Pre-Sputnik “Star-Like” Study Finds Peer-Reviewed “Empirical Support for the UAP Phenomenon”

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’t know, and unidentified does not mean alien. Unidentified is simply a beacon signaling to scientists where they should get to work.

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 “Results revealed significant (p = .008) associations between nuclear testing and observed transients, with transients 45 percent more likely on dates within + /- 1 day of nuclear testing.”

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 “transients” observed in the sky before humans put things in the sky associate to nuclear testing on the ground.

This is nuts.

It’s 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’s wildly secret security clearances! I think a big reason why this study fell so flat this week is the professional debunkers aren’t qualified to overrule actual scientists who scrutinized this study to the hilt, and they know it (which is why West is babbling on about “independent replication,” even as Stanford scientist Garry P. Nolan explains how this paper published in Nature is describing independent replication).

I tend to believe that there wasn’t 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’t get people instantly up in arms tends to get drowned out by our media environment. It’s 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 as my best example that this is real, but this is better. It’s real science that anyone can try for themselves and spark more detailed inquiry to its conclusions.

“A transient was 45 percent more likely to be observed on dates within a nuclear test window (day of test + /- 1 day) compared to dates outside of a nuclear test window,” wrote the study’s authors. “Significantly more transients were observed on dates within a nuclear testing window (5 percent trimmed mean = 23.40) than outside of a nuclear testing window (5 percent trimmed mean = 8.55; Mann–Whitney U = 431,649.5, p = 0.007).”

I’ll admit I’m 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, so I’ll 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 “limited value” of UAP reports because they were so common “(at least one report on 89.3 percent of study dates),” which led them to two approaches to “test associations between the number of UAP reports and number of transients observed on a given date.”

“The first approach simply examined the correlation between number of transients and number of UAP sighting reports on a given night,” they wrote. “This analysis was restricted to dates on which at least one transient occurred (n = 310), 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’s rho = 0.138, p = 0.015). A scatterplot of this association is presented in Fig. 2.”

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 and other unknown “drone” incursions into wildly sensitive installations that still occur to this day around the world from New Jersey to Europe. Before I even spoke to this source, I had become interested in this subject because of UFOs and Nukes, 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 “pay attention to where this happens,” I referenced UFOs and Nukes and got a yes. I feel like when I read this study, I’m seeing what they pointed me towards.

Something is happening and has been happening since mankind split the atom (at least). I can report it, and scientists have now provided “empirical support” 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.