Chilluminati Podcast - Midweek Mini: Historical UAPs Study

Episode Date: February 11, 2026

This Minisode was originally uploaded with Episode 321: Richard Chase Part 2 - some of the topics discussed might be outdated. Subscribe to our Patreon to listen and watch the Minisodes as they release every week! http://patreon.com/CHILLUMINATIPODMike Martin - http://www.youtube.com/@themoleculemindset Jesse Cox - http://www.youtube.com/jessecox Alex Faciane - https://www.youtube.com/@StarWarsOldCanonBookClub/Editor: DeanCutty Producer: Hilde @ https://bsky.app/profile/heksen.bsky.social Show Art: Studio Melectro @ http://www.instagram.com/studio_melectro Logo Design: Shawn JPB @ https://twitter.com/JetpackBragginLINKS:JESSE: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00224545.2025.2541206 ALEX: [Editor's Note] Lost in the beehole of the internet. Do you have it? Let us know! MATHAS: https://www.su.se/english/news/articles/2025-10-20-unexpected-patterns-in-historical-astronomical-observations

Notice, notice, this midweek mini was recorded several months ago and may not be up to date with current events. For fresh minisode uploads with every episode, head to patreon.com slash Chaluminati pod. Oh, Chulamunots and welcome. Hey, hey. Hey, hi everyone. It's minisote time. Are you ready to have a minisode? Oh, well, hello there. I am.

What do you got? Jesse, you had to go find what you found. Oh, yeah, no, I had a whole, I have a whole thing for you guys.

I hope you're ready. It's fascinating. So I found this late at night when I was doing my should have been sleeping, but I was on Reddit instead. A lot of people have been wondering why it is some people not only just believe, but also heavily endorsed claims that can easily be disproven. Like, it's one thing to believe something that's,

fake, but it's another to stick to that belief after all the evidence has been clearly shown to you, and you are like 100% wrong. A new research study published in the Journal of Social Psychology tackles this thing. If you want to look it up, it's

called a symbolic show of strength, a predictor of risk perception and belief in misinformation. They did this study during the pandemic. It was for, I think they surveyed 5,535 people across eight countries to investigate beliefs in COVID-19 misinformation along with like other things.

But you know stuff like 5G networks were causing COVID or like that. All the crazy stuff. I'm curious that it was going to say. I feel like we've talked about this like our own theories. Oh, yeah. Many, many times. Yeah, this is like pretty much where we're at, which is interesting. So the biggest indicator they discovered on.

whether someone believed or not was how they viewed the prevention efforts in terms of symbolic strength versus weakness. So in other words, these people cared more about the appearance of giving in once their belief was questioned rather than the fact that their belief was a lie. They would rather live in the lie and know they were living in a lie than say you're right or give in to an authority figure. 100%.

But it gets interesting in a weird, like messed up way. So rather than consider the issue in the light of facts, people with this mindset, believing in a lie to the point that it makes no sense and makes fools of them, they're more likely to see it as a power move to say, yeah, I don't care. Which is interesting because you see in videos when like someone talks to a Magadood. Yeah, yeah. And then like gets them and they go, I don't care. Because it's not about that.

It's not about being proven wrong. It's about like a weird superiority of like, I know better than you. It's ideal. yours magic gaining your own space in your freeness of your mind or some shit like that. But this, I think you're also probably going to go into this, Jesse, but we've talked about this before. There's death. I forget how old the study's done now. It's a few more than just one of them.

But it's the idea that when your, whatever is you believe is you believe is criticized or question, your brain treats it like a personal attack. And like the same chemicals they get fired from me being like, hey, you smell today. or, you know, go take a shout, whatever you fucking is. Your brain takes it as a personal attack. When you attack somebody's core beliefs, your brain reacts the same way, thinking and treating it like a personal attack, which is where mindfulness, meditation kind of stuff can come in where you can feel that.

