Depends on the puzzle; it’s certainly possible to design Sudoku puzzles that necessitate guessing, but most do not. It’s possible you’re just not familiar with some of the more complex ways to make deductions.

Maybe check this list - it could be that your puzzle requires some of the more advanced techniques that you aren’t using.

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.

Nessy is purported to be a single creature living in a single Loch in Scotland; why would there be sightings elsewhere in the world? That’s like saying “The Eiffel Tower is only ever sighted in Paris, isn’t that suspicious?”

Given the relatively small number of visitors to Loch Ness vs. the number of people in the world with cameras who could presumably document aliens or ghosts, I’d argue that the sightings per visitor are at a significantly higher rate than UFO or ghost sightings.

You’re horribly mis-using statistics and making claims that are not the logical conclusion.

We know that intelligent life exists, and that one specific, if very rare, set of circumstances can definitively bring it about. We know there are other planets that are similarly capable of supporting life. We have evidence - irrefutable, hard evidence - that such planets can, and do exist, because we live on one.

You have far worse evidence of ghosts or aliens. Having photographic proof of either is a highly sought after thing, that comes with notoriety and in some cases fame or money. Statistically, wouldn’t you say it’s more likely that, given the incentive to do so, the people claiming to produce such evidence are lying to reap the benefits? If not, again, why don’t we have actual, clear, indisputable pictures? Are you telling me that these phenomenon have been occurring throughout recorded history, but there’s not one single high quality picture? How could that be? Surely if you have enough people taking pictures, one of them by sheer chance should come out clear.

Similarly, how is it that modern astronomical or surveillance equipment hasn’t captured evidence of them? Why are we relying on shaky polaroids taken by random people? You’re cherry picking evidence that you feel has the highest likelihood of being true while discounting all of the evidence against it being true.

The point they’re making is that you’re basing your claim that 99% of sightings are false on nothing. It’s a hunch, nothing more. When you start with that assumption, the conclusion is already made. Which 1% are not false? Surely you should be able to point us to some examples? Or are you just making the claim that 1 in 100 must be true out of nowhere?

I will also point out that the first recorded sighting of aliens that I can find is from 1947, and the Loch Ness Monster was “first brought to world-wide attention” in 1933, so your claim of historical evidence falls apart.

In fact, isn’t it perhaps suspicious that sightings of alien spacecraft didn’t start happening until semi-modern technology existed? Why aren’t there cave paintings from neanderthals of flying saucers? Why isn’t there evidence from ancient Egypt or Rome? It’s almost as though modern science fiction bringing such things to mind was the catalyst for these sightings.

A lot of things have been inscribed into historical texts. The problem with your claim is that it can’t be disproven - you can’t prove a negative, so saying “Well, you can’t disprove all of these photos!” isn’t a scientifically sound hypothesis.

In the interest of full disclosure, I do believe aliens exist, but not the sort that people claim to be taking pictures of. I thought based on your title that your argument was going to amount to “There’s an incredible number of planets out there, so the chance that we’re the only one that supports life and evolved intelligent life is astronomically slim”, and I was ready to agree with you, but this is just a weak argument.

Let me ask you this: If plentiful pictures are evidence, why are there no clear, indisputable pictures? Surely, if these things are as real as you believe, there should be at least one super clear picture that doesn’t leave room for doubt. Unless, of course, the people taking those pictures were intentionally trying to deceive, and didn’t want them to be too clear.

There’s an uncountable number of pictures claiming the Loch Ness Monster is real; do you believe in it, too? What about all of the other cryptids? If your logic is sound, it should be able to be applied to everything else that fits the same criteria. If not, why do you apply a lower burdon of proof to aliens and ghosts than to everything else?

I’m glad you thought of this, because I was very confused by this post. I thought the question was asking which group of countries you’d want to be allowed to visit.