BioParity.UFO / UAP research

7 papers for “Reported observations”

Results

PaperS1287

Unidentified aerial phenomena I. Observations of events

B.E. Zhilyaev, V.N. Petukhov, V.M. Reshetnyk. arxiv.org. August 23, 2022.

Zhilyaev and colleagues report daytime imaging, angular motion and brightness variation. Their dark-object distances depend on assumed albedo and atmospheric scattering; derived sizes and extreme speeds inherit those assumptions. Moon and water-tower comparisons offer limited calibration checks. A separate two-station claim depends on synchronization and matching the same object. These reported measurements do not establish craft identity or extraterrestrial origin.

Supplied v1 text and eight native layouts reviewed; raw observations unresolved
PaperS7774

Halo observations provide evidence of airborne cubic ice in the Earth’s atmosphere

Marko Riikonen, Mika Sillanpää, Leena Virta, Daniel Sullivan, Jarmo Moilanen, Ismo Luukkonen. eso.org. November 20, 2000.

The authors compare reported Chilean halo observations with ice-crystal models. A model match supports their proposed interpretation, while direct atmospheric cubic-ice sampling remains missing. Acknowledged scholarly comments and weather-data assistance have incomplete contact records. The supplied paper does not establish an explanation for all UAP or current scientific consensus.

Supplied paper text and all six page layouts reviewed
PaperS060

Basic Patterns in UFO Observations

Claude Poher, Jacques Vallée. jacquesvallee.net.

Visibility, duration and geographic patterns are compared across reported UFO observations.

Supplied text and figures reviewed
PaperS7764

"Down to Earth" Limits on Unidentified Aerial Phenomena in Ukraine (Comment on arXiv:2208.11215)

Abraham Loeb. arxiv.org. October 5, 2022.

Loeb argues that assumed high atmospheric speeds should produce strong frictional luminosity, and that a shorter inferred range could permit ordinary explanations. His conditional critique supplies no raw-observation refit or identified object. The paper acknowledges Galileo Project support and a Breakthrough Prize Foundation grant; it does not document the unnamed official visit separately reported in his book.

Supplied paper complete; author-host rendition separately collated
PaperS7683

Expanded vacuum-stable gels for multiplexed high-resolution spatial histopathology

Yunhao Bai, Bokai Zhu, John-Paul Oliveria, Bryan J. Cannon, Dorien Feyaerts, Marc Bosse, Kausalia Vijayaragavan, Noah F. Greenwald, Darci Phillips, Christian M. Schürch, Samuel M. Naik, Edward A. Ganio, Brice Gaudilliere, Scott J. Rodig, Michael B. Miller, Michael Angelo, Sean C. Bendall, Xavier Rovira-Clavé, Garry P. Nolan, Sizun Jiang. pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. July 7, 2023.

This proof-of-concept study introduces ExPRESSO for higher-resolution imaging of archived tissue on existing mass-spectrometry platforms. The reported lateral enlargement is about 3.7-fold, with axial compression, edge distortion and marker-specific signal limits. Alzheimer’s examples use six individuals, not hundreds of patients; vessel counts and image fields are nested observations. Nolan’s disclosed FDA funding and instrument-company interests are explicit. The study does not report UAP patients, a secret government approach or a clinical diagnostic trial.

Complete supplied XML text; original figures and supplements unreviewed
PaperS7721

An Argument for a Kilometer-Scale Nucleus of C/2019 Q4

Amir Siraj, Abraham Loeb. arxiv.org. September 12, 2019.

Siraj and Loeb argue that a roughly kilometer-scale Borisov nucleus better matches an assumed ordinary Oort-cloud mass budget. An eight-kilometer alternative produces substantial tension with that benchmark, without independently disproving the larger size. Their figure uses four points for three object families, including two alternative Borisov radii. Sparse Poisson bounds do not capture every observing or population uncertainty. This is a conditional argument using reported observations, not a new measurement campaign or artificial-origin finding.

Received written text and native layouts; originals and interpretation gaps

A curated public selection. Source review describes what was read; it does not establish that a claim is true. Our research approach