I think the current hypothesis is that the transients are very bright and very short in duration so unless the two plates were used for imaging at the same time then it would be very unlikely for a specific 'transients' to appear on both.
Transients in the Palomar Observatory Sky Survey
- Thread starter Mick West
- Start date
@eburacom 's post #229 had some musings about the brightness of the glints in comparison to stars...
Eburacum
Senior Member.
Not really. Geosynchronous satellites aren't just constrained to the Earth's equator; some range quite far north and south. A cloud of alien geosynchronous satellites might range all over the place, so it would be difficult to identify transients caused by the same object.
More uncertainty.
HoaxEye
Senior Member
I've completed the Vasco60 pipeline.
Final release version #1 contains just a bunch of result files: https://github.com/jannefi/vasco60/tree/main/releases/final_release_v1/report
Survivors list (441 rows): https://github.com/jannefi/vasco60/blob/main/releases/final_release_v1/report/survivors.csv Using all veto-criteria, including the experimental ones inspired by the work of @Ivo Busko
So where are the hundred thousand or more survivors? Or 5,000? With this criteria, it's not possible to get that many survivors. But it's clear that even after extremely hard vetoes, a handful of survivors remain. They can be plate defects or other artefacts (e.g. aureoles, internal reflections, halation, ghost images). They can be transients. Note: I have not done any visual vetting.
Largest amount of survivor candidates from my pipeline is 15,303: https://github.com/jannefi/vasco60/blob/main/releases/final_release_v1/run/stage_S0.csv This is the so called Stage Zero file. It includes all candidates that survived the full pipeline. Rest of the survivors are reduced by post-pipeline steps in stages. All stage files are available here: https://github.com/jannefi/vasco60/tree/main/releases/final_release_v1/run/stages and everything is explained in README and some other docs available in the repository.
With the published criteria as I understand and implemented them, I do not see a path to a six‑figure survivor count. This suggests either (a) materially different selection/coverage/definitions, or (b) additional inputs/criteria not captured in the paper text. If the underlying list becomes available, I can run direct cross-checks and quantify the difference.
The paper says data may be shared on request, but I don't currently have permission to redistribute the unpublished 107K list, so I can't run a public cross-check. If it becomes shareable, I'll test it against the full POSS‑I coverage and publish the results.
Maybe I should write some sort of final report/analysis, too.
Final release version #1 contains just a bunch of result files: https://github.com/jannefi/vasco60/tree/main/releases/final_release_v1/report
Survivors list (441 rows): https://github.com/jannefi/vasco60/blob/main/releases/final_release_v1/report/survivors.csv Using all veto-criteria, including the experimental ones inspired by the work of @Ivo Busko
So where are the hundred thousand or more survivors? Or 5,000? With this criteria, it's not possible to get that many survivors. But it's clear that even after extremely hard vetoes, a handful of survivors remain. They can be plate defects or other artefacts (e.g. aureoles, internal reflections, halation, ghost images). They can be transients. Note: I have not done any visual vetting.
Largest amount of survivor candidates from my pipeline is 15,303: https://github.com/jannefi/vasco60/blob/main/releases/final_release_v1/run/stage_S0.csv This is the so called Stage Zero file. It includes all candidates that survived the full pipeline. Rest of the survivors are reduced by post-pipeline steps in stages. All stage files are available here: https://github.com/jannefi/vasco60/tree/main/releases/final_release_v1/run/stages and everything is explained in README and some other docs available in the repository.
With the published criteria as I understand and implemented them, I do not see a path to a six‑figure survivor count. This suggests either (a) materially different selection/coverage/definitions, or (b) additional inputs/criteria not captured in the paper text. If the underlying list becomes available, I can run direct cross-checks and quantify the difference.
The paper says data may be shared on request, but I don't currently have permission to redistribute the unpublished 107K list, so I can't run a public cross-check. If it becomes shareable, I'll test it against the full POSS‑I coverage and publish the results.
Maybe I should write some sort of final report/analysis, too.
Last edited:
Gary C
Senior Member.
