UAP - The Most Active Community Discussing UAP/UFOs

1537 readers

1 users here now

A community for civil discourse related to Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena. Share your sightings, experiences, news, and investigations. Everyone is welcome here, from believers to skeptics and everything in between.

New to Lemmy?

See the Getting Started Guide

Want Disclosure?

Declassify UAP offers a tool that automatically finds your representatives and sends them a prewritten message.

Community Spotlight

Useful Links

Community Rules

Follow the Code of Conduct.
Posts must be on-topic.
No duplicate posts.
No commercial activity.
No memes.
Titles must accurately represent the content of the submission.
Link posts must include a submission statement (comment on your own post).
Common Question posts must include a link to the previous question thread if previously asked.
Low effort, toxic comments regarding public figures may be removed.
Off-topic political discussion may be removed at moderator discretion.

Other Communities

!uapmemes@lemmy.world

If you're interested in moderating or have any suggestions for the community, feel free to contact SignullGone or HM05_Me.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

SignullGone@lemmy.world

HM05_Me@lemmy.world

-11

We Were Told There Is No Scientific Evidence for UFOs. Our Research Says Otherwise — Liberation Times | Reimagining Old News (www.liberationtimes.com)

submitted 2 months ago by Yawweee877h444@lemmy.world to c/uap@lemmy.world

2 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] SamuraiBeandog@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

The single paper that is linked as their research in this article itself states that the anomalies they are investigating have a reasonable likelihood of being contamination to the images. A comment on that paper points out other artifacts on the images that point to almost certainly being contamination.

They are also a further refutation of the common, yet unfortunate, critique that all transients are merely photographic or optical defects. That critique continues to circulate, despite being ruled out by our findings.

Their own papers, literally the one they link to in this article, state that this is a possible explanation.

Looking at a couple of the other papers they've published (I had to go to their main site to track them down) they also state that their findings can be explained by known phenomena of various types.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And this ain't it.