RT @DrBeaVillarroel: Glad to share a freshly submitted paper (now under peer review) from the VASCO team, led by Prof. Steve Bruehl. We use…

RT @DrBeaVillarroel: Glad to share a freshly submitted paper (now under peer review) from the VASCO team, led by Prof. Steve Bruehl. We use…

RT @DrBeaVillarroel: Glad to share a freshly submitted paper (now under peer review) from the VASCO team, led by Prof. Steve Bruehl. We use…

RT @DrBeaVillarroel: Glad to share a freshly submitted paper (now under peer review) from the VASCO team, led by Prof. Steve Bruehl. We use…

Glad to share a freshly submitted paper (now under peer review) from the VASCO team, led by Prof. Steve Bruehl. We use machine learning to separate likely real transients from plate defects in a sample of 107,875 events. If correlations were spurious, they should weaken as artifacts are removed. Well...they don’t. Instead, the correlations strengthen as the sample gets cleaner. We see: (1) Stronger Earth shadow deficit (2) Stronger nuclear-test correlation (3) Highest in the highest-probabili...

🚨Nuclear Tests, Missing Objects, and a New Paper That Corroborates Vasco's Findings There's a new replication paper out looking at those Palomar sky survey plates from the 1950s. Using the same dataset Villarroel and Bruehl worked with, but this time Brian Doherty ran the analysis independently to see if the claims hold up, and they did. We're talking about thousands of one off light events captured on photographic plates between 1949 and 1957. They show up once, then they're gone. No matchi...