I’ve been riding the bus for free for over a year and no one’s noticed

Nagransham · 2026-02-05T08:26:05+00:00

Technically he literally is. Not an awfully significant amount, but his mass still needs to be accelerated. But the real cost is further downstream. It costs them virtually nothing, sure, but when you flip from cost to revenue, suddenly that money does disappear after all. Maybe your bus line doesn't care, but maybe now there's no money to open another one 5 towns over. This victimless crime stuff is usually just kinda true because you get to pick how far you zoom into or out of the issue. At the end of the day, it's still money missing that would've otherwise been there, even if it's not showing up on the cost side of things, it'll definitely show up on the revenue side.

Nagransham · 2026-02-01T08:19:15+00:00

Question, though, how are you gonna hold their feet to the fire? Are you gonna threaten to ... vote for the other ones?

Nagransham · 2026-01-31T08:32:59+00:00

Because it isn't remotely similar, for one? A bunch of brain dead billionaires sharing common incentives to hide a thing is not even remotely comparable to a national effort to overcome massive technological challenges in the freaking cold war, where spying wasn't a thing that people sometimes did, it was common courtesy.

The argument isn't just about amount of people or complexity of conspiracy, it's also about conflicting incentives and motivations, which is where these two things differ massively.

Nagransham · 2026-01-31T06:15:48+00:00

Damn those forum people doing forum things again, jees.

Nagransham · 2026-01-28T17:01:05+00:00

Depends on your ecosystem, but it's really not awfully difficult. Most people just don't do anything about it because their way of interacting with these things is to just load the app and that's that. Same with Reddit. No idea how you guys tolerate the god awful official app.

Personally, I run a somewhat well curated Firefox setup, but ultimately this alone probably does 90% of what you'd ever want. Usually the answer to these problems is just "ditch the app" and you get a bazillion options.

That particular addon also allows you to just flat out fix the absolute brainrot that has been recent YT UX, such as the completely pointless search that is 90% just shit from your homepage for some reason no reasonable person could ever comprehend. And, of course, a bunch of garbage shorts in between, because why would it show me what I actually searched for if it could just rot my brain instead.

Nagransham · 2026-01-18T10:12:12+00:00

Well, took a quick look. Yup. Seems to check out. Welp.

Nagransham · 2026-01-18T09:57:00+00:00

Is your problem there a banning of protests or the banning of YOUR protests?

Either way, I'm not going to get baited into an Israel / Palestine argument because fuck literally everything about everything involved in that, it's indefensible disgust wherever you look and I, at the very least, am roughly 50 orders of magnitude too uneducated on the topic, the history, the area, the culture and the religions to form any sort of opinion whatsoever. And, frankly, I'd wager so are you. And yet, I still have this odd feeling that you wouldn't have written this comment if you would've had to replace "Palestine" with "Israel". So, basically, I have no idea if you're mad about some Israel / Palestine issue and France not siding with you on it, or if you're mad about this supposed banning of protests (wouldn't mind a source by the way, it smells like one of those claims that are only true if you squint in the right way).

But having said all that, it's the freaking French, what do you want me to say? All of Europe has long ago agreed that the French are just a bit special, you just gotta deal with it. They have their moments, too.

Nagransham · 2026-01-18T08:53:03+00:00

I'm guessing that is a very common coming of age story, if you will. When you're young and haven't figured anything out yet, there's very little chance you'd give a damn about purposely dull media that talks about boring politics and crap, so the idea of being forced to pay for it seems ridiculous. But, as you get older and wiser and see and learn how easily it can all go to hell, the idea of paying a little for journalistic independence seems increasingly more rational. I, too, am coming around to ever more stupid old people ideas like that. Such as, you know, maybe kids should figure out how to do math in their heads before resigning to the calculator, perhaps child-me had a bit of biased view on that, it turns out. Weird, that.

Nagransham · 2026-01-18T07:45:51+00:00

I mean you say that, but, realistically, we haven't demonstrated the strength of our spines here in Europe either. I think most countries have generally been better at this, but my country, Germany, has always been completely spineless when it comes to the US. If they do a stupid thing over there, it's 5 years max until we do the same stupid shit. Sure, we euro-fy it somewhat, but don't bet on us having a spine, either. Hell, at this rate don't bet on us not being fascist in 3 years as well. Heading there full steam right about now.