And then instead of giving into the reaction, be like, hang on. Because, like, even people who are willing to adapt their views, there's still that moment of, like, defensiveness and, like, you've got to take a minute. Sometimes it takes a day. You go away and come back. I feel like your defense. right to like kind of like stick up for yourself but you got to go in there being open minded yeah you got in there being like maybe i am wrong like but again you think about the the

strength versus weakness thing because when we get it's this is so here in tex is so like that so um yeah when people you know think symbolically this way about stuff the literal issue in this case fighting COVID-19 is secondary to the psychological war over people's minds, wearing a mask, giving in. Vaccines equals surrender. In addition, the study focused on attitudes about cryptocurrency and whether people saw crypto as an investment in terms of signaling independence from traditional finance. And again, same group as COVID-deniers were really heavily likely to be involved in crypto, but also falling for all sorts of misinformation and being.

heavily into conspiracies. But shockingly, a thing that I brought up on the show, and we've talked about before, the idea that, like, how can you believe these conspiracies, but not those conspiracies? Like, great example, Epstein Files. Like, how are people who believe in all these

conspiracies like Pizza Gate? Not buying into the Epstein files when some dudes who's definitely involved is like, no, it's nothing. Like, how is it? They're like, yeah, no, it's right. It's nothing. We need to move on. Because there's this is weird. dichotomy in this like in the sphere of like being wrong can't be wrong have to be right

but daddy says whatever daddy says is right and i don't go against daddy that's the thing turns out the study concluded this mindset is strongly associated with authoritarian attitudes including beliefs that some groups should dominate others and the support of an autocratic government or strong man who makes the choices who decides what's real and what's not and what's right and what's wrong is much more important to them, to society, to everything. Truth isn't even the point. It's about straight up just like control. And having control of your life, the things you make.

And it really comes down to a sense of complete uncontroll. And the only way to take care of it is to like be the most in control. And if it means lying to yourself, lying to everyone. but you're still in charge of that line. You know you're lying. It's all, it's fine. It's,

this is a fuck of, I love this kind of topic. Because it's all also that thing that we're originally woke come from, right? Like the original idea of woke is the idea of like, once you learn and see and understand reality or life as it is for real with all its greatness and terrible things, you can't unsee it. Right.

Your eyes are open. You're like, you're away to it. You've been convinced. You can't be unconvinced of something. Right. And the reality of life is it's. chaotic and scary and messy and not good guys always winning over bad guys and like you have to

get involved if you want your life to change anyway and that shit like being on the other side of like having like you know adult realizations in some way there's always that desire like inner desire for me to be like man i wish i could just go back to being stupid or like ignorant or not thinking about it and by allowing somebody that you believe is smarter than you and better than you whatever for whatever reasons defaulting to them you get the freedom of not having to think while also getting the luxury of thinking the person you're defaulting to is the smartest person in the world or whatever. And you don't have to worry about anything. Yeah. It's all about not having to exist as much as possible. Yeah, they, in this, they call them symbolic thinkers, but they're

saying symbolic thinkers nearly, for them, nearly any statement can be justifiable. The more outlandish or easily disprove something is, the more powerful you seem standing by it. Being an edge lord or contrarian online provocator for example you can outright lie do all these different things but being that sort of like i stick it to the man that is your own way of appearing authentic to others who think like you yep um they it kind of ends with saying like some people see this and and they see this link between like you know donald trump sending national guards into various cities. And it doesn't matter to them if it's right or wrong.

The desired end goal is the point. And it doesn't matter if it's a farce and goofy and they show. Like there is a very funny thing that trended a few, like maybe two or three days ago, which was during the, uh, no Kings Day marches and stuff. On Fox News, they showed like riots breaking out. And it was literally just marchers. singing and there was not it's the funniest video ever see because the lower third is just like chaos erupts and streets and it's like people slowly walking and it's that disconnect

that is like well doesn't matter what is happening it's what i want to be happening that's the most important and it's a fascinating look at at people who are like no it's not about reality it's about the symbols of things happening and how i can use that to seem strong in a world where I am definitely not. It's one of the things that's so frustrating. Like I have a personal experience just living out here is like I know people personally like this. And it's so frustrating when they when they seemingly want to engage in a topic that

requires a little like intellectual nuance or depth. And then the minute you bring up that stuff, they just shut down and are like, nope. And then just no longer there. They're not like they don't want that. They want you to agree with them, make them feel good and make them feel like they were right all along. Like in that,

