To demonstrate how easily probability can be misused, see the prosecutor's fallacy.
The prosecutor's fallacy is a fallacy of statistical reasoning involving a test for an occurrence, such as a DNA match. A positive result in the test may paradoxically be more likely to be an erroneous result than an actual occurrence, even if the test is very accurate. The fallacy is named because it is typically used by a prosecutor to exaggerate the probability of a criminal defendant's guilt. The fallacy can be used to support other claims as well – including the innocence of a defendant.
For instance, if a perpetrator were known to have the same blood type as a given defendant and 10% of the population to share that blood type, then one version of the prosecutor's fallacy would be to claim that, on that basis alone, the probability that the defendant is guilty is 90%. However, this conclusion is only close to correct if the defendant was selected as the main suspect based on robust evidence discovered prior to the blood test and unrelated to it (the blood match may then be an "unexpected coincidence"). Otherwise, the reasoning presented is flawed, as it overlooks the high prior probability (that is, prior to the blood test) that he is a random innocent person. Assume, for instance, that 1000 people live in the town where the murder occurred. This means that 100 people live there who have the perpetrator's blood type; therefore, the true probability that the defendant is guilty – based on the fact that his blood type matches that of the killer – is only 1%, far less than the 90% argued by the prosecutor.
A UFO photograph or video is often considered to be debunked if at least one unlikely coincidence is found in the case. You only need one. We now know that the Flir1 Nimitz UFO footage is authentic because the government admitted it was, but this footage was leaked in 2007 with skeptics concluding that it was a CGI hoax because it was originally uploaded to a CGI website. What are the odds of legitimate Navy footage being first uploaded to a CGI website? This demonstrates that even if you have a very strong coincidence argument against UFO footage, it could still be perfectly legitimate.
There are other kinds of coincidences that are used in the same way. What if the UFO resembles a man made object? Does that mean that it's probably a hoax? Actually, no. I'll explain this critical error using the McMinnville UFO photographs. They are often considered to be a hoax because the UFO resembles a vehicle side view mirror from that era. What are the odds that a UFO would closely resemble a side view mirror? That's not actually what the argument is, however. It's actually "what are the odds that any of a number of unlikely coincidences in the case would be found?" This is because if an unlikely coincidence was found, it would be considered to be debunked. It just happens to be in this case that skeptics discovered the resemblance to a man made object, but many other kinds of coincidences could have taken its place.
In this debunking of the MnMinnville UFO, they didn't use the highest quality version of the photograph, so it only appears to be a very close match. However, we should expect to find at least one man made object that resembles the ufo, but that doesn't actually mean anything for guilt or innocence.
What is the total number of things humans have created? Billions? Trillions? We have created an uncountable number of things of all shapes, colors, and sizes, and each of them can be photographed from a wide variety of angles, including various kinds of toys, kites, balloons, vehicle parts, trinkets, cookware, utensils, tools, hats, etc, etc. Unless the UFO is of a very unusual shape, it's nearly guaranteed that you'll eventually discover a man made object that resembles a UFO.
What about hobbies and occupations? Even though many people out there work in special effects and are equally likely to see a UFO as anyone else, if a UFO photograph happened to be taken by such a person, it will be automatically discredited. What are the odds that a UFO witness will happen to work in special effects? Like earlier, this is not what the argument actually is because other occupations and hobbies have been used to discredit a UFO photograph or video. Any other kind of unlikely coincidence could be used here.
People who are automatically suspicious of perpetrating a UFO hoax: 1) anyone who has a drone, 2) anyone who builds scale models, 3) anyone who has a hobby or occupation involving VFX, 4) anyone who has a hobby or occupation involving special effects, 5) anyone with a youtube account or something else that may theoretically draw subscribers or money from the sighting, 6) anyone who has seen a UFO more than once, and 7) anyone with a conviction on their record. I know I'm missing a lot here, but you get the point. Additionally, even if the witness had no occupations or hobbies having anything to do with these things, and even if this is the first UFO this person has witnessed, it can still be "debunked" if a skeptic finds a man made object that closely resembles the UFO. At the end of the day, the likelihood of a legitimate UFO witness passing the "no coincidence test" is low because there are so many available options to choose from. You should expect to find at least one unlikely coincidence in the case, sometimes more.
The 2007 Costa Rica video has been "debunked" because it was found that the primary witness builds scale models of horse drawn carriages and stuff as a hobby, alleging that he could have also built a UFO model based on this coincidence. Here is the Costa Rica 2007 UFO video. Here are screenshots of the video, and here's a gif of the movement. Here is a video on his scale models, and here is a photo he took of one of his scale models What are the odds?
This video of a flying saucer zipping around outside of an airplane window was debunked because the witness who posted the video was accused of being a hoaxer. She works in special effects (not VFX) and worked on a couple of alien themed movies. She was widely accused of being a hoaxer and eventually deleted her original tweet. What are the odds that a UFO witness would work in special effects on a few alien movies? I would change this to "what are the odds that you'd find at least one unlikely coincidence in a UFO case?" It could very well be CGI, but the fact that you found an unlikely coincidence doesn't support that allegation.
The bottom line is that you are not asking how unlikely it is that a person who films a UFO would work in special effects or that the UFO resembles a specific man made object. Your actual argument is "what are the odds that I would be able to find at least one unlikely coincidence in a legitimate UFO case?" The answer is that it's practically guaranteed because coincidences happen all the time, so when you do finally stumble upon that coincidence, that by itself is not evidence of anything whatsoever. If enough details are made public, someone will eventually discover that coincidence.
Here are two more critical errors I've seen made many times on the subject of UFOs:
1) Just because something is possibly true does not mean it is actually true. Just because it is possible to recreate a UFO photograph using camera trickery does not mean that the photo is a fake. Possibility here does not imply likelihood because many real things can be recreated using camera trickery. Think about real things being depicted on a Hollywood set, such as gun fights, car crashes, etc.
This argument is also often based on the idea that extraterrestrial visitation is unlikely, meaning that if it is theoretically possible to recreate a UFO photograph, then it must have been fake, but we don't actually know how likely or unlikely alien visitation is.
2) Just because there are many cases of conventional objects being misinterpreted as UFOs does not imply that all UFOs are conventional. If alien spaceships really were visiting Earth and the public was aware of this, the majority of sightings would still be conventional phenomena because most people are not expertly familiar with aircraft, atmospheric physics, astronomy, etc. A sampling of reports from the general public would still be mostly conventional, not actual UFOs, whether UFOs were real or not.
Submitted February 26, 2022 at 09:05AM by MKULTRA_Escapee https://ift.tt/dKiJAef
No comments:
Post a Comment