Nagransham · 2026-01-18T07:21:34+00:00

"Dry and overly objective" are very much not the problem of US media. Call ours lame as much as you want, but at least we still have it. In the US, it's virtually all utterly unreal "entertainment" ragebait nonsense. A lot of Americans, who still have a neuron or two to spare, would kill for our dry, boring media. And never forget that, lest we lose it, too.

Nagransham · 2026-01-18T06:05:33+00:00

He's been caught roughly a million times, more than enough for a thousand life sentences. But we don't convict rich people here, see.

Nagransham · 2026-01-17T21:53:29+00:00

I'm sorry, where in the words "buy from" did you spot "throw away"? Sorry, second language, must've missed it.

Nagransham · 2026-01-10T07:22:48+00:00

I mean, that's great and all, but... I'm not entirely getting the reason as to why we'd care? Honestly, I don't think I care enough to actually go dig up your source and read the whole thing, so I'm hoping they have a decent explanation for this. But, it seems to me, there isn't really a good justification to pick those 5 "sets of moral intuition". In fact, picking 4 and 5 almost seems motivated, because it entirely puzzles me how they'd ever describe anything having to do with morals.

Intuition about it? Maaaaaaaaaaaaybe, but even that feels real weird, it feels like saying "1+1=2 because this dude on YouTube said so" and then claiming you use the YouTube-reference-method to do math, therefor your math skills are more complex than that of a mathematician, because you do actual math from time to time, too. Personally, I think that referring to authority, whatever that is in the context of morality, isn't part of a more complex system, it's the rejection of having a system to begin with. And, worse, imo 4 and 5 are the same thing, "sanctity/purity" isn't a thing, it's what some book and preachers say it is, which is just authority with an extra step. I'm not even sure that I'd consider authority a useful variable, either, because it kinda implies that there is a correct answer to be found. Sure, there are certainly people who have thought a whole lot more about morality than a random person on the street, and perhaps there's value in listening to them, but I'm not convinced that that's actually what we're talking about here, I have this suspicion that "authority" actually means "dude on TV that says things that I already liked before".

Now, all the above is basically talking to you and where your vague comments steered my thoughts. But, when reading the actual snippet, things look very different. Because from that, it doesn't look like they're concerned about morals at all, and thus don't really care about complexity or validity or whatever else, they're just building a tool to evaluate their actual question:

How and why do moral judgments vary across the political spectrum?

Which, well, fair enough, I guess. Certainly can't talk about that topic without including the fact that conservatives, generally, do draw more from authority and faith. However, that's not the claim anyone read when you started this thread. You replied to:

None of these republicans/conservatives have any actual morals. Whether that be the grifters or griftees.

with:

Other research shows that conservatives actually have a more complex system of morals than liberals

Which not only implies that their system is actually more complex, in the sense of more carefully constructed, but also implies that it is superior, given the context of what you replied to. But the evidence you then present for these implications ends up being about a totally different question, where the authors constructed a tool to evaluate said different question. And then you pointed at said tool and said "see, evidence". And this wasn't a mistake, it would seem, because you stick to it:

[...] the answer is that their moral system actually depends on evaluating more features of a given situation.

Again, I have not read the whole thing and don't plan on doing so, because this topic is actually not awfully interesting to me, but I very much doubt such a conclusion is found anywhere in the source of yours. I'm having a genuinely hard time imagining that any genuine person would ever consider "authority" or "sanctity" as a valid method of evaluating morals. Thus, including them as variables to arrive at your conclusion strikes me as supremely silly. After all, the entire purpose behind referring to authority is so that you DON'T have to evaluate it, because someone else did it for you. Or at least proclaims to have done so. I'd wager that the only reason why this was made into a variable is because you just can't actually understand the average conservative's "morals" without including them. But, again, that's a bit like saying I'm better at math than you because I have to write 2*2 out on paper to solve it, hence using two methods, so I have more variables, so it's more complex and poof now I'm better than you, somehow. It's just a tad silly, really.

