the date of publication mid 60's that it
was mainly LSD induced. Amazon has copies available in translation.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/search-handle-url?%5Fencoding=UTF8&search-type=ss&index=books-uk&field-author=Marcel%20F%20Homet

Or perhaps he wrote them from beyond the grave - ghost writing writ large.

Regards,
Martin Brown

 

[Dirk Bruere at NeoPax]

Dragonblaze wrote:

On Oct 22, 12:51 am, john <vega...@accesscomm.ca> wrote:

[snip]

Marcel Homet was a widely-travelled doctor of
archaeology, and author whose book containing his
pictures of all the petroglyphs I read back before computer fakery.
There were plenty of pictures- see "Sons of the Sun(?)
by Marcel Homet
I'm pretty sure he showed these rocks to others who would
probably be able to determine if he had just recently carved
them with his little scout knife.
I'm sure after the effort it takes getting to some
of those places in Brazil, he would be in good enough shape to do that
after supper. As would you, I'm sure.

Curious. A rather extensive search of journal databases - a few French
ones thrown in for a good measure - failed to reveal a single peer-
reviewed publication by Homet. Nor am I able to find any PhD of that
name in archaeology.

There is one Marcel Homet, a former SOE agent and topographer,
connected to a Portuguese university. That guy was born in 1897, and
would have been a bit too old for strenuous field archaeology in the
1960's.

Unless you can provide credentials for the guy, I will be forced to
suspect the writer was most likely a fraudster. There are many who
claim false credentials to advance their spurious hypotheses.

If you want to see some real shit, google Roswell+transistor

--
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show

 

[Dragonblaze]

On Oct 22, 12:51 am, john <vega...@accesscomm.ca> wrote:

[snip]

Marcel Homet was a widely-travelled doctor of
archaeology, and author whose book containing his
pictures of all the petroglyphs I read back before computer fakery.
There were plenty of pictures- see "Sons of the Sun(?)
by Marcel Homet
I'm pretty sure he showed these rocks to others who would
probably be able to determine if he had just recently carved
them with his little scout knife.
I'm sure after the effort it takes getting to some
of those places in Brazil, he would be in good enough shape to do that
after supper. As would you, I'm sure.

Curious. A rather extensive search of journal databases - a few French
ones thrown in for a good measure - failed to reveal a single peer-
reviewed publication by Homet. Nor am I able to find any PhD of that
name in archaeology.

There is one Marcel Homet, a former SOE agent and topographer,
connected to a Portuguese university. That guy was born in 1897, and
would have been a bit too old for strenuous field archaeology in the
1960's.

Unless you can provide credentials for the guy, I will be forced to
suspect the writer was most likely a fraudster. There are many who
claim false credentials to advance their spurious hypotheses.

 

[Curt Welch]

john <vegan16@accesscomm.ca> wrote:

Tell me how someone hoaxes publishes the
same complex diagram that will not be dug up
for ten years and in both appearances
it is connected with extraterrestrial humans?

john

The fact that you need to be told, shows how clueless you are about
science.

The first post of yours I read worded it "almost the same complex drawing"
(or something like that). Now that people have doubted your belief, you
have switched to "the _same_ complex diagram" in a stupid attempt to defend
your own lack of understanding.

The answer is simply John. If you look at 1,000,000 drawings made by
people over thousands of years, you will see duplicates. Oh my god, I
drew a circle, and look, the guy 40,000 years ago drew a circle. Gee, that
must be proof of UFOs. Do you have any clue how totally stupid such an
argument is?

Ok, so everyone draws circles so you expect to be lots of duplication. So
lets draw a circle with a line in it. Not as many duplicates in those 1,
000,000 drawings we have collected over the years. The more complex the
drawing gets the less likely you will be able to find a duplicate. So we
have to think about how complex the drawing has to get before we expect not
to find any duplicates in every drawing anyone has ever found on the earth.