I mean, it's the same thing with like. certain groups of Christians in this country, which is like, oh yeah, Jesus was like, give up all your money. Women are awesome. Like, he had all these different things that is absolutely not what a lot of modern day Christian is about. No, it's one of the reasons I stepped away from Christianity other than just like a lot of other stuff, but like the idea of reading about Jesus over and over again and like

from kindergarten through high school and then looking around me and going, nobody is doing what this man talks about that you're making me read. I feel like a crazy person. Like, you're like, no, but his teaching are good. You and Alastair Crowley too. You and Alastair Crowley just like Jesus, dude. His teachings were great. His actions were not.

Well, maybe Jesus's actions were great and his teachings were great. The thing is, we don't, we don't particularly know because after Jesus, a bunch of dudes just wrote down stuff. About 200 years after his death as well. And then other dudes pick and chose what the Bible would be. And that's why there's contradictions. And it's a mess. Maybe they get to decide. Yeah, but like, conceptually,

Jesus as a character, be real or otherwise, be son of God, be God, whatever, doesn't matter. Still had some, like, really cool ideas about being a good person. And that's stuff that it's shocking to me that we don't take that and run with it as just people. Because it's like, no, that's a good idea. Like, treat people well. He would have been a sick dude to smoke with. I bet you money. Jesus would have been so fun to just like chill and smoke with.

He probably was just a chill. just a chill dude who was like, why are we just trying to be good? Yeah. It's nuts. Before I jump to mine, Alex, I don't know what you have. Is it related in any way to like what Jesse was saying? I just have a story. I have like a ghost story from our paranormal. It's pretty quick. Give me it. Give me it. Yes. Ghost story. It is it. It is Reddit related. So that's pretty good. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. That's fair enough. I wake up in the morning and I read our feeling like, no, not much. we did.

Yeah, we wake up in the morning reading our parent nowhere more. Are you doing it? Are you doing on the toilet question? Uh, 50-50. Sometimes I'm like, sometimes I'm in my crypt. You guys poop a lot during the day? Are you like a couple like once or twice a day?

No. I'm like one big slammer. Really? Morning and night. I'm like a two to five or, you know, it depends on the day. First thing in the a.m. Right away. Like, all right.

I'm about that. All right. Tem's up a day. Yeah. That's familiar. It depends on what I do the previous night. This is called my daughter's imaginary friend, new thing she couldn't possibly know. I like this because I read it this morning and it just thought it was neat.

I don't really believe in this stuff or I didn't. Now I'm not sure what I believe. My daughter Emma just turned five last month around her fourth birthday. She started talking about her friend Clara. Typically, imaginary friend stuff at first. She'd set a place for Clara at dinner, talked to her while playing. normal kid things. My wife and I thought it was cute, but Clara was weirdly specific. Emma said Clara was seven years old, had long black hair and wore an old-timey dress with flowers on it. She

said Clara was sad because she missed her mom. About two months ago, things got strange. We were having breakfast and Emma suddenly asked why we took down Clara's picture. I had no idea what she meant. She insisted there used to be a picture of Clara in the hallway upstairs. We've lived in this house for three years and never taken down any pictures. Then last month, my wife was going through some boxes in the attic looking for old baby clothes and she found a photo album that belonged to the previous owners. They'd left it by accident, I guess. Inside was a photo from 1982.

A little girl, maybe six or seven, with long black hair wearing a floral dress. Written on the back, Clara, age seven, summer, 1982. My wife showed me and we just both stared at it. There's no way Emma had ever seen this photo. It was buried in a box under a bunch of other stuff in the far corner of the attic. Emma's never been up there. I asked Emma to describe Clara again. She described the girl in the photo perfectly.

