![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Look. I just love to make people queasy thinking about these things.
So I have to ask. Is there "any" evidence (apart from unverified statements from various astronauts that may have been on the moon on a "quick scoop and return" missing), "any" evidence that there may be a base on the moon operated by person or persons on non-persons unknown? We have to assume if there is a base on the moon it may suggest access to better tech than a Space-X rocket so we might question how likely it is there would be any trouble for people up there to fly between the moon and Earth. But there might be an ever ever so slight variation depending on the distance between the 2 bodies. Maybe when the back side of the moon is facing the sun 24/7 it might be slightly more attractive to come down to Earth. But it must -- surely -- be a tiny tiny effect even if it is there. But we have to check. We are all scientists and engineers after all, and it doesn't exist if it hasn't been measured. Right? So I will take the list of UFO sightings at the NUFORC and check if there is any interesting periodic structure to the data. First off we have to make an adjustment to allow for the NUFORC switching to a web report form in March 2006. Before that numbers seemed to be much smaller than after the web report went live. A statistical procedure finds if we multiply sightings numbers before Apr 2006 by 9.8 we can allow for that change. Next we find there is a 7-day cycle in UFO sightings. It seems more UFO's are spotted on Sats than any other day of the week. (At least with the NUFORC data; I didn't check any other databases). In fact, the probability of seeing a UFO on a given day seems to rise from Mon (minimum prob) through to Sat (max). Sun sees a decrease in prob before returning to Mon minimum. The table for the 7-day structure is thus: DOW Adj factor 0 1.50547 Mon 1 1.4569 Tue 2 1.37849 ... 3 1.35947 4 1.27042 5 1 Sat 6 1.28463 Sun The "adj factor" is the number I will use to adjust the number of UFO's reported on a certain day in an attempt to remove the 7d periodicity from the data. Since Mon is the least likely day to report a UFO we'll multiply any count on a Money by 1.505... to allow for the apparent fact people going back to work on a Money do not tend to be looking up in the sky. OTOH on Sat we'll use "1" as the factor (i.e. no adjustment) because people are apparently at their most alert on Sat. I will not attempt to allow for the hangover from Fri night partying. We will then assume, in turn, there is a periodicity of 20, 21, .... 35 days in the data and check the root mean square error of the (adjusted) UFO daily sighting counts from the average for the relevant day of the period. We then print out the RMSE for each period and see whether there is any dip in the RMSE (better fit) at any period we might a priori suspect might be linked with the moon. Let's look: Period RMSE 25 23.1191 26 23.1059 27 23.113 28 23.0913 -- BOING! Smallest RMSE. 29 23.1092 30 23.111 31 23.1068 32 23.1118 33 23.11 34 23.1115 35 23.092 -- 2nd smallest RMSE Incredibly, there is a periodicity of 28 days in the UFO sighting data even after trying to nullify the 7d weekday period. The dip at 28 days is very certain even if small. I've used several different methods and all show up the same pattern. 28 days is the minimum RMSE with days either side being larger. We might even suspect 29 days is slightly closer to the true value of the period than 27 days given the RMSE for the former is smaller than the latter. We know the period of the moon is around 28 days and our procedure has unambiguously pointed at it popping up inside the UFO sighting data. It points at UFO sightings being slightly more likely at certain times during the lunar cycle and supports an hypothesis that a trip between the moon and Earth by said object being slightly more likely then. At this point we have not identified whether the "most likely" sightings happen at full moon, new moon or someplace in between. We are not sure the "easier" trip happens when the Earth and moon are closest, furthest or somewhere in between. Or whether the back of the moon is in full daylight or full dark, or somewhere in between when these "most likely" trips tend to happen. But it is "some" evidence there may be a base of some kind somewhere on the moon and some of these UFO's are coming from there. Of course we also presume from other data most of them come from somewhere in the Siberian Arctic and Antarctic, most likely from under the ocean. That what the "trans medium" stuff in the latest Pentagon leakage is all about. At some point I'll try to write a more exacting program to calculate whether the "28 day" period is more likely the sidereal (27.3) or synodic period (29.5) of the moon. On the evidence here is seem the synodic period is the more likely one to be found. I have some s/w I've discussed elsewhere that tries to model interplanetary flights that match UFO sightings against the positions of (mostly) the outer planets. From these some "flight characteristics" have been roughly deduced. It would require some adapting but could also try to fit likely routes (e.g. a low energy curve assuming you have some kind of antigravity drive) between the front or back of the moon and the Earth and see which show up as more likely. Since we don't seem to see any big domes on the moon looking up there with out backyard telescopes, we might expect to find the back of the moon to show up as the more likely location of the starting point. -- I Feel Like This UFO News Should Get More Attention Esquire, 03 May 2021 21:22Z The Dept of Defense established The Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force to study videos like these and other ... [I ONLY GET IT FOR THESE KINDS OF ARTICLES!] The research about shrinking penises might not be as clear-cut as you think ABC/The Conversation, 3 MayMay at 8:30pm Warnings of an end to human sperm production have been making headlines recently, now with the added threat of shrinking penises. Is this science or sensationalism? Tim Moss explains. [Ignored for a century or 10:] 'There must be a reckoning' if US bureaucrats ignored evidence of UFOs, ex-UK official tells 'Tucker' YAHOO!News, 01 May 2021 03:34Z A forthcoming report from the Pentagon and US intelligence agencies about the presence of UFOs could shed light on "a potential catastrophic failure of intelligence," a former British defense ... UFO Fragments Are Likely In Possession Of Lockheed Martin, Says Ex-Sen. Harry Reid Yahoo News, 01 May 2021 03:35Z Former Nevada Senator Harry Reid, once a major leader in the Democratic party before his retirement, has claimed that defense ... Ex-Pentagon Investigator Shares Shocking Details About UFOs Disabling American Nuclear Capability BroBible, 30 Apr 2021 16:36Z Yet another former United States govt official has come forward with concerns and new information about the secrets ... |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
How difficult and expensive would it be to have a "base" on the moon? | Hop | Policy | 6 | May 24th 12 04:02 PM |
How difficult and expensive would it be to have a "base" on the moon? | Koobee Wublee | Astronomy Misc | 270 | March 10th 12 11:14 PM |
BUZZ on Howard Stern.."No to the Moon"...Denies wanting to be "First"! | Jonathan | History | 21 | April 21st 10 10:36 PM |
might Odissey-Moon be the Google's expected, preferred, designed,"chosen" and (maybe) "funded" GLXP team to WIN the prize? with ALL otherteams that just play the "sparring partners" role? | gaetanomarano | Policy | 3 | September 27th 08 06:47 PM |
NatGeo's "Space Race - The Untold Story"...And you thought "Moon Shot" was bad, kids... | OM | History | 21 | July 5th 06 06:40 PM |