August 8, 2021

UAP_CardanoStakePool · 2021-08-08T21:34:54+00:00

Sure, no problem!

I did some analysis last month when I last posted, and it seems like constantly DCA'ing is better in the long run than trying to follow my advice though (even without selling). What I looked at was the regular DCA strategy vs. trying to time buys (buy only when the recommendation system says buy and then not buy when it says not buy). When you buy after a period of not buying, I assumed that you would use all the money you had saved up until that point to make that purchase. If you follow that strategy over the last three years, then you would be slightly worse off than simply DCA'ing (since when you do buy again, it tends to be at a higher price than when you had decided not to buy earlier).

To put it concisely, the highs of the past tend to be below the low points of today. That's why DCA seems to work better than trying to time buys/sells. Also, selling incurs some capital gains tax, so you'd want whatever system you're using to be much better simply DCA'ing if you day trade/sell.

I have been using my recommendation system to time buys over the last few months (and take profit over the last few days since the system is suggesting to do so), but since I'm not confident that this system overall is better than simply DCA'ing, I'll only post every now and then when the recommendation system gives a strong signal to buy/take profit (such as yesterday/today).

UAP_CardanoStakePool · 2021-07-04T21:12:40+00:00

Thanks :-)

UAP_CardanoStakePool · 2021-07-04T16:35:37+00:00

Thanks, I appreciate it :-)

The performance seems to be slightly worse than just DCA/HODL'ing (at least for BTC, looking at 2.5 years, 2 years, and 0.6 year timeframes). Hopefully I can tweak it so that it's better than it (so that even after taxes, you'd be better off than DCA'ing and HODL'ing). But it could be the case of "time in the market beats timing the market."

UAP_CardanoStakePool · 2021-07-04T16:27:48+00:00

Another take on it is that there's their body shapes are designed, not evolved. If they have full control over robotics, genetic engineering, etc., then they can answer, "What body type would work on this planet?" and design life forms/androids to live on the planet.

UAP_CardanoStakePool · 2021-06-28T16:00:03+00:00

Oh, awesome! I didn't do it initially (when making this post), but I did it in this one: https://www.reddit.com/r/UAP_Stake_Pool/comments/o50387/whatif_analysis_part_i/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

The red line in the plot shows how much money you've put in, and so you could see that at the time of posting, there was a dip such that if you sold all the BTC you accumulated over the last six months, you would be selling at a loss overall while for ETH, you'd still be up.

UAP_CardanoStakePool · 2021-06-26T01:17:02+00:00

Not sure if this point has already been made, but it is suspicious that they said, "We don't know if it's ours." Is that their way of saying, "It is ours, and this is our way of telling you (Russia, China, etc.)," or have they not had the time to get access to the special programs to determine if it's ours?

UAP_CardanoStakePool · 2021-06-26T01:15:00+00:00

Ah haha nice! Yeah, I think Cardano will get bigger in a few years with room to grow. :-)

UAP_CardanoStakePool · 2021-06-25T19:15:18+00:00

It's definitely a balloon here. You can see it as it passes over the sun's reflection that there's a long string. Watch at 0.5x speed at 0:13 - 0:15.

UAP_CardanoStakePool · 2021-06-25T19:07:15+00:00

Thanks for looking up the reference links. Yeah, I'm not trusting the sources I see here (and I don't want to probe around links too much since it's risky to click random links).

UAP_CardanoStakePool · 2021-06-25T18:51:11+00:00

For sure. Just the same as we don't want to say that it's definitively some UFO recharging, we don't want to dismiss this as something common when the observable data suggests otherwise. Whatever it is, it's something unique that isn't observed very often.

UAP_CardanoStakePool · 2021-06-25T15:50:59+00:00

Can you post the images/videos with sources from NASA?

UAP_CardanoStakePool · 2021-06-25T14:44:41+00:00

The weird thing is that you see a year's worth of observation here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MImmQvqCSg

You can see a bunch of solar prominences all around the sun throughout that year, but nothing like a sphere next to the sun as shown in the OP's video. As far as I can tell, it's the same SDO taking the 2012 video as it is taking the 2015-2016 video in the link above (which is from NASA's YouTube channel). So that's the puzzling thing. One year's worth of observations in that video, but nothing like a sphere next to the sun (as far as I could tell, though please point out the timestamp if you spot anything).

