4 ms·

>I can't quickly find out the source Took me too long, but here’s one: https://thefreaky.net/dr-beatriz-villarroel-and-the-mystery-of-the-pre-sputnik-sky/ htt

>I can't quickly find out the source Took me too long, but here’s one: https://thefreaky.net/dr-beatriz-villarroel-and-the-mystery-of-the-pre-sputnik-sky/ https://thefreaky.net/dr-beatriz-villarroel-and-the-mystery-... From that source: “Old photographic plates are notoriously temperamental. Dust specks, cosmic rays, emulsion scratches, and scanning artefacts can all mimic stars. Villarroel’s team applied careful filters and cross-checks, but some scientists argue the anomalies could still be defects rather than cosmic revelations.” It’s not a real debunking — Rational Wiki (now down) was good at debunking things like this which weren’t notable enough to make the Wikipedia — but it’s what I’m able to find about the matter. I’m of course still skeptical — extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence — but I think a good debunking needs to be posted online, with footnotes and references.

Yizahi 1y ago
That's not the post I'm trying to find, unfortunately. That one was on substack I think, but I'm not sure by now. As for good debunking - come on, it's supposedly thousands of crafts, supposedly in the same orbit (because any other orbit except for GEO would cause them to streak on the long exposure photo), in a random formation all across the sky, supposedly synchronously disappeared all at once, time synced to the photoplate change on a random Earth observatory. Pfff, just typing this out feels like a bad joke. Good proofs or even bad proofs need to be provided first by the ufology community, not vice versa.
Yizahi 1y ago
Finally found the post I was looking for: https://medium.com/@izabelamelamed/not-seeing-the-star-cloud-for-the-stars-a010af28b7d6 https://medium.com/@izabelamelamed/not-seeing-the-star-cloud... In my opinion it's a pretty damning conclusion. I would love to see some explanation from the ufology crowd :)
- strenholme 1y ago
  Thank you. Also mirrored at: https://archive.today/20250825091916/https://medium.com/@izabelamelamed/not-seeing-the-star-cloud-for-the-stars-a010af28b7d6 https://archive.today/20250825091916/https://medium.com/@iza... To summarize: • All of these anomalous points of light only appear on one particular film emulsion, 103a-E (sensitive to red light) • Said points of light do not appear with other emulsions used at the same time (e.g. 103a-F or 103a-O) • Each plate made with 103x-E emulsion has a lot of these points of “light” all over them, which indicates there was an issue with the emulsion. Some other links: https://www.ufofeed.com/141549/some-serious-flaws-in-villaroels-transient-paper/ https://www.ufofeed.com/141549/some-serious-flaws-in-villaro... https://www.metabunk.org/threads/transients-in-the-palomar-observatory-sky-survey.14362/page-10 https://www.metabunk.org/threads/transients-in-the-palomar-o...
dylan604 1y ago
Can you rule out or confirm the emulsion issue just from a print? Would you not need access to the original negative?

Yizahi 1y ago

That's not the post I'm trying to find, unfortunately. That one was on substack I think, but I'm not sure by now. As for good debunking - come on, it's supposedly thousands of crafts, supposedly in the same orbit (because any other orbit except for GEO would cause them to streak on the long exposure photo), in a random formation all across the sky, supposedly synchronously disappeared all at once, time synced to the photoplate change on a random Earth observatory. Pfff, just typing this out feels like a bad joke. Good proofs or even bad proofs need to be provided first by the ufology community, not vice versa.

Yizahi 1y ago

Finally found the post I was looking for: https://medium.com/@izabelamelamed/not-seeing-the-star-cloud-for-the-stars-a010af28b7d6 https://medium.com/@izabelamelamed/not-seeing-the-star-cloud... In my opinion it's a pretty damning conclusion. I would love to see some explanation from the ufology crowd :)

strenholme 1y ago
Thank you. Also mirrored at: https://archive.today/20250825091916/https://medium.com/@izabelamelamed/not-seeing-the-star-cloud-for-the-stars-a010af28b7d6 https://archive.today/20250825091916/https://medium.com/@iza... To summarize: • All of these anomalous points of light only appear on one particular film emulsion, 103a-E (sensitive to red light) • Said points of light do not appear with other emulsions used at the same time (e.g. 103a-F or 103a-O) • Each plate made with 103x-E emulsion has a lot of these points of “light” all over them, which indicates there was an issue with the emulsion. Some other links: https://www.ufofeed.com/141549/some-serious-flaws-in-villaroels-transient-paper/ https://www.ufofeed.com/141549/some-serious-flaws-in-villaro... https://www.metabunk.org/threads/transients-in-the-palomar-observatory-sky-survey.14362/page-10 https://www.metabunk.org/threads/transients-in-the-palomar-o...

dylan604 1y ago

Can you rule out or confirm the emulsion issue just from a print? Would you not need access to the original negative?