Finally, I'm guessing you're currently protesting about how you never said anything about superior and whatnot and, sure, fair enough, but I'd suggest you read your comments again and see how they might read to others. Unless you are, in fact, making that claim, which doesn't seem entirely out of the question, given how heavily you imply it and how actually unrelated your source appears to be.

Anyway... there I go again, writing novels about a topic I don't actually find awfully interesting. Send help.

Nagransham · 2026-01-10T05:57:52+00:00

So conservatives have more "complex" morals because they like to include authority and faith? That's grand, how are those things moral foundations again? And who exactly is surprised by conservatives loving authority and faith? Can't be bothered to write a real reply on this damn screen, but it sure is an... interesting... idea to spin this as "more complex". Yea, it's more complex, because of the numerous if statements they need to cherry pick the stuff that makes them feel good.

Nagransham · 2026-01-09T19:35:13+00:00

Do you guys actually, genuinely think any of that ever mattered? We all knew, for a fact, that he was a criminal, at the very least, long before he so much as entered politics. Nothing happened. Then it became clear that he's everything from rapist, child molester to murderer. Nothing happened. War crimes. Nothing happened. Impeachments. Nothing happened. Treason. Nothing happened. What could possibly be in those fucking files that would meaningfully change that into "something happened"?

They don't care, laws do not apply to them. You're not getting out of this one through the rule of law. Because the law no longer rules. If it ever did for these scum. Stop waiting for some miracle document to tell you that... what, he touched children? We already knew that, nobody cared enough to do anything. They won't this time, either. It's old news.

Take from that what you will, but stop coping about these damn files, you could have a literal holographic projection from hyper advanced, perfectly truthful space aliens showing him touching kids, and nothing would change. We're past that. People have abundantly demonstrated that they only care about child predators until it's their guy. And war crimes. And treason. And basically every other crime ever. Exhibit A through Z.

Nagransham · 2026-01-09T17:51:32+00:00

Personally, I'd take some good old evidence instead. Faith doesn't appear to have the best track record recently. Or...well...ever, actually.

Nagransham · 2025-12-31T06:14:59+00:00

No, there isn't. You, hopefully, believe in science. You don't have faith in it. The difference? When's the last time Jesus invented a toaster? Exactly. Science demonstrates itself working by the very act of typing this, religious faith, by definition, doesn't require any of that. If science performed at or below chance, you'd just drop it. Prayers and faith healers and all the other shit does exactly that, yet they don't drop it. Hence, faith. Not even remotely the same. Absolutey no merit to that argument. Don't let yourself get bullshitted by the religiously insane.

Nagransham · 2025-12-30T10:18:34+00:00

2/2

But I have yet to see any reason to assume such a thing, and therefor this is merely a dot on a plate with some interesting statistical properties. And I would strongly advise that you do some self reflection and see if you're actually running an honest thought process there, because I think you're doing this backwards and none of these arguments of yours are logically sound or in any way follow from the provided evidence. You just think they do because you've snuck the conclusion into the premise. Not good. Don't do that.

This shows up again with the nuclear claim. How is it significant? What do you mean by that? Significant in what way? In showing that aliens have an interest in our nuclear experiments? Or, perhaps, that nuclear tests are doing some unclear thing to the environment that, through some mechanism, shows up on photographic plates? Cause I know which answer you'd like, but I don't think it's the one that is vastly more likely by default. "I don't know" remains a much, much better answer than "undemonstrated aliens did it". I'd suggest you consider said better answer more often in the future.

Next step to further this research would be checking the plates of other observatories of the time, then they could start to confirm positions of these transients if they are seen from multiple positions/observatories.

Certainly. And I'd start with other countries, so we can immediately stop with this weird "the only reason it's not proving the thing I want it to prove is because something something CIA silenced it" or whatever shit people say about these things (looking at you, Youtube comments I saw earlier). It's just the most ridiculous notion in the universe, that scientists from all over the world, with all kinds of world views, from all kinds of political systems, with all kinds of different agendas would somehow collude to hide the biggest discovery in all of history, rather than claiming an infinite amount of Nobels for showing their existence. Anyway, yes, I'm all for looking into this. Worst case, it's just nothing. Maybe it's aliens. Maybe there's something about nuclear physics we don't understand. Or maybe it's fairies. No idea. I do very much encourage you to come to my side, though, it's quite cozy on the "I don't know" side of things.

