I'd be really curious to see if another group of researchers would come to the same conclusions looking at the same data. I read an article about this study when it came out, and it caught my eye. Looking at the paper, I would have liked to see a clearer rationale about why the data was analyzed the way it was. For example, why did they look at a window of +1/-1 days around a nuclear test, instead of some other window? Do the statistical effects they are seeing go away if slightly different windows are chosen? If they only look at the period right before the test, is there still a statistically significant effect? If so, that would rule out the possible effects they mention due to contamination etc from the test.
devonsolomon • OP
0
The authors have spoken about replicating with soon to be digitized data sets (I believe they said Kazakstan and China).
Will definitely be interesting to see if this holds.
devonsolomon • OP
0
The authors compared 2,718 days of observations with dates of nuclear weapons tests and independent UAP reports. They found the transients were 45% more likely to appear within one day of a nuclear test (p=.008). On days where transients appeared, each additional UAP report was associated with an 8.5% increase in the number of transients observed (p=.015).