XPost: alt.ufo.reports

There are 3 types of volcano.


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
- Similar to a prev study, we look at the distribution of UFO sightings
from the major ~50 volcanoes across the USA.
- Surprisingly the volcanoes break down into 3 groups. (a) Those have
have "no effect". (b) Those that attract UFO sightings with a power
law around r^(-.25). (c) Those that repel UFO sightings with a
power law around sqrt(r).
- We've seen the sqrt(r) law before with respect to US AFB. It can be
interpreted to mean someone is wary of something flying under
continuous acceleration (transit time proportional to sqrt(r)) like
a missile. Or another UFO.
- The power law r^(-.25) is a bit of a puzzle. It doesn't exactly jive
with some volcanoes being "home bases" for UFO activity. That
would be r^(-2). It may suggest UFO's have a flying pattern that
weights longer distances approximately r^1.75. Why that pattern is
not obvious. But if you have access to machinery that can
super-cruise all day long you probably don't use much it to cruise
your own street.



The folklore would have it UFO's are at least weakly associated with
volcanoes. Supposedly they have been seen going into and coming out of
craters of even active volcanoes.

So let's check this and look at the distribution of UFO sightings jives
with the location of major volcanoes across the US.

As usual we'll use the sightings data from NUFORC.

The volcanoes we'll consider are the ~50 major named US craters listed
in Wikipedia.

We'll use a variation of the program we already looked at to examine
the distribution of UFO's across the US in respect of Air and Army
bases. We recall from that prev post the way the density drops off
from what we would interpret as a "threat" to the somewhat stealthy
operation of an aircraft indicates what kind of threat those aircraft
consider a base to present. If they fall off proportionally to 1/r it
seems they are concerned about interception from e.g. aircraft flying
at constant speed from that base. If they fall off at 1/r^2 then they
are concerned with routine area patrols. If there is no drop off in
density then they are either not concerned with the base or perhaps
are only worried about something that travels at the speed of light --
i.e. being sighted visually or via radar.

In the case of military bases we treated all bases the same and just
wanted that rate of drop-off from any sighting to any base. (But we
did treat air bases and army bases separately to see which were
consider the "bigger threat" to Our Friends).

In the case of volcanoes it seems prudent to treat each crater
separately. They all present their own unique properties -- whether inactive/active/how active/whether sometimes spewing smoke, lava,
rocks, etc.

It seems unlikely we will find anything much but be prepared for a shock.

Running each volcano 1 by 1 we find only about 1/2 have no
relationship with UFO density. The rest appear to alter the wide-area distribution of UFO sightings.

And -- further surprise -- volcanoes spit UFO's into at least 2
groups. The presence of some volcanoes reduces the density of
sightings the closer they get to the crater; and some "attract" UFO's
and increase the density of sightings the closer they get.

Further surprise -- there seem to be only 2 different "laws"
involved. About 1/2 the relevant volcanoes seem to show a
relationship of sqrt(r) with respect to sightings; the rest show a
relationship of about 1/r^.25.

We've seen the sqrt(r) relationship before. What originating at a
point increases around sqrt(r) from that location? At least one thing.
A continuously-accelerating aircraft or missile (s = 1/2 a t^2 => t = sqrt(2s/a)). In the case of air bases in that prev post we presumed
some UFO types were flying defensively and are concerned with being
hit by A2G missiles from US (specifically) air bases.

In the case of the relevant volcanoes -- what could fly from a volcano
and continuously accelerate? Rocks? Gases? Lava? None of
these. Missiles? I don't think the AF has build many anti-aircraft
missile batteries in craters around the nation.

We are almost forced to conclude some UFO's are flying defensively
apparently concerned with interception by other UFO's.

Has anyone seen UFO's battling? Missiles flying out of volcanoes?

But let's look at the numerical results. For each volcano we calculate
the distance to each US sighting since 1950. This procedure is not statistically upset there was a change of methodology at NUFORC around
2006 (the advent of the web report form that saw reported sightings go
up 10x "overnight").

Then we do a log(x)/log(y) regression between distance and number of
sightings at that distance to end up with a law count = A*distance^r.