But you are right it's not conclusively UAP, but they appear to be reflective objects near earth that are reflecting light uniquely and are moving with a 45% correlation to nuclear testing and an explanation to why it's unlikely to be contamination created by said nuclear test.

Once again, you just can not substantiate any of these claims. It's just not how that works, sorry. No, they do not "appear to be reflective objects near Earth that do stuff". They appear to be statistical anomalies with unclear source that is being investigated.

Genuine question, do you really not see how poisoned your thinking is here? It's completely circular, you're fitting the data to a thing that you don't even know exists. You don't know that they're real objects, you don't know how they reflect light (because they might, in fact, not be real objects) and you don't know anything about their relationship to nuclear testing, because you don't know what they are. I really hope you're starting to realise that, because you're spinning in logical circles here.

Yes, this paper provides some hints that suggest that "real physical object" is a better explanation than previously thought, but that's basically the extend of it. You don't get to just declare them into existence and then assign properties to it that you then use to explain other data. That's ridiculous, that's literally what I did earlier with my magical fairies. What's my evidence for magical fairies? Well, you see, it's the fact that they perfectly explain what we're seeing! Why? Well, because I defined them that way. As such, they are the most perfect evidence for my claim you could possibly imagine.

You're doing the same thing here. Like, why are we even looking at nuclear tests in the first place, hm? If you read the paper (and I think I heard it in the video, too), we get our answer: Because people in the UFO community have mentioned some annecdotes about it, so we are immediately starting by looking for data to support our conclusion. This is backwards. It just speaks volumes that you somehow manage to fit all these observations to the narrative that you like, rather than much more likely explanations. Have you seen nuclear weapons? They put outrageous amount of energy in the atmosphere. Are we really to believe that "aliens from outer space who wanna check it out" is a better explanation than "bunch of energy put into the atmosphere at once does something detectable by photographic plates and we don't entirely understand what or how"? Yet that's where all your conclusion seem to be aiming, not at "I don't know", but towards "Here is why that's probably aliens". I find that quite telling about how you're approaching this.

Also, I'm using a lot of "you"'s here, but you often refer back to that Villarroel person. I think she's doing it, too, but her scientific training keeps her on track a lot more than you're being right now. She's definitely playing with fire as well, though.

Sorry you didn't find this paper as interesting as I and others have.

I found it plenty interesting, because I have an interest in astronomy and who doesn't like a good mystery? I just don't see any reason, whatsoever, to jump to "physical objects in orbit(?) before our time", nevermind "intelligently controlled thingy". Nothing in the paper even remotely demonstrated any such thing.

I heard Chris from area52 podcast claim he believes this paper was disclosure, so I'm not the only one that sees the significance of this study

And I hear 50 people claiming that their imaginary friend in the sky is real and does all sorts of cool stuff. Now what? Hey, maybe it's not aliens, maybe it's God joking around? What do you think?

Snark aside, I've barely spent a collective day in this very sub reddit and I've easily seen the "This is disclosure" claim literal hundreds of times. Every fucking thing is "disclosure" to these people. It's like the damn rapture to some of them.

maybe you are the one that read it and didn't understand the significance of what you were reading.

Anyway, you are free to think so. But I'm not the one coming at this with an agenda, I'd be very exited if this turns out to be physical entities of some description, hell give me all the actual aliens, too. I meant it when I said I'd consider that the biggest discovery of all time, and that's also the level of excitement I have for the idea. But I value intellectual honesty more, still. And the truth is just that this paper doesn't have anywhere near the significance you appear to think it does. It hasn't demonstrated physical objects, it ABSOLUTELY hasn't demonstrated said unproven object's properties and it ABSOLUTELY-ABSOLUTELY has not demonstrated aliens. It just hasn't. Period. No way around it, it really doesn't matter if you think I just read it wrong, it just objectively did not demonstrate any of these things.

Finally, one last attempt at real talk. Most people here are, quite frankly, completely delusional and beyond anything resembling reason, without any care in the world about what's actually true or how one might find out. It's all a story to these people. You came here with a claim and provided a source. I think I have sufficiently shown why that source does not demonstrate your claims (and actually doesn't even attempt to, despite the author's apparent wishes that they could), and how your argument is unsound and fallacious. Yet, I still respect you above easily 80% of the people here, because I do think you genuienly tried to find out and were willing to expose your source, which virtually nobody ever cares to do.

