Critical Evaluation of Studies Alleging Evidence for Technosignatures in the POSS1-E Photographic Plates — mentioned by _alternator_

Fri, 24 Apr 2026 19:57:22 GMT

This precise point has been challenged, FWIW. See https://arxiv.org/pdf/2601.21946.

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Critical Evaluation of Studies Alleging Evidence for Technosignatures in the POSS1-E Photographic Plates — mentioned by _alternator_

Fri, 24 Apr 2026 19:49:37 GMT

Two things here: radiation exposure could explain this, since there's a period after exposure and before developing where you can get radiation exposure. Second, and perhaps more importantly, is that there's a detailed criticism of this line of research available, including evidence against the argument that these are more likely ±1 day of nuclear tests. See https://arxiv.org/pdf/2601.21946, and also https://arxiv.org/pdf/2402.00497 for a study of plate defect issues. I think the current paper continuing this line of research should be read cautiously. I don't love discounting ideas out of…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Critical Evaluation of Studies Alleging Evidence for Technosignatures in the POSS1-E Photographic Plates · HackerPapers discussions

Critical Evaluation of Studies Alleging Evidence for Technosignatures in the POSS1-E Photographic Plates — mentioned by _alternator_

Critical Evaluation of Studies Alleging Evidence for Technosignatures in the POSS1-E Photographic Plates — mentioned by _alternator_