Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2014 11:03 pm
Where to start?
Firstly I'm totally unconvinced by the proposed link between apparently random strings from one large set of data appearing in other large sets of data. You know about statistics I presume? Can you really persuade anyone that the probability of finding such a correlation are so small that coincidence is ruled out? I truly suck at stats but I know enough to understand that you should start with a null hypothesis (no correlation) and then work out the probability of finding a correlation by chance. If you can beat those odds there is a correlation. Simply speaking. You have no proof to demonstrate that the matches you have found are anything other than probable given the data sets.
More intuitively there is no clue in the patterns you cite. If a clue was there it's more likely it would be signposted in such a way as to let you know you were onto something. Unless someone with specific knowledge of some obscure patterns sees what you have and makes a connection it's going nowhere because our combined general knowledge can see nothing. No clues, just quasi random patterns.
I simply can't begin to see anything compelling in your assertions about sinusoidal or oscillatory behaviour. Perhaps I don't understand but where is the novelty in audio data going up and down?
I spent more time than I would like to admit trying to crack the Red Moon code. It was fruitless and in the end the answer was mostly an obvious map reference. But I learned some stuff and took away a lesson about chasing clues. Have some fun but my advice is either come up with something in the data that is either intuitively and irrefutably a clue (like a plain message in the ASCII) or prove that there is a statistical anomaly with rigorous analysis and produce a result which cannot be anything other than a deliberate manipulation of the files to convey a message.
Firstly I'm totally unconvinced by the proposed link between apparently random strings from one large set of data appearing in other large sets of data. You know about statistics I presume? Can you really persuade anyone that the probability of finding such a correlation are so small that coincidence is ruled out? I truly suck at stats but I know enough to understand that you should start with a null hypothesis (no correlation) and then work out the probability of finding a correlation by chance. If you can beat those odds there is a correlation. Simply speaking. You have no proof to demonstrate that the matches you have found are anything other than probable given the data sets.
More intuitively there is no clue in the patterns you cite. If a clue was there it's more likely it would be signposted in such a way as to let you know you were onto something. Unless someone with specific knowledge of some obscure patterns sees what you have and makes a connection it's going nowhere because our combined general knowledge can see nothing. No clues, just quasi random patterns.
I simply can't begin to see anything compelling in your assertions about sinusoidal or oscillatory behaviour. Perhaps I don't understand but where is the novelty in audio data going up and down?
I spent more time than I would like to admit trying to crack the Red Moon code. It was fruitless and in the end the answer was mostly an obvious map reference. But I learned some stuff and took away a lesson about chasing clues. Have some fun but my advice is either come up with something in the data that is either intuitively and irrefutably a clue (like a plain message in the ASCII) or prove that there is a statistical anomaly with rigorous analysis and produce a result which cannot be anything other than a deliberate manipulation of the files to convey a message.

