Posted on 04/05/2009 2:48:57 PM PDT by JoeProBono
It was the Los Angeles mass sightings that included anti-aircraft fire on our part as well as planes launched against them.
I forget the year.
Maybe Dave or DC Patriot will recall better.
I don’t think so.
If TRUTH was your paragon priority, then you’d be much more rational and reasonable about the balance between a
TYPE I ERROR RISK
VS A
TYPE II ERROR RISK
INSTEAD
of putting all your eggs in the basket toward avoiding only a TYPE I ERROR RISK.
That virtually INSURES that you will suffer at least some horrific TYPE II ERRORS.
Thanks for the ping.
And you for your kind reply.
Have a blessed week.
Whatever. Why do you waste your time making up terms that make sense to nobody but you, and then acting as if you are making a good point?
It would be different if you used terms that actually exist, and asked your interlocutor to consider alternate meanings...but instead you’re just wasting good computer memory.
Early 40’s ???(I recall the photo on the newspaper, from WWII?)
Are you THAT ignorant about
TYPE I ERRORS VS TYPE II ERRORS?
And you expect us to think your pontifications naysaying about UFO realities have any substance whatsoever?
Try this link . . . Even Wiki has it right about
TYPE I VS TYPE II ERRORS.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_I_and_type_II_errors
I don’t recall for sure but I THINK it was either just at the end of WWII or just after when tensions were still high.
It’s conceivable it was in the early 50’s. But I think you are probably right. It was probably in the 40’s.
Explain to me, oh wise one, how abstract statistical concepts relate to whether a “sighting” in NJ (breathlessly accepted as real) was or was not caused by two punks attaching flares to weather balloons?
In statistics, the terms Type I error (also, α error, or false positive) and type II error (β error, or a false negative) are used to describe possible errors made in a statistical decision process. In 1928, Jerzy Neyman (1894-1981) and Egon Pearson (1895-1980), both eminent statisticians, discussed the problems associated with "deciding whether or not a particular sample may be judged as likely to have been randomly drawn from a certain population" (1928/1967, p.1): and identified "two sources of error", namely:
In 1930, they elaborated on these two sources of error, remarking that "in testing hypotheses two considerations must be kept in view, (1) we must be able to reduce the chance of rejecting a true hypothesis to as low a value as desired; (2) the test must be so devised that it will reject the hypothesis tested when it is likely to be false"[1]
In layman's language . . .
TRYING to put it in language for all the Jr High level debunkers and naysayers out there . . .
A TYPE I ERROR = SAYING SOMETHING !!!IS!!! THERE then NOTHING is there.
A TYPE II ERROR = saying NOTHING IS THERE
WHEN actually SOMETHING IS THERE!
It turns out to be the nature of REALITY that one CANNOT run too far from the risk of a TYPE I ERROR without running headlong into the virtual certainty of becoming victim of a TYPE II ERROR.
Amazingly, virtually all the naysayers ever plaguing a UFO thread seem to be either thoroughly ignorant of these facts--OR--to mindlessly pretend they don't apply to THEIR death grips on TYPE II ERROR probabilities.
What BALDERDASH! What unmitigated hypocrisy! What cluelessness!
However, it does afford the rest of us some amusement at their lack of personal insight alongside rank willful blindness.
I’ll try . . . simply and briefly. Otherwise, it gets far too tedious to bother that much.
1. WHEN one sets up a criteria of proof that becomes outrageously unrealistic—say well beyond what would be needed to convict a murderer to die for murder . . .
2. THEN one has set up a virtual certainty of being bitten by the consequences of insuring a virtual certainty of a TYPE II ERROR.
3. The hoaxes are weeded out—certainly eventually—and what’s left are . . . VERY SOLID TESTIMONIAL AND OTHER EVIDENCE.
4. for example . . . MORE THAN 4,000 TRACE LANDING CASES WHEREIN SOLID SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATION HAS PROVEN TANGIBLE EVIDENCE . . . FROM magnetic anomolies; soil anomolies, vegetation anomolies and even trace elements not normal for the terrain.
5. Naysayers seem compulsively addicted to insisting that ALL EVIDENCE IS HOAXED EVIDENCE . . . drum roll, because they say it is. That’s idiotic—AND A SETUP-FOR BEING VICTIMIZED BY A TYPE II ERROR.
6. The above facts and conclusions are EASILY ARRIVED AT by a minimum of thoughtful pondering—even by folks with an average IQ and an average level of fair-mindedness.
