Eoin
Full Member
Organising credible sightings in Washington. Collecting data and forwarding to National.
Posts: 190
|
Post by Eoin on Sept 18, 2019 16:33:06 GMT
I was thinking this morning about a methodology I’ve used to place structure around phenomena and have attempted to apply it to the Dogman “Types”. This takes into account that the Type III has 3 subspecies. I have also, for the sake of argument added a type IV, which I will describe below, being the classic Lycanthrope, i.e. molecular transformation based on observation + belief + and unknown. All Types are subject to observation and belief as basic quantum physics. Here is the mathematical outcome with the sum being equal to the chance of encounter. All are relatively close until one encounters a Type III subspecies, although 2 subspecies are surprisingly the same. The Type V skyrockets.
Type I - 1
1x1=1
Type II - 2
2x1=2
Type III - 6
3x2=6
Type III.1 - 18
3x6(1)=18
Type III.2 - 27
3x18(2)=27
Type III.3 - 27
3x27(3)=27
Type IV - 108
4x27=108
Type V - 540
5x108=540
O+B+U=540
O=1 B=107 U=432
As on can see the unknown element is of greatest weight.
Here are the basic elements of the Type V; a pure supernatural entity.
Type V
True Lycanthrope
Paranormal via multiple and cultural black arts with the same outcome; an observed animal of supernatural origin, wolf/human hybrid or a hybrid of another native Apex Predator.
Only known defenses are decapitation, fire, or as also reported hyper-allergic silver intolerances similar to anaphylactic or toxic shock resulting in death.
Please note all aspects of a Type V are pure speculation based on multiple sources.
Thoughts?
|
|
Eoin
Full Member
Organising credible sightings in Washington. Collecting data and forwarding to National.
Posts: 190
|
Post by Eoin on Sept 18, 2019 17:00:12 GMT
The interesting result of applying mathematics to this compelling and complex phenomena is that the existence of Dogman is not so much crazy, unheard of, or bazaar, but is simply very, very outside of our daily experience.
|
|
|
|
Post by trolljegeren on Sept 20, 2019 15:29:43 GMT
I think I'd need more clarification about what those numbers indicate to understand what you've done here. Are the sums percentage chance? Are the types listed by reported sightings from a particular database?
|
|
Eoin
Full Member
Organising credible sightings in Washington. Collecting data and forwarding to National.
Posts: 190
|
Post by Eoin on Sept 20, 2019 15:53:36 GMT
I think I'd need more clarification about what those numbers indicate to understand what you've done here. Are the sums percentage chance? Are the types listed by reported sightings from a particular database? Good questions! The sums are simply a verification of the likelihood of encounter based on a mathematical progression and not based on a specific number of sightings. The types are for lack of a better term “industry defacto-standards” that have been assigned based on numbers of sightings of each grouping. A Type 1 is more likely to be encountered than a Type 4. These classifications were confirmed from multiple sources and are the most commonly accepted in the industry (field, or what have you). The exercise was an attempt to place structure around the likelihood of sightings and nothing more. It could be absolutely “inaccurate”, but accounts of encounters do show that a Type 1 us more commonly seen than a Type 2, with a Type 2 being encountered more than a Type 4. I added the Type 5 as part of “What If” Analysis I’m currently conducting. In a multi world quantum universe nothing is off the table. Does that make sense? |
|
Eoin
Full Member
Organising credible sightings in Washington. Collecting data and forwarding to National.
Posts: 190
|
Post by Eoin on Sept 20, 2019 15:54:07 GMT
Good questions! The sums are simply a verification of the likelihood of encounter based on a mathematical progression and not based on a specific number of sightings. The types are for lack of a better term “industry defacto-standards” that have been assigned based on numbers of sightings of each grouping. A Type 1 is more likely to be encountered than a Type 4. These classifications were confirmed from multiple sources and are the most commonly accepted in the industry (field, or what have you). The exercise was an attempt to place structure around the likelihood of sightings and nothing more. It could be absolutely “inaccurate”, but accounts of encounters do show that a Type 1 us more commonly seen than a Type 2, with a Type 2 being encountered more than a Type 4. I added the Type 5 as part of “What If” Analysis I’m currently conducting. In a multi world quantum universe nothing is off the table. Does that make sense? Just looking outside the box! |
|
|
|
Post by trolljegeren on Sept 21, 2019 0:04:54 GMT
Yes, that clears up what you were after. Where type 1 has a sum of 1 and type 5, 540, what is the scale, if there is one? It looks to me that the lower number indicates higher probability of a sighting but how is that "1" or "540" determined if you'd care to get into it. I know squat about statistical analyses or its methodology so forgive my ignorance.
|
|
Eoin
Full Member
Organising credible sightings in Washington. Collecting data and forwarding to National.
Posts: 190
|
Post by Eoin on Sept 21, 2019 4:24:08 GMT
Yes, that clears up what you were after. Where type 1 has a sum of 1 and type 5, 540, what is the scale, if there is one? It looks to me that the lower number indicates higher probability of a sighting but how is that "1" or "540" determined if you'd care to get into it. I know squat about statistical analyses or its methodology so forgive my ignorance. I used “1” as a starting point. It’s a simple progression that skyrocketed at 4 and my theoretical Type V. Once I had the basic sums I applied an equation of Opportunity + Circumstances + Unknown = Probability of an encounter. I made a typo and placed B in the original equation. Opportunity always has a value of “1” as it’s a given. Next I want to try to determine the standard deviation between each Type of Dogman. That involves determining the Mean. Then for each number: subtract the Mean and square the result. Then work out the mean of those squared differences. Then take the square root. I feel this will validate the theory that the more exotic the Type, the less chance of an encounter. There are no pre-determinations though. Simply theories. |
|
