EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
- We've seen some UFO activity in the US/N Am seems to be linked with
objects coming over the pole from outback Siberia (and more
specifically, some big islands in the Kara Sea).
- But does this mean Russia is the "origin" of UFO activity? Is the
Russian govt or a group of secret technologists based in Siberia
building these things and worrying the Hell out of weak-minded
people like me and some Pentagon brass?
- It seems not. A rather long presentation and rationale for the
present AI s/w I'm using suggests Russia itself is the destination
of yet other UFO activity that seems connected with the same laundry
list of locations and regions we've seen US activity also linked to
-- i.e. mostly the polar seas and some other mid-ocean locations
that seem to be deep deep deep.
- In this case the s/w picks up a slew of locations that all seem
related to "the usual suspects" via ocean temperature and daily
earthquake counts. It seems warmer water some places and more than
usual number of daily mag 6 jolts gets the things buzzing over
Russia in much the same way the some things get the same things
buzzing over the US or NZ for that matter. (Other data suggest
there is a "big region" S of AUS and NZ that seems to be something
like a Bermuda Triangle of the Southern Ocean except it's waaay bigger).
- I've left a slew of graphs at <kymhorsell.com/UFO> showing the
regions that link with UFO activity in Russia, as well as similar
plots for various other countries incl Scandinavia, Germany, India,
China, etc.


In a prev post we looked at possible "origins" of UFOs seen across N
America. Using daily NOAA sat data for the Arctic we tried to find
locations 60N-90N that seemed to have a high correlation with daily
UFO sightings data.

The sat data allowed us to estimate density of seaice and we assumed
that (perhaps) less seaice day to day might allow more UFO activity to
be seen across Canada and the US.

The data seemed to confirm these assumptions and even at gross
resolution -- we divided the region between N Canada and N
Russia/China into only an 8 x 8 grid -- we could "see" there was a
"high probability track" between the Kara Sea off Siberia and Alaska.

While there is nothing particularly new about this it's nice the data
backs some long-standing ideas of UFO's flying over the pole from N
Russia. In the "old country" (N Norway aka Lapland) it's well-known
various strange objects have had a habit of coming in over the sea
from the general direction of Siberia starting around the end of WWII.

But there is immediately a question. Does this activity have much to
do with "Russia" per se? Or are remote Russian regions simply hosting
something that's otherwise beyond the control and/or knoeledge of the
govt and/or population?

We can run some numbers to check. If N Am activity seems liked with N
Russia, where in the world is linked with Russian UFO activity?

The first problem is data on Russian UFO sightings is relaytively
diffuclt to come by. While Russian UFO groups exist and collect data
on UFO activity, not much of it makes its way to the web AFAIK.

So we are forced to fall back to the well-know US sources of UFO data.
And they are not all that well-used by people in Russia or its former Republics.

By aggregating sources from Russia and some of the "stans" in the
NUFORC database we get a thin dataset at monthly resolution:

Year.MM Count
1970.46 1
1990.54 1
1992.54 1
2000.54 1
2005.04 1
2008.04 1
2009.54 1
2010.46 1
2011.71 1
2012.29 1
2012.46 1
2012.88 1
2012.96 2
2013.12 1
2014.71 1
2015.04 1
2015.29 1
2016.62 1
2018.54 1
2018.62 1
2020.38 1
2020.71 1


It seems impossible this will show us anything.

Ye of little faith! :)

One of the reasons I began study in this area was to explore the uses
of data science and AI to an area of "fringe science". One of the
major reasons the fringe is the fringe is that results are few and far
between and the possible explanations are so far off the beaten path
people otherwise well-qualified in science are "afraid" to poke around
in there for fear of ridicule and/or anyway not finding anything using traditional tools.

AI s/w is not so limited. It can be given a set of algorithms to do
statistical tests and a set of heuristics and/or rules to evaluate the
results. Then it can just grind the gears for days on end until it can
separate out a possible overall explanation for some phenomena that
stands out from all the others. There is the possibility the AI can
poke into areas that ostensibly have nothing to do with the subject at
hand where a tranditional scientist would make no connection or
dismiss the link out of hand.

So the s/w I have so far does a very simple job of achieving the goal
of an AI analyzing its subject matter. Call it a model of what I'm
aiming at eventually.

Using a backgroudn database of "everything" it can get its hands on,
possibly expanding it on the fly by autmatically uploading and
"ironing" data from the web, the current s/w uses its experience from
past analyses and the heuristics I supplied to try to find the "best explanation" of a nominated data set.

