Newsgroups: alt.ufo.reports
From: kymhorsell@gmail.com
Subject: update on space telescope search

[uploaded 34 times; last 28/09/2024]

Working with AI's. It can be a bitch. They can see things you can't.
They do things you told them to do but not how you expected. Good
practice for aliens.

Before I get to the movie, one funny story from the past couple of
weeks. I was working on a program to model astro-navigation inside the
solar system. Some of the data suggests "someone" may be tooling
around between the planets using something better than chemical
rockets. As we've seen in a prev post, the UFO sightings daily ups and
downs seem to match up pretty well with flights from certain planets
or moons of those planets assuming trips are pretty much straight line
and constant speed.

The program works out the "most likely" parameters (given the match is
statistically significant in the 95% not-just-chance range on both my
fave statistical tests) is straight line motion around 1 AU per
day. Meaning when certain planets are close to Earth you see a UFO
reporting "wave", and when they move further away again the reports
tend to decline precipitously. The match is maybe not as good as other
models might find, hence I'm trying to handle actual astro navigation
including possible high-speed flight plans and maybe multi-planet
trips between "home" and here.

Anyway, as part of the software development I've written a simple
gravity simulator that can take the parameters of an orbit --
basically a position inside the solar system relative to the sun plus
a starting speed in the X Y and Z directions -- and model where an
object at that position and speed would end up over time.

One of the possible "trips" we might be interested in is from planet
Mongo to a stable orbit near the earth. So I asked an AI s/w to find
what X,Y,Z,VX,VY,VZ parameters would quickly take an object into an
orbit near earth from some place far out in the solar system. It
easily found a relevant set of coordinates that worked -- it said.
But it turned out -- like the infamous djin -- the AI had solved the
problem, but not to my liking.  It found a set of coordinates -- a
position and a velocity -- that led to a spacecraft quickly moving to
a point 1 AU from the sun. I had specified a test to carry out to see
if the path actually ended up near the earth. 1 AU from the sun. And
all points after that had to also be 1 AU from the sun. A stable
"earth type" orbit. I thought I had asked for.

The AI said "yes, master, I have done exactly what you asked". But
when I looked at a plot of the answer it turned out to be a nose-dive
into the sun. 

The AI had determined that the last point it could solve for was 1 AU
from the sun -- as requested.  And "all points after that were also at
1 AU from the sun". Except there were no other points. The simulated
rocket was travelling so fast at that point that the next time-step of
the track was inside the sun. And because the program the AI was using
the do the orbital calculation "cuts out" when a simulated rocket or
asteroid either dives into the sun or hits the sun's escape velocity
-- meaning it will not be staying around the sun much longer so wave
goodbye now -- the AI didn't see any output after the 1 AU
point. Hence no point was NOT 1 AU from the sun and all parts of the
request were met exactly.

It's an infamous logical problem -- induction over an empty set. 
E.g. (in my case) all my older sisters are blondes is true. 
Because I have no elder sisters and none of them are not blonde QED!

But to a more interesting update for normal people. ;)

I've written a couple things to hunt through the now mountains of
space telescope output to see what can be seen. Always the AI and
stats programs say that the brightness of many stars and even what
appears to be dust goes up and down "exactly" in accord with UFO
sightings reported some number of hours or days later. They are so
insistent and have so much evidence this is true it's hard to refute now. 
Unless we can find some problem with all the space telescopes that
otherwise explains it. (And, yes, they do have some glitches and
problems but so far none very well explains the statistics I'm seeing).

The latest program does a "grid search" across the images from
different parts of the sky to find something that is "visible"
evidence of something going on. It divides the sky into 4 quadrates,
find the "best quadrant" to search by comparing its average brightness
with UFO report numbers over following days, then zooms in. And keeps
going until the area is small enough to see something "obvious". 

It's all very well for the program to point at some series of images
with vague changing shades of grey (usually some tiny points nr some
star) and it says these shades of grey get lighter and darker exactly
in accord with later UFO report numbers.  But we want to SEE the damn things!

