Crap Zap (Sabrina)

Idgaf about spin/sides - I want FACTS!
I'm only offended by those easily offended.
The paranormal's fun; scientific explanations are even better!

[Crap Zap (Sabrina) @CrapZap]

Since nobody will 👀- hit it ChatGPT:
🌐✨The Internet Archive is our digital time capsule, preserving history, culture, & knowledge.
Let’s rally to protect this treasure for future generations!📚 #SaveTheInternetArchive #FutureOfKnowledge #DigitalHeritage
https://t.co/Z1KC90lX1C

[Crap Zap (Sabrina) @CrapZap]

@Lkbrass_COM @inexorable_swe @POTUS …Ult Fecal Orators
Uberly Feckless Omnigoobers
Unreasonably Funded Officials
Underhanded Financial Oprtrs
Unacctable Fiscal Outlaws
Unattractive Freak Officials
Unfortunately Fktarded Orbiters
Ultra-wealthy&Fkin Outlandish
Unbelievably Fktarded Opponents
Undesirable Friends of🤭

[Crap Zap (Sabrina) @CrapZap]

@Lkbrass_COM @inexorable_swe @POTUS Too many options🤭
Underage Fornicating Outlaws
Underhanded Financial Obstinance
Undesirable Fiscal Opportunists
Unbelievably Fractured Oligarchs
Unbridled Fiscal Operators
Underhanded Fact Obfuscators
Unintelligent Flippant Orations
Unnaturally Fat Orange
Unwanted Floppy Ogars…

[Crap Zap (Sabrina) @CrapZap]

@IsaInsane1 @inexorable_swe Don't let him deceive you... He "forgot" the 'P.'
Pineal = Alien P 😳🤣

[Crap Zap (Sabrina) @CrapZap]

The Lost Art of Forehead Sweat" (Season 11, Episode 4)

[Para Nørmal @ParaN_rmal]

George Knapp addresses Bob Lazar's false education credentials

[Crap Zap (Sabrina) @CrapZap]

@DyingLightGame What happened to the 2025 DL2 winter event? It was working, now it's missing for both of us!

#DyingLight2Problems #DyingLight

[Crap Zap (Sabrina) @CrapZap]

@grok @marcharles8789 @paulsanderson @GarryPNolan @Manning123Sm @MickWest @grok How do the numbers of adverse COVID vaccine events compare to the numbers of adverse events from the COVID virus?

[Mick West @MickWest]

Nothing? There are two detailed threads on Metabunk with months of discussion, identifying several issues and lines of possible investigation.

https://t.co/du9akRlmjX

https://t.co/xUvAfZFCEt

It's a lot, so there's an AI summary below.

So, suggesting independent investigators like Metabunk are ignoring this is a bit silly - especially if you've not done any work yourself.

Want to discuss? Go to Metabunk.
---------------------------------------------------------

Metabunk's Analysis of the Palomar Anomalies

The Metabunk community conducted an in-depth, skeptical analysis of preprint papers by Beatriz Villarroel and collaborators, examining "transients" and "vanishing objects" in the 1949–1957 Palomar Observatory Sky Survey (POSS-I) photographic plates. These papers suggest connections to artificial objects, sunlight reflections, nuclear tests, or unidentified anomalous phenomena (UAP). Discussions across two threads reveal significant methodological, statistical, and interpretative flaws, prioritizing mundane explanations like photographic artifacts over exotic claims. Below is a detailed synthesis, ordered by impact, tailored for a general scientific audience. Attributions have been verified against thread content, noting only significant contributions (e.g., originating or substantively advancing a point with analysis, data, or critique). Minor mentions or agreements are omitted for focus.

Anomalies Likely Photographic Artifacts: The transients—brief, star-like spots appearing in one plate but not others—are attributed to photographic emulsion flaws or digitization artifacts, not celestial phenomena. Hambly and Blair (2024) argue that differences in image profiles (narrower for transients) stem from emulsion defects during pre-digitization plate copying, not sub-second flashes from orbiting objects. Mick West emphasizes this as a parsimonious explanation, noting that 1950s glass plates were prone to scratches, dust, or chemical inconsistencies during development, and references Hambly & Blair's critique. Ann K highlights that long-exposure plates (20–40 minutes) would show streaks for moving objects, not point-like transients, and stresses verified flaws in plates from copying processes. Flarkey notes degradation in plate copies could mimic transients, viewing the papers as a "hit back with more data" against Hambly & Blair but still biased toward sensational claims.