Its experience allows it to "quickly" run through the most likely
things it has in its database that might link to the dataset and then
curn very slowly through those data that pass the initial filter, to
find a set of likely candidates which it can rank and finally proclaim
a "winner" or "winners".

In this simple version the "theories" the AI is hypothesising and
testing are very simple -- that a given dataset is explained by single
data series it has in its database.

In a (much) later version we'll try to aim at having the AI pose much
more sophoisticated theories than "I think X explains dataset Y" to
detailed ideas that might take a page of English to explain.

To get back to the subject at the top, we'll let the AI s/w loose on
the Russian sighting data and see which variable in the database seems
to best explain the activity. We drop a hint to the AI we are more
interested in explanatory datasets that have some kind of "location"
attached to them. E.g. the temperayture of some region, or a
measurement taken at some specific location.

And so the s/w crunched away for a day or so skimming through (now)
100s of 1000s of possible datasets, estimating 90% of them would not
be related based on past experience, then doing a detailed study for
each one trying to assure the results were each and every as
statistically robust as it was possible to make them.

Drumroll.....

And the results for "Russia UFO sightings" turned out to be (showing
"top20" results only):

Explanatory Lag Filter R2
variable (m)

cosmic-ERV3 3 2 0.86580263
gav5904470 1 2 0.79136431
gav5904766 3 2 0.65192667
gav5904186 12 2 0.54177377
qband60 0 2 0.44211171
qiceland 0 2 0.44211171
qnepal 0 2 0.44001058
5904854 3 2 0.41752486
gav5904395 12 1 0.39109553
gavqethiopia 12 2 0.30599732
gav5904187 12 2 0.30579050
5904685 3 1 0.27100805
5904984 3 1 0.24578872
5904179 3 2 0.23704332
qdominica 12 2 0.23497518
qgreenl 0 2 0.22908694
qcentatlridge 3 2 0.20926268
qgeorgia 0 2 0.19346524
5905070 3 2 0.16799978
gavqnindocean 12 2 0.15786991

The first column is the (AI) codename for the dataset from its
database. All these datasets are dated to at least monthly
granularit. It aggregates daily data into month as required.

The "Lag" column shows how the AI tries to shift the explanatory
variable along the time axis to make bumps match up with the target
variable ("Russian UFO sightings"). We can see some things were found
to match as well as possible with no lagging. Some were lagged 1, 3
or 12 months to find the best match.

The "Filter" column shows how hard the AI tried to filter out noisy
data. Obviously Russian UFO sightings are not all the phenomena of
interest. Some will be mistakes. Some will be hoaxes. Some will be
mundane phenomena. Some will be new phenomena. And some will be (we
suspect) intelligently controlled aerial systems of unknown kind and
origin. So the AI s/w tries to match up the explanatory variable and
the target variable and any very major mismatches is listed for
possible removal from the matching number. A filter of "2" shows
about 5% of the data was removed to make the match better. A filter of
"1" means up to 30% of the data was removed.

So for most of the matches, above, very little of the data needed to
be removed to make the match as good as it could be made. In the
other cases the majority of the data remained in the match-up. But
we'd obviously like the best matches to be the ones that used the most
data. And that turns out to be the case.

Finally, the "R2" styatistic shows what fraction of the day-to-day
variation in the target variable was "matched" or "explained" by a
similar day-to-day variation in the explanatory variable. The best
matches will be over (say) .8. But even low values are alright if they
happen to be the best we can find. The R2 doesnt say the match is statistically significant -- that is quite another kind of test. In
the present AI only results that passed at least 2 statistical tests
at 90% confidence are even presented. The R2 value just show how
closely the explanatory variable can be made to predict future values
of the target variable. It is quite certain the 2 things are linked
(possibly causally since the lag ensures were compare the target
variable at some later time with the present value of the explanatory
variable) and not just due to some lucky draw.

So now to look at exactly what those explanatory variables are and
what they say about the originals of the Russian UFO sightings.

