Paul Scott Anderson
@paulscottanderson.bsky.social
🇨🇦 space writer, proofer and social media assistant - EarthSky (@earthskyscience) | blogger - Fermi Paradoxica (@fermiparadoxica) | views are my own | ND | he/him
I had forgotten about that song, and I still love 80s music!
November 20, 2025 at 9:41 AM
I had forgotten about that song, and I still love 80s music!
(3/3) ... wrong? 🤔
bigthinkmedia.substack.com/p/how-a-scie...
The referenced letter is at the end of the original paper here, after references:
www.science.org/doi/10.1126/...
bigthinkmedia.substack.com/p/how-a-scie...
The referenced letter is at the end of the original paper here, after references:
www.science.org/doi/10.1126/...
How a scientific mistake from the 1970s derailed Mars exploration
What if the first search for life beyond Earth actually succeeded?
bigthinkmedia.substack.com
November 11, 2025 at 11:36 PM
(3/3) ... wrong? 🤔
bigthinkmedia.substack.com/p/how-a-scie...
The referenced letter is at the end of the original paper here, after references:
www.science.org/doi/10.1126/...
bigthinkmedia.substack.com/p/how-a-scie...
The referenced letter is at the end of the original paper here, after references:
www.science.org/doi/10.1126/...
(2/3) ... organics though, methyl chloride and methylene dichloride. They were assumed to be contaminants at the time, but similar ones have since been found by Curiosity and Perseverance. The “no organics” is what scientists later based their “no life” conclusion on. Was that conclusion ...
November 11, 2025 at 11:36 PM
(2/3) ... organics though, methyl chloride and methylene dichloride. They were assumed to be contaminants at the time, but similar ones have since been found by Curiosity and Perseverance. The “no organics” is what scientists later based their “no life” conclusion on. Was that conclusion ...
Great review of Loeb’s claims. Re the Wow! Signal though, I would just note that the recent analysis update from Mendez et al last August does support it being a real astrophysical signal, not just a glitch.
arxiv.org/abs/2508.10657
arxiv.org/abs/2508.10657
Arecibo Wow! II: Revised Properties of the Wow! Signal from Archival Ohio SETI Data
The Wow! Signal, detected in 1977 by the Ohio State University SETI project, remains one of the most intriguing unexplained radio transients. The most recent significant revision of its properties too...
arxiv.org
November 10, 2025 at 11:23 PM
Great review of Loeb’s claims. Re the Wow! Signal though, I would just note that the recent analysis update from Mendez et al last August does support it being a real astrophysical signal, not just a glitch.
arxiv.org/abs/2508.10657
arxiv.org/abs/2508.10657
Oh, ok. The PASP paper is here:
iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1...
The authors do say that multiple explanations are possible, and address plate defects further. They’re not saying that all transients in the database must be anomalous, but that some are harder to explain, like ones in alignments.
iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1...
The authors do say that multiple explanations are possible, and address plate defects further. They’re not saying that all transients in the database must be anomalous, but that some are harder to explain, like ones in alignments.
November 2, 2025 at 4:52 AM
Oh, ok. The PASP paper is here:
iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1...
The authors do say that multiple explanations are possible, and address plate defects further. They’re not saying that all transients in the database must be anomalous, but that some are harder to explain, like ones in alignments.
iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1...
The authors do say that multiple explanations are possible, and address plate defects further. They’re not saying that all transients in the database must be anomalous, but that some are harder to explain, like ones in alignments.
The authors *did* address at least some of the criticisms of Hambly & Blair in the second PASP paper and even listed their paper in the references section.
November 2, 2025 at 3:30 AM
The authors *did* address at least some of the criticisms of Hambly & Blair in the second PASP paper and even listed their paper in the references section.
That response is from February 2024, long before the 2 new peer-reviewed papers from Villarroel et al came out. They address the criticisms that have been made. And the sigma did go from 21.9 down to 7.6 in the new update, but still above 5. Some other scientists say it deserves investigation. Yes.
October 29, 2025 at 9:38 PM
That response is from February 2024, long before the 2 new peer-reviewed papers from Villarroel et al came out. They address the criticisms that have been made. And the sigma did go from 21.9 down to 7.6 in the new update, but still above 5. Some other scientists say it deserves investigation. Yes.
They make some interesting points, but I don’t know if any of the people in Metabunk are actually experts on astronomical plate imaging from the 50s? That’s who would be most qualified to assess all this imo.
October 22, 2025 at 3:50 AM
They make some interesting points, but I don’t know if any of the people in Metabunk are actually experts on astronomical plate imaging from the 50s? That’s who would be most qualified to assess all this imo.
Me too, I like consistency. 😉
October 7, 2025 at 7:24 AM
Me too, I like consistency. 😉
They did that too a while ago at the supermarket nearest me. No layout changes or anything, just where products were placed in different aisles. 🤷♂️🙄
October 7, 2025 at 7:10 AM
They did that too a while ago at the supermarket nearest me. No layout changes or anything, just where products were placed in different aisles. 🤷♂️🙄