Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"
| alt.paranet.ufo | Network of UFO fanatical nutjobs | 11,639 messages |
[ << oldest | < older | list | newer > | newest >> ]
| Message 11,607 of 11,639 |
| kymhorsell@gmail.com to All |
| lake&sea monster sightings and (potentia |
| 08 Oct 24 02:08:02 |
XPost: alt.ufo.reports A short note on the state of play. I've culled through the sources available online and come up with a list of 464 lake and sea monster sightings between 560 and 2024. A plot of the raw data looks like nothing. But when you smooth it ever-so-slighting by estimating the annual rate of sightings from every triple of sighting years then you get a plot that definitely has a sinusoidal component. The plot shows 3 distinct peaks and 3 troughs between 1700 and 2024. We might ask ourselves what has a period of around 100y and off the top of our heads might guess Uranus with a period of ~83years. Indeed, running a simple stat search comes up with the orbit of Uranus explaining around 7% of lake+sea monster sightings in the dataset -- more than any of the other ~2000s comet, asteroid or planets I have data for going back to the 17th cent. If you just search on which solar system obj matches the years of peak sightings (presumably when the relevant solar object is closest to Earth) and the sighting minima (pres the years the obj is furthest from Earth) it unambiguously says Uranus. But I've now run a more exhaustive search using the AI programs that have been gaining experience over the past few years looking at UFO data esp in relation to the movements of various bodies inside the solar system. The problem with solar system objects is -- their motions are all highly correlated and it's like the UFO/paranormal rabbit hole all over again. You look at one thing and then find several others that are very very similar and if you look at one of those you find several more things that are very very similar. OK. I'm getting dizzy... When the AI's combine all their mns of models that match the data to greater or lesser extent using the myriad of methods and software packages they have access to they come up with the following list of possible suspects: satbary 11 pluto 26 uranus 26 neptune 29 neptbary 31 plbary 31 saturn 31 mars 33 marsbary 33 urbary 35 jupbary 36 jupiter 36 The list above only includes the planets -- both the planet and the conceptual center of the relevant planetary system (barycenter), just in case we're talking about the moon of one of the planets. The number indicates the overall "average" (actually the median) rank in all the studies carried out so far. Meaning the barycenter of Saturn is the winner by far at this point, with Uranus and Pluto tied in 2nd place, followed closely by other possibilities. Enceladus (diam 500 km) is a key moon of Saturn that is believed to have a warm, salty subterranean ocean. The giant moon Titan (5200 km) is also believed to have a liquid water ocean of some kind. Mimas (~25 km) is another possibility with the suspected "youngest" ocean of the various moons. Saturn is not unique in having moons with suspected oceans. Pluto's moon Charon is believed to have "had" an ocean that is now frozen. But the planet itself may still have a liquid water ocean. Jupiter's giant Ganymede (diam 5200 km) is suspected of having an ocean 100 km deep with ocean water than the Pacific+Atlantic. Europa (3000 km) also has a similar deal maybe 150 km deep. And Uranus also has moons with syspected warm, salty oceans. Its moons Ariel, Umbriel, Titania and Oberon all may have oceans comparable in various ways with Earth's. Just underground. So we are just spoiled for choice here. I'll leave a few plots up at |
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca