That way your dad also might not be your dad because there is no proof that DNA tests are 100% secure and reliable. Maybe they pushed a wrong button while generation the final report. Oops! IAF did a right tap on the computer screen instead of left tap. Thats why bomb went to the right of target.
Good point! Here how things are done in reality. If paternity of my dad comes into question and it needs to be answered, then I can get DNA test done. If I doubt the test, I can get repeated test, or test which follows different principles to determine paternity. This way I can increase the confidence that biologically he is indeed my dad -- if such a situation arises. This is how most of the medical decisions work. You can re-do the test or order an alternative test.
To be honest, they claimed that place was not in active use. To maintain that front, I am not surprised they kept the place closed. Honestly, if they are operating a terrorist training camp, they will not exactly like to attract too much attention to place anyways, won't they? Even the visit after 40 days was too much orchestrated for that reason.
Increasing confidence doesnt mean proof. Neither redoing test means they will get it right the next time.
Whats the proof the place wasnt in active use ?
You do know Bayes theorm, don't you?
It does not matter, "place is not in active use" was Pakistan's bluff and pretext to not allow anyone near it for so long they want. Infact, I think it is still active and in use.
those theoritical models do they include if the person does a left click instead of right click and generates a wrong report. Show me the part where that condition is included. And at the end you are still talking about probabilities. So there is not gurantee.
you missed the part where he mentions "Bayes Theorm was not intended to be used once". It was at 5:00 point.
There is a major difference between fixed probablity and probablity which you can decrease to the point where doubt is meaningless. If India would have redid the operation, probablity of weapon error or missing target would have been lesser.
Decreasing chnace of failure arbirarily is what in real world is called success. Decreasing chance of a target escaping harm makes a weapon system or operation successful.
All models are theoritical. We understand real world by models only. If you don't have a model, you have only observations at best and no understanding.
We have evidence (multiple sat images) that is not explained by bombs destroying the target so you need to errr.. "redo the experiment"?
Pray tell me, is there any aspect of the real world that you understand fully without abstraction? I don't.
You are basing your evidence on sat pics by some entities like PlanetLab. Why should we beleive them? What if they are disinfo articles. How do you know the sat pics they released werent manipulated or you are sure these people are extremely honest that they won't do such a thing.
Good point! Its not just one such entity. The same thing was seen in two satellite images. One by Digital Globe (World View) and one is PlanetLabs. Both failed to show any inkling of damage to the structure and showed damage to vegetation. That is the stronger evidence than one single vendor doing deceit.
maybe you should redo the images instead. And please do it infinite times so that nothing is left to chance and probabilities.
Maybe then get your IQ checked with your baysean model.
That doesnt proves or disproves anything.
Both also failed to show why the place had to be shut for 40 days.
But you have pelthora of proofs that we did not do such a thing.
Because they are white guys I guess.
I did check my IQ, thank you very much. By a proper MENSA test and I did alright.
Well, because thats not what satellite images do. They don't show intent, they show pictures of the earth surface, don't they?
As I said before, I have evidence in form of commerical satellite images that our bombs most likey didn't hit the targets. What I said there is Indian government and military did not present any evidence to the contrary.
Because its harder for two vendors to lie about the same thing at the same time in the same manner.
It does. Since you wanted me not to refer to "theoretical models", I had to show you that in ALL models you miss some details. Unknowns are the most obvious things missing.
That has already been done for us, isnt it? Two different images of the same place by two different vendors showing no damage.
You need to redo do it via baysean model a infinite amount of times so as to remove any probablistic errors. Id you are giving exam for first time there are chances you might score much higher than your actual IQ. Just like how IAF can miss target because they were bombing for first time.
They show colored pixels. Sometimes grayscale too
Those coloured pixels do not prove anything.
Maybe harder. But thats no proof they are not lying.
Missing things are no proof to anything.
But both coloured pixels can be false. They can even be manipulated.