Statistical Flaws in Correlations: Claims linking transients to nuclear tests or UAP reports suffer from statistical weaknesses. The papers use a ±1 day window around 124 nuclear tests across 2,818 days, which Mick West calls "sloppy science" due to a 1 in 7 chance of random coincidence. Ann K points out non-random scheduling—tests and plates were often taken on weekdays—invalidating assumptions of randomness and inflating correlations. Yoshy critiques the low Spearman's rho (0.14) for UAP-transient links, noting it achieves significance (p=0.008) only due to large sample sizes, not predictive power, and could correlate with unrelated events like holidays; further, large samples yield small p-values even for trivial effects in Mann-Whitney tests. Rory adds that three-day windows and the "dirty" UFOCAT database (filled with misidentifications and weather events) exacerbate coincidences tied to human/climate cycles.

Earth's Shadow Hypothesis Questioned: The papers propose a deficit of transients in Earth's shadow, implying sunlight-reflecting objects like geosynchronous satellites (pre-dating human launches). Beku-mant identifies critical flaws using the EarthShadow GitHub repository for conical modeling: the shadow is modeled as a cylinder rather than a cone in critiques, leading to an overestimated sky fraction (1.15% vs. ~0.53%); simulations of 5,399 sources show 0.7% in shadow (a surplus, not deficit), and expected counts (e.g., 2.3–2.5 for 434 sources) don’t support the reported 21.9σ significance. Mick West questions arbitrary altitude assumptions (e.g., 42,164 km geocentric), notes the shadowed area at GEO is ~0.5% of the sky, and highlights inconsistencies between hemisphere and full-sky calculations in the papers.

Methodological Biases and Data Issues: The reliance on noisy 1950s POSS-I plates, without cross-verification from other observatories (e.g., Lick or Yerkes), is seen as a bias toward ambiguous data that permits speculative UAP links. Mick West notes modern telescopes or radar would detect objects >10 cm, making historical data a questionable choice implying design to foster arguments for pre-satellite anomalies. Yoshy highlights cherry-picking in small plate crops (e.g., 10×10 arcmin vs. full 60×60 arcmin), which may misinterpret random defects (from dirt, meteors, or aircraft) as aligned transients, relating to the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy. Boguesuser explains that differences between DSS1 and DSS2 digitization processes could introduce artifacts, and no full-plate bounding box analyses were conducted to rule out noise. Rory emphasizes the UFOCAT database's unreliability, containing misidentified events or media-driven reports, and suggests checking overlapping observatory views to confirm plate-specific artifacts.

Implausibility of Exotic Explanations: Exotic interpretations—artificial objects, UAP, or nuclear test links—are deemed implausible. Ann K argues that pre-satellite era transients cannot be human-made, long exposures would produce streaks (not spots) for moving sources like satellites or probes, and questions mechanisms for reflective UAP in inefficient orbits. Mick West notes the lack of causal mechanisms linking transients to nuclear tests or UAP sightings, with altitude assumptions being arbitrary, and the inability to rule out mundane causes like emulsion irregularities, dirt, airplanes, or meteors. Rory rhetorically questions the focus on old data over modern surveys, suggesting bias toward findings aligned with ETI hypotheses without justification for assuming any authentic transients exist.

Efforts Toward Verification: Metabunk members have actively worked to verify claims. Boguesuser developed Python and Rust scripts to download the full POSS-I dataset (~900 GB) from STScI servers, enabling independent analysis, and recommended tools like SExtractor for source detection. Beku-mant compiled a CSV of 5,399 vanishing sources with extracted metadata (e.g., RA, Dec, plate numbers, DATE-OBS) and shared code for transient detection on GitHub, using the EarthShadow repository to check shadow positions assuming GEO orbits. Users expressed interest in using full plates to recreate the papers' "questionable methodology" first, followed by a "correct" version, tying into broader verification efforts without specifying shadow models. Rory suggests checking other 1950s observatories for corroborating transients; their absence would confirm plate-specific artifacts, and urges modern data use for systematic searches.

[Mick West @MickWest]

The gold standard of science is not peer review; it is independent replication.

Peer review acts as a pre-publication sanity check, not a verification process. Reviewers examine whether the methods are described clearly enough to be understood, whether the reasoning is internally consistent, and whether the conclusions follow from the data as presented. They may flag statistical or methodological errors, suggest additional controls, or request clarification of assumptions. However, they rarely have access to the raw data, code, or instruments, and even when they do, time constraints make independent verification impractical. As a result, peer review ensures that a study looks credible on paper, not that its results are actually correct.

By contrast, independent replication is where science truly tests itself. When other researchers -using their own data, instruments, and methods - arrive at the same result, confidence in the original claim strengthens dramatically. If the effect cannot be replicated, it usually means the original finding was flawed, overstated, or dependent on unrecognized conditions. This is why reproducibility and transparency have become central values: open data, open code, and detailed methodological reporting allow others to repeat and verify work efficiently.

In short, peer review filters ideas, while replication validates them. The first guards against obvious error and nonsense; the second distinguishes what merely appears true from what is true.

[Crap Zap (Sabrina) @CrapZap]

I hope @Asmongold reacts to this hilarious bit of #CollarGate karma!🤣

https://t.co/Y59T165Iga

[Crap Zap (Sabrina) @CrapZap]

I haven't opened #X since May 3rd 'til now.

Tons of unwanted notifications, but almost nothing under verified, and now my mentions are empty?!

I got sick of this BS & shit not displaying correctly, it made replies too hard🤬

Was hoping @elonmusk would have it fixed by now.🤦‍♀️👋

[Crap Zap (Sabrina) @CrapZap]

I still can't believe he's gone, hit a little too close to home... I'm going to miss #AsmonPa's call-ins and visits!

I know he'll probably never read this, but I hope @Asmongold finds some comfort and smiles in all of his wonderful memories. #RIPAsmonPa

https://t.co/F8cVoBnbKz

[Crap Zap (Sabrina) @CrapZap]

@teapartytempest @michaelshermer @BrandonFugal Dig, you'll find the #truth is nothing like it's portrayed; the OG owners had zero XPs.

IIRC, Bigalow wanted results & wouldn't take "no" so they made crap up & couldn't prove anything. He unloaded it onto a grifter.

Where's the evidence? Why don't others have XPs? It's TV.🤷‍♀️

[Crap Zap (Sabrina) @CrapZap]

@teapartytempest @Dalzy7816911021 @michaelshermer Quantum physics to explain it - another area I want to spread awareness abt bc it's likely not what u think.

I found that just bc u & others think something is unexplainable, doesn't mean it is.

I thought I knew all things weird inside & out, but facts were kept from me.✌️😊👍

[Crap Zap (Sabrina) @CrapZap]

@teapartytempest @Dalzy7816911021 @michaelshermer lack of data or poss. will be explained in the future.

I have some helpful playlists on my YT if you're interested. I also rec looking up the science behind ghosts/psychics/etc. I was surprised how many answers were out there. It took me a while to accept; I even tried to use
3️⃣

[Crap Zap (Sabrina) @CrapZap]

@TrampAbroad1 @michaelshermer It is a face, I see a male face created by the negative space outlined by shadows.

Try looking at the negative space (white/unshaded/well-lit area) on the garage door and notice how the tree's shadow creates an outline of a face.

I hope that helps! ✌️😊👍

[Crap Zap (Sabrina) @CrapZap]

@teapartytempest @michaelshermer @BrandonFugal If you do proper research, you'll find out that Skinwalker Ranch is BS, and plenty of people have found nothing unexplainable out there.

The #truth is out there if you really want it, and remember, just bc you or a "pro" can't explain it doesn't mean it can't be explained!✌️😊👍

[Crap Zap (Sabrina) @CrapZap]

@teapartytempest @Dalzy7816911021 @michaelshermer I've seen plenty but none = UFOs bc it's the lack of clarity/info that causes UFOs/paranormal/the unexplained.

That's why they use tato 🥔 cams; it's the best way to get something "unexplainable."🤷‍♀️

I'm sure plenty are fooling themselves, but many know what they're doing.✌️😊👍