[image removed]
Fair enough but a 'cloud' of alien satellites would indicate 24/7 coverage of the planet in which case the correlation with nuclear testing dates is irrelevant. The test sites would always be under observation. The papers authors really do seem to trying to have all things, all ways, circling back to NHI when an agnostic neutral observer would keep coming back to defects and artifacts of the human recording/transcribing technologies.
Recall that the earliest paper's source for this "geosynchronous" idea was someone else's thought experiment about looking for technosignatures around the planets of other stars, suggesting that an ancient alien civilization might have left a sufficiently large "Clarke belt" of space debris in long-term stable orbits large enough that there might be detectable partial occultation of stars as they pass behind the planet.
HoaxEye
Senior Member
Here's a technical report of the third-party candidate list crossmatch results: https://github.com/jannefi/vasco60/...elease_v1/docs/vasco_candidate_crossmatch.pdf
In other words: there is a recurring flaw in this dataset. If you just calculate the averages without specifically removing or accounting for that flaw, your final conclusion will be skewed and inaccurate.External Quote:
Last edited:
HoaxEye
Senior Member
I continued the analysis with RA/DEC comparison plots. On the left, the third-party 107K list. In the middle: Vasco60 survivor candidates, and on right, the Vasco60 full tile footprint.
Observations here: https://github.com/jannefi/vasco60/...lease_v1/docs/mnras_footprint_observations.md
Despite the fact that MNRAS 2022 describes a similar 30" circular cut that has been implemented in Vasco60, it does not seem to apply to the 107K dataset. Also, Vasco60 tessellation plan avoids plate edges, but the third-party candidate list does not.
(source https://github.com/jannefi/vasco60/...lease_v1/docs/mnras_footprint_observations.md)External Quote:
The "machine learning-paper" (Bruehl et al. 2026, arXiv:2604.18799) (pre-print) confirms these observations independently.
...and:External Quote:
(source: https://github.com/jannefi/vasco60/...lease_v1/docs/mnras_footprint_observations.md)External Quote:
john.phil
Senior Member.
Anton from @whatdamath YouTube channel published a video on the subject:
0:00 Vanishing stars mystery
1:00 How this all began - VASCO project
2:58 How this was produced - KODAK 103A
4:40 Emulsion issues?
5:15 Nuclear weapon tests
7:00 Could this be real object? Earth shadow test and other correlations
8:05 Critical analysis - is this just a bias?
10:28 Recent study focused on space weather - geomagnetic storm relation
12:50 Conclusions, so what is it?
14:00 Conclusions (Not aliens)
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWy3pDR6skI
References:
0:00 Vanishing stars mystery
1:00 How this all began - VASCO project
2:58 How this was produced - KODAK 103A
4:40 Emulsion issues?
5:15 Nuclear weapon tests
7:00 Could this be real object? Earth shadow test and other correlations
8:05 Critical analysis - is this just a bias?
10:28 Recent study focused on space weather - geomagnetic storm relation
12:50 Conclusions, so what is it?
14:00 Conclusions (Not aliens)
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWy3pDR6skI
References:
- Searching for Fast Astronomical Transients in Archival Photographic Plates (https://arxiv.org/pdf/2603.20407)
- Geomagnetic storm suppression of photographic plate transient detections in the POSS-I archive: an independent physical variable strengthening the nuclear test correlation (https://arxiv.org/pdf/2604.04950)
- Independent Recovery of Vanishing Sources on POSS-I Photographic Plates Using Automated Source Detection and Cross-Epoch Matching (https://arxiv.org/pdf/2604.04810)
- Independent Replication of Nuclear Test-Transient Correlations and Earth Shadow Deficit in POSS-I Photographic Plates (https://arxiv.org/pdf/2604.00056)
- Critical Evaluation of Studies Alleging Evidence for Technosignatures in the POSS1-E Photographic Plates (https://arxiv.org/pdf/2601.21946)
- Archives of Photographic Plates for Astronomical USE (APPLAUSE) - Digitisation of astronomical plates and their integration into the International
- Virtual Observatory (https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/pdf/2024/07/aa48793-23.pdf)
- https://vascoproject.org/vanishing-stars/
- Transients in the Palomar Observatory Sky Survey (POSS-I) may be associated with nuclear testing and reports of unidentified anomalous phenomena (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-21620-3)
Did you move or rename this file? I'm getting a 404 error from the link
This isn't meant to be pedantic, but the proper phrasing would be "fails to reject the null hypothesis". P-values aren't able to prove or disprove the null or alternative hypothesis, since p-values are the probability of observing a statistic at least as extreme as the observed results, assuming the null hypothesis is true. I only make this distinction because misunderstandings of p-values have been a major problem across every quantitative field in science.