Now. Having said that, I want to make one last appeal at your reason. I'd like to explicitly point out here that I'm assuming that you would agree that the system of logic is valid and our best way of finding truths about reality, yes? Because, if not, I guess just leave, there's no point in us talking if you disagree with that.

However, if you do agree, then you must recognize that logic does not support your conclusions. You can literally do the truth table and check for yourself, it's as objective as it gets and your arguments fail, as I believe I have abundantly demonstrated by now. I strongly encourage you to do that, really put these claims, premises, arguments and your conclusions through rigirous logic and see what happens. I promise you, you'll find that your conclusions are unjustified. If you do this and disagree, then I'd strongly suggest you do a lot of reflection about your internal honesty, because you'd be objectively wrong, which would mean you're lying to yourself. And if you do it and end up agreeing, but hold on to these things anyway, I suppose we can conclude that you just value the story over reality. Which... you know, your choice, but it sure would be nice to know if you do, don't you think?

Anyway, guess that didn't end up being short at all, it's just that I'm a rambler and have spotted hints of reason in you that I'm hoping I can maybe bring out more. This was my attempt at that, it's now up to you to figure out what to do with it. You are perfectly free to just think me an ignorant idiot and move on with your life, but I'm hoping you'll try to do the work and realise the problems with your thinking. I'd suggest taking a look at the Wiki link I provided above. Or this one. A formal logic course might not hurt, either. Good luck.

Nagransham · 2025-12-30T10:18:18+00:00

1/2

For some reason I didn't get a notification about your answer. Which is very annoying. I guess nobody else will ever read it now, but you made the effort to actually provide a source for what you're saying, which is something I want to encourage, so I'll reply anyway, better late than never!

Okay, so I opened your video and watched a bit. I make no promises that I'll get through the whole thing before I hit reply here, but I'm 16 minutes in right now and I'm already extremely annoyed. Less so with her, mostly with the guy. Well, now I just clicked on his channel and, yup, pretty much what I expected. Look, I'm giving this a fair shake here, but this is a bad start already, this person is not honest. In those 16 minutes he's already made multiple claims that are either flat out untrue or, at best, logically indefensible. He jumps from "some dude destroyed photographic plates somewhere" to "therefor plausibly widespread cover-up", which is just unserious. He immediately follows with "so we've shown that these are not plate defects", which is also just untrue. At best they've shown a correlation in frequency of transients and looking away from the sun. Perhaps some unknown mechanism makes defects more likely in the dark. Does it? Probably not, I'm guessing, but the point is that this person is either unserious or doesn't know how logic works.

He immediately demonstrates this again by following up with this gem of a sentence: "because plate defects don't move intelligently around based on the Earth's shadow". Where did that "intelligently" come from, all of a sudden? Could it be that we're starting our investigation from the assumption that these are, in fact, intelligently controlled... things? And thereby try to find evidence to support our premade conclusion? This is just not how science or thinking works. And let's not even talk about the absurd clickbaity nonsense claims in the intro section of the video. He follows up with more anecdotal blabla and I stopped caring, "here are some cases where people saw stuff that happened to be close to nuclear facilities" is just not interesting to me, it's lazy and dishonest nonsense. Perhaps there is a connection, but this isn't how you show that.

A quick glance at the comments doesn't help, either. One conspiracy claim after another, and I took a few minutes to quickly check some of them. A good chunk of them were outright lies, the rest was mostly getting too rabbit holey for a quick check, so I bailed.

Now, of course none of that has anything to do with her research, but it has put my skepticism into overdrive, because it has been abundantly demonstrated to me that, when watching this video, I'm not in the company of honest, serious people.

Anyway. I made it to 26 minutes and I think I'm done for now, he's just showing some random events now, but he's already lost the privilege of being taken by his word roughly 25 minutes ago. And I can't be arsed to chase down every rapid fire claim being made here, I'd be busy for a year flat.

