Le’an

@UAPWatchers @LwMark1134 @Docneuroeo I may be 72 but I am still breathing 😉

@Lean46794432 @LwMark1134 @Docneuroeo Jeez Le... Lol 😂

🚨Are we being Sirius right now? Is this like some Rubik's cube puzzle?

@UAPWatchers @LwMark1134 @Docneuroeo Oops or not here he comes 🤪

@UAPWatchers @iluvbkk 🤣

@iluvbkk Val Thor has aged well.

@UAPWatchers @LwMark1134 @Docneuroeo Musical handcuffs? Or a little bondage ??

@LwMark1134 @Docneuroeo Love a plot twist lol

Sent you a dm I tried posting directly on your page but I am not very savvy with technical details of social media meanwhile I am trying to make files for UAP/ Phenomenon for over 4000 videos and photos lol wish me luck ! The DM contains a video and photo of me asking a response to an orb enjoy .

@Lean46794432 @EngagingThe @YouTube Are these portals where orbs and crafts are entering our dimension?

I am an experiencer. So this week’s episode of SLF lets me share more personal stories of high strangeness. Please join our premiere and live chat tomorrow at 6pm PST and share your stories! #13 ALL ABOUT THE WOO - Sound, Light & Frequency youtu.be/wqAqU9Xf_Zc?si… via @YouTube

Video did appear lol

Can you turn orange for me?

I posted the video on my page I am trying to assemble a UAP file I have over 4000 videos and photos and not very savvy with social media and tech skills I meant to send the video and photo to your page but only the photo was sent without the video lol and it went via DM oh lord I need a few classes !

@BonnieMason71 hope all is well My friend, have not seen you on here lately 🌹

@UAPWatchers @digijordan I agree 💯 I didn’t see it coming so blind at times !

@digijordan If you had said that to me a few months ago, I would of probably disagreed. Now... I see it.

