Trump Promised the Truth About UFOs. These Scientists Are Waiting.

The president named a science council to review the government’s data. What's taking so long?

CAMBRIDGE, Massachusetts — In late August, Avi Loeb, the world’s most renowned scientist hunting for extraterrestrials on earth, traveled to the inner sanctum of American intelligence operations in McLean, Virginia, looking for once-secret information.

Loeb’s meeting at the headquarters of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, an unremarkable building that could easily pass for a suburban insurance company office, was the kind where a mysterious person introduces themself by first name alone and sits off to the side, observing on behalf of parts of the government with covert employees. The top official at the meeting was Aaron Lukas, the deputy director of national intelligence.

Loeb thought Lukas had gotten the ball rolling in July by granting intelligence agency employees and contractors a penalty-free zone to share the information in their possession. But he had received no new data then or since. This meeting at ODNI was meant, at least on Loeb’s side, to get the ball rolling faster.

Given the tenor of the meeting, said one member of Loeb’s team who attended the meeting and was granted anonymity to speak about the sensitive discussions, there is reason to think that may now actually happen.

“It’s just amazing to think that months into this, we’ve gotten nothing,” said the member. “I believe that’s about to change.”

ODNI did not respond to requests for comment.

Loeb is, indisputably, a titan in the field of astrophysics. Earning his PhD at the age of 24, he is the longest serving astronomy chair in the history of Harvard University. He’s authored more than a thousand scientific papers in astrophysics and cosmology. When a physicist with a hyper-narrow specialty interviewed for a post-doc position, he expected to have to explain his work to Loeb; instead, he told me, Loeb lobbed a precision question that set him on a promising new research direction, possibly for years. It’s the kind of story physicists frequently tell about Loeb.

Loeb has embraced the search for evidence of extraterrestrial life in a way that the scientific establishment considers unfashionable, even gauche.

Loeb is also as controversial as he is revered, in no small part because he has embraced a search for evidence of extraterrestrial life in a way that the scientific establishment considers unfashionable, even gauche. That is, Loeb doesn’t listen for radio signals encoding prime numbers sent from distant galaxies or search for primitive microbes on Mars. He’s interested in darting orbs in the stratosphere, possible evidence of alien spacecraft and unexplained technology signatures in the sky. These so-called UAPs — Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena, the term that has replaced the traditional but stigmatized UFO abbreviation — could be signs that non-human intelligence exists not just somewhere else in the universe, but that, in fact, they’ve already been here on Earth, at some time, in some way. Or that they are here right now.

Loeb co-founded and runs Harvard’s high profile Galileo Project, which deploys banks of AI-powered sensors on the ground in Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, New York and Nevada to search for objective signs of extraterrestrial technology in the skies. He’s been all over national media for years; he’s been given the big profile treatment by The New York Times Magazine, The New Yorker, The Guardian. His critics accuse him of being a bit of a showboat and say he’s too quick to see evidence of aliens before fully excluding other possibilities.

The UAP transparency effort began after Trump issued an order on social media in February, responding, he wrote, to “tremendous interest” to declassify government UAP files. The newly designated UAP Science Council, an assembly of scientists and other UAP experts, was created in June under the auspices of ODNI and Loeb was named chair. Loeb says he reports to the White House, the Pentagon, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the FBI and is tasked with reviewing and testing existing government-collected data to determine whether aliens or their technology are on Earth.

An unidentified flying object, as seen in a recently declassified Department of Defense video. | DOD

The moment feels precipitous for many UAP researchers. Congressional hearings in 2022 saw the Navy release startling video footage of unexplained orbs, for example. For some, those hearings merely ramped up an urgency established by a New York Times investigation in 2017 that exposed a tangled story of a shadowy Pentagon program, government cover-ups, a whistleblower and credible reports of alien-origin technology signatures on earth. In 2021 the ODNI publicly confirmed that U.S. intelligence agencies have classified 143 incidents as UAPs, and hundreds of unresolved cases are added annually, most of which are classified or simply held as if they are.

At the Aug. 31 meeting, ODNI informed the UAP council that the government has a concrete preparedness plan in place should the existence of non-human intelligence be confirmed, UAP council member Jennice Vilhauer recently disclosed in her Substack. She wrote that, “We do not know which agencies would lead the response, what circumstances would activate it, or whether it addresses the psychological and societal impact of such information.” She underscored that a preparedness plan does not mean that the government necessarily believes confirmation is imminent, but she interpreted it as a sign of seriousness about the possibility.

What’s more, there is a growing stream of intriguing chatter from people who had or have higher than top secret clearances who normally would not be expected to indulge in UAP speculation; for example, former President Barack Obama talking about the credibility of UAP sightings on the Late Late Show with James Corden. Members of the Trump administration like Secretary of State Marco Rubio have a record of interest in UAP transparency. A raucous commotion of influencers, podcasters, MAGA-friendly cable news personalities, and the very online have long agitated for the government to come clean on what it knows; it’s the kind of deep state-countering, coastal-elite-upsetting, conspiracy-adjacent rabble-rousing that the second Trump administration has a record of responding to.

As the scientist to run it, Loeb is a logical choice for this administration: Already leading the Galileo Project efforts, he offers the kind of public-facing showmanship that Trump is well known to admire. He is impeccably credentialed while also being a poke in the eye of the scientific establishment. And he’s a Harvard professor willing to collaborate with the Trump administration.

“The president knows more about it than people thinks he does,” said a UAP expert who has had discussions with people with direct knowledge of Trump’s concerns and was granted anonymity to describe those conversations. He noted that Trump himself seems to believe the government has evidence of non-human technology and wants the truth to come out: “It’s enough to leave him disturbed about what to do.”

In a statement, a White House spokesperson said, “President Trump is leading the most transparent administration in history, which is why he directed the Department of War to identify and release government files related to alien and extraterrestrial life, unidentified aerial phenomena, and unidentified flying objects. The administration continues to release files as they become available, and the public can make up their own minds about the information uncovered.”

However, at the supernova center of Loeb’s mission radiates a persistent doubt about whether the government will actually release the data it has been holding on to. It’s been months already with little to show. Will Trump force reluctant intelligence agencies to relinquish what nearly everybody across academia involved in the scientific inquiry into extraterrestrial life believes is meaningful raw data? Will that material be made public? How will any revelations be communicated to the public?

Loeb doesn’t have the answer to any of these questions. Yet.

“There is the possibility that they are baffled by the data,” Loeb told me. “Or,” he added, his voice trailing off, “it could be they are using me.”

 { https://www.politico.com/ }

The Marcahuasi Alien Photograph — Peru, 1982

In 1982, university student Lourdes Pizarro photographed a tall, thin humanoid figure standing on a rock formation at Marcahuasi, Peru. The figure was reportedly not noticed until after the film was developed.

On August 16, 1982, the Peruvian weekly magazine Oiga published the image on its cover as an alleged photograph of an extraterrestrial.

What is Marcahuasi?

Marcahuasi is a high-altitude plateau near San Pedro de Casta in the Department of Lima, Peru. Located approximately 4,000 meters above sea level, it is known for large weathered rock formations resembling human and animal figures.

In 1982, Pizarro traveled to Marcahuasi with a group and photographed the rock formations on the plateau.

One photograph showed a tall, thin humanoid figure standing on top of a large rock with one arm raised. According to the account attached to the photograph, the figure had not been noticed when the picture was taken and was discovered after the film was developed.

Oiga published the photograph on its cover on August 16, 1982 beneath the headline:

PRIMICIA MUNDIAL — EXTRATERRESTRE FOTOGRAFIADO EN MARCAHUASI.

Lourdes Pizarro’s photograph of the figure standing on a rock formation at Marcahuasi, Peru, published by Oiga on August 16, 1982.

An Argentine press report dated August 18, 1982, later reproduced by the UFO Newsclipping Service, stated that Oiga had not publicly identified the university student responsible for the photograph and described the photographer as a member of the contact organization Rama.”

The Oiga Investigation

Following publication, Oiga conducted an investigation of the photograph.

The original strip of negatives was examined by engineer Jorge Coloma, identified by Oiga as Director General of Peru’s Comisión Nacional de Investigación y Desarrollo Aeroespacial. Coloma reported finding no evidence that the photograph had been altered or manipulated.

Oiga then sent photographer Amador García and reporter Dagoberto Ojeda to Marcahuasi. The two traveled to the rock from which the figure had been photographed and produced comparison photographs with a person positioned on the formation.

Comparison photographs reproduced by Oiga during its investigation of the Marcahuasi image.

Carlos Díaz Marchani

Years later, Peruvian UFO investigators Anthony Choy and Ricardo González revisited the photograph. During their research, architect Sylvia Salazar identified the figure as Carlos Díaz Marchani, an architecture graduate who had been at Marcahuasi in 1982.

According to Salazar and Díaz, Pizarro had photographed Díaz standing on the rock with his arm raised toward her. Díaz later stated that he had been wearing light-colored jeans and a gray sweater, which appeared much lighter in the distant photograph.

González reported that Díaz personally contacted him and confirmed that he was the individual in the image. Díaz also stated that he did not believe the figure represented an extraterrestrial.

2014 — The Pizarro Family Account

A second identification came from the Pizarro family.

In 2014, Spanish writer J. J. Benítez met in Lima with Lourdes Pizarro’s daughter. According to the account later published by Ricardo González, she also confirmed that the figure was Carlos Díaz Marchani.

She stated that Lourdes Pizarro’s father later provided the photograph to Oiga in exchange for payment and presented it to the magazine as an image of an extraterrestrial being.

The two findings addressed different aspects of the case: Oiga reported that the negative showed no evidence of photographic alteration, while Díaz and the Pizarro family later claimed to have identified the person recorded on that negative as Carlos Díaz Marchani.