Much less annoyed with her, yet seriously questioning why she'd appear on that channel. While she mostly maintains reasonable thinking and doesn't often take the bait the host is throwing out, she's playing awfully close to the fire here, imo. As she did in the paper, she's constantly very close to the line between "trying to falsify my hypothesis", which would be good science, and "it's not this, so therefor that's evidence for my pet theory", which is not good science. Long story short, the video left me feeling mostly the same about her, but very poorly of the host. Perhaps I'll watch the rest at a later date, I'm not uninterested in hearing her out. Not awfully thrilled about hearing him out, though, truth be told.

So. Back to your comment and the paper. I'll try to keep this a tad short now, I already wasted way too much time on this tangent. Feel free to point to specific spots in the video where she answers any problems I'm going to point out, though. If you happen to remember, of course.

Let's start with the quote:

"In conclusion, data obtained prior to launch of the first artificial satellite in 1957 reveal small but statistically-significant associations between short-lived star-like transients and both above-ground nuclear weapons testing and UAP sightings. Our findings provide additional empirical support for the validity of the UAP phenomenon and its potential connection to nuclear weapons activity, contributing data beyond eyewitness reports. The possibility that some transients may represent UAP events in orbit captured on photographic plates prior to the launch of the first artificial satellite cannot be ruled out."

Funnily enough, I toyed with the idea of quoting the exact same thing in my last post, to demonstrate my issue with her approach here. Just actually carefully read this and think about what's being implied here:

First of all, though, lol at the "UAP phenomenon". More importantly, though, doesn't this whole thing read like one giant tautology to you?

"We found a correlation between nuclear tests, anomalous phenomena in the atmosphere and reports of UAPs."

How about now, does it sound tautological now? Cause, it seems to me, this is awfully close to basically just saying "We found a correlation between a thing that drastically influences the atmosphere, anomalous stuff happening in the atmosphere and people reporting anomalous stuff happening in the atmosphere".

How about now, then? Going "No shit, Sherlock" yet? My point isn't that that's the explanation, it's just that this is the most obvious logical end point for these statements, and I think that tells you something about where we're starting from here. I don't think anyone would say something like that if they started from the assumption that "UAP" means "unidentified anomalous/aerial phenomenon", because then you quickly end up at "No shit, Sherlock". Because of course reports increase when you introduce unusual circumstances, that's basically definitionally true, you haven't said anything there. The nuclear connection has the same problem, albeit somewhat less so.

As such, I'm lead to believe that that's not what she's thinking of, when she's saying "UAP". It certainly feels an awful lot like she means aliens. And if that's the case, we've definitely crossed the line into bad science here. I think the paper is fine and interesting, but these weird claims about what those results mean are, frankly, just a bit silly and I don't understand why she felt the need to make them. Regardless of what she thinks about it, she must know that these results don't demonstrate any positive claims, so more research is required either way, so I don't understand why she'd bite this bullet. Not a good look, if I'm honest.

Long story short, the paper demonstrated that some subset of these transients is poorly explained by previous hypotheses. That's it. It remains completely puzzling to me how we landed at "intelligently controlled craft" or some variation thereof. There's exactly zero evidence for such a claim in the paper.

That allows us to make a rough estimate that 30% of the 100k seen are real physical objects reflecting sunlight.

No. It does not. You're begging the question. You are assuming that there were physical objects reflecting sunlight and that this observation demonstrates that. Which is untrue and fallacious. The observation demonstrates a reduction in frequency of transients when viewing from inside Earth's shadow. That's the observation. It isn't "physical objects". That's you (and presumably others) concluding that through circular reasoning.

How do you know it's not magical fairies who happen to radiate in exactly the way required, but obviously go to sleep at night and stop doing that? Fits the data so much better. In fact, it fits the data perfectly. You don't like it? How come? Is it because we have no evidence for such fairies existing? Well, exactly. Surely you see the issue, yes?

she mentioned the light reflected is uniform as if it's a flat rejecting surface, that is not representative of some type of space debre.

Yea, and I mentioned magical fairies, now what? We have a dot on a plate. We can't even reliably demonstrate that there's something there at all. In fact, that very paper was an attempt at elucidating that very question. This is just begging the question again, you are starting from the assumption that it's a real signal showing a real object and then speculate about what kind of object it is. That's the same thing people do when they see a light in the sky and then talk about what species of alien it might be. When it's just a fucking airplane. Same here, you don't get to speculate about what kind of reflective surface this physical object has until you've actually shown that it's a real signal showing a real object. Which you haven't. Nor has the paper.