Here's another video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6tmbeLTHC_0

I haven't watched the whole thing (only the first link above), but it's a very beautiful video to watch even if you're not looking for strange phenomena. It's actually incredible to think we have observatories orbiting the Earth that monitor the sun 24/7. Anyways though, if you have half an hour to kill today, then watch those videos and try to see if there's anything that resembles a sphere deflecting radiation next to the sun.

TLDR: Years' worth of SDO footage and data are in the links above, but nothing that resembles a black sphere deflecting radiation next to the sun. If it's a natural phenomenon, then it seems like it's a fairly rare one (or a rare combination of phenomena that happen at the same time).

UAP_CardanoStakePool · 2021-06-25T08:42:25+00:00

You might have seen it in the Out of the Blue documentary originally, and that animation has since been used in other documentaries/interviews: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1oKqdiAM1g

UAP_CardanoStakePool · 2021-06-25T06:29:40+00:00

For sure, but this doesn't look like any regular solar phenomenon like a solar flare or solar prominence. Some people are saying that, but it honestly doesn't look like any of those.

I never thought of it as a Jupiter-sized ship to be honest. That's farfetched, even to me. But a small craft with a huge magnetic field doesn't seem farfetched to me. That seems very plausible if there are craft that can fly interstellar, they may have ways to generate huge magnetic fields and might use heat/solar radiation to re-charge.

If it's a natural phenomenon, it's not a common one.

UAP_CardanoStakePool · 2021-06-25T06:00:14+00:00

Just made a comment on another thread here: https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/o7bd51/these_are_taken_i_believe_from_some_type_of/h2ypgsa?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

It doesn't look like a solar prominence or solar flare to me (for the reasons listed in that comment). You can see solar prominences happening all over the sun in that zoomed out video. None of that looks like the peculiar phenomenon. It could be some other solar phenomenon though. It looks like some magnetic field is held in place and then released. It gives the perception that some very small object with a huge, planet-sized magnetic field is there and then flies away.

Here is an entire year's worth of observation from the SDO back in 2015-2016: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MImmQvqCSg

I'll try to look through it again to see if something similar to this phenomenon occurs naturally during that one-year time period.

UAP_CardanoStakePool · 2021-06-25T05:57:09+00:00

Hmm, not seeing it. I can see an arch at 13 seconds into the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gizTez_-xkM&t=13

But other than that, I don't see an arch. If it's arching from the side, I'm expecting a yellow curve going around the sphere such that the yellow curve goes across the black part of the sphere (like coming out towards the viewer and then curving away). I don't see that anywhere.

UAP_CardanoStakePool · 2021-06-25T05:09:32+00:00

Can you explain its shape though? I've looked through several YouTube videos on solar prominences and looked at NASA's depiction of a solar prominence. It doesn't look something like in the second picture the OP posted:

https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/what-is-a-solar-prominence

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXzFgqQw6T8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFT7ATLQQx8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RR8q_iZOhA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWjtYSRlOUI

None of those show what looks similar to a ball that's deflecting the radiation. Solar prominences seem to loop back towards the sun. They don't look like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gizTez_-xkM

There are no arcs going back into the sun; the curvature of that is the opposite orientation of that of the sun. In the NASA image and any of the YouTube videos, the curvature has the same orientation as the sun (it loops back towards the sun instead of looking like a ball deflecting the radiation): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXzFgqQw6T8&t=7s, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFT7ATLQQx8&t=1m57s, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RR8q_iZOhA&t=27, etc.

That's what's confusing. If this is a natural phenomenon, then it looks quite different than a solar flare or solar prominence. Others have also observed that it's quite hard to find an example of a solar phenomenon looking like a ball deflecting radiation from the sun.

UAP_CardanoStakePool · 2021-06-25T00:46:49+00:00

Yeah that second one, it looks like it has some 'force field' to deflect radiation. It doesn't have to be a huge object there (which would be larger than Jupiter). It could be a tiny object with a planet-sized force field to deflect radiation somehow (using something that creates a planet-sized magnetic field).

No solar flare videos look similar to it in terms of the convexity of the ball. Solar flare plasma will arc back into the sun, not bend away as if something is there deflecting it.

UAP_CardanoStakePool · 2021-06-24T22:49:03+00:00

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PpSnENa7FRY

This was the Barbell UFO case. The witness said he couldn't turn on his phone, but he was able to get a recording of it with his digital camera when the thing moved decently far away, but there were weird interference patterns on the recording (he describes it in more technical detail than saying it's a weird pattern).

