Testing for Absurdity, or The Gravy Line

[twinstead]

No, it is the belief that objects can crush themselves into fine powder under their own weight that violates the laws of physics. The belief that an aluminum passenger aircraft could break completely through a steel frame defies the laws of physics.

There is a HUGE difference between somebody not qualified to judge those things simply declaring they defy the laws of physics as if that's all it takes, and countless experts in relevant fields understanding just how these things do NOT defy physics.

Just because you are an expert in arguing basically forever with what is actually an untenable position doesn't mean we aren't smart enough to know it when we see it.

 

[Alareth]

Mackey, your approach is correct. If you could just be honest, you would see that the no planes theory survives your test, and sits comfortably above the gravy line.

Ace, No Plane Theory is one of the most absurd ideas to ever be postulated by a human being. You assertions are laughable, your methods are preposterous.

You can argue differently until the world ends and it's not going to change. Planes hit the towers, please for the love of the deity of your choice, just get over it and move on with your life.

 

[SYLVESTER1592]

I would also suggest proofing the math through a historical example. For example take a subject that at one point was a conspiracy theory, but later after the release of documents, further evidence, etc. the conspiracy theory becomes a conspiracy fact.

If the math shows the particular conspiracy theory to be absurd, when in fact the conspiracy theory at the time was actually a conspiracy fact, what does that say about the formula? Is it a junk formula?

Send the whole thing through a case example and see how it plays out.

According to this formula, you can always provide new evidence. However, everytime it fails the claim is moved more and more towards the absurb. When it crosses the p<0.05 the discussion becomes irrelevant. Therefore it is pertinent to provide credible evidence to support the claim. If you can do that, go for it….

Clarification: Show a theory that has been or that we would label as p<0.05, and has a p> or = 0.05 , after you present your additional evidence and therefore needs to be discussed.

SYL

 

[ConspiRaider]

'Fess up: you're just mad that no schematics were included.

To be quite honest - yes. Everything worthwhile ever done had schematics and their glaring absence here - just incomprehensible. Appallingly so.

For example, most of the software programs I write, I pull directly out of my butt. Should I post a schematic, d'ya think? And would it get past the withering scrutiny of the mods?

By the way, Gravy. Pass the smashed taters, if you please?

 

[NoZed Avenger]

[qimg]http://static.stripgenerator.com/generated/anonymous/strip/2007/06/13/mackey-line.png[/qimg]

Thanks.

See, now THAT is how the opening post should have been done in the first place.

 

[Mr. Skinny]

RMackey,

I'm a System Safety Engineer, so I'm familiar with the probability/severity analysis.

I hadn't thought of it as being applicable to CT theories before, but you've piqued my interest. I'm going to give some thought over the next day or so as to whether or not some other techniques, such a Fault Tree Analysis (FTA) might work. If you started an FTA with a top event such as "WTC 1 and 2 collapse", you might be able to eventually figure out how probable a theory was based on how far down in the tree the base (basic/causitive) event would have to occur before a "chain of events" could result in the top event.

I admit that an FTA would be incredibly more complex than what you've proposed, but it might remove some of the subjectivity from the analysis.

This is a very undeveloped idea on my part at the moment. Just wanted to let you know you got me thinking. (prick - I really don't have the time this week *grin*)

 

[beachnut]

Mackey, your approach is correct. If you could just be honest, you would see that the no planes theory survives your test, and sits comfortably above the gravy line.

The no plane theory only works with imaginary numbers.

No plane, funny guy. Eyes that saw planes...

You must seek mental health help soon.

 

[DarkMagician]

I have a lot of free time, and nailing Jell-O to a wall got bored.

<snip>
My method appears to be original, as far as I know. However, my methods of calculation could not be more simple to review. One only needs to count pixels.

Of course, with the distance, and the transfers, there's a HUGE MARGIN OF ERROR!

<snip>
Organizations do not act, individuals act. The notion that individuals within the major news organizations are complicit
is not an assumption, it is a conclusion that is reached to explain the data.

Sort of like the conclusion that bumblebee's cannot fly. The orgs being complicit is a different claim that needs to be addressed separately of the videos. You don't get to claim it as a conclusion just because it wraps things up in your paranoid worldview.

<snip>
A few individuals have attempted to tackle this, prominently Bazant and Greening. These guys rely on provably false assumptions, such as "accumulating mass" above the "collapse front". There is no basis in reality to assume such a phenomenon, as all the videos show mass being rendered into fine powder, and ejected sideways.

Wait, what?

Do you have evidence that most of the mass moved that way, or is this one of your conclusions that let you sleep at night?

<snip>No, it is the belief that objects can crush themselves into fine powder under their own weight that violates the laws of physics.

You'd think it was the proposition that's wrong at that point.

