It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# Benford's Law, UFO's -Sasquatch

page: 1
7
share:

posted on Aug, 16 2020 @ 10:42 AM
The original thought I had after learning about Benford's Law and data-sets as applied to the natural world is, can this be used in revisiting existing data-sets we already have on some of the more mysterious topics such as Sasquatch, UFO's? If so are we going to find out that yes, the occurrences do fit the curve, or are we going to find out they don't? Which by the way "may" indicate some falsehood's.

Benford's law, also called the Newcomb–Benford law, the law of anomalous numbers, or the first-digit law, is an observation about the frequency distribution of leading digits in many real-life sets of numerical data. The law states that in many naturally occurring collections of numbers, the leading significant digit is likely to be small.[1] For example, in sets that obey the law, the number 1 appears as the leading significant digit about 30% of the time, while 9 appears as the leading significant digit less than 5% of the time. If the digits were distributed uniformly, they would each occur about 11.1% of the time.[2] Benford's law also makes predictions about the distribution of second digits, third digits, digit combinations, and so on.

en.wikipedia.org...

Since proving either UFO's o Sasquatch has been fraught with nothing but arguments, maybe going at the data-sets will give us some clarity? Now I'm aware much information on both topics is anecdotal ( our existing data-sets) however there is probably enough there to come to some understandings we haven't looked for yet.

“It applies to quakes, the brightness of gamma rays reaching Earth and the rotations of dead stars”
That Benford’s law pops up in so many natural phenomena won’t surprise mathematicians but may shock some scientists. When Sambridge’s team presented Benford’s law findings at a 2009 geoscience conference, one dubious attendee “thought we were having a laugh”, he recalls.

www.newscientist.com...

It's easy to see how this wouldn't be taken seriously to the subject matter I'm asking it to be applied to, but there is no real reason not to give it a shot. Not being a data analyst sorry if you thought I'd already worked this out. I am hoping however someone can.

Thoughts?

posted on Aug, 16 2020 @ 10:55 AM
Now all someone has to do is fabricate some plausible-looking data to analyse.

posted on Aug, 16 2020 @ 11:05 AM
LOL!
I admitted we had some "sketchy data-sets" but gotta work with what we DO have. Peeps are always squeaking we need to apply science to these subjects, so it beats twiddling our thumbs, right?
Besides if the Data is that out of wack we'll see it immediately in a flattened curve.
So there's that at least.

posted on Aug, 17 2020 @ 07:23 PM
Not to give up on this, marching ahead.
(grins!)

Below is why I think this is seriously something we should pursue. Now I know there were sightings of both UFO's & Sasquatch prior to the 1900's. However as we know the real heyday for UFO's was probably the 1940s thru the 70s.
Just as the UFO flaps were quieting down Sasquatch ramped up.

It's long been pretty much taken for granted since what's gone on at Skinwalker has set the idea that whatever the phenom is it changes appearance an manifestations. To use any such data sets as can be cobbled together apply Benford's Law to them we're going to get at least some preliminary indications of what's connected and what isn't. Which is more probably following the natural laws of our reality an what is hokum.

In 1938, the American physicist Frank Benford revisited the phenomenon, which he called the “Law of Anomalous Numbers” in a survey with more than 20,000 observations of empirical data compiled from various sources, ranging from areas of rivers to molecular weights of chemical compounds, cost data, address numbers, population sizes and physical constants. All of them, to a greater or lesser extent, followed such an exponentially diminishing distribution.

Image for post
Image credit: “Numbers follow a surprising law of digits, and scientists can’t explain why” (phys.org...)

towardsdatascience.com...

From what I've read this "Benford's Law works out for almost everything , from planets an other galaxies to everything in-between. We keep assuming the bits an pieces we see of High Strangeness is playing by other, or unknown "Rules".
What if it isn't? What if most of us just weren't applying a rule it theoretically DOES answer to?

Surely there are a couple of Covid-Weary mathematician's or Data Analysists needing a bit of mystery?

edit on 17-8-2020 by Caver78 because: Making a better case for my op

edit on 17-8-2020 by Caver78 because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-8-2020 by Caver78 because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 20 2020 @ 12:42 PM
I have also been trying to apply Benfords Law into all sorts of contexts since learning about it. It is so fascinating and I hope you can apply it in a way to get some results!

posted on Aug, 20 2020 @ 06:58 PM

Good to hear someone else is as fascinated with this as I was.

As pointed out already, getting optimum data-sets to begin with is probably impossible. About the next best thing "maybe" would be to use sightings Dates/Years? I'm still tweedling it around how to even try to start.

One idea that still cracks me up is with almost nil responses to this topic "Just how far from the mainstream internet have I strayed?" Another is altho disinformation tactic usually pops up quickly as a bunch of replies intended to obfuscate a topic, Utter silence is usually another.

Yep!
Still optimistic this is a valid line of inquiry.
Heheheh
edit on 20-8-2020 by Caver78 because: Grammatically impaired

new topics

7