The dress, the hair even said Clara had a tooth missing in the front, which you can see in the photo if you look close. We didn't tell Emma about the photo. We weren't sure what to say. A week later, Emma told us Clara doesn't complain anymore because she found her mom. She said it so casually like she was talking about a friend who moved. away. I did some research on the house. Found an old newspaper article from 1983. A seven-year-old girl named Clara Bennett died in a car accident about two miles from here.

Her family lived in our house from 1978 to 1985. The accident was in 1982, the same year as the photo. Emma hasn't mentioned Clara since the first time she said she found her mom. I keep trying to rationalize this. Maybe Emma saw the photo somehow and we forgot. Maybe. Maybe. Maybe it's just a weird coincidence. But the timing, the details, the way she described everything before we ever found that photo. My wife thinks Clara was real, that she was here and Emma could see her. I want to think there's a logical explanation, but I can't find one.

Has anyone else experienced something like this with their kids? I'm not scared exactly, just really unsettled. If Emma could see Clara, what else can she see that we can't? There you go. You know what is awesome about that? I'd realize just now that even though I don't believe in ghosts at all If my kid came to me and said

Hey Clara You took down the photo And then I found a photo in the attic of this kid I absolutely for my kid alone Would hang that photo up Oh yeah Even though I don't believe it I would hang the I was like Oh I would hung that photo up I would put it in a little frame

Hung it up back on the wall And even though I like, no, I think my kid's crazy. I still would have been like, I love my kids. So I'm going to do this for you. Yeah. I love that. I would have done that in a heartbeat.

I would do. Unless it was haunted, then it goes away. Yeah. I mean, it doesn't sound like, it just sounds like, uh, I don't know. I don't know what it sounds like. I love that sometimes little kids have these weird things where they're like say things they shouldn't know about dead family members or people in let they don't know it all. Or sometimes like weird lives, past lives I supposedly had.

I always find that fascinating. It freaks me out. it feels realer than other stories. It does. It's really bizarre. Even though it's like tropey, even almost the story. Like, yeah. Let me, let me, let me bring this minisode down with some ancient aliens boys. Bring it down.

But, but not actually ancient aliens, but really fucking fascinating. So a study has been released. And this study I knew has been going on for a couple months now. It finally got published. This is at Stockholm University. It's also published at a couple other places. Let me scroll down a look. Ioppscience.org, nature.

A bunch of other stuff. So basically, there was a study being done about transients in the Palomar Observatory Sky Survey. And this is the first study of its kind where what they did was they looked at transient starlight objects of unknown origin that have been identified in the first Palomar Observatory Sky Survey conducted prior to the first artificial satellite. They're looking at pictures taken from observatories on Earth before we ever had. satellites in the sky.

Ah, okay. All right. And they tested a speculative hypothesis that some transients are related to nuclear weapons testing or unidentified anomalous phenomena reports. And in a data set comprising daily data from November 19, 1949 to April 28, 1957, they looked at daily data for those years. Regarding the identified transience, nuclear testing, and UAP reports was created that's about 2,718 days of data, and results revealed significant,

and they mean off by 0.008 associations between nuclear testing being done on Earth and observed transients with transients 45% more likely to show up on dates within plus or within a day of a nuclear testing. So what you're saying is, when you say transients, do you mean stuff moving in the... of light that shows up in one photo and is gone in the next within the same minute or so.

Those things that we always see, basically. Yes, for days on which at least, basically they identified for days on which at least one transient was identified, significant associations were noted between total number of transients and total number of independent UAP reports per date to a 0.015 difference. For every additional UAP report on a given date, there was an 8.5% increase in number of transients identified. So when people on Earth were making UAP reports, they have photos that show there was an increased number of things they were seeing by 8.5%. So like people seeing UAPs and there was actually increase of things being seen by the cameras.

