Fair enough. I am aware of the plant node deformation that has been found in some crop circles, and I think that warrants serious study. But in this case the video is a known hoax so it would be interesting to know what samples from that specific set of crop circles looked like.
BTW... what are the Type I and Type II errors you mentioned? Not sure that I’ve ever heard that terminology.
TYPE I ERROR VS TYPE II ERROR
is standard statistical jargon for testing the null hypothesis.
You can look them up on Wiki
Basically, as I’ve noted above . . . or on another thread . . .
A TYPE I ERROR is saying SOMETHING IS THERE—when there is NOTHING there.
A TYPE II ERROR says that NOTHING IS THERE when THERE IS SOMETHING THERE.
Naysayers seem sooooooooooooooooooooooooooo terminally allergic, soooooooooooooooooo irrationally and obsessively allergic to experiencing a TYPE I ERROR about UFO’s that they
AUTOMATICALLY, INEXORABLY SET THEMSELVES UP
FOR ALMOST A CERTAINTY of a TYPE II ERROR.
And they persistently sound utterly clueless that THAT IS TRUE. And when I point it out—even some with some statistical understanding—they get more irrational and insist:
IS NOT! . . . just because they say so.
Yet they think those of us paying attention to 10’s of thousands of pages and more of the data about UFO’s—that WE’RE the ones being irrational and dumb.
Sheesh.
Thankfully—in some respects—in terms of my ego—which is essentially worthless or worse—they will fall flat on their faces in the mother of all TYPE II ERROR COWPIES . . . or worse.
Are you saying that the CROP CIRCLE was a hoax
OR
that the photo with the light in it WAS A HOAX.
VERY DIFFERENT ISSUES.
The crop circle could certainly have been ‘authentic’ . . . whatever that entails . . . and the light photo of the crop circle could still be hoaxed.
If so, the plant nodes would be consistent with most authentic crop circle plant nodes—zapped.