Latest activity
-
Yyoshy reacted to NorCal Dave's post in the thread Transients in the Palomar Observatory Sky Survey with
Informative.
This appears to be their critique of Watters relevant to the nuke paper in the OP: The next issue concerns the temporal correlations with nuclear weapon tests and UAP in Bruehl & Villarroel (2025). The critique by Watters et al. (2026) (Section... -
HoaxEye replied to the thread Transients in the Palomar Observatory Sky Survey.I did yet another analysis, this time about the differences of two full plate scans: IRSA (the ones I'm using) and STScI (the ones suggested by Villarroel). See... -
NorCal Dave replied to the thread Transients in the Palomar Observatory Sky Survey.This appears to be their critique of Watters relevant to the nuke paper in the OP: The next issue concerns the temporal correlations with nuclear weapon tests and UAP in Bruehl & Villarroel (2025). The critique by Watters et al. (2026) (Section... -
HoaxEye reacted to John J.'s post in the thread Transients in the Palomar Observatory Sky Survey with
Like.
Quote below from "A study claimed UFOs orbited Earth in the 1950s. Then scientists checked the math", Adam Frank, Big Think, August 27, 2026 as per @Smythe Bacchus' post #851. Frank's article discusses "Critical Evaluation of Studies Alleging... -
HoaxEye reacted to Fritzkquzerk's post in the thread Transients in the Palomar Observatory Sky Survey with Like.
Would it be possible to see if such defects or "transients" are much more common in general in this type of plates also from other observatories? Because if we take this study alone, then It could really just come down to a series of different...
-
John J. reacted to Mauro's post in the thread Transients in the Palomar Observatory Sky Survey with
Agree.
Exactly! In other words, 'bias' is just the amount of the prior, which is nothing else than the sum of all the past evidence. The prior against aliens visitors is so strong that being 'biased' (exactly by the amount of the prior) against that... -
Yyoshy replied to the thread Transients in the Palomar Observatory Sky Survey.Thanks Dave! I did indeed miss that. The paragraph you copied isn't filling me with confidence that the critique is properly responded to, but I'll have to read it in full to have a fair judgement.
-
Yyoshy reacted to Ann K's post in the thread Transients in the Palomar Observatory Sky Survey with Like.
I think UFO/UAPs fall into the "extraordinary claims" category for which "extraordinary evidence" is required ...and the examination of old plates simply has not provided it. Nor has any other study done so to date, as far as I can tell.
-
Yyoshy reacted to NorCal Dave's post in the thread Transients in the Palomar Observatory Sky Survey with Like.
Reply is here maybe?: https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.15171 We respond to the critique by Watters et al. (2026) of the statistical analyses in Villarroel et al. (2025) and Bruehl & Villarroel (2025). We argue that the critique conflates...
-
Ann K reacted to NoParty's post in the thread Transients in the Palomar Observatory Sky Survey with Agree.
Sometimes an accusation of "bias!" means nothing more than that the accused is aware that many, many fantastic claims, have yet to reveal any real, decent evidence. -
Mauro replied to the thread Transients in the Palomar Observatory Sky Survey.Exactly! In other words, 'bias' is just the amount of the prior, which is nothing else than the sum of all the past evidence. The prior against aliens visitors is so strong that being 'biased' (exactly by the amount of the prior) against that...