Small but significant associations between nuclear testing and number of UAP reports were also noted. Finding suggests associations beyond chance between occur, beyond chance between occurrence of transients in both nuclear testing and UAP report. reports. There's a huge, this is a whole study. That's just a few opening paragraph of the study. I'll obviously link it to you in case you want to read it later. I'm just going to read the little bit of article that was written about this by the thing. Researchers at Nordita, researchers at Norita, Assockholm University have analyzed flashes of light on astronomical plates from early 1950s and found statistical connections between the time of these flashes, nuclear weapons tests, and reports of UAP. The results are presented in two published studies,

published in scientific reports and publications of astronomical society of the Pacific. Researchers at Nordenut, Stockholm together with international colleagues at Vanderbilt University, have published two new studies that show that historical astronomical observations contain unexpected patterns. The results are based on short-lived flashes of light, captured on photographic plates from the early 1950s within the Vasco project, which is vanishing and appearing sources during a century of observations. The project analyzes digitized astronomical plates,

to identify sources that blink, disappear, or suddenly appear, and in this way better understand both natural and previously unexplained phenomena. Quote, today we know that short flashes of layer, often solar reflections from flat, highly reflective objects in orbit around the Earth, such as satellites and space debris. But the photographic plates analyzed in Vasco were taken before humans had satellites in space, says Beatriz Villarreal, a researcher at Norda at Stockholm University. The first article published in the scientific reports analyzes

106,000 flashes of lights or transients that look like stars appearing and disappearing within a single exposure. The study shows statistical connections between the phenomena, reports of UAP, and atmospheric nuclear weapons tests during the 1950s. The flashes were 68% more likely to occur the day after a nuclear weapons test than on days without. In addition, the number of flashes increases by an average of 8.5% for each report of UAP. When both these reports in nuclear tests coincided, the effects were additive, with more than twice as many flashes of light as on days without either nuclear tests or reports. Quote, the magnitude of the association between flashes of light and nuclear tests was

surprising, as was the very specific time at which they most often occurred, namely the day after a test. What they might represent is a fascinating question that needs further investigation, says Stephen Brule of Vanderbilt University. The second paper published in publications of Astronomical Society of the Pacific, specifically looks for signs of possible extraterrestrial artifacts in orbit around Earth before the first human satellite launch in 1957. The researchers looked, among other things,

for instances where multiple flashes of light were along a line or in a narrow ban, something that indicates reflection from flat, reflective objects in motion. Two interesting examples were identified, one of which occurred on July 27, 1952, the same night as the notable sightings of UAP over Washington, D.C., which is something we will cover one day, but there is photos and shit of UAPs that literally appeared over the Capitol building in Washington on that day. Shocking.

The same articles test the method that the research team recently published in the monthly notices of Royal Astronomical Society comparing how often the phenomena occur in the Earth's shadow where solar reflections cannot occur. The new article in PASP, which again studies more than 106,000 transient seen across the northern starry sky, shows a clear deficit of flashes of light in the earth's shadow, with one-third missing, suggesting that at least one-third of the phenomena were caused by solar reflections from highly reflective objects in high orbits. For a long time, single points of light on astronomical plates have been dismissed as defects, even when they look like real stars.

The new studies show that some of these phenomena are actually real objects and exhibit patterns that cannot be explained by chance or image noise. Quote, amidst what has been perceived as noise in the plates, there seems to be a genuine population of phenomena that correlate with, among other things, nuclear weapon tests or reports of UAP, and that are missing in the Earth's shadow. You don't get that kind of solar reflection from round objects like asteroids or dust of grain in space, which leaves streaks during a 50-minute exposure, but only if something is very flat and very reflective and reflects the sunlight with a short flash, says BHS Varyol. The researchers suggest that the results are unexpected

and indicate that some of the small dots on the plates may be due to reflections from physical objects in high orbit around the earth. This article was published two days ago. Crazy. That's pretty convincing. Like, that's pretty, uh, if we've been visited for as long as people think we have, if we would think they would be on, like,

we'd have images of them if we had before we had satellites and turns out, we might. That's the article I linked you as well that I just read from. I just wanted to bring the, I like, no, I don't have any input other than, uh, this is a fascinating study. people, you know, I've been following it for a little bit. And now that it's out, I'm excited to talk about it. And it's fucking interesting of what they've found.

