UFOclockers

"Aligned, multiple-transient events in the First Palomar Sky Survey"
Preprint (July 2025) by Beatriz Villarroel et al.

---

🧭 Research Aim

The study investigates the presence of short-lived, point-source optical transients captured on digitized photographic plates from the First Palomar Observatory Sky Survey (POSS-I), which was conducted in the 1950s—prior to the space age.

These transients are analyzed for:

1. Spatial alignment (particularly colinear groupings),

2. Statistical significance, and

3. Physical feasibility as sunlight reflections from artificial objects in geosynchronous orbit (GSO) or beyond.

---

🧪 Methodology

📚 Dataset:

~298,000 transients from Solano et al. (2022), extracted from POSS-I red plates (45–50 min exposures).

Candidate events include point-like features only visible in one image, lacking counterparts in modern surveys (Gaia, Pan-STARRS).

🔍 Selection Criteria:

Groups of ≥3 transients within small sky boxes (up to ~30 arcminutes).

Pearson correlation (r > 0.99) used to identify linear alignments.

Visual validation using both DSS and SuperCOSMOS scans to eliminate artifacts like dust or scanner defects.

📊 Statistical Framework:

Uses the Edmunds & George (1985) formulation to estimate the probability (μₙ) of random alignments.

Events with p-values < 0.01 are flagged as statistically anomalous.

Tests alignment rarity and spatial clustering under null hypotheses of uniform random distribution.

---

🔑 Key Findings

✅ Aligned Transients:

83 triple alignments (r ≥ 3);

20 quadruple (r ≥ 4);

2 quintuple alignments (r ≥ 5).

The paper focuses on 5 top candidates, where alignment and point-spread-function (PSF) shape are most consistent with real astronomical events and least likely to be artifacts.

🌘 Earth’s Shadow Test:

Earth’s umbra at ~42,000 km (GSO altitude) and 80,000 km was modeled.

Among 106,339 vetted transients, there is a >20σ deficit of events within the Earth's shadow.

Strongly supports the idea that sunlight is necessary for these events—implying solar reflection, not intrinsic emission or random defects.

---

🔬 Conventional Hypotheses Considered & Rejected

Astrophysical sources: Ruled out based on transience, lack of repetition, and absence in other images.

Plate artifacts: Discounted via double-scan method and statistical arguments; highly improbable to have multiple star-like defects aligned within one exposure.

Gravitational lensing: Requires an unreasonably high density of transient, intermediate-mass black holes.

Atmospheric phenomena: Would appear out-of-focus, streaked, or leave trails during long exposures.

Low Earth orbit (LEO) debris: Unlikely, as LEO objects usually leave trails and don’t produce PSF-quality glints.

---

🛰️ Artificial Object Hypothesis (GSO Technosignatures)

The spatial alignment and solar dependence are consistent with reflections off high-albedo, flat-surfaced objects in geosynchronous orbit.

Glints may be caused by tumbling reflective surfaces producing point-source-like flashes.

Simulations in Blender show that simple polyhedral objects with precession can yield sparse, aligned glints similar to observations.

---

🧮 Estimated Object Density

Assuming isotropy, and using POSS-I's sky coverage and exposure time, the aligned transient detection rate is ~0.27 events/hour/sky.

This is orders of magnitude lower than modern satellite glint rates (~1800/hr/sky near the equator), but non-zero for the 1950s—before any known satellites.

This suggests the possible presence of a non-human population of reflective objects in near-Earth orbit during the pre-spaceflight era.

---

🛑 Caveats & Limitations

These are correlations, not causal proof.

Plate defect modeling remains incomplete.

Instrumental systematics from the Palomar 48" telescope of the 1950s are not fully known.

Full object count and composition of the transient population are still being assessed; large-scale false-positive filtering is ongoing.

---

🧠 Conclusion

Dr. Villarroel and her team cautiously suggest that:

Some pre-satellite transient events are not explained by known astrophysical or instrumental effects.

A non-terrestrial artificial origin (NTA)—whether past probes, unregistered satellites, or unknown phenomena—is plausible, especially given sunlight reflection patterns and alignment geometry.

The findings merit further targeted investigation, both via archival data and future technosignature surveys.