Now, from experience with such things, we know our drawing doesn't have to
be all that complex, before it becomes extremely hard to find a matching
drawing. Once you add a few more circles, lines, and a random strokes, the
drawing becomes so unique that you have never seen anything like it. And
from the fact that we have never seen anything like it, we tend to extend
that belief to the idea that "there is nothing like it". But we haven't
ourselves, taken the time to look at every one of the billions of drawings
available to be looked at. So in fact, we have no real clue how common our
"unique" drawing really is. Our instincts based on our highly limited
first-hand personal experience is VERY deceiving. In fact, if we had a
better picture search system, we would find that the drawing has to get far
more complex than we might expect before it really becomes unique in the
set of all pictures ever drawn by man over the past thousands of years.

So when we are are shown a match, in the set, we need to try and understand
the true odds of that match happening by chance and whether the odds are so
out of line, that we can truly justify the argument that it didn't happen
by chance. But how to you scientifically measure the odds of such a match?

Well, if you look at it and just use your personal instincts to produce a
measure of "seems far too complex to have happened by chance" our own
personal experience will bias our view, and make us believe the odds of it
happening by chance are far too small. But our own personal experience, is
far too limited in these data sets that include billions of examples. WE
have never personally searched such huge data sets and as such, our own
personal experience with small data sets will deceive us. What looks
"impossible" often isn't even usually when dealing with these large data
sets (the set of all drawings every made by any man).

But the effect I talked about above, the effect of trying to judge how
complex a drawing we have to draw, before the odds of finding a duplicate,
is only one of 3 statistical problems at work in your "science".

The next one comes from that fact that you are searching for a match to ANY
TWO pictures every drawn by man, vs picking one, and then trying to find a
match for that one, and no other. The statistics in these two cases is
VERY different.

Let me give an example. Lets say we generate a set of a million random 12
digit numbers. Then you make up a random 12 digit number. What are the
odds that the number you made up, is in the set of numbers we generated?
The odds are not very good. It's about 1 in a million. You can make up
lots of 12 digit numbers, and most of the ones you make up will not be in
the set.

But what if instead, you search the set, to see if there are any duplicates
in the set? Without formal training in this, you might think the odds of
someone being able to show you a duplicate, is the same as the odds of
someone making up a single random number, and then finding it in the set.
But it's not. It's not even close. The odds of there being at least one
duplicate in the exmaple I gave above, is highly likely. Almost certain.
(sorry I'm not going to bother to try and calculate the real odds right
now).

The reason is that you aren't just looking for one number in the set being
a duplicate with every other number, but instead, you are looking a million
numbers (every number in the set) being a duplicate with some other number
in the set. You are in effect, doing the "pick a number and see if it
matches something in the set", a million times, and then asking, did any of
those million numbers match one of the million numbers?

There's a well known parlor odds is always trick that takes advantage of
how far off our intuition is on these types of problems.

If you get a group of people together, and ask them all what their birthday
is, how many people do you think you need in the group, before the odds of
finding a duplicate becomes 50/50? (aka highly likely). Our intuition
makes us think we might need half of 365 or around 180 people before the
odds hit 50/50 that there will be a duplicate. In fact, once you get to 23
people, the odds of there being a duplicate becomes greater than 50/50.
This is known as the birthday paradox. Google it.

It's one of many demonstrations of how far off our intuition can be when
dealing with statistics of collisions in large data sets.

Ok, that's only two points I've made so far. Lets move on to the third.

How close do two drawings have to be, before you will start to say "look
they are the same!"? In the birthday paradox, or by pick a random number
example, there's no doubt as to whether there was a match or not.

But when comparing two drawings, (likely to include lots of noise), the
human mind will _try_ to find similarities. That's what it likes to do -
recognize common patterns. They don't have to be anywhere near exact
before we will start to similarities. Hell, we can see a circle and a
square as being "the same" if need be. You draw four small circles in a
square pattern (the circles fall at what would be the corner of a larger
square), and then see a second drawing of four squares, of approximately
the same relative size and spacing, and we think of the two drawings as
being "very similar", even though one was 4 circles, and one was 4 squares.

So, what happens when this natural tendency of the brain to make things
that are different, seem to be "the same" gets applied to a birthday
paradox problem? We have billions of drawings made by man over 100's of
thousands of years, and someone finds two drawings in the set that "seem"
very similar?