Really fucking is. It makes you go, huh? Right? Like, these are people who are like much smarter than we are. Like, there is a pattern. There's something here. Something bizarre. And more interestingly, after nuke testing, which seems to be a constant fucking pattern

for whatever these things are as they show up 45% more after a nuke test. and for every report of a UAP, they have 8.5% more activity on their plate. It's weird. Yeah. It is like, I have so many questions about the information that they have. Right. Like how, you know, like what was that taken on? Like there's so, there's so many factors and questions I have.

I'm kind of like overwhelmed by it. Reading through this. I'm like, I was like, it's a lot. I wish we had like a person who was, I don't want to say space oriented, but you know, like, technically in like a specialist on this. So we could be like, all right, question. What does that mean? And what would this be? And how would that work?

Yeah. What they used. So they actually linked it. And they actually linked and said that they were identified in what they used was publicly available scanned images from the P-O-S-I survey that's available available on the website. Sure, sure. I'm saying like, that's how they got that. There's, you know, all right, you're taking a thing, then you're scanning it, and then like what kind of artifact, like there's so many things.

I'm not saying that affects the outcome of this, but I would love to know details about this kind of stuff because I feel like there's. Here, I'll just be the last bit that I'll maybe help explain. The process used to identify transients and eliminate misidentifications was conducted via an automated workflow, but blah, detailed on another article. In brief, transients were defined as distinct. star-like point sources present in the images that they grabbed from POSSI, e-red images that were absent both an image taken immediately prior to the POS red image

and all subsequent images. So it's something that blinked in between just in one image. The final criterion for classifying an object as a transient was that there were no counterparts either in PanStars DR1 or Gaia DR3, at least than 5 arcsec, whatever the fuck that means. The transient dataset contained the dates times coordinates of each transient identified. For many dates, transients were noted in multiple images reflecting observations of different locations in the sky.

The transient data was converted to an SPSS for Windows data file that included a single line for each date. So like, yeah, they went through it and like eliminated that way. But again, I don't know what DR PanStar's DR1 or Gaia DR3a is and like what they used for that. Yeah. And just at the very Eighty-

What I can understand is the problem, yeah. Yeah, yeah, yeah, I don't know. Yeah, techies of Reddit, who knows this stuff? I'm so curious. I guess tech is a Patreon for now, but yeah.

Yeah, so much of it is like my own preconceptions miss messing up my perception of it. Right, yeah, I don't really understand. Again, I don't know. It's fascinating that there seems to be a pretty tight correlation

with certain things, though. Like, yeah, yeah. Like, even if it's like a weird thing, there's a correlation between it and nukes. And that seems to, to make sense. That's so seemingly convinced, like seemingly definitively convincing, right?

To me, yeah, like, it's, it's up there. It's, that's not a coincidence. It's weak,

no, it's weird. It's fucking weird. Again, they went from 1949 to 1957. So they went for like seven or eight years of, of photos, 2000 something days of photos,

which was over a thousand, 100,000 photos they went through. It's nuts. So I'm putting it out there. I'm allowed to tantalize all those who, like, if they, things are real and we have been being observed in any way, of course they would be up there

before we have satellites up there. And it makes you fucking wonder, as always. It's a good stuff. It's a good fucking read. I'm going to throw this into the Discord too. I'm very curious if anybody in the Discord would know anything I'm better about like how like this is done. But I find it fascinating because it got published and like it's from Stockholm University. Like I don't know if that's a good or not, but it's people that are smarter than me. Right. Anyway, on that tantalizing note of what is out there. That's really a crazy one. The truth, man. Isn't it crazy? Yeah.

We could have been talking about having your brain in two separate consciousness is when it's disconnected. Something else. That's also fucked up. That's also fucked up. But that's... Thank you, everybody for supporting us at pageratron.com. So, that's your Luminati pot. We'll be back next week with another minisode. We appreciate you. We love you.

Bidu, bid you, bidi, bidoo. Bidu, bivore.