Newsgroups: alt.ufo.reports
From: kymhorsell@gmail.com
Subject: ufos and cryptids (1/n)

[uploaded 22 times; last 24/09/2024]

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
- We'll look at planetary movements that "explain" sightings of the
  Loch Ness monster.
- It turns out the movement of many asteroids seem to closely explain
  key parts of Nessie sightings data.
- We back off and try to spot what commonality links these "good
  explanations".  And it seems that Nessie has an affinity for large
  radius asteroids with high inclinations to the ecliptic with perhaps
  counter rotating asteroids preferred best of all.
- Why Nessie sightings should be predictable from the motions of 100s
  of asteroids we can only guess at this point. Maybe she is not a
  full-time resident of the lake and doesn't leave DNA traces for
  people to find.
- We will later see Nessie has an affinity for some other types of
  cryptid but is "the opposite" of yet other types. It's all very
  complicated.  But life has had 14 billion years to move around and
  do a lot of things we haven't expected up until now. :)


We've seen before UFO's "are complicated". People who've looked at
this area for decades have been struck by how UFO activity and almost
everything else abnormal seem to be linked in some way. Many experts
are starting to think many paranormal phenomena must be "the same
thing". And as I've posted in some prev articles, there seems to be a
lot of long-standing data that supports that speculation.

This will be the first of a new series of posts on unusual "creature"
sightings.  We will try to run the gamut of what has been reported
fairly reliably for the past 20-100 years. I've already previewed a
bit of this work before starting this post and can say at this
point that some cryptids are very much the same as other kinds that
may or may not at first seem to be similar; while other types are "the
opposite" in some sense we will define later. :) But what is also
striking, they are all similar to UFO's in an interesting way.

First up is Nessie -- the infamous "serpent" of a certain Scottish loch.

We have sightings for the lake monster going back at least 100 years.
There was a huge spate of sightings during the 30s and 40s and reports
thereafter wound down a lot. But every now and then they spike up
again and reports are still coming in to this day.

To put a crimp in the sails of people that believe something unusual
is in the lake, scientists have combed the lake almost foot by foot
over the years and found very little. Some suggestive photographs of
flippers and whatnot may or may not have been faked like other famous
photographs. Another clever search involved looking at the DNA washing
around in the water. If there was something unusual living in there,
then SOME strand of DNA should show up something unusual. But after a
reasonable effort the only unusual finding was there seemed to be a
lot of eel DNA floating around in the lake, and maybe a big one of
those might be responsible for all those sightings of wakes and humps
over the years.

But what we will do here is a pure data science exercise. We will look
at how sightings of Nessie are related to other types of data we've
already looked at in the case of UFO's. Planetary data.

We've seen how certain planets seem to crop of in UFO research every
now and then. And a fairly exhaustive search of both computer
calculated "simulated" planetary positions plus an even bigger search
of actual observational data for planets and 100s of asteroids has
show that UFO sightings rise and fall in highly significant parallel
with key planets and many asteroids.

So we'll do that again here. With some twists.

We'll again highlight how this is supposed to work in theory.  Out
there in the world are all kinds of "processes" that take inputs from
certain kinds of events and other processes, and produce outputs that
go on to become inputs for yet other processes.  Much of this data is
subject to noise of one type or another.  Sometimes a process that
takes some input immediately introduces noise into the data right at
the input. We can think of this as akin in "measurement noise". And,
again, processes sometimes also introduce yet more noise at the output
side -- just before releasing some data into the environment where it
can go on to influence some other process, some kind of noise is introduced.
We can think of that maybe as something akin to "rounding error" or perhaps
"distortion" as in some kind of imperfect amplification process.

So the output of a process has in it various kinds of noise
introduced by that process. We can theorise that the noise created
by a process is somehow unique to that process. At least we can more
realistically argue it will not be like other processes that are
radically different from it.

So if we look at the output of some process and find it has noise in
it we can track down to a given other process then we have a fairly
interesting argument that the one process must either feed directly or
indirectly into the other. We have found a "DNA fingerprint" in a
descendant that catches something originally produced in an ancestor.

