The dataset was comprised of photos of the sky from November 19th, 1949, to April 28th, 1957\u2013one of the most important details because the first object that man shot up into orbit was Sputnik in October of 1957 when the Russians beat us into space and sparked the space race. This ain\u2019t us, folks.<\/p>\n
This study found \u201ctransient star-like objects of unknown origin\u201d in these photos taken between those pre-Sputnik dates, and before you start thinking of all the ways they are wrong and how they are clearly stars, remember, this is a peer-reviewed study published in Nature. You are too late. You don\u2019t think the editors threw everything they could at it before they published a study asserting there is \u201cempirical support for the UAP phenomenon\u201d in one of the world\u2019s most prestigious scientific journals?<\/p>\n
I love UFO skeptics, they move the ball downfield on this subject. I despise what I deem to be professional debunkers, as I believe those whose jobs are dependent on UFOs being swamp gas are no different from those whose jobs are dependent on UFOs being little grey men from the Pleiades. You as a consumer of media should be a UFO skeptic, but you are under no obligation to be a professional debunker. There are many things we don\u2019t know, and unidentified does not mean alien. Unidentified is simply a beacon signaling to scientists where they should get to work.<\/p>\n
Journalism is great and all, but the scientific method is the only way to discern real truth in this world, and the truth of this peer-reviewed study by Stephen Bruehl and Beatriz Villarroel is that \u201cResults revealed significant (p\u2009=\u2009.008) associations between nuclear testing and observed transients, with transients 45 percent more likely on dates within\u2009+\u2009\/- 1\u00a0day of nuclear testing.\u201d<\/p>\n
I am no scientist or statistician, just a guy with a finance degree, but when I was taught to run regressions in R, I was told that if it gave me a p value of less than .05, I was to trust those results as if they were meaningful until proven otherwise, and .005 was as close to mathematical truth as you could hope for. This is a study providing empirical support at 99.2 percent confidence that \u201ctransients\u201d observed in the sky before humans put things in the sky associate to nuclear testing on the ground.<\/p>\n
This is nuts.<\/p>\n
It\u2019s a very clever study utilizing resources a lot of astronomers have access to, and ending it months before Sputnik was shot up into space takes away pretty much any human-based explanation the debunkers could come up with. If Mick West and his cohort want to argue that the CIA had its own super secret space program before 1957 that was monitoring those nuclear launches, then they are probably violating theirs or someone else\u2019s wildly secret security clearances! I think a big reason why this study fell so flat this week is the professional debunkers aren\u2019t qualified to overrule actual scientists who scrutinized this study to the hilt, and they know it (which is why West is babbling on<\/a> about \u201cindependent replication,\u201d even as Stanford scientist Garry P. Nolan explains<\/a> how this paper published in Nature is describing independent replication).<\/p>\n I tend to believe that there wasn\u2019t a broad pushback on the substance of it because smarter people than Mick West and I have already done that, and so anything that can\u2019t get people instantly up in arms tends to get drowned out by our media environment. It\u2019s a shame, because this study is the best evidence for UAPs that I have ever seen. I have typically cited the Navy changing their reporting standards to add UAPs in 2019<\/a> as my best example that this is real, but this is better. It\u2019s real science that anyone can try for themselves and spark more detailed inquiry to its conclusions.<\/p>\n \u201cA transient was 45 percent more likely to be observed on dates within a nuclear test window (day of test\u2009+\u2009\/- 1\u00a0day) compared to dates outside of a nuclear test window,\u201d wrote the study\u2019s authors. \u201cSignificantly more transients were observed on dates within a nuclear testing window (5 percent trimmed mean\u2009=\u200923.40) than outside of a nuclear testing window (5 percent trimmed mean\u2009=\u20098.55; Mann\u2013Whitney U\u2009=\u2009431,649.5,\u00a0p\u2009=\u20090.007).\u201d<\/p>\n I\u2019ll admit I\u2019m kind of at a loss for words every so often when I read this study that overlaps with what I have been reporting on in the last year<\/a>, so I\u2019ll just transition to another interesting part of it that came with a chart that again got the attention of my finance brain. The authors spoke about the \u201climited value\u201d of UAP reports because they were so common \u201c(at least one report on 89.3 percent of study dates),\u201d which led them to two approaches to \u201ctest associations between the number\u00a0of UAP reports and\u00a0number\u00a0of transients observed on a given date.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cThe first approach simply examined the correlation between number of transients and number of UAP sighting reports on a given night,\u201d they wrote. \u201cThis analysis was restricted to dates on which at least one transient occurred (n\u2009=\u2009310), an analysis that eliminates the substantial bias due to the large number of zero values in the transient data (there were no transients observed on 88.5 percent of the days in the dataset). This simple analysis revealed a very small but statistically significant association (i.e., beyond chance) between the total number of transients and total UAP reports on a given date (Spearman\u2019s rho\u2009=\u20090.138, p\u2009=\u20090.015). A scatterplot of this association is presented in Fig.\u00a02<\/a>.\u201d<\/p>\n Chart by Nature<\/p>\n That is a small, but still positive correlation you are seeing between the x and y axes of independent UAP reports per date and transients observed per date, confirmed as meaningful by the p value, and the x-axis is where my beat comes in and I can add further credibility to this study published in Nature. I had a source last year tip me off to airspace violations at United States Air Force Plant 42<\/a> and other unknown \u201cdrone\u201d incursions into wildly sensitive installations<\/a>\u00a0that still occur to this day around the world from New Jersey to Europe<\/a>. Before I even spoke to this source, I had become interested in this subject because of UFOs and Nukes<\/a>, an incredibly comprehensive book containing documents and interviews with people who served at nuclear installations and other highly sensitive military bases who saw and reported strange things they cannot explain. After my source told me to \u201cpay attention to where this happens,\u201d I referenced UFOs and Nukes and got a yes. I feel like when I read this study, I\u2019m seeing what they pointed me towards.<\/p>\n Something is happening and has been happening since mankind split the atom (at least). I can report it, and scientists have now provided \u201cempirical support\u201d for it. We genuinely do not know what it is, and UFO reporters like George Knapp say they have never talked to someone who thinks they do know what is going on, but we are consistently finding data that suggests this is real to some degree. The world changed in a lot of ways this week, and this was one of them.<\/p>\n![\"Chart](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ie\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/41598_2025_21620_Fig2_HTML.jpg\")
<\/p>\n