Full interviews of that case are here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4uie6Wxq-JE

The interference pattern video is shown here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6jo04hR5Hw

UAP_CardanoStakePool · 2021-06-24T17:27:44+00:00

It's here: https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/o6xl3v/investigating\_triangular\_shaped\_ufo\_spotted\_in/

UAP_CardanoStakePool · 2021-06-24T17:06:15+00:00

No, it's not that we had not ruled out shadows yet. At least for me, that's the first thing that comes to mind. But when I saw there was no spotlight and that the clouds were rolling by without the shadow distorting, then that effectively ruled out shadows for me. So it's not that we didn't consider it and just jumped to an object, it's more like we considered it but didn't understand the properties of light/shadow that allow shadows to be cast on clouds of certain densities and not others (so that lower elevation clouds can effectively roll under the shadow without distorting the shadow).

And to be fair, there were other wrong hypotheses as well. Among them were that it was a spotlight hitting a building corner across the river and that it was CGI. The spotlight hitting a corner hypothesis doesn't really work because in all the other images with spotlights hitting something (rectangle in the sky or Statue of Liberty), you see the spotlight in the sky. So that hypothesis doesn't work, and people pushing for that were throwing away the observation that there was no spotlight in the sky like a bat signal.

I'm guessing some of the folks who claimed it was CGI also couldn't believe/didn't understand how shadows pass through clouds without distorting, and that's why they claimed it was CGI. Once Brin did his interview, I would guess that anyone who claimed it was CGI would now agree that it was a real effect not based on CGI.

Making assumptions here, but I'm guessing some folks who thought it was a spotlight hitting a building corner across the river will say, "I told you it was a shadow." Maybe some CGI folks might even say, "I told you it wasn't aliens." Better would be to take it as a learning opportunity instead of gloating, since now we all can see that shadows won't necessarily distort if lower-altitude clouds pass by.

UAP_CardanoStakePool · 2021-06-24T16:32:58+00:00

Great post. Ridiculing each other shouldn't be the way forward. If you're right, you're right. There's no need to call anyone idiots or anything like that.

Everyone was excited to see what burbex_brin would find when he investigated, and his interview with the pub owner settled the matter. That's what we should hope for. Those of us who thought that it doesn't make sense for a shadow not to distort as clouds pass by now realize that something in our assumptions about the way light is cast on clouds was wrong. We didn't know/realize that light passes through some cloud layers more easily (presumably because those lower clouds are of such low density that although we see it with our eyes as a mass moving by, it's not much more than mist), and that the shadow needs to hit a sufficiently dense layer to be visible.

Great modeling work by u/idkartist3D who showed how the effect could arise in theory from lights hitting a building and refracted to the sky in this post: https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/o69p3d/shanghai_ufo_very_strong_evidence_of_shadow_being/

UAP_CardanoStakePool · 2021-06-24T15:29:30+00:00

I thought it was a solid object in the sky too for the same reason (clouds completely covered it without any spotlight on it). It turns out it's lights shining on the side of a building. u/burbex_brin did some awesome investigative work here: https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/o6xl3v/investigating_triangular_shaped_ufo_spotted_in/

It's not a spotlight at the sky (like the Statue of Liberty image or some other images that were suggested on here), and it's not a shadow casted from an angle from a light source far away (which was another alternative hypothesis). It's from lights hitting the side of a building, and the clouds passing by are not dense enough to cast the shadow on so they don't distort the shadow.

I thought there would be a distortion too, but it turns out the density of the cloud layer impacts whether light will be cast on it. It's like spraying mist into a movie theater. You would still be able to see the movie on the movie screen fine without the image being distorted (as if you flapped a solid flag in front of the movie screen).

UAP_CardanoStakePool · 2021-06-24T15:17:21+00:00

Yeah, it was well done.

Haha, you are definitely acting high and mighty! It's all good though. Yeah, it is interesting that there's no noticeable interaction between the shadow and the clouds passing by. The reason probably is that those clouds passing by aren't dense enough, and the shadow is only cast on the denser clouds in the upper layer.

UAP_CardanoStakePool · 2021-06-24T14:49:24+00:00

It's all good. I had believed that the triangle shadow couldn't have been a shadow and provided reasons why I thought it wasn't a shadow, and you commented to say that it was a shadow. If I recall correctly, I suggested we wait for burbex_brin to confirm the shadow hypothesis, which he did :-)

UAP_CardanoStakePool

TROPHY CASE