Summary of Mainstream Astronomical Critique

While the analysis is technically competent and intriguing, many astronomers would view the conclusions as speculative, and the interpretation as far ahead of the evidence. Here's a breakdown of how mainstream researchers are likely to assess this paper:

---

1. Use of Archival Plate Data: A Double-Edged Sword

✅ Strengths:

Historical plates are a valuable and underutilized resource.

Leveraging dual scans (DSS + SuperCOSMOS) is a robust method to screen for digitization artifacts.

❌ Concerns:

Photographic emulsions are notoriously noisy and variable in quality.

Artifacts, emulsion scratches, and dust can mimic stars, especially on long exposures.

Without microscope-based verification of the plates (which they admit hasn't been done), definitive conclusions are premature.

📌 Mainstream stance: Archival plate transients are notoriously hard to validate. Claims of aligned non-instrumental, non-natural phenomena need much stronger cross-confirmation.

---

2. Statistical Significance vs. Physical Plausibility

✅ The authors use a reasonable statistical model (Edmunds & George 1985) to show that certain alignments are unlikely to occur by chance.

❌ But:

Low p-values ≠ discovery. You also need a well-justified model for why these events should exist and appear as they do.

The analysis does not fully quantify the background population of defects, plate-specific biases, or selection effects.

The statistical significance of Earth shadow avoidance is interesting, but not ironclad—especially given that most of the 100,000+ transients have not been visually inspected.

📌 Mainstream stance: The analysis is suggestive, but without full control over biases, statistical anomalies can be misleading.

---

3. Extraordinary Claims Without Extraordinary Evidence

🔍 The paper leans into the idea that these aligned flashes might be reflections from non-terrestrial artifacts (NTAs) or pre-satellite probes—even connecting one event to the 1952 Washington D.C. UFO flap.

While the authors are careful to state this is speculative, the tone and framing flirt with extraordinary implications, which:

Raises eyebrows within a community still deeply cautious about UAP/UFO science.

Is seen by many as inappropriately forward, especially without repeatable, corroborated detections.

📌 Mainstream stance: Connecting archival photographic anomalies to historical UFO events is correlation without causation, and such associations dilute scientific credibility unless backed by independent and modern observations.

---

4. Lack of Modern Validation

The authors infer the possible presence of GSO reflectors pre-1957. Yet:

No effort is made to search for similar alignments in modern surveys (e.g. ZTF, Pan-STARRS).

No attempt to revisit the same coordinates with telescopes to look for repeating sources.

No photometric follow-up, radio scans, or parallax-based constraints.

📌 Mainstream stance: Modern multi-wavelength confirmation is essential before any claim of artificial reflectors can be taken seriously.

---

5. Technosignature Work is Not Inherently Flawed — But Needs Rigorous Framing

Some researchers (e.g. Loeb, Wright, Haqq-Misra) argue that SETI and technosignature searches should be normalized within astrophysics. But to gain credibility, such work must:

Start from agnostic hypotheses.

Exhaust all conventional explanations before exploring exotic ones.

Avoid rhetorical or historical embellishments that veer into pop science or conspiracy-magnet territory.

The Villarroel paper walks a tightrope here: it applies formal methods, but also references UFO waves and ties specific dates to sightings — which weakens perceived objectivity.

📌 Mainstream stance: The field is open to technosignature research, but demands more restraint, conservatism, and falsifiability than shown here.

---

🧾 Conclusion from a Mainstream Perspective

Aspect Mainstream Assessment

Data source Valuable but very noisy. Needs microscope-based plate validation.
Methodology Solid stats, but sensitive to unquantified noise and confirmation bias.
Interpretation Speculative; insufficient to claim technosignatures.
Exotic hypotheses Premature; not supported by independent lines of evidence.
Impact on reputation Could be seen as fringe unless more conventional cross-checks are included.

Final verdict:
This work is interesting and thought-provoking, but falls short of mainstream standards for extraordinary claims. It raises a tantalizing possibility — but without rigorous exclusion of mundane alternatives, the findings are not yet compelling evidence of technosignatures or UAPs

Såg vetenskapens värld på TV2 i går. Nästa avsnitt på måndag 4 Aug, Ska det handla om Nascalinjerna. Det är ju en gåta varför dom är skapade. Tycker det är lite UFO över dom. Men vi blir nog inte så mycket klokare. Bara att acceptera att det är mycket vi inte begriper.

