Unexpected patters in historical astronomical observations

[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?

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.

Here is the second paper.

Such things likely would show up today, I must assume given the swarm of stuff orbiting the earth, but the main thing here is these things appeared before the start of the space age.

 

[pood]

From the second paper:

Finding such objects in pre-Sputnik data, would represent a significant discovery with far-reaching implications for both astronomy and humanity, including the possibility of non-terrestrial artifacts (NTAs). It also bears directly on the scientific investigation of Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAPs), formerly known as Unidentified Flying Objects (“UFOs”)—a subject that, after decades of stigma, is now gaining serious academic attention, as highlighted in the recent review by Knuth et al. (2025) in Progress in Aerospace. Clarifying the origin of these transient events is therefore not only of astrophysical interest but also of potential importance for one of the most enigmatic and consequential questions facing science today.

To add to the intrigue, Solano et al. (2023) recently reported a bright triple transient event occurring on 1952 July 19, found among a set of ∼5000 short-lived POSS-I transients (Solano et al. 2022). This highly curated data set, in which diagnostics based on photometry and morphometric parameters have been carefully applied to the sample to reduce false positives (e.g., plate defects), suggests that the phenomenon of multiple transients can be found even when stringent diagnostic criteria are applied. As in the earlier case with the nine transients, the objects appeared and vanished within a single 50 minutes exposure. Their brightness (r ∼ 15–16 mag) makes contamination less likely. Notably, this particular event coincides in time with one of the most extensively documented aerial anomalies in historical records: the Washington D.C. “UFO flap” of 1952 July, which unfolded over two consecutive weekends (July 18–19 and 26–27). While this may be a coincidence, the temporal proximity invites further scrutiny—especially given the rarity of both phenomena.

Note that this is not something being discussed on Coast to Coast with Art Bell or whoever does it now.

This also bears on the philosophy of science thread. We don’t know if these things were artificial, but as the first paper points out, artificial objects in orbit before the space age are consistent with the data and competing hypotheses have serious problems. This proves nothing, of course, but the idea here is that scientists should not rule out a priori edge cases that don’t fit the modern worldview. I am not saying that all or even most scientists do this, but I’m sure some do, and at least a couple of people in this thread, one of whom is a big fan of science, pretty obviously do.

 

[pood]

The point is here we have scientific data and analysis, and not anecdotal reports, like someone freaking out over a space ship in the sky that turns out actually to be Venus.

I should think Steve would appreciate that.

 

[DBT]

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??

It's an interesting story, and good that you posted it.

 

[pood]

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.

 

[Shadowy Man]

This also bears on the philosophy of science thread. We don’t know if these things were artificial, but as the first paper points out, artificial objects in orbit before the space age are consistent with the data and competing hypotheses have serious problems.

I haven’t read the papers yet but from what I have heard these are transient detections, so it is an assumption that they are in orbit and not established fact yet.

 

[pood]

If I were part of an advanced (and peaceful) extraterrestrial intelligence, I would certainly want to keep an eye on us for very obvious reasons.

 

[pood]

This also bears on the philosophy of science thread. We don’t know if these things were artificial, but as the first paper points out, artificial objects in orbit before the space age are consistent with the data and competing hypotheses have serious problems.

I haven’t read the papers yet but from what I have heard these are transient detections, so it is an assumption that they are in orbit and not established fact yet.

Please do read when you have a chance, I would like to have your input.

 

[Swammerdami]

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

Aliens. Obnoxious sadistic aliens. In this testable hypothesis the sadistic aliens will have induced world-wide political dysfunction. You do the math.

 

[DBT]

A good zoo allows the animals to behave in their natural manner, ideal for study and amusement. Tourists love it.

 

[Shadowy Man]

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.

Adam Frank, the astrophysicist you are linking to, doesn't actually comment on the papers themselves. He's just pointing out that he's interested in the idea that there's an astronomer publishing in a reputable journal about the possibility of detecting "non-terrestrial artifacts" (the term Villarroel uses in her paper). Adam also says "Getting your paper published in a peer-reviewed quality journal does not make it right." And further he says:

In terms of the VASCO papers, other scientists will want to know if the team treated the old astronomical photographs in the right manner. Can observations made 75 years ago really support such pro-UFO conclusions? And what about the statistical analysis? It’s very easy, even for experts, to get convinced that something is showing up in data that’s meaningful when really it’s just an artifact (pun intended) of the way the analysis was set up.

I have just started to dig into this, and should have a post up after I've dug around for a bit. It's not clear to me so far that Villarroel's papers have gotten much interest outside of her own group so we will see how astronomers at large respond to this.

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

It would indeed and that seems to be the impetus of Villarroel's research. I am skeptical because the claim is so extraordinary and it comes from a single instrument's set of data, that's almost 70 years old and she's working from scans of plates instead of the original data. But, if she's got good analysis and can prove her case it will be interesting indeed!

I'm quite a bit more skeptical of the paper written by the anesthesiologist, though, but haven't delved into that yet.

 

[bilby]

My first thought is that local* microscopic sources of ionising radiation could cause point exposures on photographic plates.




* eg radioactive dust particles landing on the plates themselves. Though why you would find radioactive dust in the air, the day after a nuclear test, is a total mystery - so it's probably aliens.