Newsgroups: alt.ufo.reports
From: MrPostingRobot@kymhorsell.com
Subject: detecting tracks in telescope images #3

[uploaded 4 times; last 06/09/2024]

Back a couple years when I first started looking at what various space
telescopes could see out there that weren't stars, planets, rocks or
dust I had some early success finding patterns of relating changes in
bright and dark areas in the sky to subsequent sightings of strange
objects moving round in the atm over N Am.

That was mostly using light curves of individual stars that my
programs normally divided up into 10-deg wide bins of RA and DEC to
try to get a bead on which directions in the sky were most interesting
for predicting future sightings of objects floating around over
downtown LA or what have you.

The AI's used the various patterns -- and these things can get
complicated fast when you have the option of looking at different
shapes and colours of objects vis a vis what is flickering at various
celestial latitude and longitude -- to predict which parts of the sky
should be most interesting and started a program of hunting up the
relevant data for those parts of the sky.

It wasn't too long before they came across collections of curated
telescope images and the pages at the STSCI. They proceeded to access
what was expected to be the most interesting parts of the data only to
find -- strange -- it was mostly either missing or blanked out.  Either
the files you might expect to be there were not there -- which you
might expect since an instrument has its off hours and maybe off days
esp when it's office is maybe interplanetary space for the past 10
years -- or when the file was accessed it *seemed* normal until you
maybe saved it to your local file server machine in compressed form
and noticed it wasn't the expected 27 MB but 4 KB. I.e. something was
broken!

Turned out as well as missing images some seemed to have been blacked
out.  This was quite strange to me. Potentially GB of disk space taken
up with files that were 0s. Shouldst it be more efficient for their
server space as well as the time of any scientists trying to use the
data they are kindly providing for the use of all and sundry to note
in some little file somewhere that things didn't work out for images on
day X Y and Z and we wont bother you to download GB of 0s because you
can probably do that yourselves locally if you really needed to do it
at all.

Investigating further I found there was indeed a suspiciously
sisignificant correlation between files that were mangled or missing and
what later in time seemed to he a UFO flap. Had some clerk somewhere
been delegated the task of going through public databases and
expunging the data on certain dates so "no-one would get upset" if they
looked at something and saw a little black triangle when they thought
they would be looking at pictures of stars?

Well. You have to wonder. I made some discreet inquiries among my
nebulous contacts and no-one seemed very interested in finding out
what the official policy or the "office policy" was. Some acted as if
their job depended on them not finding that kind of thing out.
Hey. Been there, so no blame involved. :)

And now that brings me to the past couple days. Now I have a little
"nav model" that can predict which parts of the sky things should be
coming in from various asteroids in order the times of their arrival
will line up closely to actual UFO activity seen over N Am.  And I
have a couple new programs that can go through large sequences of 30
MB telescope images and make movies and extract the tracks of
suspicious objects that mostly seem invisible but disturb day by day
small areas of the image in predictable ways.

The very latest program has extended the idea of tracking individual
pixels -- i.e. objects that are only large enough to view as a pixel
every now and then across a series of high-def images -- and extended
objects. The AI programs told me a couple days ago when they started
on this phase of the project they had spotted "extended objects" in
the images as well as pixels. And was I interested if they took a
closer look at that or should they just stick with individual pixels
and invisible tracks instead?

Well of course I have the go ahead and the first results came in
overnight.  But -- not a big surprise -- the data the programs
selected to download turns out to be the "most damaged" of any I've
seen up until now.  The sequence of images preceded by a few days a
group of days in the NUFORC record that saw record numbers of
sightings reports lodged.  Over a span of 10 days more than 300
objects were reported.  This was somewhere in the middle of the
Pandemic. While some newspaper reports suggested being stir crazy
after being locked down at home for weeks was having an effect on
what people were seeing in the sky.  But from a brief survey in the
datasets it seemed there really was something to see in the sky during
the relevant interval. And later.

