Again, probability

Rob Kailey was attacking me on other forums, effectively hijacking them so he could have a piece of me. The original ban-man doesn’t like being banned, it appears. Here’s a comment:

Take this for example: At the beginning of his 3 part thesis on ‘Critical thinking’, MarkT pulls off a magic trick. It has all the earmarks of such, save one. He doesn’t think it’s a trick. He begins with the suggestion of random improbability, a coin flipped 10 times has a very small probability of coming up heads all 10 times. That randomization is the glamor, the same as a magician shuffling a deck of cards. It suggests that the improbability of the result will be that more astounding when revealed. He then shows holw [sic] the improbability of his randomized example shows that in no way is it probable that 4 hijackings could possibly have succeeded in the manner of the official report of 9/11. Do you see the trick?

It was no trick, of course.

You damned well know that the magician palmed the card of marked it or had some *plan* for success, yet somehow, it is inconceivable that 19 individuals with a plan pulled off a trick that was never subject to a randomization at all. See, if you actually go back for 40 years and look at highjackings [sic], redirecting a plane to another destination, the overwhelming majority of those have been *successful*, just as 3 of 4 were on the morning of September 11, 2001.

Later Nameless Range joins. Both are reluctant to come here, but I’ll answer them anyway. Here’s NR:

We can pick out the independent events of nearly any occurrence, and posteriori, claim immense improbability.

That’s why Bayesian Probability is so more important, and is the most salient form of current Probability Theory.

“You know, the most amazing thing happened to me tonight. I saw a car with the license plate ARW 357. Can you imagine? Of all the millions of license plates in the state, what was the chance that I would see that particular one tonight? Amazing!” – Richard Feynman.

Sounds impressive, what with words like Bayesian and invocation of Feynman. It’s gobbledygook.

Both are engaged in an a discipline that is an essential feature of our system of indoctrination, internalizing insanity. My logic, I hope is evident, is crisp and easily understood. I do not need to invoke impressive sounding mathematical concepts or famous really smart scientists.

The word is “coincidence,” or “incidents” that “co”-occur. If they are unrelated events, there is no coincidence to analyze. If we are talking but one event, there is no “co.”

Rob essentially said that because there have been many hijackings in the past, that seeing four successful ones on one day is not an improbable event. That statement might have some merit if we are merely talking about bugs being zapped near the porch light. But …

  • The fact that there were four at once;
  • That there were no defenses in place against hijackings;
  • That the illusory hijackers had primitive weapons;
  • That the supposed hijackings coincided with other improbabilities as a massive failure of the air defense system or the virtual impossibility of cell phone calls being made from an aircraft at high altitude …

And on and on. So many things that should never happened all happened at once that day. Just the hijackings, scrawny men with box cutters overcoming burly ex-military men who never even managed to hit their squawk buttons …. nah.

Something else happened that day. What was it? There’s lots of speculation. The best candidate right now, in my mind, is called the Boeing Uninterruptible Autopilot, or something similar. This is anti-hijacking technology, supposedly developed post-9/11, that could be used to hijack a plane. All of the circumstances fit … transponders turned off, communications disabled. Couple that with Vigilant Guardian, the massive air defense drills going on that day that could account for fake blips in radar screens and advance warnings that there would be simulated hijackings, and I can see the resulting confusion. (This could also explain the disappearance of Flight 370 and the crash of the Germanwings aircraft. Unlike Rob’s supposed logic applied here, the technology is quite real.)

What then happened to the planes and people? I don’t know. This I know: It is highly unlikely that four flights on busy corridors would have so few passengers that day.

Then there Newton’s Third Law: what we see above cannot be. Cannot be. Even if you see it, it cannot be. A scientific brain looks at an impossible event, and says that even if it happened on TV, it still cannot be true. (Rob says he has superseded that law with sophisticated math regarding velocity, or “v.” That is laughable. Newton’s Law specifically says equal and opposite. Increase “v,” increased the equal and opposite.)

Rob is merely suffering from what Dr. Wood described as …

  • 1) Poor problem solving skills. He doesn’t understand basic probability. When I first met him, he was that dude who threw logic all over the place, analyzing comments and spitting named fallacies at us. Later he would claim to have been the best philosophy student ever at MSU, where he supposedly four-pointed a degree. Still later his specialty became mathematics, and he haughtily described Dr. Wood’s book, which he’s never actually even seen, as deficient in math skills, which he had applied behind a curtain. And now he says with an air of haughty intellectual rigor that because events happen, they happen.
  • 2) Groupthink, a common phenomenon with humans, a need to belong, to be part of the general consensus. All who belong to the feckless majority of mainstream American thought have the comfort of being able to ridicule outliers. In so doing they receive support of our Pravda-like mass media. It gives a sense of correctness and comfort from mutual support, even as the conclusions fly in the face of science. That is groupthink.
  • 3) Fear of the implications. This is self-explanatory. Example: I have looked a the so-called “evidence” surrounding the Boston Marathon “bombing” in 2013. There isn’t any. It was an obviously staged event. But if so, are not our important “news” media trusted talking heads lying to us? Have not innocent people been framed and murdered by our “law enforcement” institutions? Has not an innocent man now been framed in a “show trial” by our judiciary system? That speaks of massive systemic corruption. How much easier it is to believe than to question. That is fear of the implications.

Nameless Range’s comment about ARW 357 should not be set aside lightly. Rather, it should be thrown with great force, and thank you Dorothy Parker. He doesn’t understand the “co” part of coincidence.

I welcome either gentlemen here to refute my statements above. The Kailey ban is lifted. I have savaged him above, and so he deserves a forum to respond, this one and not someone else’s.