This ability to see drawings that are actually very different, as "the
same" creates a huge amplification effect on the statistics of what we
intuitively were already getting way wrong to begin with. It makes the
ability for two items from the set to "match" millions of times more
likely.

So, back to science. Are these two drawings (which you have not shared a
URL with us), that is such good proof for you, truly good scientific
evidence? To answer that, we have to actually calculate the true odds of
the match, instead of trusting some misguided, and known to be way off the
mark - personality intuition on this. If we can't accurately calculate the
odds, then it's not science, it's just crap which is of a type of
statistics we know for dead sure is highly7 deceptive to humans - a type of
problem that we intuitively get wrong every time.

To calculate the odds, we need to know the size of the set we are dealing
with. How many pictures were searched to find a duplicate? Your example
of course doesn't include this number. It can't. How many idiot UFO
"researches" went looking for duplicate pictures, found none, that we never
heard from? But without it, we can't calculate the odds. And without the
odds, we have no way of knowing whether our intuition of it being "highly
unlikely" is in the ball park, or like the birthday paradox, of no use to
science. Evidence that seems good to our intuition, often can be shown to
be worthless, with a little examination. This is such a well known problem
(the fact that human intuition in these matters is almost always wrong), is
why the tools of science has been created in the first place. They are
tools, to show us the truth, even when our intuition wants to make us
believe something else. What science has made it clear, is that
institution is NEVER to be trusted, when looking for the truth.

Real science, NEVER includes a measure of human intuition in it's
arguments.

Your example, is pure human intuition. What is the odds of those pictures
happening by chance? We can't calculate it because the data was not
collected in way that allows us to know the odds. But what we do know
about your "evidence" is that it's a type of evidence well known for
fooling human intuition, and it's just the type of evidence, anyone
actually trained in the scientific method, knows to stay far away from.
It's the WORST type of evidence you can have in science. It's the evidence
which is MOST LIKELY to fool you into believing crap. No matter how
unlikely to THINK the odds of those drawings happening by pure random
chance, you are probably way off the mark.

But now, let me take one step further in the errors you are making here.

In all the above, I was only talking about the odds of two pictures being
"the same" in the set of all pictures ever drawn by man. Your error goes
even further than that.

What we are dealing with, is the set of all possible proofs that
intelligent life from the rest of the universe visited us in the past.
Duplicate pictures are just one of many possible pieces of evidence for
that. If we are searching the set of all things that exist in the
universe, and looking for all things that might indicate a past visit,
duplicate pictures are just one of many. WE have now moved the birthday
paradox from the smaller set of finding duplicate pictures, to the larger
set of finding any sort of data that might support the result we wanted.
If we searched for 1000 types of evidence, but didn't find any examples in
the first 999 types of evidence we were looking for, but did find an
example in the "duplicate picture" evidence, then it again, makes the fact
that we found this duplicate picture evidence seem more special than it
really is. Hidden from us in this example, is the number of possible
effects searched where nothing was found. The picture can look like good
evidence, because we don't see the 1000 examples of "no evidence found to
support the claim" offsetting the one piece we did find by random chance.

So the same birthday paradox is not only at work in the set of all pictures
every drawn by man, but it's at work fooling us in the set of all possible
pieces of evidence to support a UFO theory.

The people that fall for this stuff, are always the people that haven't
been educated and trained in the finer points of basic science and the
statistics needed to create true evidence. You get sucked into believing,
something you either _want_ to believe, or fear is true. Either a desire
for it to be true, or a desire for it to be false, will bias our judgment
of the evidence. And if you don't know how to correctly evaluate the worth
of evidence, you can easily be tricked into believing the data is evidence,
when in fact, it's not evidence at all. It's nothing but a magic trick
allowing you to incorrectly rationalize your hopes and fears.

The fact that you are here, trying to argue your data as scientific
_evidence_ shows how totally clueless you are about science. No one how
has been educated in these matters, will give you a second though - ever.
If you want to be taken seriously, and if you want to know the truth about
what this sort of evidence tells us, go and get an education. What you
will find, is that we simply don't have any evidence yet one way or the
other, about the possibility of being visited by intelligent life forms
from elsewhere in the universe. The data you put forth is not evidence -
not even close - it's worse than evidence - it's type of data that is known
to mislead us and it's the just the type we must, as true seekers of the
truth, throw away first.

