XPost: alt.paranet.ufo   
      
   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   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)