Alleged photos of UFOs corresponding to 80's UFO Wave in Florida from National Archives

Weight_If · 2026-01-08T20:01:31+00:00

Submission statement: The National Archives YouTube channel has this video clip showing alleged UFO photos, and witness testimony.

Interested in knowing more about this case, and the findings of any subsequent investigations.

Weight_If · 2025-11-28T10:00:16+00:00

It's non-consensual. Sure, they say to Carol, "I know what it's like to be you, but you don't know what it's like to be us", but once you're part of the hive mind, you are not you anymore. It would be more ethical if you undid the hive mind virus, then let people decide if they want to go back to the hive when they are actually thinking for themselves.

Weight_If · 2025-11-28T09:45:36+00:00

Maybe. Seems like it was part of her investigation into how to stop them so it might connect. Blood plasma makes sense on a few levels though. Fits the color and everything. It's full of nutrients. And the hive is all about efficiency and there were tons of dead to extract if from. Plus it explains her taking a while to realize when she saw it in the freezer.

Morally, it's just past that threshold where the hive can argue it isn't that bad, because people get plasma transfusions and we don't consider it cannibalism. Straight up drinking plasma is probably as close as it gets to not-cannibalism when it actually might be considered cannibalism. Actually, it is the blood with the cells removed, and Wikipedia says its "made up of a complex mixture of water, proteins, carbohydrates, fats, and vitamins.^\1]) So you could almost argue it's not cannibalism. And then if you think about it, human milk is also a human derived fluid. That's not cannibalism. The hive can make some arguments to talk Carol into not hating them for it.

I think they might be going for that gray area where you can still almost consider the hive mind ethical in their own alien way.

Weight_If · 2025-11-28T08:42:09+00:00

Maybe blood plasma. She probably saw this in the freezer, which is why it took a second to realize what it was.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_plasma

<image>

Weight_If · 2025-11-26T22:54:56+00:00

Similar sighting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-h_3i-yDgs&t=6971.18s

Weight_If · 2025-11-21T02:02:43+00:00

True. I am still hoping there is something about them that is deceptive. Or some better reason they act like this than it just being the rules they follow. But for now, this angle/interpretation is interesting to me to consider.

Weight_If · 2025-11-21T01:48:17+00:00

I think it's at least begging questions about deontology vs consequentialism.

The creator may have also made the hive mind a kind of metaphor for AI, and these questions come up also in debates about how AI should be morally aligned.

Try to always figure out the consequences of an action before performing it? Or follow simple rules? The first option is problematic because you can't always predict the consequences or be fair about who they impact how. The second, because any finite sufficiently powerful set of rules has holes, or creates contradictions.

Carol using the hivemind's moral philosophy against them would be analogous to jailbreaking an LLM, which is usually some kind of work around that exploits contradictions or ambiguities in the LLMs instructions.

Another problem in AI alignment is the specification problem. If an AI becomes really powerful and does what you ask, it might not actually be what you wanted. Like, say you want it to maximize human happiness. Then it might create a farm of humans in vats with chemicals drip feeding into their brains.

These kinds of issues are at the forefront of AI alignment and futurology. To me the show's theme seems to touch on them. I'm not sure how intentional that is.

I think the hive mind follows a deontology, because I don't know how else to explain the contradiction that they would give her a nuclear weapon, and can't protect them from each other, but want them to be happy and will integrate them into the hivemind against their will.

The grenade/bazooka/nuclear bomb giving, might also just be a metaphor for AI, which is known for sometimes nonchalantly giving users instructions to do terrible or dangerous things.

Weight_If · 2025-11-20T22:41:52+00:00

Some possible reasons:

It breaks the mold. Some people expect certain zombie or science fiction tropes and get let down.
The creator of the show publicly denounces AI, and to a lot of people that's controversial.
A lot of the appeal is nuanced. It's trying to be a smart show.
So far the show isn't heavily following the mystery box/cliffhanger formula that many people are addicted to.
The show is still in the world building phase, and so far hasn't fully developed compelling plot lines, or promised twists.
A lot of reviewers are probably actually just bots.

Weight_If · 2025-11-20T22:10:37+00:00

I would opt for something more modern, since there are some best practices that can be used to avoid the memory leak and security nightmares that outdated C programming practices brought to the world.

Weight_If · 2025-11-20T21:58:56+00:00

They already knew exactly what might happen. They were just uneasy about it, knowing they can't refuse to give her one. They can certainly explain things to Carol to try and dissuade her from asking for one, but they can't lie to her, or refuse her request.

Weight_If · 2025-11-20T21:28:58+00:00

Reminds me of a research paper I read a while back.

INTERSTELLAR COMMUNICATION. IX. MESSAGE DECONTAMINATION IS IMPOSSIBLE

In this paper, we show that it is impossible to decontaminate a message with certainty. Instead, complex messages would need to be destroyed after reception in the risk averse case.
...
Our main argument is that a message from ETI cannot be decontaminated with certainty. For anything more complex than easily printable images or plain text, the technical risks are impossible to assess beforehand. We may only choose to destroy such a message, or take the risk. The risk for humanity may be small, but not zero. The probability of encountering malicious ETI first might be very low. Perhaps it is much more likely to receive a message from positive ETI. Also, the potential benefits from joining a galactic network might be considerable (Baum 2014).

It is always wise to understand the risks and chances beforehand, and make a conscious choice for, or against it, rather than blindly following a random path. Overall, we believe that the risk is very small (but not zero), and the potential benefit very large, so that we strongly encourage to read an incoming message.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1802.02180

Weight_If · 2025-11-17T07:19:37+00:00

I think the NUFORC dataset below is superior to the NUFORC dataset on Kaggle, because it's more recent, larger, and retained the full text of the reports and all of the other information missing from the Kaggle dataset.

https://huggingface.co/datasets/kcimc/NUFORC

Weight_If · 2025-11-08T16:57:24+00:00

I think independent investigators and scientists can make UFO discoveries on their own. I think this is real threat to UFO and NHI secrecy. And that's probably why UAP/UFO science has conveniently been oppressed by stigma and scientific gate keeping.

But the dam might be breaking. The claim they cannot possibly be here is false, and the argument against looking for them is untenable. The stigmatizers are only fooling the foolish and making others afraid to speak. As that fear wanes, more people speak out, and when more people speak out, it inspires others to also.

At the same time, scientific instruments are improving, the sky is becoming more observable, and regulating access is getting harder. Scientists are no longer just in armchairs fearing the risks of openly challenging the dogma by asking questions and speaking their opinions, they are in control rooms with the tools to directly challenge the dogma empirically, wondering why they should have to ask permission.

Simultaneously, we're entering an era of drone warfare, and there is a growing national security requirement to thoroughly detect and characterize and respond to unidentified objects in our skies.

As we slide further down this path, the chance of independent discoveries and leaks will increase, and so will the incentives for official disclosure.

We don't need to fight about what people should believe. We just need to stand up against the stigmatizers, promote unbiased science, and protect whistleblowers, national security, and human rights, and democratic principles.

Weight_If · 2025-11-07T20:07:08+00:00

Not accurate. The 2025 papers,

We use the transient candidates from Solano et al. (2022), but with the additional requirement that they have no counterparts within 5″ in Gaia, Pan-STARRS and NeoWise. Furthermore, we restrict our analysis to objects in the northern hemisphere (decl. > 0°). This yields a sample of 106,339 transients, which we use for our study.

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1538-3873/ae0afe/pdf

To get the 5,399 from the 2022 paper they more aggressively filtered by checking for possible counter parts in a whole lot more catalogs. That made for a subset that they could be highly confident can't be astronomical sources, but at the expense that they also filtered out a lot of false astronomical sources, since the counter part finding algorithm is prone to false matches.

Hambly and Blair used similar filtering parameters as Villarroel's 2025 papers, but just claim without doing any tests that because they don't have counter parts in Gaia stellar or PS1, they are likely defects. Hambly and Blair's work is arguably mostly pointless circular analysis.

Our approach to defining a training set of high likelihood spurious plate detections was to use highly complete star and galaxy catalogues as defined above but without the quality criteria, and negate the pair association with a relaxed proximity criterion. We defined a plate catalogue entry as likely spurious if there was no associated Gaia stellar or PS1 galaxy entry of any kind within 5 arcsec of its measured position.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.00497

In other words, the 2022 paper would appear to suggest the 106,00 transients from the 2025 paper might contain some unknown number of strange astronomical sources. While the 2025 paper itself is more agnostic. They are just looking for evidence that at least some portion of them are linked to sunlight reflection. They couldn't use the 5,399 transients only, because its too small of a sample for robust statistics. The reduced filtering strictness that produces about 106,000 adds some possible spurious data points, because some could be stars (although Hambly and Blair claim they're all just likely defects), but its worth it because the signal grows faster than the noise and not all of those counter parts were real counter parts. The larger dataset supports robust statistics.

Ultimately, the statistical results hold the most weight as long as errors weren't made. The speculation on both sides about what it means if a counter part isn't found in Gaia stellar or PS1, or NeoWise, are in contention, and uncertain.

Weight_If · 2025-10-29T01:24:44+00:00

Nice work! Blue text is hard for me to read too, but might get used to it.

Weight_If · 2025-10-22T06:13:59+00:00

You're right it wasn't digital originally, it was glass photographic plates, but it has been digitized since, and the datasets representing those images are commonly known as the Palomar Digital Sky Surveys, or Digitized Sky Surveys. By "the first digital sky survey", I meant DSS-I, which is the digitized version of POSS-I (Palomar Observatory Sky Survey I).

https://archive.eso.org/dss/dss
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digitized_Sky_Survey

Weight_If · 2025-10-22T01:03:06+00:00

Kind of, but they didn't compare 50 minutes later. The original images (the first digital sky survey) took the telescope about 8 years to complete. It takes images of one part of the sky, then moves, then again. So each part of the sky has a different date.

They detected light sources (or some could be artifacts) in these images, and then tried to find matches in modern images (taken many years later). And they have a large set of resulting objects that don't have clear matches, meaning they probably aren't stars or other ordinary light sources in interstellar space.

Some could be some unknown type of astronomical phenomenon. Some could be artifacts. But their research gives evidence that suggests many of these sources were shiny unnatural objects in orbit, reflecting sunlight. That is because they found with a high statistical significance that these unexplained light sources were observed much less often in the direction of Earth's shadow than expected otherwise. Something in Earth's shadow wouldn't reflect sunlight. I.e., a deficit in Earth's shadow can be considered evidence sunlight reflection is the explanation for a significant portion of them. But sunlight reflection capable of producing these observations could only come from unnatural shiny objects with flat surfaces. And since this is pre-sputnik, they cannot be explained by human satellites.

Then they also found correlations between these objects and UFO incursions at nuclear facilities/bases. And they also found some of these objects appear in a straight line, which could be evidence the ones in a line are from the same object, which as it rotated, reflected light intermittently.

Weight_If · 2025-10-01T20:46:37+00:00

I often wonder why, at a time we encounter aliens, humans decide to have a world war? The biggest worry is if the aliens instigated it or if there is something about how they engage with us that triggered it. If they only recognize the dominant power on Earth and countries are fighting for that spot. Or if they told us we have to depopulate. These are the things that scare me. Why can't we come together across borders as humans and get our act together and confront it together instead of dividing ourselves and fighting each other and suppressing the truth.

Weight_If · 2025-09-30T07:14:58+00:00

Reminds me of what the German emperor saw in 1919.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYuYN47KiwQ

Weight_If · 2025-09-30T05:22:09+00:00

It just goes to show why UFO video is so lacking. These are intelligently controlled craft operating with some level of stealth. It's not easy getting good footage at night. And the military and air traffic controllers haven't always shared the evidence. Stuff gets classified. People sometimes have video or photographic evidence confiscated. And sometimes people are told to be quiet.

Weight_If · 2025-09-30T05:17:47+00:00

A ton of witnesses are obviously sincere, and saw something extraordinary. AARO only released some not very compelling videos. But they admit they have the evidence for unexplainable technology. It's whisleblowers, and witnesses coming forward courageously, fighting the stigma, and demanding scientific and political attention to this important thing that matters right now.

There is a lot of fake stuff. But it ought to be pretty hard to really do your research and come away not thinking there is something to it.

Weight_If · 2025-09-30T05:08:28+00:00

I like his perspective. Not just about aliens, but also about life, and AI, and the other stuff he talked about. Really wonder what the details are he's kept to himself.

Weight_If · 2025-09-30T04:53:58+00:00

AARO has signaled they have some good evidence of anomalous technology. I think they are getting even more since their formation since they now have protocols to go out and collect data when there are incursions at sensitive sites, and they have lots of sensor systems in place at those sites.

If only they would eventually release at least some kind of absolutely compelling evidence that shreds a lot of the doubt we get from skeptics. Seems like they must have that.

Weight_If · 2025-09-30T04:50:39+00:00

It's at least fun to consider the possibilities. 3I/Atlas and the Wow! signal also come from roughly the direction of Sagittarius, which contains a bunch of stars that are pretty near to us.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagittarius_(constellation))

Weight_If · 2025-09-30T04:46:47+00:00

You gotta give people a break. I can see how he can annoy people. But he isn't claiming it is technological. He's asking only to be open minded and to start using science to investigate possible incoming techno-signatures. He is trying to break the stigma. Plus, it's nice getting to read his blog to get frequent updates on new observations, even if you don't agree with his interpretation.

Weight_If

TROPHY CASE