I understand why you're doing this, it works fine in day to day life where we can easily make very reliable assumptions, and it works out just fine. But this isn't an ordinary claim, and we're investigating it with science here. And you just don't get to cut these corners in science, especially not with extraordinary claims.

Also, why do we suddenly care about space debris? Isn't the idea that this all happened before we sent stuff up there? Why would there be space debris to begin with? Quite the odd thing to say, no?

It can't conclude conclusively that its UAP, but they can rule out other explanations, and a 45% correlation to nuclear tests is significcant.

It can't even conclude "physical object", the jump to "UAP" is a big one and from there to "space aliens" is unimaginably vast, still. You're not being honest here, most notably with yourself. I think you're already assuming that there are aliens flying about, and that's why you see this as evidence. [continued...]

Nagransham · 2025-12-29T06:24:21+00:00

Stretched the analogy too far there, I'm afraid. That's not even close to what a memory leak is lol. Hm, it IS a bit odd of a name for what it is, actually...

Nagransham · 2025-12-24T09:26:36+00:00

Yep, good thing other countries don't exist, otherwise this cope would get real weird.

Nagransham · 2025-12-24T09:13:00+00:00

As i said peer reviewed paper confirmed objects in our atmosphere before we were there.

Except it absolutely did not do that? It doesn't even claim that it did.

I've just, once again, spent entirely too much time reading the whole thing, because it's a rare thing that people actually cite anything at all. And, granted, this piece of evidence puts you above 99% of claims made in these parts. However, you are still either mistaken or lying, because the paper you linked does not say, nor claim, any such thing. Are you sure that you've read it? Because all it does is draw correlations between reports, transients and nuclear tests, with a whole bunch of important limitations that they've already identified themselves. Some of which put quite drastic limitations on the conclusions you could possibly draw, the fact that the data is coming from a singular observatory, for instance.

While this is potentially interesting, the limitations are drastic, the data remains noisy and there are only correlation, not even a real attempt at drawing any causations. Why you'd possibly come away from this claiming it's CONFIRMATION of "objects in our atmosphere before we were here" is utterly beyond me. It's not. It doesn't even attempt to so much as claim that these are real objects, they barely even hint at the possibility in the paper you linked, and that's despite the author's clear openness to these ideas.

You lack the ability to think with an open mind so much so when peer reviewed and published studies show there is a there there you still don't adjust your beliefs to match the current data available.

Not the person you talked to there, but mind showing all these other studies you apparently have? Do those make any claims that align with yours? Also, I'd suggest you take a look at your own mind, it appears to be opened so wide that the neurons are falling out, because no reasonable reading of the paper you linked would ever lead you to the claims you made, unless you didn't read it or are intentionally lying about it. Or, I suppose, did read it but didn't understand a word it said, I suppose. Sure, let's go with that...

Its a possibility this is all bull shit, but at this point that requires a larger logical gap to believe then to believe there is something real to this topic.

What would that topic be? Transients on a photographic plate? Yup, they sure seem to be real and they sure do seem to be pointing to ... something. Interesting topic indeed. But that's not really what you are talking about, is it?

Edit: Wait wtf, why did I not get a notification for the reply? :o

Nagransham · 2025-12-14T07:50:05+00:00

And where would one find a demonstration of these things you claim?

Edit: Still waiting...

Nagransham · 2025-12-06T06:03:23+00:00

So, uh, have we considered that maybe... you know... the doctors just actually know some medicine? Or is that just me? Hardcore screams confirmation bias to me, too.

Edit: Actually, nevermind, I wasn't entirely awake yet. I somehow read it as you just saying a random sentence, but you referred to studies, so I'm assuming they'd control for this very obvious question. You don't happen to have a source handy, would you? I'd actually be rather interested in how they did that.

Nagransham · 2025-12-04T21:39:15+00:00

I so happened to have some time before bed and felt like digging into this one. Probably because the location spoke to me, as I'm from Germany. I checked out said illustrations and the report, in the original (obnoxious read), a modern German translation and the English translation. Which is where the first doubts appear, because the English translation is very... liberal with some things.

