From: kymhorsell@gmail.com   
      
   EXECUTIVE SUMMARY   
   - We'll look at planetary movements that "explain" sightings of the   
     Loch Ness monster.   
   - It turns out the movement of many asteroids seem to closely explain   
     key parts of Nessie sightings data.   
   - We back off and try to spot what commonality links these "good   
     explanations".  And it seems that Nessie has an affinity of large   
     radius asteroids with high inclinations to the ecliptic with perhaps   
     counter rotating asteroids preferred best of all.   
   - Why Nessie sightings should be predictable from the motions of 100s   
     of asteroids we can only guess at this point. Maybe she is not a   
     full-time resident of the lake and doesn't leave DNA traces for   
     people to find.   
   - We we later see Nessie has an affinity for some other types of   
     cryptid but is "the opposite" of yet other types. It's all very   
     complicated.  But life has had 14 billion years to move around an do   
     a lot of things we haven't expected up until now. :)   
      
      
   We've seen before UFO's "are complicated". People who've looked at   
   this area for decades have been struck by how UFO activity and almost   
   everything else abnormal seem to be linked in some way. Many experts   
   are starting to think many paranormal phenomena must be "the same   
   thing". And as I've posted in some prev articles, there seems to be a   
   lot of long-standing data that supports that speculation.   
      
   This will be the first of a new series of posts on unusual "creature"   
   sightings.  We will try to run the gamut of what has been reported   
   fairly reliably for the past 20-100 years. I've already previewed a   
   bit of this work before starting this post and can spill that this   
   point that some cryptids are very much the same as other kinds that   
   may or may not at first seem to be similar; while other types are "the   
   opposite" in some sense we will define later. :) But what is also   
   striking, they are all related to UFO's in an interesting way.   
      
   First up is Nessie -- the infamous "serpent" of a certain Scottish loch.   
      
   We have sightings for the lake monster going back at least 100 years.   
   There was a huge spate of sightings during the 30s and 40s and reports   
   thereafter wound down a lot. But every now and then they spike up   
   again and reports are still coming in to this day.   
      
   To put a crimp in the sails of people that believe something unusual   
   is in the lake, scientists have combed the lake almost foot by foot   
   over the years and found very little. Some suggestive photographs of   
   flippers and whatnot may or may not have been faked like other famous   
   photographs. Another clever search involved looking at the DNA washing   
   around in the water. If there was something unusual living in there,   
   then SOME strand of DNA should show up something unusual. But after a   
   reasonable effort the only unusual finding was there seemed to be a   
   lot of eel DNA floating around in the lake, and maybe a big one of   
   those might be responsible for all those sightings of wakes and humps   
   over the years.   
      
   But what we will do here is a pure data science exercise. We will look   
   at how sightings of Nessie are related to other types of data we've   
   already looked at in the case of UFO's. Planetary data.   
      
   We've seen how certain planets seem to crop of in UFO research every   
   now and then. And a fairly exhaustive search of both computer   
   calculated "simulated" planetary positions plus an even bigger search   
   of actual observational data for planets and 100s of asteroids has   
   show that UFO sightings rise and fall in highly significant parallel   
   with key planets and many asteroids.   
      
   So we'll do that again here. With some twists.   
      
   We'll again highlight how this is supposed to work in theory.  Out   
   there in the world are all kinds of "processes" that take inputs from   
   certain kinds of events and other processes, and produce outputs that   
   go on to become inputs for yet other processes.  Much of this data is   
   subject to noise of one type or another.  Sometimes a process that   
   takes some input immediately introduces noise into the data right at   
   the input. We can think of this as akin in "measurement noise". And,   
   again, processes sometimes also introduce yet more noise at the output   
   side -- just before releasing some data into the environment where it   
   can go on to influence some other process, some kind of noise is   
   introduced. We can think of that maybe as something akin to "rounding   
   error" or perhaps "distortion" as in some kind of amplification process.   
      
   So the output of a process has in it various kinds of noise   
   introduced by that process. We can theorise that the noise created   
   by a process is somehow unique to that process. At least we can more   
   realistically argue it will not be like other processes that are   
   radically different from it.   
      
   So if we look at the output of some process and find it has noise in   
   it we can track down to a given other process then we have a fairly   
   interesting argument that the one process must either feed directly or   
   indirectly into the other. We have found a "DNA fingerprint" in a   
   descendant that patches something originally produced in an ancestor.   
      
   What we will do here is try to extract JUST THE NOISE from some   
   kind of process or dataset, and then see if that noise happens to be   
   found inside the data of interest -- in this case Nessie monthly   
   sightings. To make this even more interesting we will first process   
   Nessie sightings to remove anything to do with earthly seasons that   
   may directly effect how many visitors are buzzing around the lake   
   ready to report anything unusual they see, and also remove any trends   
   from the data that may just accidentally look like a trend from some   
   other process for a totally chance reason. When we have data about   
   planets coming closer and going further away from the earth, e.g., we   
   are bound to see some that "look the same" as some other dataset that   
   may grow or decline due to e.g. human population growth or lake   
   monster popularity or any other reason.   
      
   We will extract the noise from Nessie sightings and see which planet   
   or asteroid data explains that noise beyond a reasonable doubt.  As   
   usual I will employ a stats package that runs 2 stats tests and makes   
   sure they both pass with flying colors before we announce any   
   significant finding.   
      
   But we do all this and we amazingly find -- just like for UFO's -- one   
   heck of a lot of planets, moons and asteroids seem to leave an imprint   
   in the noise part of Nessie sightings data.   
      
   The top 10 results ordered by R2 (the so-called "explanation power"   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)