What we will do here is try to extract JUST THE NOISE from some
kind of process or dataset, and then see if that noise happens to be
found inside the data of interest -- in this case Nessie monthly
sightings. To make this even more interesting we will first process
Nessie sightings to remove anything to do with earthly seasons that
may directly effect how many visitors are buzzing around the lake
ready to report anything unusual they see, and also remove any trends
from the data that may just accidentally look like a trend from some
other process for a totally chance reason. When we have data about
planets coming closer and going further away from the earth, e.g., we
are bound to see some that "look the same" as some other dataset that
may grow or decline due to e.g. human population growth or lake
monster trends on twitter or some other reason.

We will extract the noise from Nessie sightings and see which planet
or asteroid data explains that noise beyond a reasonable doubt.  As
usual I will employ a stats package that runs 2 stats tests and makes
sure they both pass with flying colors before we announce any
significant finding.

We do all this and amazingly find -- just like for UFO's -- one
heck of a lot of planets, moons and asteroids seem to leave an imprint
in the noise part of Nessie sightings data.

The top 10 results ordered by R2 (the so-called "explanation power"
statistic) look like this:

Dataset              Lag(m) Filter  Trans   R2           Beta       Stderr(Beta)
deltasigne           12    2       x       0.23147908   -10.6196   4.87167
hEcl-Lon90004558     12    2               0.19524265   0.0862141  0.0440678
delta50260892        12    2               0.18304816   -3.13265   1.66619
delta50141601        12    2       x       0.16112244   -7.2256    4.15091
hEcl-Lon90004491     0     2       x       0.15716297   -14.0094   7.73366
deltacora            12    2               0.15484719   -3.09625   1.82117
hEcl-Lat90004448     12    2               0.15090398   0.0744659  0.0444717
hEcl-Lat90004646     12    2               0.14804532   0.767291   0.463414
hEcl-Lonursula       1     2       x       0.14078537   -1.77676   1.05416
delta50280222        3     2       x       0.13802030   -3.6583    2.22937

The "delta" series are the earth-asteroid distance in AU month by
month.  The asteroid name is the suffix of the dataset name.  The
"hEcl-Lat" and "hEcl-Lon" are the latitude and longitude of the
asteroid over the month in degrees. Much like lat and long on the
earth works -- but this time using the plane of the earth's orbit as
the "equator" and the direction of the sun at (NH) Spring equinox are
the 0 of longitude.

In all the above cases the "filter" col shows about 3% of data that
seemed too large and 3% that seemed too small had to be discarded to
get the statistical tests to work out. It's quite normal that some
data just don't fit math models and throwing away a small percent of
it is not a big deal. The models all explain at least 95% of the data
(2-sigma limits, hence the "2") and some of them a great deal more.

We see some series have a lag of 12. I.e. the noise part of Nessie
sightings seems to be 12 m behind the noise inside the movement of the
asteroid in question. For some reason there is a 1y delay.

Finally, we see some datasets need a "transformation" to match.  The
"x" transformation signals we needed to take (natural) logs of the dataset
in question. Nobody said the noise inside Nessie sightings would only
be a linear function of the noise in the planetary movements.

We see that the top 10 models seem to show single planetary parameters
change in a way that 13% to 23% of the noise almost exactly matches
the ups and downs of the relevant planetary motion.

For the best model, above, we can see that for each AU the asteroid
Signe gets to Earth "for some reason" there are about 11 more Nessie
sightings 12m (+-5 for 75% conf interval) later.

It is interesting that all the top 10 models involving "delta" are
the same kind of thing. The closer some asteroid is to Earth, the more
Nessie sightings there are some months later.

The models that involve hEcl-Lat or Lon can show +ve or -ve betas.
But, then, some of the asteroids are retrograde -- they go backwards
in their orbits relative to the earth and all the normal planets in
our solar system.

