A survey of70 cool giant planets reports a tentative exomoon candidate. Two transits and dependent treatments of Kepler data leave ordinary noise, blend and other-planet alternatives. Statistical planet validation and moon tests are separate; this is astronomy background, with no life or UAP detection.
Full supplied v1 manuscript; original and model checks remain openLingam and Loeb propose spectral edges from hypothetical extensive photovoltaic surfaces as possible technosignatures. Contrast and power estimates depend on assumed coverage, reflectivity and geometry. Vegetation, minerals, clouds and ordinary heat transport remain alternatives. The figures combine cited reflectance curves and a schematic orbital scenario. The paper reports no detected extraterrestrial arrays. Historical instrument forecasts, manuscript comments and work-level Starshot support are qualified separately.
All five supplied preprint pages and native layouts; conditional proposal and original gapsLin, Gonzalez Abad and Loeb model whether hypothetical industrial pollutants could be detected in an exoplanet atmosphere. Their exposure forecasts are conditional and supply no detected pollution or civilization.
Supplied preprint text and native layouts; conditional modelA simulation estimates HST recovery if the proposed Kepler-1708 moon exists. Seven of75 trials meet all requirements; conditional10±3% detectability is separate from the probability a moon exists. Optimistic systematics and JWST forecasts remain assumptions, with no independent detection or UAP claim.
Full supplied v2 manuscript; originals and simulations unverifiedThe authors find no compelling exomoon evidence among seven selected Kepler candidates. Archival transit analysis and author-reported2012 stellar spectra support conditional mass limits; physical and predictive checks reject candidate fits. Noise, starspots and model assumptions limit inference. This provides research-method context, with no independent moon or UAP confirmation.
Complete supplied manuscript; original rendition unresolvedLoeb and Turner propose tracking brightness changes with distance to help distinguish intrinsic illumination from reflected sunlight. The model requires assumptions about luminosity, geometry, spectrum and albedo. They retain conventional variability from phase, surfaces, outgassing, rotation and binary effects, plus cloud and geometry limitations for exoplanets. Historical telescope forecasts and inconclusive null results limit the proposal. The paper reports no artificial-light detection or replicated experiment.
Complete supplied preprint text and ten native layouts; original-version gapsA curated public selection. Source review describes what was read; it does not establish that a claim is true. Our research approach