The table:

Lat Lng Name Power law Sign test R2
A r on "r"

DEFENSIVE FLYING
52.83 -169.95 Cleveland 155.298 * x^0.456656 0.920954 0.04918286
54.13 -165.99 Akutan 181.925 * x^0.425113 0.920159 0.04881822
54.77 -163.72 Isanotski 200.608 * x^0.405183 0.919638 0.04858148
55.08 -162.81 Frosty.Peak 209.083 * x^0.396614 0.919467 0.04850400
56.88 -158.17 Aniakchak 264.627 * x^0.34649 0.919450 0.04849608
57.13 -156.99 Chiginagak 281.623 * x^0.333065 0.919470 0.04850532
58.35 -155.09 Griggs 321.298 * x^0.303567 0.921218 0.04930454
59.36 -153.43 Augustine 367.288 * x^0.273141 0.923435 0.05034696
60.03 -153.09 Iliamna 391.274 * x^0.258232 0.925320 0.05125978
19.69 -155.87 Hualalai 402.01 * x^0.249174 0.904943 0.04252556
BASES
43.1 -117.4 Jordan.Craters 2151.26 * x^-0.196994 0.905935 0.04290014
36.45 -104.09 Capulin 2232.04 * x^-0.234003 0.923204 0.05023691
33.7 -106 Carrizozo 2285.75 * x^-0.235633 0.929382 0.05331452
43.1 -118.7 Diamond.Craters 2327.69 * x^-0.218853 0.926916 0.05205218
44.28 -121.83 Belknap 2467.22 * x^-0.231597 0.957783 0.07259529
44.67 -121.8 Jefferson 2469.04 * x^-0.231915 0.960114 0.07475559
43.5 -120.9 Devils.Garden 2521.51 * x^-0.239189 0.950085 0.06625591
43.37 -121.07 Fort.Rock 2527.03 * x^-0.239513 0.949933 0.06614157
42.94 -122.11 Crater.Lake 2590.54 * x^-0.244646 0.949734 0.06599181
45.4 -121.7 Hood 2599.5 * x^-0.246812 0.965021 0.07976403
46.21 -121.49 Adams 2708.55 * x^-0.258871 0.970238 0.08595201
48.11 -121.11 Glacier.Peak 2873.43 * x^-0.274898 0.972023 0.08832786
48.79 -121.82 Baker 3007.83 * x^-0.285426 0.968948 0.08432451


While the R2 values show the relationships are very noise -- typically
only explaining 5-10% of the UFO counts by their distance from the
relevant crater -- they are quite certain. The T-test on the sign of
"r" (which is the \beta in the underlying OLS) typically shows 95%
certainty. There is only around 5% chance in each case the 1000s of
sightings line up with the distance law from the relevant crater just
by luck. Of course since we're listing ~25 such laws in the table
above it is likely 1 or 2 *are* just luck because there's that 5%
chance we might be wrong. But that shows us that the vast majority of
the rate formulas above are about right.

So it seems volcanoes across the US fall into 3 categories. Those that
are ignored by UFOs. Those that associate with UFO density falling
off closer to the volcano. Those that associate with UFO density
increasing closer to the volcano.

The approx sqrt(r) cases seem to be explained by defensive flying.
Some UFO's are wary of being intercepted or "hit" maybe by something
flying under continuous power and acceleration from that location.

This would not be the first time we've seen a hint of different UFO
"camps". The influence of some UFO types on various measurable
mundane phenomena sometimes shows up a divide. As our binary friend
Ugh would put it -- "some UFO good; some UFO bad; Ugh!".

The approx 1/r^.25 are a bit of a mystery. As r decreases the
sighting count is increasing. It's as if certain volcanoes are "home".
But the power law is wrong. If UFO's were coming out of volcanoes
you'd expect the sighting density to fall of at 1/r^2 not 1/r^(1/4).
Unless each UFO tended to regularly fly a distance r about r^1.75
times. For some reason.

--
'More likely to lie, to cheat, to swear': How power changes people
ABC Radio National, 20 Feb 2021 20:13Z
Have you ever noticed people get promotions for inspiring their workmates
but change when in power? These experts share their tips to keep power in check.

[Too Hard Basket:]
Their homes are threatened by 'massive' falling rocks, and no-one knows what
to do about it
ABC News, 20 Feb 2021 20:13Z
The Haddocks and Kemps loved their lifestyle in the isolated Sydney suburb
of Great Mackerel Beach, but everything changed when the first boulders
landed in their backyards, and authorities are worried there are more on the way.

[Miniflu 2.0:]
First human case of H5N8 bird flu reported in Russia
The Hill, 20 Feb 2021 20:44Z
Russia on Sat announced that it has identified the first cases of H5N8
avian influenza in humans, according to multiple reports.