Stated in another way, p-values are Pr( T(data) | H), where T is a statistic calculated from the data and H is the null hypothesis. Pr(H | data) can be computed if using Bayesian analysis, however, where it is called the "posterior probability". Frequentist analysis, which is the paradigm most commonly used and where p-values are the cornerstone of the analysis, does not provide Pr(H | data). Luckily, Bayesian analysis is becoming more common to use due to the computing power needed for it being widely available now. (The integrals needed to perform Bayesian analysis are generally intractable beyond very simple models, so numerical methods like Markov Chain Monte Carlo sampling are necessary.)
Last edited:
HoaxEye
Senior Member
I replaced it with the final release: https://github.com/jannefi/vasco60/tree/main/releases/final_release_v1
HoaxEye
Senior Member
Status update on Vasco60 work:
I've spent some time building a controlled "surgical" test harness to compare individual MNRAS candidate coordinates against SExtractor/PSFEx outputs on the same tile centres, including parity logic such as the ≤30′ circle cut around tile centres. The harness reproduces my own test classifications consistently (e.g., FLAGS==0, SNR_WIN>30, morphology gates, and also purely geometric exclusions like circle_cut (dist_from_center=…')).
The remaining blocker is reproducibility: without the original MNRAS 2022 SExtractor/PSFEx configs (at minimum) and any selection rules used to export the 107K list, it's impossible to do an apples‑to‑apples replication/comparisons. I'm pausing further development work until those artefacts exist. I was told by one of my remaining "paper contacts" that they do not have the original configs. But at the same time they claim my configs are wrong.
For now, continued claims about what the 107K list "represents" are not testable in a reliable way.
I've spent some time building a controlled "surgical" test harness to compare individual MNRAS candidate coordinates against SExtractor/PSFEx outputs on the same tile centres, including parity logic such as the ≤30′ circle cut around tile centres. The harness reproduces my own test classifications consistently (e.g., FLAGS==0, SNR_WIN>30, morphology gates, and also purely geometric exclusions like circle_cut (dist_from_center=…')).
The remaining blocker is reproducibility: without the original MNRAS 2022 SExtractor/PSFEx configs (at minimum) and any selection rules used to export the 107K list, it's impossible to do an apples‑to‑apples replication/comparisons. I'm pausing further development work until those artefacts exist. I was told by one of my remaining "paper contacts" that they do not have the original configs. But at the same time they claim my configs are wrong.
For now, continued claims about what the 107K list "represents" are not testable in a reliable way.
EightyEight8
New Member
Avi Loeb released a Medium article titled "We Should Not Mistake Cosmic-Rays for UFOs!" where he says cosmic rays "might have also been confused with UFOs in orbit around Earth" in regards to 2 of Beatriz' papers. I have also posted links to both papers referenced by Avi. I wanted to make absolute sure he was talking about this threads paper, and he is, its the 2nd link.
Source: https://avi-loeb.medium.com/we-should-not-mistake-cosmic-rays-for-ufos-8d10b0085b9c
1 - https://arxiv.org/pdf/2604.18799
2 - https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-21620-3
Source: https://avi-loeb.medium.com/we-should-not-mistake-cosmic-rays-for-ufos-8d10b0085b9c
1 - https://arxiv.org/pdf/2604.18799
2 - https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-21620-3
Eburacum
Senior Member.