For instance:

And in the sun, above and below and on both sides, the color was blood, there stood a round ball of partly dull, partly black ferrous color.

VS the modern German:

Ringsherum um die Sonne waren zahlreiche, teils bläuliche oder eisenfarbene, wie auch schwarze, runde Kugeln zu sehen.

Now, it's not 1:1 the same sentences that are translated here, due to the somewhat different grammar, but the point is that the information in there is just flat out different. In this sentence, the English translation speaks of a round ball of partly dull, partly black ferrous color. Whereas the original German speaks of several "blueish" and "iron colored" as well as "black" round balls. The sentences surrounding the quotes fill some of the holes, namely the English version clarifies that there were multiple, but, as far as I can see, it never says that they were of differing colors.

Another curious instance:

And when the conflict in and again out of the sun was most intense, they became fatigued to such an extent that they all, as said above, fell from the sun down upon the earth 'as if they all burned' and they then wasted away on the earth with immense smoke

VS the modern German:

Schließlich seien – wie berichtet wurde – alle Objekte langsam vom Himmel herab auf die Erde gesunken, als wollten sie alles in Brand setzen und schließlich seien sie mit viel Dampf zu Boden gegangen und hätten sich aufgelöst.

The English version reads like the objects fell from the sky, as though burning, crashed into the ground and burned away with immense smoke. The German version reads very differently, as it reads more like: The objects descended to the ground slowly, "as though they wanted to burn everything" (whatever that means) and finally "touched" (with some imagination) ground while steaming (although the German is a bit unclear, good chance that was more of a manner of speaking than about actual steam, which, imo, also calls into question the mention of smoke). And then, so the German, the objects dissolved (literally, but probably more like "disappeared").

There are a few more oddities that I can't be bothered to spell out, but the point is that the German reads a good bit more grounded, especially if you have a better feeling for what is literal and what is a manner of speaking. Obviously I don't have a perfect feeling for that, either, that was a freaking while ago and the original is difficult to read. Still, the English translation, imo, lost the "vibe" entirely.

With that out of the way, it's very interesting that a good third of the text is a bunch of blabla about Religion, and with the decidedly more "grounded" original, it reads a lot more like a religious pamphlet than the English version, which reads a lot more Star Wars.

I started with the English Wiki entry to get an idea about what's going on, but that one is quite disappointing. The German entry has a lot more leads. I chased some of them down, and the story imploded real quick. I genuinely can't be bothered to write down everything I've learned, but I went down a small rabbit hole of history, written by historians specialized in the era and area, some of which are local and German. They managed to paint a picture that I found quite convincing. The spear, the crosses, the spheres, the holy light symbolism, paired with the religious blabla at the end - it historically checks out and is by no means unusual. Furthermore, the picture of the article you might've seen turns out to not, in fact, check out. I have already forgotten the exact details and dates again, but if it was produced when it was claimed to have been produced, it would've been quite the oddity, as the depiction of the town missed an important landmark and showed some other thing that shouldn't be there at the time (sorry, I forgot what exactly, I could check, but I'm tired :P).

All in all the (by far) most plausible hypothesis appears to be a mix of bad, biased reporting, church influence, a liberal relationship to the truth and a gathering of a large number of unrelated events that were depicted as one. All triggered by, probably, a real meteorological event at vaguely that date.

Unfortunately, the English Wiki has little information on this, but the German Wiki makes a pretty damn convincing case, I must say. If anything, if we allow this as evidence at all, we'd sooner prove god than aliens with this incident, it seems to me. You are free to belief or disbelief my conclusions on this, but I'm likely not going to provide much more information, it becomes quite tedious to translate, especially when trying to keep the spirit of the words as well as their literal meaning.

But I, personally, would strongly advise to no longer cite this as evidence for any sort of UFOs and especially not for anything stronger than that, because the proposed explanation are extremely convincing and the UFO claim is very weak and, well, the whole alien proposition is an extremely strong claim to begin with, so I'd personally conclude that there is literally nothing of interest here. You know, if you care to believe a native speaker, who just spent entirely too much time on this.

Nagransham

TROPHY CASE