<snip>
The belief that an aluminum passenger aircraft could break completely through a steel frame defies the laws of physics.

You keep on using that phrase. I don't think it means what you think it means.

 

[gumboot]

TS1234, as you have been told REPEATEDLY, your analysis is only accurate because you apply ZERO margin of error.

Only a fractional margin of error is required in order to refute your hypothesis.

The methodology you use involves an ENORMOUS margin of error.

-Gumboot

 

[Triterope]

Proposal: Credibility Score Baseline

RMackey, I think your algorithm overlooks one very important factor: namely, the credibility of the person raising the argument.

I'm much less likely to believe a theory is absurd if it's been proposed by someone with a history of solidly researching everything they say, as opposed to someone with a long history of cutting-and-pasting everything they see on Prison Planet.

Therefore I suggest that the proponent of the theory start with a baseline "credibility score", based on how many theories they've proposed in the past, and average score of those theories. (The former is important because it gives us more data points; someone who proposed ten bad theories should be demerited more than someone who proposed one and theory.)

I tinkered around in Excel until I found a formula that kinda matched the rate at which I stop listening to people who propose crazy theories. It is:

=SQRT((SQRT(A/0.05))^N)

Where N is the number of theories they have previously proposed, and A is the average score those theories got.

In English:

1. Divide the average credibility score by .05. This converts it to a scale where a minimum acceptable theory is 1, a failed theory is between 0 and 1, and a passing theory is greater than 1.

2. Take the square root of the result of Step 1. This makes the curve less extreme for values that are far from 1 (i.e., very high or very low).

3. Raise the result of Step 2 to the power of N, N being the total number of theories proposed. The more theories proposed, the more extreme the bonus/penalty for one's existing credibility score.

4. Take the square root of the result of Step 3, once again to make the curve less extreme.

5. If the result is greater than 1.5, the credibility baseline is 1.5. Otherwise, the credibility baseline is the result of Step 4.

People who propose passable theories can have a credibility score as high as 1.5. Those who propose failing theories have credibility scores that will approach zero. This has the effect of giving each person their own minimum credibility threshold.

A person with the maximum credibility rating of 1.5 applies a 1.5 multiplier to any theory they propose. This means they can propose a theory that would otherwise earn a score of 0.0333, and have it earn a passing grade (1.5 x 0.03333 = 0.05). This is why credibility rating maxes out at 1.5; if it went higher, someone with such a rating could propose insanely poor scores and have them pass. This requires each theory to meet a bare minimum score, no matter how credible the proponent becomes.

Someone with a credibility rating below one must earn a score higher than 0.05: For example, someone with a credibility rating of 0.4 needs a score of .125 to pass (.125 x .4 = .05).

It is possible for one's credibility score to become so low that no theory they propose can possibly meet the 0.05 minimum score. This is by design; it attempts to model the point at which someone is simply not worth listening to anymore. The lower one's average rating goes, and the more theories they propose, the more one's credibility score approaches zero.

Some sample credibility scores, based on AVG (average credibility rating) and N (number of theories proposed):

AVG=0.049, N=50 -> 0.777. Despite a failing AVG and a lot of theories proposed, this person is close enough to the minimum that we're willing to continue listening to them.

AVG=0.049, N=2 -> 0.990. Since this person has only proposed two theories, they only take a slight credibility hit.

AVG=0.010, N=2 -> 0.447. This person has also proposed two theories, but they were so awful (average score .01) that their credibility is already diminshed by half. If they do not improve this average quickly, they will become non-credible.

AVG=0.05, N=any number -> 1. The algorithm is designed such that someone whose average barely meets the minimum will always have a credibility score of 1 -- no bonus or penalty.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Wouldn't a credibility score introduce greater risk of fallacious appeal to authority and argumentum ad hominem fallacies into the process?

 

[Triterope]

Wouldn't a credibility score introduce greater risk of fallacious appeal to authority and argumentum ad hominem fallacies into the process?

Yes. But my algorithm is designed to minimize that risk.

That's why the maximum allowable credibility score is 1.5. It prevents someone from building so much credibility that they can say anything and have it get a passing grade. You could cap it lower than that if you wanted. You could even cap it at 1, which would require all theories to meet the .05 minimum score no matter how is proposing them. However, I prefer to give a little leeway to who have a history of being correct.

As for the other end of the scale, the N factor gives proponents of bad theories a chance correct themselves before we start holding it against them. It does not punish severely until the proponent has made several bad arguments, or makes arguments that consisntely fall well short of the 0.05 passing grade.

I do not believe it is argumentum ad hominem to give short shrift to a theory when the person proposing it has a long history of proposing nonsense. RMackey's original formula views every theory in a vacuum. I don't view them that way, and I don't think anyone should, because we have limited time and resources to evaluate them. When deciding what we're going to spend our valuable time investigating, one's credibility should be a factor.

