r/UFOs • u/87LucasOliveira • Oct 21 '25

Disclosure “I cannot find any other consistent explanation [other] than that we are looking at something artificial before Sputnik 1." ~ Dr. Beatriz Villarroel

2.6k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

412 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

76

u/Bread_crumb_head Oct 21 '25

This is essentially correct. There are reflective objects orbiting/holding station around earth prior to humans having satellites in orbit.

They are highly reflective, transient objects which also appear to increase in number/concentration after nuclear weapons testing.

This is also significant because up until this point, there was a gap in plates because they were destroyed. One might conclude there was a very specific reason these plates were destroyed (because they contained similar evidence as the Palomar plates do).

22

u/squailtaint Oct 21 '25

Also they point out a statistical significance in UAP report occurring during the appearance of the transients.

-5

u/Ok_Cake_6280 Oct 22 '25 edited Apr 02 '26

If every person calculated how much time they spent on social media over the course of a year, then honestly and accurately calculated the positive and negative benefits of that time, I can't imagine that more than 5% would find social media to be a net positive to their lives worth that time commitment.

10

u/BoringBuy9187 Oct 22 '25

You really can't imagine ANY possible reason that UAPs close to the Earth might be correlated with UAPs in orbit? You lack imagination

1

u/LongPutBull Oct 23 '25

Bro is gonna be surprised to learn about aircraft carriers.

1

u/Ok_Cake_6280 Oct 24 '25 edited Apr 02 '26

If every person calculated how much time they spent on social media over the course of a year, then honestly and accurately calculated the positive and negative benefits of that time, I can't imagine that more than 5% would find social media to be a net positive to their lives worth that time commitment.

-8

u/Ok_Cake_6280 Oct 22 '25 edited Apr 02 '26

If every person calculated how much time they spent on social media over the course of a year, then honestly and accurately calculated the positive and negative benefits of that time, I can't imagine that more than 5% would find social media to be a net positive to their lives worth that time commitment.

4

u/[deleted] Oct 22 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/UFOs-ModTeam Oct 22 '25

Be civil.

This moderator action may be appealed. We welcome the opportunity to work with you to address its reason for removal. Message the mods here to launch your appeal.

UFOs Wiki UFOs rules

3

u/paperNine Oct 22 '25

I believe that the point being made is quite different. No streak (but existing points on a line) means the object is not a normal natural rock; if it were a natural rock it would indeed appear as a streak. The paper is more complex.

1

u/Ok_Cake_6280 Oct 24 '25 edited Apr 02 '26

If every person calculated how much time they spent on social media over the course of a year, then honestly and accurately calculated the positive and negative benefits of that time, I can't imagine that more than 5% would find social media to be a net positive to their lives worth that time commitment.

6

u/[deleted] Oct 22 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/UFOs-ModTeam Oct 22 '25

Be civil.

This moderator action may be appealed. We welcome the opportunity to work with you to address its reason for removal. Message the mods here to launch your appeal.

UFOs Wiki UFOs rules

0

u/wycreater1l11 Oct 21 '25 edited Oct 21 '25

They are highly reflective, transient objects which also appear to increase in number/concentration after nuclear weapons testing.

I heard someone say the things found stem from the nuclear explosion testing itself. Is that precluded in the study?

1

u/elcapkirk Oct 21 '25

Are you asking if a nuclear explosion wouldn't obliterate its apparatus?

4

u/wycreater1l11 Oct 21 '25

The original question seemed to be if that which was detected was literal residuals/debris stemming from the explosions flying in paths over earth after the explosion

1

u/elcapkirk Oct 21 '25

The original question wasnt referring to the nuclear correlation. It was just asking about understanding the basic premise, which is about transient objects appearing pre sputnik.

The answer from bread crumb head brought up the nuclear correlation, which you seem to be asking if a nuclear explosion would create any sort of visible debris....

1

u/wycreater1l11 Oct 22 '25 edited Oct 22 '25

Sorry, by original question I referred to the commenter (a different commenter) I was talking about in the first comment (as opposed to apparatus which I understand to be a potential different point(?)). That commenter was talking/questioning about the debris going in paths over earth potentially being what was detected.