--
Curt Welch http://CurtWelch.Com/
curt@kcwc.com http://NewsReader.Com/

 

[Dirk Bruere at NeoPax]

john wrote:

On Oct 21, 9:58 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
john wrote:
On Oct 21, 9:28 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
john wrote:
On Oct 21, 8:45 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
john wrote:
On Oct 21, 7:19 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
john wrote:
The interpretaion is this; extraterrestrial humans have
been trying to advance our scientific knowledge with
basically the same bunch of drawings
for 20,000 years.
Good luck. We're real slow.
john
shaking head> Scientific evidence? None!
What do you have against our planet
being just one of many containing
human beings, Sam?
I have no problem embracing the possibility of live all over
the cosmos including other places in the solar system, and
look forward of EVIDENCE of live in other places.
The probability that other life had identical DNA as humans
is just about ZERO.
Evolutionary processed in different places produce different
life forms and species. Humans would not have survive on our
planet in many earlier epochs.
Relativity petty much prohibits advance technical civilization
(assuming such exist) from any reasonably fast travel even between
stars. Alien spacecraft, the probability, thereof, is just about
ZERO.
John, you have a tough time sorting science from science fiction
and speculation.
I'll bet that the cosmos is teaming with life... but it doesn't
visit here on spaceships. Perhaps microbial life on a meteor,
but not what you fantasize about. John.
Is this a fantasy?
http://www.lucypringle.co.uk/photos/2009/uk2009ci.shtml
This is a picture of a crop circle 2 months ago.
Nice, eh?
Nice work
http://www.csicop.org/si/show/circular_reasoning_the_mystery_of_crop_...
Look at the sun's reflection off those circles.
They are perfectly alike.
Look from this other angle;
http://www.lucypringle.co.uk/photos/2009/uk2009ci.shtml#pic2
Every one shines like a frying pan's
bottom.
Sam, that field is not a billiard table, man, how does
a hoaxer do that?
john
Good Hoaxer fool a lot of people, John. Always have, and
always will.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


That has been in the past and will continue to
be the physicists' answer to any proofs
challenging their wild ideas:
really, really, GOOD hoaxers.
(Such open scientific minds!)

Admit it- no proof will change your mind.
Not pictures, not logic, not even seeing is believing.


john

Jacques Vallee

--
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show

 

[Dirk Bruere at NeoPax]

The biggest argument against the ET Hypothesis is Transhumanism.
http://www.humanityplus.org/learn/philosophy/faq#answer_19

The alleged ETs are just *too* primitive technologically.
http://www.kurzweilai.net/meme/frame.html?m=1

--
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show

 

[J.A. Legris]

On Oct 21, 11:40 pm, john <vega...@accesscomm.ca> wrote:

On Oct 21, 9:28 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:

john wrote:
On Oct 21, 8:45 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
john wrote:
On Oct 21, 7:19 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
john wrote:
The interpretaion is this; extraterrestrial humans have
been trying to advance our scientific knowledge with
basically the same bunch of drawings
for 20,000 years.
Good luck. We're real slow.
john
   <shaking head> Scientific evidence? None!
What do you have against our planet
being just one of many containing
human beings, Sam?
   I have no problem embracing the possibility of live all over
   the cosmos including other places in the solar system, and
   look forward of EVIDENCE of live in other places.

   The probability that other life had identical DNA as humans
   is just about ZERO.

   Evolutionary processed in different places produce different
   life forms and species. Humans would not have survive on our
   planet in many earlier epochs.

   Relativity petty much prohibits advance technical civilization
   (assuming such exist) from any reasonably fast travel even between
   stars. Alien spacecraft, the probability, thereof, is just about
   ZERO.

   John, you have a tough time sorting science from science fiction
   and speculation.

   I'll bet that the cosmos is teaming with life... but it doesn't
   visit here on spaceships.  Perhaps microbial life on a meteor,
   but not what you fantasize about. John.

Is this a fantasy?
http://www.lucypringle.co.uk/photos/2009/uk2009ci.shtml
This is a picture of a crop circle 2 months ago.
Nice, eh?