And to both of these gentlemen I ask… Do ya have it in ya? Do ya, punks?
__________
This is getting to be a regular occurrence, but I hit the “publish” instead of “save draft” button again. I intended to make this shorter.

About Mark Tokarski

Just a man who likes to read, argue, and occasionally be surprised.
This entry was posted in American wilderness. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Again, probability

  1. steve kelly says:

    .”..I maintain that one strong cup of tea is better than 20 weak ones. All true tea-lovers not only like their tea strong, but like it a little stronger with each year that passes….” – George Orwell, “A Nice Cup of Tea,” Evening Standard, 12 January 1946

    Like

    • Cryptic? I have all of Orwell’s writing from his days as book editor … I enjoyed them more than his fiction, which was so dark, leaving no hope.

      Predictably, the schmucks referenced in this piece are nowhere to be found, but will attack again on some other forum. But this was a fun piece to write. I think I’ll let it hang there for a few days, take a breather. I have a garage to paint.

      Like

    • Reminds me of Ed Abbey too – love his River writings, short essays, meanderings. His fiction, other than the Brave Cowboy, was terrible in my opinion, like being beaten with cardboard characters.

      Like

  2. Steve W says:

    Rob didn’t say anything and neither did you in terms of the success rate of air hijacking attempts prior to 9/11. To do that one would have to ascertain the number of attempts and the number of successes and failures. one would also need to take into account security measures instituted since the earlier occurrences and see if they reduced the success rate. One would also want to see how many of total attempts since squawk buttons were installed resulted in no button being hit.

    Everyone wants to start with assumptions where as if one started with data, with facts, then one could actually make a case.

    The most salient info you provided (this is from memory of your piece) was that all four planes had a panic button and none were employed. With two pilots in each cockpit this does seem unlikely since there were 8 potential people with 16 hands between them and none hit the alarm.

    Instead, all eight were over come with a man or two with box cutters (since only three, maybe four can occupy the cockpit at the same time just due to space) and no one could hit the panic (silent hijack alarm to the tower) button?

    Now I may be laboring under false assumptions here. Perhaps what seems unlikely isn’t really that unlikely. As usual, more good data would help clarify

    I wonder how many past attempts at hijackings were alerted on with the panic button? Do all commercial airliners have panic buttons?

    From my reading, thinking, talking and writing about 9/11 I’ve discovered that many aspects of the events of that day, as well as events leading up to that day, and after that day, defy common sense and logic. The official story when compared to the known facts is hinkey, as I call it.

    The lead up to 9/11 contains two main elements according to the 9/11 commission report as well as repeated assertions by various government and private industry (terrorist industry) talking heads.

    A. There was 1. the arrival and primary organization, of the alleged hijackers and support the commercial pilot training 737 ((747 etc) at schools in the US. and 2. the government and private interactions with hijackers and support during the time prior to the operation.

    B. There are the three crime sites and the civil/military/government defense response.

    C. The investigation and prosecution of the perps.

    D. The continuing cover up.

    All Four areas are hinkey as are all four areas constituent parts. Why does nothing seem to make just regular sense and every part have gaping inconsistencies?

    Here’s a well researched article on some inconsistencies.: http://www.madcowprod.com/2015/03/09/zacarias-moussaoui-and-the-ghosts-of-911/

    And here’s a good article about the CIA connections of the Boston Bombers Uncle.

    http://www.madcowprod.com/2015/01/28/former-top-cia-official-lied-in-boston-bombing-cover-up/

    Like

    • If we ask the wrong question, does he answer matter? I brought up probability because it, like physics, was apparently set aside that day. Kailey and Nameless hit me with absurdity, that simple coincidence and probability should be set aside that day. Nonsense. But for official truth to work, basic science and critical thinking have to go out the window.

      I put the video in there for a simple reason: what is seen happening there is not possible. But people who aren’t good at even basic probability are not going to be able to figure out that Newton’s 3rd was not set aside that day either. If it is on TV, it is real.

      Were there four successful hijackings? Step back: There is no debris from even one aircraft. Without debris, why even argue about hijackings? We are answering the wrong question.

      My point is far more basic: There’s no evidence to support the official strory, but people believe it anyway. Why? Because the alternative is scary.

      People believe absurdities because reality is too scary. That’s all I deal with.

      Like

  3. Rob Kailey says:

    Oh sad little kitten to be attacked so.
    As i wrote before, I have no interest whatsoever in defending the “official story” of 9/11. My effort was to defend critical thinking against charlatans like you, who don’t bother to check any facts if they are “popular”. If your sycophant Steve W actually bothered to look as you yourself wail that people must, he would find that I am correct. Most highjackings [sic] in air have been successful at redirecting airplanes. But he won’t. He’s been suckered by your authority, Mark. To him, you can lie with impunity, just as you claim that commercial airliners had air support panic buttons before 9/11 (most didn’t) and that pilot cabin doors are locked, which they weren’t before 9/11. The saddest part, and the one I made note of, is the ease with which you lie to yourself, and actually believe the fantasy.
    I meant what I wrote, Toke. You aren’t worth my time. Expect no further response and pound your chest for bravery doing battle against those who know you to be a fool and dismiss you, as they rightly should.

    Like

    • Steve W says:

      Rob, your personality disorder is showing, again.

      I’m always glad when you leave i just hope you stay gone. You add nothing except mediocrity.

      Bye bye!

      Like

    • He’s probably sorry he pulled that Monty stunt, and did not address any issues raised. What he did here is called a “stormout,” and is often the last gesture when one loses a debate.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s