Oh please ASLANs, get off your high horse. Your problem is that you see yourself as having escaped the limitations of modern scientific rationalism, when in fact you are still enslaved by the limitations of the jargon of modern science. In all seriousness, you need to start over, begin with the human things, wrestle with human opinion and a better understanding of human desire, and thereby find a more complete avenue to reality.
Except in some eastern Asian nations, modern science is not taken that seriously anymore. Therefore, your battle against it is moot.
Anyway, back to the point: what does any of this have to do with the two guys in NJ who are now under arrest?
BTW,
Evidently you are . . . uninformed . . . to put it charitably and gently . . .
ABSTRACT STATISTICAL TERMS
have served science
AND THE COMMON MAN fairly well for a long time . . .
in analyzing, testing, hypotheses
having to do with hard reality
REGARDING EVERYTHING
from medicine break-throughs
to how to build 747’s safely and cost effectively.
to how to build safer tires
and better water purification systems . . .
and safer foods . . .
Soooooooooo, I guess, IF
you haven’t traveled by planes, or traveled on tires or taken any medicines or drank any water or eaten any foods
in your lifetime,
then you MIGHT not have benefited from such ABSTRACT STATISTICAL constructs and their use.
Silly non-sequiturs are not exactly HELPING your side.
LOL.
Initially some folks made a TYPE I ERROR believing something was there of an authentic UFO nature.
Time and investigation proved that.
Time and investigation on other cases have proven that there WAS MOST LIKELY, AUTHENTIC UFO PHENOMENA GOING ON.
YET, IN THOSE CASES, naysayers ADDICTED TO TYPE II ERRORS make such outrageous errors routinely . . . ignorantly pretending that THEY are the scientific ones.
You are evidently as ignorant about me as you are the UFO topic. Otherwise you’d know that I have ranted frequently against the RELIGION OF SCIENTISM.
BTW, Jolly Roger, YOU CHOSE TO COME ON A UFO THREAD and make an intellectual dork of yourself with your mindless naysaying. If you can’t stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.
Thanks for the info. I thought it was LA, but wasn’t sure.
2HardDrive: Here is the Wikipedia entry for what is commonly called the “Battle of Los Angeles”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Los_Angeles
The incident happened on the night of February 24 & 25, 1942. So you were right LVD, it was during WWII. In fact, the reason they were probably so “alert” was that on February 23rd, a Japanese submarine had surfaced off the coast and fired on a Santa Barbara Oil Production facility, and word was the submarine headed south after the incident towards LA.
This incident was witnessed by a great many people, was accompanied by air raid sirens, and was covered in papers up and down the Pacific Coast and apparently some National mass media coverage as well. Newspaper photos are included on the WikiPage.
Hope this helps. :)
Not being in psychology, I don’t really know about type II errors, and I’d even agree that the majority of these UFO cases can be explained prosaically. But there are enough examples of bizarre unexplained cases out there, testified to by people of unquestioned professional disciplines, including members of the US military, that no thinking person can dismiss the possibility that the explanations for the phenomena are non ordinary, whether they attributed to alien intelligences, creatures from another dimension, or some other as yet unhypothesized reality. At least IMHO ;-)
HELPS MY AGING MEMORY A LOT!
I knew there was a term for it but hadn’t dredged up
THE BATTLE of LA
THANKS THANKS.
RIGHT YOU ARE.
EVEN IF
there were only 1-5 cases that were unexplainable by conventional means and ‘science,’
THAT WOULD BE SUFFICIENT TO SIGNAL THAT THINGS WERE BEYOND VERY CURIOUS IN RIVER CITY.
THE MORE THAN 4,000 TRACE LANDING CASES ARE CONSIDERABLY MORE THAN 1-5 CASES.
And that doesn’t get into all the other VERY SOLID 100’s and thousands of other cases not involving trace landing evidence.
BTW, TYPE I & II errors are not only involved in psychology.
Sounds like something I saw over Green Valley, Arizona in 2005.
BTW,
my energy is not REALLY as personal as it may seem.
It is directed at all the chronic mindless naysaying that routinely assaults UFO threads and hinders those of us who ARE well read on the topic and at least who have a serious interest AND WHO WANT TO DISCUSS THINGS RATIONALLY, sensibly
from doing so in a reasonably charitable and comfortable environment.
We have to wade through endless silly pics and endless ignorant posts of great hostility and derisiveness.
It gets old fast.
So, I’ve developed a quick reflex to slap down such jerky postings as best I can. It’s the least I can do and the least I owe the more than 150 members of our UFO ping lists who just want to have a chance to discuss the topic reasonably without a lot of idiotic harrassment from folks who don’t seem to have a clue nor a fair-minded brain cell in their bodies.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.