>Although the plate sample is not complete and homogeneous enough for us to draw a statistically meaningful conclusion, the data is consistent with the association that S. Bruehl & B. Villarroel (2025) found to exist between transients and nuclear weapon testing.
UFO stands for Unidentified Flying Object. Not aliens.

>>16997767
>UFO stands for Unidentified Flying Object. Not aliens.
UFO is no longer accepted nomenclature, so that is irrelevant.

>The visual vetting process used in this work relies on criteria based on the properties of the coma signature
So how many "transients" did they reject before finding some they liked? Surely they should all show it, if they are all real? Looking though hundreds or thousands of objects and only reporting some cherry-picked examples is not informative.

This is also not consistent with others found from the POSS plated, because the "transients" were smaller than the stellar point spread function. Villarroel claims they are hence subsection flashes, but that's just a wild assertion.

>>16997767
> nuclear weapon testing.
The statistics they used were poor, and didn't account for the uneven observing schedule of the telescope.
Their claim of the shadow was also based on a simplistic and flawed null test.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2601.21946

Her papers are awful, full of circular reasoning and half baked tests.

File: file.png (278 KB, 511x1362)

278 KB PNG

Who was in the wrong here?

>>16997806
When someone is too lazy to even try to make a counterargument, you can tell they are full of shit.

She knows it doesn't prove anything. A few cherry-picked blobs does not mean it is aliens.