US Congressional hearing on UAPs

[Snowy]

https://x.com/ProfBrianCox/status/17021 ... 95150?s=20

If Prof Brian Cox calls BS, that's good enough for me.

[Animalmother]

https://news.sky.com/story/mummified-al ... m-12964858
I still think it's all bullshit/hoax. No doubt more tests will show it's fake or a mummified child.

[Wrathbone]

Yeah, the scans were overseen by Maussan so not much more credible than anything he said at the hearing. There was apparently a lawyer in the room to attest that the procedures being performed were legitimate, which I guess means if they are a hoax then they’re a very elaborate hoax, but until there is independent scientific analysis well away from Maussan then it’s hard to take it at face value.

[Wrathbone]

Tinfoil hat time again.

Dr Beatriz Villarroel, a researcher in astronomy, had a genius idea for identifying possible signs of non-human intelligence (NHI) that's so simple it's amazing nobody's tried it before. Forgive my poor explanation and terminology, but briefly as I understand it, in astronomical photography there are fixed bodies (stars, planets, etc) and transients, which are lights produced by short events or fast-moving objects from our perspective. Most prominently these days, satellites are transients, and they are easily identifiable by the way the light reflects off smooth, flat surfaces - i.e. material that is clearly artificial.

What Dr Villarroel did was analyse the vast body of stellar photography taken pre-Sputnik, before any satellites should have been in orbit, and checked for transients exhibiting the same characteristics. She found tens of thousands of instances in the northern hemisphere alone that reflected light in such a way that the surface had to be artificial.

Of course her initial paper was dismissed by many who claimed she'd made mistakes or leaps of logic or whatever, which is good in the sense that science should invite doubt so that it is thoroughly put to the test. The result is that it's now passed peer review and has been published in Nature:

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

I find this absolutely astonishing. It's not proof of NHI, as I guess there could be some other obscure reason why there were tens of thousands of artificial objects in orbit before Sputnik, but it's pretty damn compelling as far as rigourous scientific evidence goes.

[Animalmother]

That is super simple and smart at the same time. All it takes is for just one of those objects to be unexplainable to prove her point.

[Wrathbone]

That's the thing, the conclusion is that either there are artifical objects up there that aren't ours, or that the transients ARE unexplainable with conventional science. In that sense, objects created by NHI is the more plausible explanation. If it is some unknown phenomenon, that's also fascinating and weird. The implications of the paper are remarkable.