I suggested many pages ago that cosmic rays might be depleted in the direction of the Earth's shadow, due to the Earth's magnetotail;
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/tr...servatory-sky-survey.14362/page-2#post-349898
but I (tentatively) rejected this hypothesis because cosmic rays are generally too energetic to be affected by the magnetosphere (instead they are generally stopped by the atmosphere).
The deficit probably has other causes (sampling errors, for instance).
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/tr...servatory-sky-survey.14362/page-2#post-349898
but I (tentatively) rejected this hypothesis because cosmic rays are generally too energetic to be affected by the magnetosphere (instead they are generally stopped by the atmosphere).
The deficit probably has other causes (sampling errors, for instance).
As skeptical as I am about the transient claims, I can't give much credit to Loeb on this.
As an astrophysicist with little background in planetary science, he was way out over his skis attacking other scientists about the interstellar comet 3I/Atlas and he doesn't seem to have any more insight into the nuances of 1950s-era glass plate astrophotography than the Villarroel team.
HoaxEye
Senior Member
I came across an older but highly relevant paper while digging into photographic plate artefacts:
Greiner et al. (1990), Astronomy & Astrophysics, 234, 251–261
"Discrimination between star-like defects on photographic plates and possible γ-ray burst optical counterparts" (PDF attached)
Key points from the paper:
- Star-like defects on photographic plates can be indistinguishable from real stellar images using standard methods like: shape comparison, density profiles, photometry
- The authors show that many candidate transient detections (in their case, possible optical counterparts to gamma-ray bursts) were later identified as plate defects, despite initially appearing astrophysical
- A key issue: standard analysis operates on 2D image properties, whereas real stars and artefacts differ in 3D structure within the emulsion
- They also note that even probability arguments (e.g. multiple detections, positional coincidence) can be misleading if the objects are not first proven to be real
- Possible causes for star-like defects include: 1) contamination 2) chemical processes 3) particle-related effects (e.g. radiation interactions with the emulsion)
Morphology alone (even when objects look perfectly star-like) is not always sufficient to distinguish real astrophysical sources from artefacts on photographic plates.
The paper doesn't settle what these transients are, but felt directly relevant.
HoaxEye
Senior Member
Thanks! It's very difficult to find these relevant, older papers, but I'll keep digging and add them here: https://github.com/jannefi/vasco60/blob/main/docs/PLATE_FORENSICS_LIBRARY.md
I just asked Villarroel for her take on the Greiner paper, and this is what she wrote (translated from Swedish):
"The original photographic plate containing the nine transients has actually been examined recently, and the objects are there and look exactly as they do in the digital images. How does one distinguish between defects and transients? First, one uses so-called brightness profiles to differentiate between round objects and astronomical objects. Today, we also have capabilities that Greiner et al. did not have in their time, thanks to digitized images and powerful computers. They had to work with individual objects, whereas we can now analyze hundreds of thousands of them and compare the results with physical models, in the same way that is done in modern physics experiments and was done in the discovery of the Higgs boson. The key is to study statistical patterns rather than individual data points.
Greiner's star-like plate defects have no reason to correlate with nuclear weapons tests, anticorrelate with the geomagnetic storm index, and absolutely no reason to avoid the Earth's shadow (which changes position over time). The avoidance of the Earth's shadow can only be explained by the fact that at least one-third of the light flashes arise as a result of Earth reflections. A great deal happens in the world of physics, and much can change over the course of 35 years."
It's not really a thorough answer, and I don't quite follow the logic. She first claims that a physical examination of the plate has confirmed that "the objects are there and look exactly as they do in the digital images," but then she goes on to argue based on correlations with nuclear tests and the objects "avoiding the Earth's shadow." If someone has genuinely been able to confirm, using scientific methods, that these are not flaws in the plates, then we don't really need to argue about those other points. The physical evidence alone would be sufficient to confirm that we're looking at something other than just simple defects on the plates. But if this has indeed been confirmed, why hasn't a report detailing those findings been published? I asked her who conducted this investigation and how it was carried out, but I haven't received an answer yet.
john.phil
Senior Member.