OK. But now the bad news. We have only just started.  There are
literally 100s of matches similar to the above. All statistically
strong. All able to predict some percent of Nessie sightings some
months later. Almost all involving some obscure asteroid but sometimes
a major planet.

We now have to ask the question -- why are these particular objects
singled out for a statistical match and an approx equal number are
rejected. What is special about the asteroids that seem to explain
Nessie's appearances (or more accurately the noise inside Nessie
monthly sightings)?

And for this we can do another "2nd level" regression.  We can take
the R2's from the table (shown partly, above) and the orbital
parameters of all the asteroids and planets and decide are there
particular properties that statistically match up against the R2's? And,
of course, the answer is yes.

Just knowing the parameters of an asteroid we can more often than not
know in advance how well its movements will predict Nessie
observations. There is a strong statistical pattern. Or patterns.

And that table looks like this:

Param	Bin	Trans	R2
rad	0.0680	xy	0.41259238
in	3.8756	xy	0.32558306
a	32.3461		0.03126540

For all the asteroids we only have a small number of parameters.
While NASA and other agencies keep track of maybe 12 million objects
inside the solar system at present, the properties of almost all of
them are not known. Some of them have been spotted as a fleck of
light on a photo only a couple of times and we don't know their orbits. 
For almost none of them can we guess a mass or radius.

So the models we find here are based on the "known" radius of the
asteroid in km -- and this is only known for a couple dozen asteroids
in the dataset we used at the top. The "inclination" of the orbit of
the asteroid with the plane of the ecliptic (the earth's orbital plane
around the sun). And the semi-major axis of the asteroid -- roughly
the "average distance" from the sun in AU (where 1==earth's avg dist
from the sun).

The "xy" flags show the best relationship was found to be a power law.
While the model for "a" predicting "r2" in the Nessie noise models is linear.

Perhaps the best of the 3 is the inclination model. It is based on a
lot more data than the rad model and has a much higher R2
("explanation power") than the "a" model.

Let's have a closer look at that:

y = 0.0527453 * x^0.0621172
where y == estimated R2 for Nessie data noise and x ==
orbital inclination in degrees of relevant asteroid.

Given the inclination of an asteroid we can predict roughly whether
some data about it will match up well with the noise in Nessie
sightings. This does not tell us which parameter of the asteroid to
look at. It just says the best will will have roughly the R2 it estimates.

The important point to note here is that this model predicts "high
inclination" asteroids have something to do with Nessie sightings.
Somehow.  Even more interesting (maybe) is that inclination has
another little twist.  Astronomers push in another little
detail. Inclinations > 90 degrees mean the asteroid rotates backwards
-- in the opposite direct of the earth's movement around the sun.

It seems "Nessie" is somehow better related to retrograde asteroids
than those going the "right" way.

We shall see later that some cryptids prefer the same kind of asteroids.
And some prefer the low-inclination asteroids -- those that not only
go the right way but also are close to the plane of the earth's
orbit. When it comes to going between 2 planets as we presently
understand it the majority of the energy needed to do the trip is
burned on adjusting from the inclination of one to the inclination of
the other. And retrograde makes it even harder. It seems some cryptids
have an affinity for the "low energy trip" asteroids. But Nessie
doesn't seem to be one of these.

--
[Don't worry, it was probably just swamp gas or a Chinese satellite].
<https://text-message.blogs.archives.gov/2011/06/06/no-enemy-contact-but-alien-contact/>
Twr 72 rpts object flying into their area about 700m infront [sic]
of them, AZ 310°. Object came in slow over the ASP & landed. When
object moves it has a glowing light. It is about 15 - 20 ft across.
It is shaped like a big egg. Control twr rpts their radar did not
pick anything up. Object also does not seem to have any sound to it
when it moves.
-- 23ID Daily Journal, Chu Lai (60 klicks SE of Da Nang) Vietnam, 06 Jan 1969
[The archivist notes that for some reason the next 2 days of the Journal
are now MIA].