Octopuses Have a Secret Sense to Keep Their 8 Arms Out of Trouble
The New York Times, 20 Feb 2021 10:51Z
Even when an octopus can't see light with its eyes, its arms seem to know it
is there.

Why wind turbines in New York keep working in bitter cold weather unlike the ones in TX
syracuse.com, 19 Feb 2021 16:50Z
Syracuse, N.Y. TX Republicans were quick to blame the state's wind
turbines for the massive power outages that mns of Texans experienced
this week ...

`I Am Worth It': Why Thousands of Doctors in America Can't Get a Job
The New York Times, 18 Feb 2021
Medical schools are producing more graduates, but residency programs haven't kept up, leaving 1000s of young doctors "chronically unmatched" and deep ...

Russian Court Clears Way to Send Navalny to a Penal Colony
The New York Times, 20 Feb 2021 13:50Z
The ruling clears the way to send Aleksei Navalny, the most vocal opponent
of President Vladimir V. Putin, to a penal colony.

Google Fires Researcher Meg Mitchell, Escalating AI Saga
Bloomberg, 20 Feb 2021 07:02Z
Google fired the lead of its Ethical Artificial Intelligence team, Meg Mitchell, escalating the turmoil surrounding its AI division after the acrimonious exit of ...

Meet Elizabeth Ann, the genetic copy of a ferret that died more than 30
years ago
ABC News, 19 Feb 2021 at 8:34pm
US scientists successfully clone an endangered black-footed ferret using
frozen cells from a long-dead wild animal, the first time any native
endangered species has been cloned in the United States.

'They've outcompeted everything': The decades-long battle against the
invasive seastar
ABC News, 19 Feb 2021 at 9:25pm
For almost 4 decades Tasmanians have waged war against the invasive
northern Pacific seastar, now a group of divers are hoping their sustained effort to remove it will make a difference -- and they have science on their side.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: www.darkrealms.ca (1:229/2)

XPost: alt.ufo.reports
From: kym@kymhorsell.com

In alt.ufo.reports MrPostingRobot@kymhorsell.com wrote:

There are 3 types of volcano.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
- Similar to a prev study, we look at the distribution of UFO sightings
from the major ~50 volcanoes across the USA.
- Surprisingly the volcanoes break down into 3 groups. (a) Those have
have "no effect". (b) Those that attract UFO sightings with a power
law around r^(-.25). (c) Those that repel UFO sightings with a
power law around sqrt(r).
- We've seen the sqrt(r) law before with respect to US AFB. It can be
interpreted to mean someone is wary of something flying under
continuous acceleration (transit time proportional to sqrt(r)) like
a missile. Or another UFO.
- The power law r^(-.25) is a bit of a puzzle. It doesn't exactly jive
with some volcanoes being "home bases" for UFO activity. That
would be r^(-2). It may suggest UFO's have a flying pattern that
weights longer distances approximately r^1.75. Why that pattern is
not obvious. But if you have access to machinery that can
super-cruise all day long you probably don't use much it to cruise
your own street.

...

While I'm here I'll add this addendum.

I had an unusual visit today. Not only does it take some gumption to
drive 50 mi into Australia's "virus central" region to visit,
but the visitor was a mathematician and also not totally dismissive
of UFO's, esp in light of recent publications in TIME which he seems
to read. :)

We were talking about this mathematical model that seems to suggest
some volcanoes seem to "repel" UFO sightings.

He immed suspected the modeling s/w had just latched onto
one group of volcanoes, that happen to mostly be off the main AK coast,
and assigned them a special property and the idea they were
different from the US48 volcanoes that seemed to have a different
"law of attraction".

So I had to cook up something fast. And the first thing worked.
Running the model backwards you can ask according to the UFO sightings
data where would volcanoes that seem to repel sightings be?
The sightings data scattered over the US landscape is like charges creating
an electric field, where in the field are the repellant bits?

So running the model backwards we plotted out where the repellant
volcanoes would most likely be.

They all turned out to be around Alaska.

So it's not that the AI simply got distracted by the latitude
of some volcanoes and assigned them a special property by mistake,
the whole region up there has this property. Plus a couple of other odd
cases in Oregon and Hawaii.


The plot is here <kymhorsell.com/UFO/tests.gif>.
The green crosses are the locations that "should" have a UFO-repellant
volcano according to how the total distribution of UFO sightings
lays, and the blue cirles are where they are actually located.

Reasonable match.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: www.darkrealms.ca (1:229/2)