But after downloading the images they wanted it turns out a large
percent are missing. A large percent turn out to be blacked out.  And
a large percent seem to be peppered with noise that normally is not in
these kinds of data. While all the i's and t's are dotted/crossed and
most of the defective images have an "explanation" they are damaged
because of "stray light" it seems the explanation is a bit too glib.
For one thing, the error bits set indicate the light pollution was
expected.  But it's strange a series of images starts out fine, then
is corrupted by light pollution, then goes on fine again for a while,
then in polluted again, etc. All the while the telescope is pointed in
the same direction and you can't see the sun or moon or earth suddenly
pop into view and disappear again. What is it? An astronaut is doing
maintenance and shining a torch in the telescope every now and then?

Anyway it does give me another opportunity to check if there is any
hanky-panky going on someplace in the data gathering chain of these
telescope projects. If it is the case things are being hidden from
the public and even Congress then you should be able to prove it.
Various theorems of arcane math "prove" it is generally impossible
to keep a secret. If something is knowable by one person then it is
knowable by every person, in principle. The only security system that
guarantee keeping secrets are so obtrusive or noxious they are
generally regarded as unworkable -- i.e. a system having no fixed
"security clearance" but everyone has to ask the central authority
every time they want to access restricted material and they have to
wait for an answer before they can proceed. As I say, generally
considered unworkable.

So we have a series of images in various states of dis-repair.  Can we
cook up a "damage number" we can relate to subsequent UFO activity?
Can we in fact predict UFO sightings over the next coming hrs just
from the amount of damage suffered by a telescope image at a given
date/time?

Well I'm glad you asked because this is right up my alley. And the
answer is yes. Yes you can. One simple metric is looking at how far
each image is from the "average image" in the series. This, to note
again, is akin to "sharpening" an image. To make a sharpened image you
first make a blurred version -- e.g. an average of images nearby in
time -- and subtract the blur off the image to get the sharpened
version.

So if we make a distance measure of how far each image is from the
overall average image in this particular dataset we get:

Image	Dist from av
0001	8975.28
0002	24714.4
0003	24729.9
0004	24733
0005	24727.6
0006	39952.1     =====REDACTED: blacked out 
0007	39952.1     ...
0008	39952.1     ...
0009	39952.1     ...
0010	39952.1     ...
0011	39952.1     ...
0012	39952.1     ...
0013	39952.1     ...
0014	39952.1     ...
0015	39952.1     ...
0016	39952.1     ...
0017	39952.1     ...
0018	39952.1     ...
0019	39952.1     ...
0020	39952.1     ...
0021	39952.1     ...
0022	39952.1     ...
0023	39952.1     =====END REDACTED
0024	8912.18
0025	8484.96
0026	6308.69
0027	5275.28
0028	5404.02
0029	5392.66
0030	5479.59
0031	5543.35
0032	5617.11
0033	5696.49
0034	5751.26
0035	5818.97
0036	5910.87
0037	5931.3
0038	5993.46
0039	6067.4
0040	6048.2
0041	6005.19
0042	5905.34
0043	5764.25
0044	5632.19
0045	5501.65
0046	5361.84
0047	5218.71
0048	5044.74
0049	4907.73
0050	4832.4
0051	4712.2
0052	4514.76
0053	4386.63
0054	4213.29
0055	4077.18
0056	3936.1
0057	3857.19
0058	3757.17
0059	3728.15
0060	3701.58
0061	3607.73
0062	3660.02
0063	3646.54
0064	3596.64
0065	3647.85
0066	3715.38
0067	3711.9
0068	3821.98
0069	3837.43
0070	3849.84
0071	3887.61
0072	3873.24
0073	3868.42
0074	3905.87
0075	3955.26
0076	3999.73
0077	4026.43
0078	4101.67
0079	4167.68
0080	4227.96
0081	4338.59
0082	4422.28
0083	4549.2
0084	4772.89
0085	4921.25
0086	5069.96
0087	5238.59
0088	5379.71
0089	5477.79
0090	5714.18
0091	5903.02
0092	6205.6
0093	6482.1
0094	6793.27
0095	7120.02
0096	7373.33
0097	7581.49
0098	7748.07
0099	7889.12
0100	8049.23
0101	8194
0102	8275.71
0103	8281.83
0104	8407.99
0105	8395.47
0106	24732.1     =====SEVERE DAMAGE
0107	24738.7     ...
0108	24741.4     ...
0109	24748.2     ...
0110	24742.3     ...
0111	24733.3     ...
0112	24730.8     =====END
0113	8993.67
0114	9181.96
0115	9369.01
0116	9269.24
0117	9034.94
0118	8925.73
0119	8918.88
0120	8958.61
0121	8974.07
0122	8933.93
0123	8927.04
0124	18149.3
0125	5314.86
0126	3215.52
0127	7066.75
0128	5090.82
0129	3823.74
0130	5144.36
0131	11459.2
0132	1070.69
0133	5629.34
0134	3777.03
0135	5955.77
0136	13689.2
0137	9350.48
0138	12439.3
0139	17580.6      ===SEVERE DAMAGE
0140	20371.4      ===
0141	6153.17
0142	7487.97
0143	5688.15
0144	7791.65
0145	2641.88
0146	5923.95
0147	3740.54
0148	6734.95
0149	20383.3     ===SEVERE DAMAGE
0150	601.954
0151	6065.49
0152	12003.5
0153	14572.8
0154	12396.2
0155	13271.3
0156	15155.8
0157	385.573
0158	15310.2
0159	11551.7
0160	4461.05
0161	1450.03
0162	3992.76
0163	9154.18
0164	7646.04
0165	4554.35
0166	15098.6
0167	5708.31
0168	3413.57
0169	12739.2
0170	15311.7
0171	7896.76
0172	3421.63
0173	9003.11
0174	2056.39
0175	2081.93
0176	6698.21
0177	5005.9
0178	4921.19
0179	10195.9
0180	7709.94
0181	3824.64
0182	6330.74
0183	8244.19
0184	8221.87
0185	8398.81
0186	8553.19
0187	8767.87
0188	9121.68
0189	4530.92
0190    12600.7      ===MODERATE DAMAGE
0191    10493.7      ===
0192    10607.5      ===
0193    10761.2      ===
0194    10956.7      ===
0195    10985.1      ===
0196    10946.8      ===
0197    10027.4      ===
0198    10382.2      ===
0199    11204.2      ===
0200    11606.3      ===
0201    11424        ===
0202    12500.1      ===
0203    12954.9      ===
0204    13290.6      ===END MODERATE DAMAGE
0205    6174.89
0206    6970.51
0207    8146.37
0208	10456.8
0209	11052.1
0210	13289.1
0211	13312
0212	13235.4
0213	13281.1
0214	13286.8
0215	11835
0216	12333.1
0217	12428.9
0218	12464.1
0219	12193.7
0220	11428.9
0221	13112.2
0222	12597.9
0223	12119.6
0224	11946.7

Each image has a time when taken. Each UFO sighting has a time when
sighted.  If we line these up and fiddle around with shifting them
around in time to get the best line-up we can find we get this:

MODEL:
(Sample of data:)
Date			#ufosightings  damage      model-predicted damage
79.29                       12      39952.1      26712.5**
103.67                       9      24741.4      21783.5
...
94.25                        2      3215.52      10282.7*
96.92                        2      10946.8      10282.7
97.42                        2      12597.9      10282.7
98.17                        2      12193.7      10282.7
...
97.92                        1      13286.8      8639.68*
98.08                        1      12464.1      8639.68
98.08                        1      12464.1      8639.68

Lag 38 hours
(AUTO CORR CORRECTION; estimated rho = 0.627192)
y = 1.642981e+03*x + 6.996697e+03
beta in 1642.98 +- 408.873  (90% CI)
alpha in 6996.7 +- 928.623 
T-test: P(beta>) = 1.000000
Rank test: calculated Spearman corr = 0.327657
	Critical Spearman = 0.306000 2-sided at 5%; reject H0:not_connected
r2 = 0.43318791


The data shows UFO sightings in a particular time (hour granularity)
related to damage seen in telescope images 38 hrs prior.  The "Date"
seen is the number of days and fractional days (i.e. hrs) since a date
origin.