Firsyt up is "cosmic-ERV3". This is one of several 100 variables in
the dabase. I collected them many years ago when a Russian group was
setting up a network of cosmic ray detectors around the world. At the
time most of the detectors were in the USSR, but some were in
"friendly countries". Unfortunately for us here, the dataset was not
the best quality. Different sites tended to upgrade their detector
equipment from time to time as money came to hand, and the new version
of the equipment was never the same as the old equipment. So
mesurements changed -- sometuimes a lot -- just because of ewquipment
upgrades. ANd the worst thing was the documentation of what was done
to the equipment and when was also not the best. :}

So I'm willing to just ignore this line of the table. The ERV3 part
says its one of the sites in Armenia around 40N, 40E, 3000m
elev. Quite high up. SOMEHOW cosmic rays coming down there predict 86%
of Russian UFO sightings 1970-2020. At least the subset of them that
made its way into the NUFORC database. Looking a the actual detailed
model output it seems the more cosmic rays are detceted the more
Russia sees UFO activity. It's as if UFO's are based in the mountains
of central Armenia when when the sun is throwing some kind of fit and
2x more raidation that normal is coming down out of the sky the UFO's
decide to go out flying around the country. All very interesting. But
I'm going to ignore it. :)

The next few lines are FAR more interesting. Those strings of digits
e.g. gav5904470 are the internal codes for robots that are floating
around the Southern Ocean. These robots collect all kinda of data and
have been floating around out there sometimes for decades. "Floating"
is a simpliivasion. These things can dive down several kms when they
feel like it. Genreally tyhey are going up and down slowly over a
period of weeks, sampling all the water they pass on the way. The
data being used here is just the daily average water temperature. It
seems when water tgemperature in the regions of these 3 robots in
particular (100s of them are in the database) goes up then Russia is
likely reporting more UFO activity.

How can some part of the SOuthern Ocean explain conditions in Siveria?
The weather in the S hemisphere is relatively independent of the
weather in the N hemisphere. The airstreams generally turn back at the
equator. Hurricanes dont get within 10 deg of the equator.

Well it seems -- maybe -- some part of the Southern Ocean might be the
home of something related to UFO phenomena. We've seen in previous
posts that certain parts of the Antactic coast, e.g., are highly
correlated with UFO activity in N Am. Seems similar things are true
of Russia, too.

It seems Russia is not the "prime UFO base" we might have thought it
was.

N America (and N Scandinavia :) may see objects coming in over the sea
from the general direction of Siberia, but Russia apparemntly should
be seeing objects fly in from the India Ocean and probably the Bering
Straight after they flew up from Antarctica or at least some key
regions in the Southern Ocean.

Back to our table, above. The next lines feature data like
"qxxxNNN". These are the daily equathquake reports I upload from time
to time. At this time I only collect quakes with mag >= 6, to try and
save on space. But it seems from "qband60" that large quakes along 60N
-- the Arctic circle -- are related to Russian UFO sightings.

From the deytailed model it seems the more quakes along the 60th
partalllel, the more UFO sightings in Russia. A big jolt in Sept 2014
seems have sent Russian activity through the roof -- about 16x normal.

The other "q" data show quakes in certain countries also are linked
with Russian sightings. Are these the location of underground bases?
Well, at least possible if not likely or plausible. The locations
seem to be inidated anyway by other data -- the Arctic circle,
Greenland, Nepal, Iceland, Dominica (?). The Central Atlantic Ridge
(we've see data that suggest a big jolt there in early 2020 caused
nerwspaper headlines of a huge up-tick in UFO actviity across N Am; in
the rest of the year activity return to normal levelas again, pretty
much, as the UFO people (TM; not necessarily people) settled back down
into the regular grind again :).

The upshot of all this is -- Russia might seem to be a major source of
US UFO sightings, but it seems likely to be only indirect. Sightings
in Russia seem to trace back to the polar regions and some other key
locations mostly associated with the oceans.

--
Upcoming events:
08 Apr 2012 NOAA $bn disasters Q1 release

[Lunar Rights!]
We have human rights, should the Moon have rights too?
ABC Radio National, 18 MarMarch at 8:00pm
Some say we should give the Moon its own rights, to protect it from us
meddling humans. But what would these rights be? And would they achieve anything?

'Back to nature': Natural burial sites open in response to growing demand
ABC Sunshine Coast, 18 Mar 2021 at 10:59pm
Many Queensland families are currently having to travel interstate to give their loved ones a natural burial, but now more councils are looking at providing it as an option at their cemeteries.

Weirdo Manta Shark Found Fossilized in Mexican Limestone
Gizmodo, 18 Mar 2021 19:09Z
Paleontologists have announced the discovery of an extraordinary fossil
shark in Mexico. They describe Aquilolamna milarcae, a Late Cretaceous shark that ...

Found in space: Complex carbon-based molecules
Phys.org, 18 Mar 2021 18:08Z

[continued in next message]

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