🚨Avi Loeb's Cosmic Ray Argument Does Not Debunk Beatriz Villarroel's Transients Research I have to be honest here, I am disappointed in Avi Loeb, the man that tried to convince the world that unusual comets were spacecraft. Not because he offered a skeptical explanation for Beatriz Villarreols work, after all skepticism is part of science. Plate defects, cosmic rays, instrumental artifacts all have to be considered. Anyone looking at old photographic sky surveys has to deal with those problems head on, and Beatriz Villarroel's work has never pretended otherwise. What really bothers me about Loeb's latest article is the sudden confidence. Keep in mind that this is the same Avi Loeb who has spent years asking the public, the media, and the scientific establishment to keep an open mind about the possibility that unusual astronomical objects could be artificial. He pushed hard on Oumuamua. He has continued to push hard on interstellar objects. He has argued that we shouldn't dismiss technological hypotheses simply because they make people uncomfortable. That was the whole point of his public brand, look at the data, don't let taboo decide the conclusion, and don't allow scientific arrogance to shut down uncomfortable possibilities too early. Now Beatriz Villarroel and her collaborators are doing something very similar with historical sky survey data, and suddenly the answer is apparently simple as far as Loeb is concerned... cosmic rays. That's not a debunk, it's a hypothesis and right now, Loeb is treating his hypothesis with far more certainty than the evidence allows for. In his latest Medium piece, Loeb argues that unexplained lights in Apollo era imagery and transient point sources on Palomar plates may be explained by energetic particles striking film or photographic plates. He notes that some blue light artifacts appear outside the lens covered region of Apollo film, which is a fair point for that specific subset of imagery but he is also ignoring the fact that the astronauts witnessed the lights outside of camera clicks. He then extends that logic toward the Palomar transient problem, arguing that the typical photographic plate area and exposure time could produce large numbers of cosmic ray impacts, some of which may appear point-like if the incidence angle is close enough to perpendicular. But that is where the problem begins. Loeb isn't simply saying, "Cosmic rays are a possible contamination source." Everyone and anyone that is serious already knows that. He is implying that this mechanism may account for the population of anomalous Palomar transients associated with Villarroel's work. That is a much stronger claim, and it needs more than a back of the envelope estimate. Villarroel’s research isn't built on one weird dot on one plate. The work concerns transient, star-like sources in the first Palomar Observatory Sky Survey, taken before Sputnik, before the human satellite era. In the 2025 Scientific Reports paper by Stephen Bruehl and Beatriz Villarroel, the authors analyzed daily data from November 19, 1949 through April 28, 1957 and reported statistically significant associations between transient detections, nuclear testing windows, and UAP report dates. Their abstract states that transients were 45% more likely within plus or minus one day of nuclear testing, and that for days with at least one transient, each additional independent UAP report corresponded to an 8.5% increase in the number of identified transients. Of course that doesn't prove alien technology or orbital craft. It doesn't prove a non human presence. But it absolutely does mean the data deserves more than a generic "cosmic rays can make spots" dismissal. Loeb's weak argument would be stronger if Villarroel's claim were "We found random dots on old plates." But that is not the full claim. The stronger parts of the research involve timing, clustering, alignment, absence in follow up exposures, and the pre-Sputnik context. Scientific American summarized the work by noting that Villarroel's team used digitized Palomar Sky Survey plates from before Sputnik specifically to reduce the possibility of modern satellite contamination, and identified more than 107,000 transient candidates under the VASCO project. That's an important point because cosmic rays are not magic. They don't automatically explain every point-like transient simply because they can affect photographic emulsions. To function as a full explanation, they need to reproduce the observed properties of the data. They need to explain why certain transient populations appear with reported temporal associations. They need to explain the reported deficit in Earth's shadow if that result holds up. They then need to explain aligned multiple transient events if those are not statistical coincidences. They need to explain why the objects appear in one exposure and not in immediate comparison exposures in the manner described by the researchers. They need to explain the actual morphology, distribution, plate position, detection pipeline behavior, and negative controls. That is the difference between proposing a control and claiming a debunk. Loeb points to the number of possible cosmic ray hits during a typical Palomar exposure and estimates that some could appear point-like. Ok Fine. That is a useful calculation. But a rate estimate is not the same as an end to end reproduction of the phenomenon. A real debunk would require showing that cosmic ray events, processed through the same plates, same scanning history, same detection methods, and same selection criteria, reproduce the same transient population Villarroel's team is discussing otherwise, it's just a plausible contaminant being presented as a conclusion. The irony here is hard to miss. When Loeb argues for possible artificiality in interstellar objects, he rightly complains that many scientists reject the hypothesis before doing the work. He says unusual data deserves unusual attention. He says the scientific community shouldn't ridicule frontier questions. He says we should collect better data instead of protecting old assumptions, and I agree with that. So why does Beatriz Villarroel's work not get the same treatment? Villarroel is not some random internet personality throwing screenshots into a thread. She is an astronomer and theoretical physicist associated with the Nordic Institute for Theoretical Physics, and Scientific American identified her as the driving force behind the two 2025 papers on the Palomar transients. One was published in Scientific Reports after a six month peer review process, and the other appeared in Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific. Again, peer review doesn't make a claim true, but it does mean the work deserves to be engaged on its actual arguments, not flattened into glib statements like "old plates have artifacts." The best rebuttal to Villarroel would not be a blog post saying cosmic rays exist. The best rebuttal would be a direct reproduction study. I suggest that Avi takes known plates, model cosmic ray incidence. Compare morphology, angular distribution, plate edge behavior. Compare shadow region rates, aligned multiple events and immediate red and blue exposure behavior. Compare the full statistical timing against nuclear test dates and historical UAP reports. Then show whether cosmic rays actually reproduce the same results. That would move the discussion forward. Loeb's piece doesn't do that. He is also mixing up categories. Apollo film artifacts and Palomar survey transients aren't the same dataset. They are not the same observing system. They are not the same scientific question. Apollo images showing blue artifacts outside the lens area may be strong evidence for particle hits on those specific frames. But using that to dismiss the Palomar transient literature isn't science, it's analogy dressed up as resolution. And the larger issue with this is that "cosmic rays" has become the new "balloons" or "swamp gas" in some parts of the scientific conversation. It is a real explanation in some cases, but frankly it's also a lazy escape hatch when used too broadly. If the answer is cosmic rays, prove it against the dataset. Don't just announce it because the alternative is uncomfortable. There is a responsible middle ground here. Beatriz Villarroel's research may ultimately turn out to involve a mixture of plate defects, cosmic rays, contamination, atmospheric effects, statistical artifacts, unknown natural phenomena, and possibly something more interesting. That is exactly why it deserves deeper investigation. The correct position is not blind belief. The correct position is that the data remains unresolved until the proposed explanations actually reproduce the evidence. Loeb should know that better than anyone. He built his modern reputation on the argument that scientific culture often mistakes conservatism for rigor. He warned that unusual possibilities can be prematurely dismissed because they challenge institutional comfort. He asked people to consider artificial explanations for astronomical anomalies without treating the idea itself as forbidden. That same standard should apply here. If Oumuamua deserved open minded analysis, then so do the Palomar transients. If interstellar objects deserve technological hypotheses, then pre-Sputnik vanishing stars deserve proper investigation. If we shouldn't mock possible alien probes in deep space, then we shouldn't casually dismiss Beatriz Villarroel's work with a broad cosmic ray argument that hasn't yet carried the full burden of proof. Science does not move forward by choosing which anomalies are fashionable enough to protect Dr. Loeb. Loeb may well be right that some historical UFO imagery has been confused with energetic particle effects. In fact, he almost certainly is right in some cases. But that isn't the same as debunking Villarroel's work. The real question is whether cosmic rays can explain the specific structure, timing, distribution, and statistical behavior of the Palomar transient population. Until that is shown, this is not a debunk. It's a lazy attempt to close the door before the hard work has been done, and coming from Avi Loeb, that is exactly what makes it so disappointing. #BeatrizVillarroel #AviLoeb #VanishingStars #VASCOProject #UAP #UFOs #PalomarSkySurvey #UAPDisclosure #Astronomy #CosmicRays @DrBeaVillarroel Loebs article: avi-loeb.medium.com/we-should-not-…