Credibility score, as I propose above, is only going to affect two cases. First, in cases where the unadjusted score of a theory comes out to be very near 0.05, the proponent's credibility can be the difference between a passing and failing score. Second, some people's credibility will become so low that anything they say is unlikely to be worth investigating.

If you wanted to be really scientific about it, you could track people's Gravy Rating scores, and build models of how much they vary. If a person's average rating is 0.06 after 10 theories, how likely is that person's next theory to earn a score 0.05? How likely is it to be below 0.05? Do people with sub-0.05 scores always make sub-0.05 proposals, or do people with failing averages make good points sometimes? Analysis of this sort would likely give us a better idea of when it is "safe" to reject people out of hand.

If you wanted to, you could give each person a crediblity score without using it as a multiplier for their own theories. This would require each theory to meet the 0.05 minimum regardless of proponent, but would give us a metric we could use to auto-reject people once they've promoted too many failing theories.

 

[Swing Dangler]

Can you suggest an example of something that was once considered a kooky conspiracy theory but later became generally accepted as authoritative?

Well indeed I can.

The origins of the U.S. involvement in the Vietnam conflict, via the Gulf of Tonkin incident.

 

[tacodaemon]

Well indeed I can.

The origins of the U.S. involvement in the Vietnam conflict, via the Gulf of Tonkin incident.

That's the closest I can think of offhand too, but frankly there is still controversy over whether LBJ knew the second attack didn't really happen -- in other words, it's not seen as an open-and-shut case yet. See http://www.nsa.gov/vietnam/ for example.

The goings-on detailed in the Pentagon Papers might work, if there was anyone promoting it as a conspiracy theory ahead of time. Although any kind of conspiracy involving high government officials rather than extragovernmental actors kind of seems like something qualitatively different. How about the conspiracy to assassinate Lincoln?

 

[Swing Dangler]

That's the closest I can think of offhand too, but frankly there is still controversy over whether LBJ knew the second attack didn't really happen -- in other words, it's not seen as an open-and-shut case yet. See http://www.nsa.gov/vietnam/ for example.

The goings-on detailed in the Pentagon Papers might work, if there was anyone promoting it as a conspiracy theory ahead of time. Although any kind of conspiracy involving high government officials rather than extragovernmental actors kind of seems like something qualitatively different. How about the conspiracy to assassinate Lincoln?

Actually it goes a bit further back to OP-PLAN 34A that were covert operations carried out by the U.S. against the North Vietnamese.Around midnight on the night of July 30-31, OPLAN 34A raiders from Danang shelled two of North Vietnam's offshore islands, Hon Me and Hon Ngu (a.k.a. Hon Nieu). The end result was the Gulf of Tonkin incident and the rest is history.

Quick summary:

To summarize, the principal objective of OPLAN 34A was to combine the attacks against North Vietnam with military and diplomatic pressure to serve as a warning to North Vietnam to not increase its activities in Laos and in the RVN. Thus, from a plan that was implemented by the CIA with the objective of gathering intelligence and wreaking havoc on the North, OPLAN 34A had now become an operation that was heavily weighted on the political aspects of the confrontation.

Also on December 15, 1963, in response to high level directives, the U.S. Navy set up a Mobile Support Team (Toán Yểm Trợ Lưu Ðộng) in Ðà Nẵng. This team consisted of a number of U.S. Navy frogmen known as SEALS, U.S. Marine Intelligence Officers and many American specialists experienced in guerrilla operations. Additionally, two PT Boat crews had recently arrived in Ðà Nẵng. The purpose of the Mobile Support Teams was to train Vietnamese crews in how to operate the PT Boats and use them in commando raids by sea. The U.S. would provide maintenance and support services.

On December 19th, the U.S. Army Command in the Pacific asked the Joint Chiefs of Staff for permission to implement OPLAN 34A on an experimental basis for a period of 12 months.

LBJ in his audio tapes is apparently aware of these Operations. In a Vietnam War class years ago that I took as part of my undergrad training, the course if I remember correctly was one of the first in the nation..but there was a great quote in our text from LBJ, I'm paraphrasing so bear with me:

"I don't give a god dam if they are shooting at flying fish..." I distinctly remember that quote because it was the first time in a text book I came across god dam.

 

[pomeroo]

I would also suggest proofing the math through a historical example. For example take a subject that at one point was a conspiracy theory, but later after the release of documents, further evidence, etc. the conspiracy theory becomes a conspiracy fact.

If the math shows the particular conspiracy theory to be absurd, when in fact the conspiracy theory at the time was actually a conspiracy fact, what does that say about the formula? Is it a junk formula?

Send the whole thing through a case example and see how it plays out.

I have an idea, Swingie. YOU should provide an example of a conspiracy theory that became a conspiracy "fact."

