Seit Generationen sehnen sich UFO-Enthusiasten danach, dass Behauptungen über Außerirdische, die die Erde besuchen, von Wissenschaftlern ernsthaft untersucht werden. Jetzt wird ihr Wunsch erfüllt. Diesen Monat haben renommierte Fachzeitschriften zwei Artikel veröffentlicht, die scheinbare Lichtblitze, die vor 70 Jahren von einem Teleskop beobachtet wurden, mit potenziellen künstlichen Objekten im Weltraum in Verbindung bringen. Aber es gibt viele einfachere Erklärungen, die UFO-Enthusiasten die Möglichkeit bieten, zu sehen, wie außergewöhnlich die Behauptungen sind werden getestet-Und oft rückgängig gemacht-von gewöhnliche Wissenschaft.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/did-astronomers-photograph-ufos-orbiting-earth-in-the-1950s/
12 Kommentare
Deny, deny, deny. It’s truly unfortunate the current public opinion of UFO’s. The disinformation campaign and negative stigma associated with this topic needs to end.
If you’re saying “UFO” to literally mean an object that’s not identitied, cool.
If you’re using it to mean “alien life and spacecraft” then stop.
Flat earthing , as time is cyclical, right from the start. Again.
Non sense! The scientific consensus right now (according to the „experts“) is that any consideration of non-natural origins of celestial observations are not scientific and should not be taken seriously. It doesn’t matter how many stars and planets are out there that we couldn’t observe and reach, everything must be natural, trust me bro.
But we know it’s not plate defects because they disappear in the earth’s shadow
Idk this article seems to be very dismissive and seemingly without having read the paper
Is it Ari Loeb again? It usually is when a scientist finds aliens.
Sure bud, and next you’re going to tell me the History Channel at 3 am wasn’t real history? Outrageous!
Well, let’s see scientists prove Villarroel wrong then? Sounds like it should be easy enough if they review the data, which I believe is exactly what she’s calling for.
>Derived from digital scans of photographic plates from the Palomar Sky Survey and color-inverted to emphasize detail
This bothers me. The images shown are negatives as is the standard in astronomical studies. The original plates were negatives. If the images shown were „color inverted“ from scans of the original plates they should be positives. If they can’t get this detail correct, I worry about the accuracy of the rest.
I’m tired of everyone’s attitude on this subject. It’s either the people being extremely gullible or the toxic people being so dismissive of everything they don’t like the idea of to the point that an alien could be probing their cat in front of them that they’d still deny the mere possibility of aliens existing. Good science does not dismiss unlikely possibilities because a group of people that annoys you wants that possibility to be true.
It’s a peer reviewed paper published by the Nature publications. As opposed to silly speculation about what she has or hasn’t found, I will wait for other scientists to refute or confirm her findings with the scientific method. If there were “many simpler” explanations I assume the peer reviewers, also scientists, would have pointed them out and the paper would not have been published. Since it was, it’s my assumption that Nature wants more eyes on it.
I didn’t see anything linked that was referencing the study about the alleged transients on the pre-sputnik plates.