Brian Sandle wrote in message ...
Eric Hocking wrote:
This is one of my initial plots. It's a basic timeline (X-axis is date) and
Y-axis is cumulative totals. This plots only the circles in the database
for Wiltshire (in fact SU OS Grid Ref.). The only tinkering is that I
removed circles that the researcher team deemed to be caused by wind damage
or "hoaxes".
Good.
I chose Wiltshire county as each year it makes up 1/2 of the
total circles found in the UK and, unlike Hampshire, had infected farms so
the resources for checking shutdown and reopenings is a little easier. That
said, at this point in time many of the notices are no longer on the
government site.
So you have to take back some grumbles at me.
All the information I quoted for discussion had valid URLs. It just
takes a bit of persistence and Google. For instance, the PDF document
of the "history" of the 2001 outbreak? Was probably this one.
http://www.nao.gov.uk/publications/nao_reports/01-02/0102939.pdf The
appendix one is the chronology of the outbreak.
MAFF is now DEFRA, and they copped a lot of stick,
deservedly in my opinion, of their management of the crisis.
The red line is 2001.
http://uk.f2.pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/...lbum?.dir=/31c
a
The is the step in the graph about 25 -31 May 2001.
No. 25th May is the first circle listed in the database for 2001
All the graphs have steps
in them from time to time.
What you need now to do is understand what the graph is telling you.
Look at it again, this is what it tells you.
FIRST circles appear:
1999 - 12/4
2000 - 26/4
2002 - 6/5
2001 - 25/5
6 weeks later than 1999, 4 weeks later than 2000 and 3 weeks later
than 2002
This is exactly the correlation that I have been talking about and you
have been refusing to admit. The first circles in 2001 were LATE.
before then 2002 had 1 circle, 2000 3, 1999 5 or 6. The beginning dates for
the years is a fairly evenly spread distribution. Some year has to be first
and some last.
The "average" date for the first circle to appear in those 4 years is
2nd May. 2002 and 2001 are the only years to be later than this, by 4
days and 23 days respectively. Not my idea of an even spread.
Going back to 1992, the average date is 25th April - 2001 is *27* days
later that this. The only other years later than this average is 1993
(3 days) and 1996 (17 days). With a standard deviation of 13 over the
10 years, only 2 years stand out. 1996 and 2001.
An aside, it's pure coincidence that in March 1996 the BSE epidemic
came to a head and that mass slaughters took place in the UK
So to say that there is a "fairly evenly spread distribution" is to
ignore the evidence.
I'm not going to be dragged, yet again, into a discussion only to have
it
culminate with the entire post being deleted and ignored. I smacks too
much
of the blinkered approach by "believers" of ignoring facts that they
don't
like (remember the weather?).
That is still a little bit possible - a day or two later, but there is not
really a large enough sample to say.
It's not a day or two - see the initial chart.
Even srpead from year to year for start.
Not chronologically they are not. 2001 is later than all previous TEN
years as well as later than 2002. See the numbers above. Check them
yourself - you have a table of the dates, since you quoted them at me
before snipping my entire reply.
I've had kooks from sci.skeptic attempt to go "real life" on me too - and
been threatened with legal proceedings and had my website suspended due to
some rather damning evidence hosted their that showed a well known "psychic"
being caught on video, cheating at his most famous parlour trick.
Though sometimes they are mimmicking themselves or showing what a conjurer
would do, and it gets taken as them faking.
"mimmicking[sic] themselves" ? Name one instance of this.
One.
I have never, ever, heard a self-confessed "psychic" or similar EVER
say they were mimicking their act or showing how a conjurer might do
it. I have heard one admit to cheating (only when caught) so, "I
didn't disappoint my audience".
Riiigghhtttt.
In the example I gave, the "psychic" kept a continual banter of "I'm
doing this with my mind" - even while the video clearly showed him
performing the "feat" with his hands.
This is the same one who a judge decide that the cost of a ticket (and
court costs?) to one of his shows should be reimbursed to a punter who
charged that "he had failed to perform the supernormal feats of
telepathy, parapsychology, and telekinesis he advertised. Instead...
[his] act consisted merely of sleight-of-hand and stage tricks.
--
Eric Hocking