I originally had posted some movies of lines of stars going a little
darker one by one. That might indicate something is crossing in front
of them.  But -- of course -- that something might be an asteroid or space junk.

But the latest movies shows something a little more "widespread". The
AIs have found at least one part of the sky where things seem to be
going on "all the time".  While I can't be totally sure at this point
there is not some stoopid bug in one of the tools that put it all together 
(including the imaging part as well as the statistics part and the
hunting-for-something-interesting section), the movie looks pretty cool.

It's hunted up a section of some telescope images where the instrument
was pointed in the same place continuously for many hours, with images
taken every few mins.  Without pushing things to extremes -- and some
of the image processing I'm doing magnifies things and image enhances
them so they look pretty extreme -- it seems to show "ants" moving
around between various stars. But since (in this case) the moving ants
predict UFO sightings across N American in a matter of hours later
they must be much closer than the stars.

The latest movie is at <http://kym.massbus.org/UFO/TESS/movie2023Apr05.avi>.

This particular set of images supposedly predicts 60% of UFO sightings
2 hrs later.  The stats model even manages to predict a local max in
reports -- more or less -- saying some hour in the future would see 6
UFO reports. The actual number seen in that hour turned out to be 12
at the NUFORC -- a local maximum over the couple days of telescope observations.

The stats output looks like:

Time```````````````````Avg`brightness```#reports``Model
7155```````````````````2.93439``````````0.5`````0.377549
7158```````````````````2.94313````````````1``````1.35454
7159```````````````````2.93918``````````0.5`````0.760403
7160````````````````````2.9372``````````0.5`````0.569315
7161```````````````````2.93517``````````0.5`````0.423144
7162```````````````````2.93517````````````1`````0.423144*
7163````````````````````2.9378``````````0.5```````0.6215
7164```````````````````2.94191``````````0.5```````1.1333*
7165```````````````````2.94187``````````0.5``````1.12669*
7167```````````````````2.94452````````````1```````1.6597
7168```````````````````2.94053````````````1`````0.926281
7169````````````````````2.9458````````````1``````2.00117*
7170```````````````````2.94048````````````3`````0.919536*
7172```````````````````2.95331```````````12``````5.99821*       <-- it kinda gets this right
7173```````````````````2.94602````````````3``````2.06657
7174```````````````````2.95119````````````6``````4.39991
7177````````````````````2.9366``````````0.5`````0.521512

(The "0.5" means no report has been recorded so far for that hour.
The "time" numbers are hours since the start of the relevant year.
But a report may or may not come in over the next year or so.
Sometimes people take a long time to make a report if they saw
something too odd.  If it's too unusual they might just dismiss it
until years later.  We can see some of the days with no reports
(i.e. "0.5") the computer model predicts there might eventually be
one. It's 60-70% right, so we listen to its opinion :).

--
"Nothing in life is to be feared, it is only to be understood.
Now is the time to understand more, so that we may fear less."
- Marie Curie

How big a deal is NASA's new UFO study?
[image] An unidentified flying object, as seen by a U.S. Navy jet.
Space.com, 18 July 2022
In early June, NASA announced that it's commissioning an independent study
on unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP), as UFOs have recently been rebranded.
The intent is to move the scientific understanding of UAP forward, said
Thomas Zurbuchen, NASA's associate administrator for science.
"NASA believes that the tools of scientific discovery are powerful and apply
here also," Zurbuchen said in a statement (opens in new tab). "We have
access to a broad range of observations of Earth from space - and that
is the lifeblood of scientific inquiry. We have the tools and team who can
help us improve our understanding of the unknown. That's the very definition
of what science is. That's what we do."
The UAP study team will be led by astrophysicist David Spergel, previously
the chair of the astrophysics department at Princeton University.
"Given the paucity of observations, our first task is simply to gather
the most robust set of data that we can," Spergel said in the NASA
statement.  "We will be identifying what data -- from civilians,
government, non-profits, companies -- exists, what else we should try
to collect and how to best analyze it."
[The investigation of why NASA has missed something obvious to many
for the past 65+ years will come later. But it argues that classical
approaches of Organised Science might draw another blank on UFO's].