Perhaps she could provide a reference, or clarify whether her team physically examined the plates.
Ann K
Senior Member.
(Translation of Villaroel)
That's always been a question in my mind. Is there an expectation that ANYTHING should have a "reason to correlate" with nuclear tests? That's especially questionable when the original correlation used a criterion of "plus or minus" a date on a plate, as if some entity in space is expected to be a mind-reader for future nuclear tests.
I think that's their point. There's been lots of stories about UFOs appearing over nuclear sites and interfering with nuclear weapons (Salas et al) , and Villaroel clams to have found a vague statistical correlation between theses events, therefore aliens (maybe). But as we all know, correlation doesn't necessarily mean causation. If we had the original datasets we could test this by checking for correlation with other events such as elections, volcanic or seismic activity, or Wednesdays. I'm sure we'd find something given enough tolerance.
Last edited:
NorCal Dave
Senior Member.
We have enough to know plate production, and nuclear tests correlate with Tuesdays and October of 1954. Lots of plates made and nukes tested on Tuesdays and lots of plates and tests in October '54. This can be figured out just using public records, what we can't do is line up supposed transients with actual test days (+/- 1 day). The day a plate was produced that contains a supposed transient is the data they don't share and we can't find. That should raise red flags.
From Villaroel's response to @Andreas :
Sound like she just disagrees with the Grenier paper when it points out one can't do that. And they're were using actual plates:External Quote:
Her counter is that they have digital versions, which are copies, and computers:External Quote:
Then compares looking for transients with particle physics:External Quote:
Not exactly the Galileo defense, but maybe trying to make this study sound more important that it really is?External Quote:
But if the individual data points aren't correct to begin with, aren't the statistical patterns produced by those data points meaningless?External Quote:
My earliest take on the correlations (deleted for incivility by Mick) was that the POSS survey / atmospheric nuclear testing period of 1947-1957 overlaps just as well with the 1947-56 career of baseball great Jackie Robinson, and the orbital appearances as seen from Palomar were closer to American baseball stadiums than they were nuclear test sites on the other side of the globes.
So were the aliens just baseball fans that stopped coming after Robinson stopped showing up at the plate?
I snark, but it illustrates how their correlation analysis lacks testing a null hypothesis and any physical model connecting the spots on the plates with nuclear test dates. (That is, they just made it up and tested for the one thing they wanted to see.)
HoaxEye
Senior Member
One thing that might help clarify the discussion is to separate two different questions that are getting mixed together:
- whether the individual objects are confirmed to be real astrophysical sources rather than plate artefacts, and
- what statistical patterns they show (correlations, Earth shadow avoidance etc.).
They also caution that probability or clustering arguments can be misleading if the objects themselves are not first established to be real, since convincing-looking candidates (even multiple detections) have historically turned out to be plate defects.
Hambly and Blair (2024) looked at POSS-I plate material in a modern context and found that objects similar to these transients are likely spurious artefacts of the photographic emulsion, potentially introduced during the plate copying process. Their sample is limited, but it provides a contemporary example that plausible-looking, point-like sources can still arise from non-astronomical causes. Source: https://academic.oup.com/rasti/article/3/1/73/7601398
Taken together, these studies seem to suggest that establishing the nature of individual objects at the plate level remains an important step before interpreting statistical patterns across large samples
NorCal Dave
Senior Member.
It seems Villareol et al are working in reverse. They identify transients, then show that they correlate with things like UFO sightings, nuclear tests and sun shadows. Therefore they can't be defects or misinterpreted sources.
Assuming the correlations are real.
HoaxEye
Senior Member
that isn't fully accurate: "A Response to Watters et al. (2026)", Villarroel et al. say the dataset "might include plate defects, scanning artefacts, and variable stars" and that "up to two thirds may be false positives". So even if the reported correlations are real, that would not establish that the detections "can't be defects or misinterpreted sources".
Looking at all published papers, the same dataset is described simultaneously as
- heavily contaminated and not visually confirmed, but also
- statistically powerful enough to support strong public conclusions