Snubben i twittervideon är full av skit, inget vettigt, ingen fakta, inget att visa, bara idiotiska cliffhangers och han hajpar allt..
Ni behöver inte titta på X-videon för han berättar absolut inget.

1. Bakgrund och expertis

Dennis Åsberg är känd som en av de tre huvudpersonerna i det svenska teamet bakom "The Ocean X Team", som fick medial uppmärksamhet 2011 för upptäckten av en mystisk formation på Östersjöns botten. Han har därefter fortsatt vara en offentlig person i gränslandet mellan ufologi, konspirationsteorier och alternativ vetenskap.

Han är dock inte utbildad vetenskapsman, marinbiolog, geolog, astronom eller ingenjör – alltså saknas formell expertis inom vetenskapsområden som är relevanta för att tolka och analysera observationer eller data relaterat till UFO/UAP (Unidentified Aerial Phenomena).

---

2. Källor och bevisföring

Åsberg hänvisar ofta till egna upplevelser, vittnesmål, och ibland till andra UFO-relaterade dokument eller figurer inom fältet, exempelvis den amerikanska whistleblowern David Grusch eller andra personer utan vetenskaplig konsensus i ryggen. De bevis som lyfts fram är ofta:

Subjektiva iakttagelser (t.ex. ljus på himlen)

Otolkade sonar- eller bilddata

Länkar till andra alternativkällor snarare än akademiska eller myndighetskällor

Få – om någon – av hans påståenden har verifierats oberoende av tredje part eller publicerats i vetenskapligt granskade publikationer.

---

3. Motiv och incitament

Dennis Åsberg driver sociala medier, YouTube-kanal och medverkar i dokumentärserier. Detta innebär ett ekonomiskt och medialt incitament för att hålla liv i mystiken och berättelsen om UFO, främmande teknologi eller undervattensstrukturer. Det kan alltså finnas kommersialisering av mystik snarare än ett strikt sanningssökande.

---

4. Vetenskaplig och samhällelig kontext

Majoriteten av forskarvärlden och myndigheter som NASA, Pentagon eller FOI i Sverige arbetar metodiskt med UAP-rapporter men gör det utifrån en vetenskaplig ram. De arbetar med statistik, mätdata, radar, infraröd bildteknik osv. Inga av Åsbergs påståenden har hittills bekräftats av sådana instanser.

Dessutom finns det en brist på metodologisk transparens i hur han samlar in, tolkar och presenterar data, vilket ytterligare minskar trovärdigheten ur ett källkritiskt perspektiv.

---

5. Tredjepartsbedömning

Flera svenska journalister och skeptiker, däribland Vetenskap & Folkbildning och sajter som VoF, har varit kritiska till Ocean X Teams verksamhet och menar att mycket lutar åt pseudovetenskap snarare än systematisk utforskning. Kritiken gäller bland annat hur fynd presenteras utan att erbjuda tillräcklig kontext eller möjlighet till vetenskaplig granskning.

---

Slutsats:

Med hänsyn till bristande vetenskaplig bakgrund, obekräftade påståenden, subjektiva källor och möjliga ekonomiska motiv är Dennis Åsberg inte en trovärdig källa inom ämnet UFO ur ett källkritiskt perspektiv.

Svar: Nej.

Hahaha.
Videon känns nästan som en spoof.

Men så är han ju en entreprenör och Hyper upp allt för att få uppmärksamhet och dra in finansiering till sina expeditioner.

Vad händer exempelvis med ”den mystiska cirkeln” på östersjöns botten, som hypades 2011/2012?
De har fortsatt gödsla med pengar på expeditioner.

https://sv.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cirkeln_p%C3%A5_%C3%96stersj%...

https://sv.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_X_Team

Nä, värdet i den videon är… skämtsamt låg.

Här förklarar Dennis Åsberg mer om vad det hela handlar om. Han påstår att dom har data på att detta är 100% sant.

https://youtu.be/l-FkmkFEqUM

Här förklarar Dennis Åsberg mer om vad det hela handlar om. Han påstår att dom har data på att detta är 100% sant.

https://youtu.be/l-FkmkFEqUM

<Uppladdad bildlänk>

För den som inte orkar läsa - svaret på om dennis åsberg är trovärdig överraskar inte.

Här förklarar Dennis Åsberg mer om vad det hela handlar om. Han påstår att dom har data på att detta är 100% sant.

https://youtu.be/l-FkmkFEqUM