Unexpected patters in historical astronomical observations

[pood]

Can you link the Metabunk thread?

 

[Shadowy Man]

Can you link the Metabunk thread?

Transients in the Palomar Observatory Sky Survey

Some Transients in the Palomar Observatory Sky Survey (POSS-I) May Be Associated with Above-Ground Nuclear Testing and Reports of Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-6347224/v1 Transient star-like objects of unknown origin have been identified in the first...

www.metabunk.org

 

[Shadowy Man]

And this video includes much of what I would say on the subject:

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I'm still not seeing much admission that "stuff seen in space with flat surfaces could have been ejected by the very devices that were detonated"

I find this a better reason to question the narrative that nothing of the device survives than to question whether we had interstellar visitors...

Because they could not possibly have reached escape velocity.

Plumbob.

Way, way above escape velocity--but no way it could have survived the atmosphere. For anything to survive a Verne launch it's got to be basically a needle whose tip will be severely burned away by it's flight through the atmosphere.

 

[pood]

I'm still not seeing much admission that "stuff seen in space with flat surfaces could have been ejected by the very devices that were detonated"

I find this a better reason to question the narrative that nothing of the device survives than to question whether we had interstellar visitors...

Because they could not possibly have reached escape velocity.

Plumbob.

Way, way above escape velocity--but no way it could have survived the atmosphere. For anything to survive a Verne launch it's got to be basically a needle whose tip will be severely burned away by it's flight through the atmosphere.

Yes, I learned something new. They could have achieved escape velocity, but would have burned up in the atmosphere.

 

[Shadowy Man]

I'm still not seeing much admission that "stuff seen in space with flat surfaces could have been ejected by the very devices that were detonated"

I find this a better reason to question the narrative that nothing of the device survives than to question whether we had interstellar visitors...

Because they could not possibly have reached escape velocity.

Plumbob.

Way, way above escape velocity--but no way it could have survived the atmosphere. For anything to survive a Verne launch it's got to be basically a needle whose tip will be severely burned away by it's flight through the atmosphere.

Yes, I learned something new. They could have achieved escape velocity, but would have burned up in the atmosphere.

Things that burn up on entry are going their fastest at the least dense part of the atmosphere so you can imagine what might happen at that speed in the densest.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The best info I have found so far is that while material from high-altitude tests could have ejected material into outer space, ground or underground tests could not. Even if the debris could reach escape velocity, it would burn up in the atmosphere.

Orbital mechanics 101: The orbit includes the point where you finished your last burn. The only way Verne can put anything in orbit is with a gravity maneuver with the Moon.

 

[scombrid]

But then again!

Dr Villarroel, speaking to The Sol Foundation YouTube channel last week, said the correlations identified in the papers — to UAP sightings, nuclear bomb tests and the earth’s shadow — defied the “plate defect hypothesis”.

“Our best cases happened to be during the Washington 1952 flap,” she said. “If you have a temporal correlation it’s not going to agree with the notion that the entire sample are plate defects.”

Sol Foundation. YouTube. Grift.

 

[pood]

I did not realize that stuff from nuclear detonations could achieve escape velocity. I stand very corrected.

 

[pood]

But then again!

Dr Villarroel, speaking to The Sol Foundation YouTube channel last week, said the correlations identified in the papers — to UAP sightings, nuclear bomb tests and the earth’s shadow — defied the “plate defect hypothesis”.

“Our best cases happened to be during the Washington 1952 flap,” she said. “If you have a temporal correlation it’s not going to agree with the notion that the entire sample are plate defects.”

Sol Foundation. YouTube. Grift.

Cite? Evidence?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I was driving out in the countryside when I saw these lights, my car was engulfed with a bright lighht ...

When I was iivng north of Seattle before devilment and light pollution looking south towards Seatac you could imagine pasterns in the moving lights, jets. Sometimes it would look like a large moving object.

When I was taking flying lessons in the 80s when I did my first solo night flight it was spooky. A clear moonless night over dark rural New Hiroshima. Imagination kicks in.

Many years ago I woke up, there was a little red light dancing around. I grew more and more puzzled trying to figure the situation out. Then I finally identified the smoke alarm's indicator light, sitting perfectly stationary on the ceiling. Our vision is only stable because our brains treat reality as stationary, in the absence of reality (just a spot of light against darkness, nothing to compare it to) you get a fair amount of jitter.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Veering off the precise topic for a moment, I do not find the zoo hypothesis obviously absurd. After all, we hear again and again about the Fermi paradox. Scientists and philosophers repeatedly point out that given the antiquity of the universe, and given that there is nothing special about our location in space and time, there should be plenty of aliens around but we find none. But maybe that is because they don’t want to be found, but do like to keep an eye on us.

Before anyone freaks out, I am not claiming this is true.

A K2 civilization can be detected at short intergalactic range if we can see the star. Nothing puts out anything like our star's worth of energy at a temperature suitable for a radiator dissipating the energy after the civilization has put it to use.

 

[pood]

From what.I have been able to ascertain, only high-altitude nuclear tests can eject matter into outer space. I would like more input on this. I guess the idea is that ground-based nuclear tests can eject matter into outer space but that this matter will burn up in the atmosphere before it reaches orbit. Is that it?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

From what.I have been able to ascertain, only high-altitude nuclear tests can eject matter into outer space. I would like more input on this. I guess the idea is that ground-based nuclear tests can eject matter into outer space but that this matter will burn up in the atmosphere before it reaches orbit. Is that it?

Yup. Getting the velocity isn't the problem. Keeping it and not burning up is quite another matter. Nobody's come up with math for a catapult system that would work, let alone a Verne launch.

 

[Jarhyn]

I'm still not seeing much admission that "stuff seen in space with flat surfaces could have been ejected by the very devices that were detonated"

I find this a better reason to question the narrative that nothing of the device survives than to question whether we had interstellar visitors...

Because they could not possibly have reached escape velocity.

Plumbob.

Way, way above escape velocity--but no way it could have survived the atmosphere. For anything to survive a Verne launch it's got to be basically a needle whose tip will be severely burned away by it's flight through the atmosphere.

I'm not so sure. I'm expecting something perhaps weirder, like bubbles of air shot through the atmosphere beyond shock speed.

We're already aware that media can move through other media at kind of ridiculous speeds, and we know there are actually two explosions happening, one before the other.

At any rate, I really think that IF something meaningful was observed, the most rational explanation is going to be thrown debris, and that debris will be thrown with a large amount of atmosphere, much of which originates with the explosion itself, and the forewave of which is actually going as fast or faster than the debris which follows it.

You can argue all you want that it couldn't survive, but if this is evidence of any thing at all, rather than that such dots sometimes occur because (insert whatever rationalization), then the strongest explanation is ejected debris.

As to why it was seen a day or so later, it might take a while for the debris to come back around to burn up on re-entry.

There should be a way to estimate where objects launched from a detonation would be and where they would be pointing at various speeds.

It is definitely possible to model if the seen events are parallel or perpendicular to these lines of potential motion.

I'm just not going to do it.

It would definitely put to rest whether the observations originated from Verne Launching (thanks for the vocab, Loren).

If they do line up with the expected trajectories for Verne Launching, we can expect that some funky fluid effects are going on that protect the ejecta, or the ejecta itself is made of something that just doesn't melt or even really burn (tungsten or iridium or aluminum oxide ceramics cased in asbestos).

We're talking about shit that was put into nuclear weapons to survive and concentrate explosions from the most powerful conventional explosives they could muster, so that they could detonate more "sharply".