Take your time.

 

[pomeroo]

Mr. Mackey, sir, when you resort to such overt falsehoods, so often, you reveal the weakness of your own position. Below is your "no planes" example, with errors explained.

Mackey has never, to the knowledge of any sane person, told any lies on this forum. You, on the other hand, have been caught lying often.

The theory does so describe how this aspect of the attacks were carried out, and does so offer readily apparent candidates. Video of planes was inserted into live pictures of the towers. Towers were hit by either pre-planted explosives, missiles, or directed energy weapons.

False. The theory does so make predictions. My velocity study predicts that velocity graph lines derived from legitimate videos will smooth out upon stablilization. This is a testable, falsifiable prediction. It also predicts that a known composite video made by the methods I describe will display the opposite effect upon the graph lines, and this too is falsifiable.​

The same can be said of other aspects of the entire no-planes argument. We do not believe it possible for such an aircraft to break completely through a steel frame as it is alleged. Though it would cost a lot of money, in theory this too is testable.​

My method appears to be original, as far as I know. However, my methods of calculation could not be more simple to review. One only needs to count pixels.​

What planet have you been living on? Video overlay technology has been operational since the 1960's. This old school approach may have been used. Much more sophisticated overlay technology has been operational since 1998, as mentioned in my paper.​

Organizations do not act, individuals act. The notion that individuals within the major news organizations are complicit​

is not an assumption, it is a conclusion that is reached to explain the data.​

I, for one, have repeatedly asked for witnesses to contact me. The witnesses recorded on television all sound rehearsed and quite phony. Something like 95% of them work for news organizations. Eyewitness statements take a back seat to physical evidence anyway. No government reports even deal with the phenomenology of the "collapses". A few individuals have attempted to tackle this, prominently Bazant and Greening. These guys rely on provably false assumptions, such as "accumulating mass" above the "collapse front". There is no basis in reality to assume such a phenomenon, as all the videos show mass being rendered into fine powder, and ejected sideways. In the end, there is no evidence for very much mass at all left in the footprint, so Greening and co. baselessly claim that "it all went in the basement".​

Debunked.​

No, it is the belief that objects can crush themselves into fine powder under their own weight that violates the laws of physics. The belief that an aluminum passenger aircraft could break completely through a steel frame defies the laws of physics.​

debunked, above​

Mackey, your approach is correct. If you could just be honest, you would see that the no planes theory survives your test, and sits comfortably above the gravy line.

Your incompetent drivel has been reduced to, you should pardon the expression, pulverized dust. Your deranged notion that no planes hit the Twin Towers is insane and so are you.

 

[pomeroo]

Well indeed I can.

The origins of the U.S. involvement in the Vietnam conflict, via the Gulf of Tonkin incident.

Fascinating example. After a day of skirmishing with North Vietnamese torpedo boats, American sailors reported, in poor visibility, an attack on their destroyer that probably never occurred. Lyndon Johnson commented that, "those dumb sons-of-bitches were probably firing at flying fish." That didn't stop him, however, from cynically ramming a "Gulf of Tonkin Resolution" through a subservient Congress.

Now, there was absolutely no conspiracy of any sort. Nobody seriously believes that there was. A very tricky pol used an opportunity that had fallen into his lap to advance a policy that was already in place.
So, Swingie, you didn't disappoint your fans: You had absolutely nothing in mind when you suggested that some conspiracy theories have proved to be reality-based.

 

[Swing Dangler]

Fascinating example. After a day of skirmishing with North Vietnamese torpedo boats, American sailors reported, in poor visibility, an attack on their destroyer that probably never occurred. Lyndon Johnson commented that, "those dumb sons-of-bitches were probably firing at flying fish." That didn't stop him, however, from cynically ramming a "Gulf of Tonkin Resolution" through a subservient Congress.

Now, there was absolutely no conspiracy of any sort. Nobody seriously believes that there was. A very tricky pol used an opportunity that had fallen into his lap to advance a policy that was already in place.
So, Swingie, you didn't disappoint your fans: You had absolutely nothing in mind when you suggested that some conspiracy theories have proved to be reality-based.

Please study the events of the OP-Plans for example prior to the Gulf of Tonkin incident in the context of the event before spouting off and displaying your lack of knowledge on the subject at hand with the final goal of attacking my character. Thanks.

 

[bonavada]

I, for one, have repeatedly asked for witnesses to contact me. The witnesses recorded on television all sound rehearsed and quite phony. Something like 95% of them work for news organizations.

why should witnesses contact you? why not contact these people yourself? i'm sure that if i was as convinced as you of your incredible findings i would feel compelled to do so.
HERE is a collection of stories, some from 9-11 eyewitnesses (stored at the library of congress no less) seems like an obvious place to start.
please let us know how you get on.

BV