Physicists Find Artificial Objects Around Earth Before We Had Satellites

[Kurokage]

The date at 02:10, should have been July 29, 1952
Here's a link to the papers...

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-21620-3

Transient star-like objects of unknown origin have been identified in the first Palomar Observatory Sky Survey (POSS-I) conducted prior to the first artificial satellite. We tested speculative hypotheses that some transients are related to nuclear weapons testing or unidentified anomalous phenomena (UAP) reports. A dataset comprising daily data (11/19/49—4/28/57) regarding identified transients

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.10...873/ae0afe

Old, digitized astronomical images taken before the human spacefaring age offer a rare glimpse of the sky before the era of artificial satellites. In this paper, we present the first optical searches for artificial objects with high specular reflections near the Earth. 

The video is by Sabine Hossenfelder, a German theoretical physicist who usually posts about subjects to do with physics and not the UFO/UAP subject. It was an interesting short video from her, and I found her remarks about objects found around July 1952 interesting, as this was part of the now famous 1952 Washington 'flap', which she talks about in the video.

[Karl12]

Good thread amigo - there's a Dolan interview below from a while back which goes into detail about certain destroyed slides.



From 21:45






Strange how newly appointed Harvard Observatory director (and arch UFO debunker) Donald Howard Menzel came in late 1952 and the first thing he did was to destroy one third of the plate collection.

Menzel was mentor to infamous pseudo-sceptic Philip Klass (link) and it's also been shown through archival research that Menzel was covertly working for the NSA.

Cheers.

[Karl12]

That's weird, they've just banned her from arXiv.

UAP Researcher Dr. Villareol Banned from arXiv | Chetsford Sparks Controversy

A heated debate is brewing in academic circles as Dr. Beatriz Villareol faces a ban from arXiv, largely blamed on Chetsford's alleged censorship efforts. This development raises questions about free research access and the management of UAP studies, igniting conflict among those passionate about the topic.

Dr. Villareol was recently banned from arXiv, a platform for disseminating scientific research. This action has triggered outrage, with many people speculating that Chetsford, noted for editing Wikipedia articles on UAP and related subjects, is actively suppressing important discourse on unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP).

Comments from various forums highlight concerns over how Dr. Villareol’s work could be crucial for future research. One commenter remarked, “It’s ridiculous how hard they try censoring her work.” Such words reflect a growing sentiment that gatekeepers in academia are stifling critical investigation.

link

[Kurokage]

That's weird, they've just banned her from arXiv.

Thanks for posting the Dolan interview.

 
It's strange that  Dr. Villareol has been banned??  We need scientific discourse on this subject as I feel it makes the subject more respectable and less about book sales.

[quintessentone]

That's weird, they've just banned her from arXiv.

I watched her a few times and she comes off to me as more leaning towards the fantasy aspect of all. I stopped watching her because I feel she does not take a balanced approach between the data/theories which have no evidence, or where perceived evidence isn't scrutinized enough, for me, any way.

[Karl12]

Thanks for posting the Dolan interview.

No worries mate, here's a relevant article on the peer reviewed study.

The research found evidence of unidentified lights in the sky above nuclear test sites during the Cold War.

Authored by Dr Beatriz Villarroel and Dr Stephen Bruehl, the groundbreaking study has found compelling evidence to suggest that there is a distinct correlation between nuclear tests carried out in the 1940s and 1950s and the appearance of anomalous bright spots (or 'transients') appearing in photographs of the sky during that time.

Incredibly, unlike most UFO research, this study has actually been peer-reviewed, indicating that there is some genuine merit to the authors' methodology and conclusions.

Link

Study:

Transients in the Palomar Observatory Sky Survey (POSS-I)

Cheers.

[BeyondKnowledge]

No worries mate, here's a relevant article on the peer reviewed study.




Study:

Transients in the Palomar Observatory Sky Survey (POSS-I)

Cheers.

Thank you for the link to the POSS-1 survey.

That eliminates any objects in orbit.

The sky survey used long exposure plates. The link says 50 minutes. This means the film plate was exposed to the image for 50 minutes. And that means anything in orbit would be a line across the plate and not a star like dot as indicated. They could not even be within this solar system as that would cause streaking from the orbital movement around the Sun. 

Even geostationary objects would be streaks as the telescope was tacking with the stars or the stars  would be streaks. This also eliminates any advanced objects in powered orbits over fixed sites for Earth observation, they would streak also.

The indicated anomalies must be at star distances or artifacts within the telescope  and or photographic process.

Any moving object cannot make a dot along with other non moving dots in the same photographic exposure unless it is very short exposure like a snapshot. But that would mean the dim stars would not show up on the plates. 

The very text on the survey link proves they are not as what is being discussed in this thread.

Thanks again for the link.

[Karl12]

Thank you for the link to the POSS-1 survey.

That eliminates any objects in orbit.

Go for it mate, I'm all for genuine debunking and am not remotely educated in any aspect of astrophysics.

Guess my question is then why did the paper pass peer review - is there an active agenda at play?

Also any thoughts on the Menzel gap (as discussed in the second post)?

Cheers.

[BeyondKnowledge]

Go for it mate, I'm all for genuine debunking and am not remotely educated in any aspect of astrophysics.

Guess my question is then why did the paper pass peer review - is there an active agenda at play?

Also any thoughts on the Menzel gap (as discussed in the second post)?

Cheers.

How about she is a physicist with no understanding of what she is talking about yet refuses to admit that very fact.

Also peer reviewed by who with what qualifications exactly? AI has been peer reviewing papers recently. I do not trust any AI reviews without further proof.

Being a physicist does not qualify anyone for all the various disciplines within physics. That is why there are astrophysics, geophysics, etc.. and verious other divisions in physics.

I am a fan of astronomy and space in general. I know enough about orbital dynamics and astrophotography to be able to understand what the plates show. Unknown dots that don't show up in other plates. That is all they show. The fact they should be streaks I have discussed already.

[Karl12]

Right.. so why did you pick up this obvious flaw and the scientists who conducted the peer review did not?

Genuine question mate, I'm not taking the piss, I would sincerely like to hear your thoughts (also about the 'Menzel gap').

Cheers.