   Nice work

http://www.csicop.org/si/show/circular_reasoning_the_mystery_of_crop_...

Look at the sun's reflection off those circles.
They are perfectly alike.
Look from this other angle;http://www.lucypringle.co.uk/photos/2009/uk2009ci.shtml#pic2
Every one shines like a frying pan's
bottom.
Sam, that field is not a billiard table, man, how does
a hoaxer do that?

john

Not only the circles. Look at those parallel lines in the rest of the
field. What hoaxer would have the technology to lay them out so
perfectly? Egads, do you think farmers are aliens? Might explain their
odd clothes and strange accents.

--
Joe

 

[john]

On Oct 21, 9:58 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:

john wrote:
On Oct 21, 9:28 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
john wrote:
On Oct 21, 8:45 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
john wrote:
On Oct 21, 7:19 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
john wrote:
The interpretaion is this; extraterrestrial humans have
been trying to advance our scientific knowledge with
basically the same bunch of drawings
for 20,000 years.
Good luck. We're real slow.
john
   <shaking head> Scientific evidence? None!
What do you have against our planet
being just one of many containing
human beings, Sam?
   I have no problem embracing the possibility of live all over
   the cosmos including other places in the solar system, and
   look forward of EVIDENCE of live in other places.
   The probability that other life had identical DNA as humans
   is just about ZERO.
   Evolutionary processed in different places produce different
   life forms and species. Humans would not have survive on our
   planet in many earlier epochs.
   Relativity petty much prohibits advance technical civilization
   (assuming such exist) from any reasonably fast travel even between
   stars. Alien spacecraft, the probability, thereof, is just about
   ZERO.
   John, you have a tough time sorting science from science fiction
   and speculation.
   I'll bet that the cosmos is teaming with life... but it doesn't
   visit here on spaceships.  Perhaps microbial life on a meteor,
   but not what you fantasize about. John.
Is this a fantasy?
http://www.lucypringle.co.uk/photos/2009/uk2009ci.shtml
This is a picture of a crop circle 2 months ago.
Nice, eh?
   Nice work

http://www.csicop.org/si/show/circular_reasoning_the_mystery_of_crop_....

Look at the sun's reflection off those circles.
They are perfectly alike.
Look from this other angle;
http://www.lucypringle.co.uk/photos/2009/uk2009ci.shtml#pic2
Every one shines like a frying pan's
bottom.
Sam, that field is not a billiard table, man, how does
a hoaxer do that?

john

   Good Hoaxer fool a lot of people, John. Always have, and
   always will.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That has been in the past and will continue to
be the physicists' answer to any proofs
challenging their wild ideas:
really, really, GOOD hoaxers.
(Such open scientific minds!)

Admit it- no proof will change your mind.
Not pictures, not logic, not even seeing is believing.


john

 

[john]

On Oct 22, 5:35 am, Martin Brown <|||newspam...@nezumi.demon.co.uk>
wrote:

Dragonblaze wrote:
On Oct 22, 12:51 am, john <vega...@accesscomm.ca> wrote:

[snip]

Marcel Homet was a widely-travelled doctor of
archaeology, and author whose book containing his
pictures of all the petroglyphs I read back before computer fakery.
There were plenty of pictures- see "Sons of the Sun(?)
by Marcel Homet
I'm pretty sure he showed these rocks to others who would
probably be able to determine if he had just recently carved
them with his little scout knife.
I'm sure after the effort it takes getting to some
of those places in Brazil, he would be in good enough shape to do that
after supper. As would you, I'm sure.

Curious. A rather extensive search of journal databases - a few French
ones thrown in for a good measure - failed to reveal a single peer-
reviewed publication by Homet. Nor am I able to find any PhD of that
name in archaeology.

There is one Marcel Homet, a former SOE agent and topographer,
connected to a Portuguese university. That guy was born in 1897, and
would have been a bit too old for strenuous field archaeology in the
1960's.

Unless you can provide credentials for the guy, I will be forced to
suspect the writer was most likely a fraudster. There are many who
claim false credentials to advance their spurious hypotheses.