[REVERSE!]
NASA names its new UFO boss -- after initially saying it wouldn't
Politico, 15 Sep 2023
NASA on Thursday evening released the name of its new point person for UFOs,
hours after refusing to do so over concerns he ...
[The reasons NASA gave for having a secret dept head involved online abuse.
It wasn't clear how that did not apply to anyone else in NASA whose name
is known. IOW it just didn't make sense. Some observers suspected the chief
was a serving member of the military or similar that might not be a good
look for an "independent" and "science based" organisation].

  Meet NASA's UFO boss: Former Pentagon liaison Mark McInerney is ...
  Daily Mail, 15 Sep 2023
  Mark McInerney will become the US space agency's director of research into
  unidentified anomalous phenomena (UAPs), more commonly known as ...

  NASA UFO panel 'neglected' wind data to claim that infamous GOFAST UFO was
  'most likely drifting with the wind' - but skeptic's simulation and weather
  data ...
  Daily Mail, 16 Sep 2023 13:04Z
  In a landmark advisory report released Thursday, the US space agency said --
  among other findings -- that the GOFAST UFO was ...

  Nasa releases UFO report, says new science techniques needed to better
  understand them
  Gulf News, 14 Sep 2023 14:45Z
  CAPE CANAVERAL, Florida: Nasa said on Thursday that the study of UFOs will
  require new scientific techniques, including ...
  [Apparently NASA will appoint a new "secret" chief for UFO research].

Fresh calls for Australian government to conduct UFO review as
sightings continue
Adelaide Now, 16 Sep 2023
More than a third of Aussies believe aliens have made contact with
Earth and almost as many are convinced of a government ...
[RAAF and other defense officials have renewed statements they have no
evidence UFO's exist and no plans to investigate them].

`Alien corpses' shown to Congress as UFO expert forced to testify under oath
The Independent, 13 Sep 2023 08:07Z
The event was spearheaded by journalist and ufologist Jaime Maussan, who
testified under oath that the mummified specimens are not part of "our
terrestrial evolution", with almost a third of their DNA remaining "unknown",
reported Mexican media.
[You need to see the detailed reports to find out what this really means.
Most DNA is so-called "junk" that can be used to ID individuals but
does not normally look like anything "usual".  At least 98% of DNA in
human cells is "non-protein-coding".  In mummified remains it is quite
normal that DNA is in small pieces anyway, and can be hard to make
sense of.  Various animal and plant products are used in the some
burial or mummification processes that further cloud the picture. In
2017 Maussan was involved in the analysis of 5 mummies found in
Peru. One of those mummies showed an elongated skull and 3 fingers on
each hand and foot. That discovery was later debunked and shown from
mitochondrial DNA to be a human child].

  `Alien' bodies displayed during public hearing in Mexico Congress
  Times of India, 13 Sep 2023
  During a public hearing of the Mexico Congress, which was live-streamed
  online, two alleged `alien corpses' were unveiled shortly after several
  videos were displayed showing `UFOs and unidentified anomalous phenomena',
  according to several reports by local Mexican media.
  The hearing [...] began with several videos of unidentified anomalous
  phenomena around the country. After one of the videos, an
  expert testified that US aircraft would usually do rounds of the area
  shortly after a UAP was spotted.

The Pentagon's UFO office is sending cryptic `alien' messages
The Hill, 08 Sep 2023 21:02Z
Last week, the Pentagon's new UFO office, the All-domain Anomaly
Resolution Office (AARO), unveiled its long-awaited website.
[Apparently the Pentagon are putting up images that represent what an
alien message might look like, and seeing if anyone can decipher the
message. Elsewhere, some crop circles in the UK and Europe do seem to
contain elements that trace back to regions in the Southern Ocean and
either could be interpreted as "fishing tips" or maybe "please stop
messing with our food"].

Bipartisan Support for Further Investigation Increases Following
Congressional UFO Hearing
Hosted on MSN, 09 Sep 2023 02:01Z
Newsweek' reports that Congress has moved closer to revealing UFO data kept
secret by the government for years following a major hearing on the subject.
Both Democrats and Republicans have called for ...