Unexpected patters in historical astronomical observations

[scombrid]

There's nothing on those plates. They did an astronomical version of cold reading the sky. Gary Nolan is involved. I smell a grift.

 

[pood]

There's nothing on those plates. They did an astronomical version of cold reading the sky. Gary Nolan is involved. I smell a grift.

OK. But the results got published in reputable peer-reviewed journals and we have an astrophysicist remarking that they are worth investigating, so there is that.

 

[steve_bank]

There's nothing on those plates. They did an astronomical version of cold reading the sky. Gary Nolan is involved. I smell a grift.

OK. But the results got published in reputable peer-reviewed journals and we have an astrophysicist remarking that they are worth investigating, so there is that.

It got peer reviews, what does that prove?

 

[steve_bank]

There's nothing on those plates. They did an astronomical version of cold reading the sky. Gary Nolan is involved. I smell a grift.

I like the analogy.

 

[pood]

There's nothing on those plates. They did an astronomical version of cold reading the sky. Gary Nolan is involved. I smell a grift.

OK. But the results got published in reputable peer-reviewed journals and we have an astrophysicist remarking that they are worth investigating, so there is that.

It got peer reviews, what does that prove?

If you actually read the link to the astrophysicist who wrote about this stuff, he said it does not prove anything. And? Did I or he or anyone say it proved anything?

What he said was that the data were interesting, and something that science can actually try to investigate as opposed to the usual crap about UFOs.

IOW, the data could be evidence of nonterrestrial craft but requires more study.

 

[pood]

See, look here.

 

[pood]

Again from the astrophysicist I cited:

Getting your paper published in a peer-reviewed quality journal does not make it right.

We already knew that, Steve.

What he is saying is that now we may have some actual data science can work with. And it is interesting,

 

[steve_bank]

I asked what is it tat you are trying to prove? You said it was peer reviews and that means????

 

[steve_bank]

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.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Again from the astrophysicist I cited:

Get us several more Astrophysicists. Then maybe we start having a discussion.

What he is saying is that now we may have some actual data science can work with. And it is interesting,

It sounds a bit too exotic.

 

[pood]

I asked what is it tat you are trying to prove? You said it was peer reviews and that means????

I’ve already answered this question. Read what I wrote and read the linked material, including from an astrophysicist.

Bottom line: the data provides possible evidence that there may have been artificial structures in orbit over the earth in the early 50s, before Sputnik. Nobody suggests that this is proof.

I find this intriguing. If you don’t, good for you, It’s not stuff about engineering, after all,

I guess the key question is whether there is any further way to study this.

 

[pood]

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.

That’s nice. This thread has nothing to do with any of that.

 

[pood]

Once again …

 

[pood]

Here is an article at space.com on this subject. Happily, it includes links to the two papers in question.

 

[pood]

Here is one of the papers, in Nature.

 

[pood]

Regarding what transients might be, our findings point toward two hypotheses that could account for associations of transients with both nuclear testing and UAP reports. The first involves an unexpected and previously undocumented atmospheric phenomenon triggered by nuclear detonations or related to nuclear fallout that may serve as a stimulus for some UAP reports and appear as transients on astronomical images. While the latter is potentially plausible, effects in the atmosphere (rather than geosynchronous orbit) would be likely to result in a streak on the image over the 50 min exposure, yet all transients appear as distinct point sources rather than streaks. Moreover, this hypothesis is made even more unlikely given that transients were most often observed one day after a nuclear test; such atmospheric phenomena would have to be sustained and remain localized in one location for approximately 24 h to account for the visual appearance of transients. The second hypothesis is more speculative, drawing on a well-known strand of UAP lore suggesting that nuclear weapons may attract UAP<a data-track="click" data-track-action="reference anchor" data-track-label="link" data-test="citation-ref" title="Hastings, R. UFOs &amp; nukes: extraordinary encounters at nuclear weapons sites While this alleged connection has been claimed for decades based on anecdotal evidence, it has until now lacked any systematic supporting data. Within this latter hypothesis, our results could be viewed as indicating that transients are artificial, reflective objects either in high-altitude orbits around Earth<a data-track="click" data-track-action="reference anchor" data-track-label="link" data-test="citation-ref" title="Villarroel, B. et al. A glint in the eye: Photographic plate archive searches for non-terrestrial artefacts. Acta Astronaut. 194, 106–113 (2022)." href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-21620-3#ref-CR13">13</a> or at high altitudes within the atmosphere. Whether and how this hypothesis might be further tested remains to be determined.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Here is one of the papers, in Nature.

The first author is an anesthesiologist it seems.

 

[pood]

Here is one of the papers, in Nature.

The first author is an anesthesiologist it seems.

That is weird, but the second author is an astronomer and physicist who specializes in these sorts of things. Maybe you’d like to read the papers and comment on them?

 

[pood]

Not sure why the roll eyes from Elixir and the snark from others. I am not making any claims of anything, and nor are the authors. I do put some weight when an astrophysicist finds this paper highly intriguing.

The papers themselves are peer-reviewed and published in reputable journals.

So what is the problem? The papers are offered up for discussion.

If there really were artificial objects orbiting the earth before the dawn of the space age, that may be, um, interesting??

 

[Shadowy Man]

Here is one of the papers, in Nature.

The first author is an anesthesiologist it seems.

That is weird, but the second author is an astronomer and physicist who specializes in these sorts of things. Maybe you’d like to read the papers and comment on them?

I would like to but I haven’t had the time yet. I would be curious to see if any of these transients show up in other sky surveys, like the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, which I think was the e first major Sky survey to be done with modern digital detectors and not glass plates.