We see in one hour 12 UFO sightings were reported. 38 hrs prior to
that the telescope image we're looking at at 40,000 units of damage
(i.e. it was "a long way" from a normal average image from the set).
An hr with 9 UFO sightings lined up with an image 38 hrs prior with
25000 units of damage.  At the bottom in some hrs with 1 UFO sighting
38 hrs prior there were images with 13000 units of damage.

The stats program finds the overall relationship (100s of lines of
data) is statistically significant according to 2 tests. For each UFO
sightings seen at one time, 38 hrs earlier there was found to be 1600
units of damage over and above the normal damage you would expect from
the extreme operating environment. The 2 tests say this is not random
chance and is 99% and 95% confident of that (in the 2 tests).
Overall, UFO sightings line up with 43% of the damage seen in the
image set. Be it noted this procedure didn't take into account the
images that appear to be missing from the dataset.

So when an office of the Pentagon says it is quite sure nothing is
going on and presents what appears to be a series of specious
arguments to support that it is either the work of the summer intern
or they are trying to hide something. But maybe they want to make it
obvious they arte doing that to ward off official snooping from
Congress. (Obviously a problem with the tactic would be
Congress-critters that are too slow on the up-take and don't hear the
signal).

The hiding things game was never meant to be easy.

--
This bill isn't all about finding little green men or flying saucers,
It's about forcing the Pentagon and federal
agencies to be transparent with the American people. I'm sick of
hearing bureaucrats telling me these things don't exist while we've
spent millions of taxpayer dollars on studying them for decades.
-- Rep. Tim Burchett

"Ridicule is not a part of the scientific method. And the public
should not be taught that it is."
- J. Allen Hynek

Welcome to the very first official UFO hearing in American history
It's a historic day for everybody who has always wondered if we are alone in
the universe. Although there have already been multiple hearings on UFOs or
UAPs, this is the first hearing in which credible witnesses will testify
under oath in front of Congress. All representatives already offered their
initial remarks and gave all three witnesses the chance to make their oath
before the hearing starts. These witnesses are former Commander David Fravor,
former fighter jet operator Ryan Graves, and former Intelligence Official
David Grusch.
-- Marca.com, Wed Jul 26 10:48:24 EDT 2023

Key senators believe the Pentagon's UFO office is lying
The Hill, 11 Jun 2024 12:26Z
Asked in early May whether AARO's report categorically denying the existence
of illicit UFO efforts is "case closed," Gillibrand stated, "Oh, it's
definitely not case closed." Christopher Mellon, the ...

UFOs May Be Evidence Of "Cryptoterrestrials" Secretly Living Among Us
IFLScience, 08 Jun 2024
Scientists say there's a one-in-10 chance that these advanced creatures
actually exist.

[USO:]
Freighter taking on water after underwater collision on Lake Superior
upi, 10 Jun 2024
The Canadian freighter M/V Michipicoten collided with an unknown underwater
object near Isle Royal on Saturday morning and is limping to...

  Coast Guard: 13-Foot Crack Discovered In Hull Of Michipicoten
  Fox21Online, 11 Jun 2024 02:20Z
  FOX 21 has learned a 13-foot crack in the hull of the Michipicoten was found
  by divers in the port of Thunder Bay after the vessel took on...

[REDACTED!]
US politician says she was 'Men In Blacked' as part of UFO cover-up
Daily Star, 07 Jun 2024 11:35Z
A top US politician has claimed she was blocked from investigating a UAP
report made by a USAF pilot, and hints at a wider government cover-up of UFO...

Most Life on Earth is Dormant, After Pulling an `Emergency Brake'
Quanta Magazine, 06 Jun 2024

Pilot UFO Advocacy Group Forms to Offer Support to Whistle Blowers
Hosted on MSN, 02 Jun 2024
How many other relevant UFO reports have been overlooked to the detriment of
national security?

[Life After Oil!]
How Saudi Aramco plans to win the oil endgame
The Economist, 02 Jun 2024 17:06Z