I appreciate the honesty. I can see how my post got so many downvotes. I definitely misused the term “statistics” by not inferring a casual and metaphorical tone.

No, I don’t believe that my reasoning is scientifically sound. I don’t claim that my observation is the final truth. I claim that my belief in such things are affirmed (albeit faintly) through the improbability that all unintentional reports and encounters all false.

Not by a long shot.

I never claimed that Nessy was a worldwide phenomenon, it was a hypothetical scenario to express a point.

If the scenario you’ve describing were to be true, then it’d be something more major to discuss than ghosts or aliens as it would provide the potential for groundbreaking discoveries. I don’t expect you to continue vouching for for Nessy and its research potential since it’d be off topic, however.

Full disclosure, I’m not claiming the aliens or ghosts to be real, I am affirming my belief due to the improbability of all reports being claimed false.

People will use the incentive to make hoaxes for fame and money. This adds to the 99%.

People have reported high quality pictures. Which begs the question of whether it is real or fake. If fake, it adds to the 99%. If real, it adds to the 1%.

Modern astronomical and surveillance have captured evidence of them. Which begs the question of whether it is real or fake. If fake, it adds to the 99%. If real, it adds to the 1%.

We are not relying on shaky polaroid pictures. And the pictures must disproportionately be seemingly random since they’re difficult phenomenon to capture.

Yes, I do believe aliens and ghosts can be confirmed for a greater extent than God.

The difference being that we can use provided recordings, sightings, and reports (as false as many of them may be) to take a lead into discovering more about these phenomena. Using physical instruments to deduce, observe, and hypothesize we can have greater confidence in proof. In terms of God, from what I have seen, there is no way to deduce and observe using physical instruments.

Evidence in God is entirely localized and biased. God, assuming a Judeo-Christian flavor, only accounts for approximately 30% of all belief in the world, which is centralized into more popular locations such as the US, UK, China, and Europe. Other locations may have a more diverse religious background, in which case, a God may be believed in. Evidence in aliens and ghosts are not limited to location. It is decentralized.

No, I’m not claiming that there is there is any evidence for the 1%, the post was entirely on a hunch and speculation. I never claimed that I had proof or claim that the statistics prove on the name of science. It is just a casual thought on affirmation.

Thing about Nessy is that it is localized. It started in an area in Scotland. Assuming Nessy was a worldwide phenomenon where sightings are found more than a couple of times a month, it’d be different. How small the location of sightings and frequency of sightings play an massive role in the probability of their existence.

To rebut your documentation claims, there is evidence to suggest that sighting have been documented prior to 1947, but only formally reported on 1947. However, these claims may of had religious bias so they cannot be used individually as evidence towards statistical proof. It is its decentralized nature of documentation that makes it moreso valuable. These documentation are indeed from ancient Egypt and Greece, so your argument for their origin falls short there.

In terms of God, it cannot be confirmed. There are historical texts with claiming proof, but no evidence to support said proof. There may be modern evidence, but most are known to be hoaxes.

There isn’t a staggering amount of evidence being produced in modern times to suggest that God exists either.

I cannot confidently say to believe in God.

The same can be said about your belief for the number of planets out there. You believe that the universe holds many planets to foster alien life, and to say otherwise would be such an astronomically slim probability. That’s a belief through statistical improbability, explicitly. In my case, I claim that the mountains of evidence is analogous to the planets in your belief, which is a belief through statistical improbability. Albeit less improbable.

This post isn’t a matter of “solid proof, 100% evidence, cannot deny this” nor hard science. It’s a matter of using statistics to affirm belief.

In the case of a flat Earth, no. We’ve developed the appropriate tools to identify the Earth as it it.

It had been proven false. Using solid science.

I might be confusing your inverse response.

To lay it out, in my head: False 99:1 Real, therefore there is a solid sighting worth taking a lead. Real 99:1 False, therefore the truth is evident.

Assuming you imply that I take an inverse bias, the ratios still stand.

In terms of other spooks and gooks, like the Lochness monster, those are not being reproduced on the daily from decentralized sources.

In the case for the Lochness monster, it’s localized to a certain location and mostly within a certain period of time. Not much weak proof or statistical evidence is being produced to be considered an anomaly worth believing in.

Specifically in terms of ghosts and aliens, it has been known for ages, inscribed into historical texts, of which were inscribed from different eras of human history completely decentralized via continents, that we can relate certain experiences to – eg, ghostly and alien experiences. On the contrary, there are historical texts of fairies, unicorns, and leprechauns, but no modern or excessive amounts of proof or statistical anomalies to consider them worth believing in.