Moondog

@UAPWatchers @InfinityDisclsd I sent Dm

@Lean46794432 @InfinityDisclsd What do you mean?

@UAPWatchers @InfinityDisclsd I just tried to post a program on YouTube for our experiencers I sent it to you in dm I photographed the UAP watcher page too I’ll dm it to you I did the compliance got it and still could. It post

@UAPWatchers @InfinityDisclsd By the way Jay the UAP watcher page is not allowing me to post why??

Science will always be about data one’s own studies and hypothesis and capital M the money to fund it There is more to the Phenomenon than the nuts and bolts and consciousness gets studied with programs and money when it’s to weaponize it !! The art of communication ,how to explore with honesty pulling information from historical context which we have a wealth of information here to pull from . I get it we need to look outside the box our backyard is infinite humanity is compartmented purposefully, so what is the bigger picture?? What is the end result ? One for All and All for one ?? I think there is one obvious answer !

Yes John it’s been cloudy 🌥️ but they love the clouds my shots are low visible to my eyesight yours are high and amazingly revealing. I am 72 now lol and they seem to want to help me out coming inside and being more comfortable these days with me . I am reviewing the older film and only for my own purposes putting together my perspective on the phenomenon. My daughter gifted me a all about my mom journal /journey wants me to document my life the book is sitting next to me with the pens she bought also Do I start the day I realized I am here ? My mother was always amazed an infant could recall a moment as I did , describing it so perfectly !@JohnBel34148836 @UAPWatchers Jay you extended your friendship never doubting me you embraced the hidden different one and I am very grateful it took a lifetime for me to find you .2 more reveals one is almost done and I don’t know if the last one comes with possibilities I am a bit selfish .. there were 4 first one is for me personally the 2nd was 1978 I saw Trump as president told my family and close friends what a conversation that day I was flying to Vegas meditating into my a nap and awoke to the premonition nothing is a coincidence Guys !! And who knows maybe my first personal one will have impact on the last one ! John and Jay , thank you for your friendship I appreciate you ! Blessings 🌹

@Lean46794432 Good then it clouds up fast lol

@JohnBel34148836 how are skies on your side tonight ? I Have been reviewing videos from 4 years ago Definitely a pattern of the 3 smaller orbs .(. zero pt energy ?) the blank area is showing fluidity and then new material/orbs are seen ..large white orbs 3 again minimum have another function. We should talk … say hi to Dorothy,,

Listen closely “can you turn orange for me?.. watch it happen

Yes I had been seeing orbs and craft appearing in the same spot for 4 years I knew there must be a portal there ! I had spoken to a close friend the day before and said I am going to ask to be shown the portal! I meditated and asked please show me and the next day it appeared I dont believe in coincidences at least not for me ! My life has always had signs I ask for them and not simple signs very relevant and not easy to come . I was told about Mr Bledsoe via a friend I understand he connects to orbs . I myself started meditating at a very young age and started out of body when I was age 3 i was drawing pictures putting them under my pillow each night so I could go places and control my dreams i would find myself above my body and I would go I could describe streets and places I never physically been to. When I started writing I would write where I was and continued the journey from there precognition set in along with heightened awareness and consciousness. With the good you also see the bad and closed a few windows when I saw my dad’s death . My maternal grandmother was the same as I .its been quite a journey I feel very grateful everyday