9 transients appeared on a photographic plate, April 12 - 1950 Published Nature paper

Glass plate photography was the gold standard up until 1998-2000, photographing the night sky is no easy feat. Yet 7 years before Sputnik, 14 whole years before the first artificial satellite was launched into geostationary orbit. We have a photo of 9 "transients" on a glass plate appearing and disappearing 30 mins later from the next plate.

Surely one ore two transients isn't truly unusual but 9 was indeed a truly perplexing image worth further study.

The astronomers have ruled out all but 2 explanations: either these are reflections off of unnatural objects intentionally placed into geostationary orbit around Earth years before we had the capability to do so ,or it is the result of high energy contamination from radioactive dust landing on the lens during exposure. The kind of dust in that could only come from a nuclear bomb detonation.

here is the research paper not proof but still interesting history

www.nature.com...

a reply to: ContractedMercenary


I find that kind of writing hard to read.

So im gonna presume meteorites have been dismissed.?

From your link

Nine point sources appeared within half an hour on a region within ∼ 10 arcmin of a red-sensitive photographic plate taken in April 1950 as part of the historic Palomar Sky Survey. All nine sources are absent on both previous and later photographic images, and absent in modern surveys with CCD detectors which go several magnitudes deeper. We present deep CCD images with the 10.4-m Gran Telescopio Canarias, reaching brightness r∼26 mag, that reveal possible optical counterparts, although these counterparts could equally well be just chance projections. The incidence of transients in the investigated photographic plate is far higher than expected from known detection rates of optical counterparts to e.g. flaring dwarf stars, Fast Radio Bursts, Gamma Ray Bursts or microlensing events. One possible explanation is that the plates have been subjected to an unknown type of contamination producing mainly point sources with of varying intensities along with some mechanism of concentration within a radius of ∼ 10 arcmin on the plate. If contamination as an explanation can be fully excluded, another possibility is fast solar reflections from objects near geosynchronous orbits. An alternative route to confirm the latter scenario is by looking for images from the First Palomar Sky Survey where multiple transients follow a line

Interesting, they explored a lot of possibilities.

Interesting, thank you.

It may be worth mentioning that radars were getting hits from at least one orbiting body around that time, too, pushing that it was an actual body instead of bomb residue. That hit was the real "black knight" satellite.

And part of the rather large body of evidence explaining why some folks have been keenly interested in various anomalies for a long time. We tend to learn more from anomalies... eventually.

a reply to: ContractedMercenary

Well, open air nuclear testing and development was going on about that time, and detection systems were pretty primitive before satellites, so this would seem to be a likely candidate for the source of the anomaly.

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: ContractedMercenary

Well, open air nuclear testing and development was going on about that time, and detection systems were pretty primitive before satellites, so this would seem to be a likely candidate for the source of the anomaly.

Yes and it was a large number of tests. Somewhere over +2,000 and they were all high altitude open air tests.

Well, open air nuclear testing and development was going on about that time

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

No. The article clearly states the following:

In an epoch of time when many atomic bomb tests were carried out in the United States and in the Soviet Union, this is not an unreasonable explanation, as the Palomar Observatory in California is not located far from the testing sites in Nevada. However, since no official atomic bomb tests were carried between 1949 and 1951, we may also consider an alternative, astronomical explanation.

a reply to: Type1338

it was a large number of tests

No, there were zero tests at that time.

originally posted by: Direne
a reply to: Type1338

it was a large number of tests

No, there were zero tests at that time.

The article is 100% wrong.

a reply to: Type1338

That's irrelevant.

It sounds pretty good

a reply to: Direne

Okay...so you clearly "want" it to be aliens, and no other explanation will suffice.

If you believe for even a single second that no nuclear weapons tests were carried out, anywhere in the world, between 1949 and 1951 then I've got some choice waterfront property for sale I'd like to talk to you about!

You're right...it was ALIENS!

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

What I want or I do not want is irrelevant here. I'm just stating a fact: the article rejects the nuclear test hypothesis because, simply, there were no nuclear tests, contrary to what the other poster stated.

Your hypothesis that the transients were aliens is also rejected by the article: they give an astronomical source for your transients. Thus: neither nuclear tests, nor aliens.

The case is closed, though even this is irrelevant for both aliens and those testing nuclear bombs. Yet, it seems for the writers of paper these transients are relevant, somehow, for whatever reason. All of the writers have a belief in astronomy; they even dream of a world full of astronomers... and transients. I do respect their dreams. The issue here is this: whatever those transients were, astronomers, nuclear bombs, you, and me, we are all irrelevant for the transients.

a reply to: ContractedMercenary

Ever heard of the Black Knight satellite?

en.wikipedia.org...

Maybe it was that.

But im thinking, and as you suggest, there are other possibilities than unnatural objects intentionally placed into geostationary orbit.

Thanks for the replies, while i am a believer i unfortunately dont think we will be around for any verification in our time. maybe 100 years or so but who knows.

originally posted by: Direne
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

What I want or I do not want is irrelevant here. I'm just stating a fact: the article rejects the nuclear test hypothesis because, simply, there were no nuclear tests, contrary to what the other poster stated.

No, the article did not say no tests were carried out. It said no official tests were carried out. We are talking about a time when there was a secret cold war that was going on even behind the public cold war.

It's also possible that a nuclear reactor pile might have had an accidental release of radiation somewhere upwind that was never officially made public. At that time, reactor piles were primarily used for the production of weapons-grade material, so they were very secretive.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

No, the article did not say no tests were carried out. It said no official tests were carried out

You are correct. The paper add the adjective official . But that's as long as we can go. We need to make inferences on available data, and the available data is that no nuclear tests were carried out. Your scenario about accidental release of radiation somewhere upwind is true. Actually, and sadly, there were intentional releases of radioactive stuff in order to study the effects of radioactivity on large populations.

But again, we lack verification of nuclear tests during the period of the transients, and we lack evidence whatsoever of UFOs, thus a rational conclusion is that the event reported has an astronomical origin.

a reply to: ContractedMercenary



Could this explain?