You might hazard a guess from the date of publication mid 60's that it
was mainly LSD induced. Amazon has copies available in translation.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/search-handle-url?%5Fencoding=UTF....

Or perhaps he wrote them from beyond the grave - ghost writing writ large..

Regards,
Martin Brown- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Did you read one?
john

 

[john]

On Oct 22, 9:22 am, c...@kcwc.com (Curt Welch) wrote:

john <vega...@accesscomm.ca> wrote:

Tell me how someone hoaxes publishes the
same complex diagram that will not be dug up
for ten years and in both appearances
it is connected with extraterrestrial humans?

john

The fact that you need to be told, shows how clueless you are about
science.

The first post of yours I read worded it "almost the same complex drawing"
(or  something like that).  Now that people have doubted your belief, you
have switched to "the _same_ complex diagram" in a stupid attempt to defend
your own lack of understanding.

The answer is simply John.  If you look at 1,000,000 drawings made by
people over thousands of years,  you will see duplicates.  Oh my god, I
drew a circle, and look, the guy 40,000 years ago drew a circle.  Gee, that
must be proof of UFOs.  Do you have any clue how totally stupid such an
argument is?

Ok, so everyone draws circles so you expect to be lots of duplication.  So
lets draw a circle with a line in it.  Not as many duplicates in those 1,
000,000 drawings we have collected over the years.  The more complex the
drawing gets the less likely you will be able to find a duplicate.  So we
have to think about how complex the drawing has to get before we expect not
to find any duplicates in every drawing anyone has ever found on the earth.

Now, from experience with such things, we know our drawing doesn't have to
be all that complex, before it becomes extremely hard to find a matching
drawing. Once you add a few more circles, lines, and a random strokes, the
drawing becomes so unique that you have never seen anything like it.  And
from the fact that we have never seen anything like it, we tend to extend
that belief to the idea that "there is nothing like it".  But we haven't
ourselves, taken the time to look at every one of the billions of drawings
available to be looked at.  So in fact, we have no real clue how common our
"unique" drawing really is.  Our instincts based on our highly limited
first-hand personal experience is VERY deceiving.  In fact, if we had a
better picture search system, we would find that the drawing has to get far
more complex than we might expect before it really becomes unique in the
set of all pictures ever drawn by man over the past thousands of years.

So when we are are shown a match, in the set, we need to try and understand
the true odds of that match happening by chance and whether the odds are so
out of line, that we can truly justify the argument that it didn't happen
by chance.  But how to you scientifically measure the odds of such a match?

Well, if you look at it and just use your personal instincts to produce a
measure of "seems far too complex to have happened by chance" our own
personal experience will bias our view, and make us believe the odds of it
happening by chance are far too small.  But our own personal experience, is
far too limited in these data sets that include billions of examples.  WE
have never personally searched such huge data sets and as such, our own
personal experience with small data sets will deceive us.  What looks
"impossible" often isn't even usually when dealing with these large data
sets (the set of all drawings every made by any man).

But the effect I talked about above, the effect of trying to judge how
complex a drawing we have to draw, before the odds of finding a duplicate,
is only one of 3 statistical problems at work in your "science".

The next one comes from that fact that you are searching for a match to ANY
TWO pictures every drawn by man, vs picking one, and then trying to find a
match for that one, and no other.  The statistics in these two cases is
VERY different.

Let me give an example.  Lets say we generate a set of a million random 12
digit numbers.  Then you make up a random 12 digit number.  What are the
odds that the number you made up, is in the set of numbers we generated?
The odds are not very good.  It's about 1 in a million.   You can make up
lots of 12 digit numbers, and most of the ones you make up will not be in
the set.

But what if instead, you search the set, to see if there are any duplicates
in the set?  Without formal training in this, you might think the odds of
someone being able to show you a duplicate, is the same as the odds of
someone making up a single random number, and then finding it in the set.
But it's not.  It's not even close.  The odds of there being at least one
duplicate in the exmaple I gave above, is highly likely.  Almost certain.
(sorry I'm not going to bother to try and calculate the real odds right
now).

The reason is that you aren't just looking for one number in the set being
a duplicate with every other number, but instead, you are looking a million
numbers (every number in the set) being a duplicate with some other number
in the set.  You are in effect, doing the "pick a number and see if it
matches something in the set", a million times, and then asking, did any of
those million numbers match one of the million numbers?

There's a well known parlor odds is always trick that takes advantage of
how far off our intuition is on these types of problems.

If you get a group of people together, and ask them all what their birthday
is, how many people do you think you need in the group, before the odds of
finding a duplicate becomes 50/50? (aka highly likely).  Our intuition
makes us think we might need half of 365 or around 180 people before the
odds hit 50/50 that there will be a duplicate.  In fact, once you get to 23
people, the odds of there being a duplicate becomes greater than 50/50.
This is known as the birthday paradox.  Google it.

It's one of many demonstrations of how far off our intuition can be when
dealing with statistics of collisions in large data sets.

Ok, that's only two points I've made so far.  Lets move on to the third..

How close do two drawings have to be, before you will start to say "look
they are the same!"?  In the birthday paradox, or by pick a random number
example, there's no doubt as to whether there was a match or not.

But when comparing two drawings, (likely to include lots of noise), the
human mind will _try_ to find similarities.  That's what it likes to do -
recognize common patterns.  They don't have to be anywhere near exact
before we will start to similarities.  Hell, we can see a circle and a
square as being "the same" if need be.  You draw four small circles in a
square pattern (the circles fall at what would be the corner of a larger
square), and then see a second drawing of four squares, of approximately
the same relative size and spacing, and we think of the two drawings as
being "very similar", even though one was 4 circles, and one was 4 squares.

So, what happens when this natural tendency of the brain to make things
that are different, seem to be "the same" gets applied to a birthday
paradox problem?  We have billions of drawings made by man over 100's of
thousands of years, and someone finds two drawings in the set that "seem"
very similar?

This ability to see drawings that are actually very different, as "the
same" creates a huge amplification effect on the statistics of what we
intuitively were already getting way wrong to begin with.  It makes the
ability for two items from the set to "match" millions of times more
likely.

So, back to science.  Are these two drawings (which you have not shared a
URL with us), that is such good proof for you, truly good scientific
evidence?  To answer that, we have to actually calculate the true odds of
the match, instead of trusting some misguided, and known to be way off the
mark - personality intuition on this.  If we can't accurately calculate the
odds, then it's not science, it's just crap which is of a type of
statistics we know for dead sure is highly7 deceptive to humans - a type of
problem that we intuitively get wrong every time.

To calculate the odds, we need to know the size of the set we are dealing
with.  How many pictures were searched to find a duplicate?  Your example
of course doesn't include this number. It can't. How many idiot UFO
"researches" went looking for duplicate pictures, found none, that we never
heard from? But without it, we can't calculate the odds.  And without the
odds, we have no way of knowing whether our intuition of it being "highly
unlikely" is in the ball park, or like the birthday paradox, of no use to
science.  Evidence that seems good to our intuition, often can be shown to
be worthless, with a little examination.  This is such a well known problem
(the fact that human intuition in these matters is almost always wrong), is
why the tools of science has been created in the first place.  They are
tools, to show us the truth, even when our intuition wants to make us
believe something else.  What science has made it clear, is that
institution is NEVER to be trusted, when looking for the truth.

Real science, NEVER includes a measure of human intuition in it's
arguments.

Your example, is pure human intuition.  What is the odds of those pictures
happening by chance?  We can't calculate it because the data was not
collected in way that allows us to know the odds.  But what we do know
about your "evidence" is that it's a type of evidence well known for
fooling human intuition, and it's just the type of evidence, anyone
actually trained in the scientific method, knows to stay far away from.
It's the WORST type of evidence you can have in science.  It's the evidence
which is MOST LIKELY to fool you into believing crap.  No matter how
unlikely to THINK the odds of those drawings happening by pure random
chance, you are probably way off the mark.

But now, let me take one step further in the errors you are making here.

In all the above, I was only talking about the odds of two pictures being
"the same" in the set of all pictures ever drawn by man.  Your error goes
even further than that.

What we are dealing with, is the set of all possible proofs that
intelligent life from the rest of the universe visited us ...

read more ť

Did you look at the 2 pics?
john