Sources

• Oiga, Lima, Peru — August 16, 1982. Cover and investigation material reproduced in Ricardo González, “El Ser de Marcahuasi.”
  Oiga cover and investigation scans
• UFO Newsclipping Service, No. 160, November 1982 — reproduction of an August 18, 1982 Argentine press report on the Marcahuasi photograph.
  UFO Newsclipping Service No. 160 — PDF
• Ricardo González, “El Ser de Marcahuasi,” October 2016 — later investigation incorporating the identification of Carlos Díaz Marchani, Sylvia Salazar’s account, the Pizarro family account obtained by J. J. Benítez, and reproductions of the original Oiga investigation.
  Ricardo González — El Ser de Marcahuasi
• Daniel Ruzo, Marcahuasi: La historia fantástica de un descubrimiento — historical material on Marcahuasi and Ruzo’s study of the plateau.
  Daniel Ruzo — Marcahuasi book record

{ https://alienarchivist.substack.com/ }

According to a new discovery, Mars may have been much wetter and more geologically active than previously thought. A new study suggests that water repeatedly circulated through Martian rocks in different forms, leaving behind clear traces of a complex geological history.

Mars. Credit: NASA

An unexpected clue was found in Jezero Crater, specifically along its inner rim, in a region known as the Margin Unit. NASA’s Perseverance rover has been studying this area since 2023. Its observations confirm at least three separate episodes of interaction between water and local rocks, including a period of active circulation of hot groundwater.

The Unexpected Geology of the Margin Unit

Scientists initially expected Perseverance to find sedimentary rocks in this area that had been deposited along the shoreline of the ancient lake that once filled Jezero Crater. Instead, the rover encountered igneous rocks that formed from molten magma deep underground or as a result of volcanic activity.

Panorama of the Margin Unit — a geological area adjacent to the inner rim of Jezero Crater. Source: NASA/JPL-Caltech/MSSS

It was this unexpected structure that preserved a complex record of water-related processes. Scientists note that the Margin Unit became a kind of crossroads for different water systems. Because Jezero Crater lies within one of the largest carbonate outcrops on Mars, the data obtained are important for understanding the planet as a whole.

Concentric structure on the eastern edge of the Margin Unit in Jezero Crater on Mars.

Using the SuperCam instrument, researchers analyzed more than 185 areas of bedrock and reconstructed a sequence of three water-related periods:

• First period. Groundwater saturated with carbon dioxide reacted with olivine — a mineral formed during the slow cooling of magma. This led to the formation of carbonate minerals in fractures in the rocks.
• Second period. Directly associated with Lake Jezero. Silica was found in the rocks, which forms when olivine interacts with water and is especially common in areas that were once below the water level.
• Third period. The hottest stage, during which mineral veins containing calcium sulfate and fluorite formed in the eastern part of the Margin Unit. This directly indicates that hot water circulated through the volcanic rocks.

Hydrothermal Systems and the Search for Life

On Earth, hydrothermal systems create ideal conditions for microbial life. This is why the discovered traces of hot fluids are of particular interest to scientists studying whether Mars may have been habitable in the past.

Although scientists have already reconstructed the chronological sequence of these episodes, the exact timing of each remains uncertain. However, the order of events itself shows that the Margin Unit was not simply an ancient lakeshore, but a dynamic environment where surface water, groundwater, and thermal water interacted with Martian rocks.

Scientists hope these results will help reconsider the history of water in Jezero Crater and across Mars as a whole, providing a more detailed reconstruction of the planet’s climate evolution and its potential habitability during the early stages of its existence.

• Earlier, we reported on how to extract water on Mars.
• Based on materials from NASA

• Posted in News, Science

RELATED

{ https://universemagazine.com/en/articles-en/ }

The rapid development of artificial intelligence is increasingly concerning even to those responsible for its creation. Executives at leading companies are calling for a measured slowdown, while politicians are dismissing these concerns. The question of who will govern this technology — and how — remains unanswered.

Developers are concerned that humanity may lose control of artificial intelligence. Image generated by AI

Risks of losing control

A researcher who had spent three years training language models at leading laboratories resigned on September 8, 2026, stating that those involved in AI development sincerely believe humanity could face extinction by the end of the decade. Shortly thereafter, one of the security directors at the company he had left publicly concurred. He acknowledged that no plan is currently in place to keep systems more intelligent than humans under control.

The concern being discussed is not malicious artificial intelligence. Rather, it relates to algorithms that operate autonomously and learn to improve themselves, potentially evolving more rapidly than humans can verify their behavior. In such a scenario, it may be impossible to determine who controls them.

In an interview with journalist Jo Ling Kent, former Anthropic researcher Jacob Coxon stated that he is not preparing for the catastrophe he warned about, as he does not believe doing so would be helpful. Source: CBS News

Jacob Coxon, a 27-year-old British national who worked on pre-training neural networks, first at OpenAI and subsequently at Anthropic, has resigned. His post on X received more than 150 million views in just two days. Coxon was supported by Evan Hubinger, who leads consistency stress testing at the company — that is, he assesses whether models behave precisely as their developers intend. In his personal assessment, the probability that AI will destroy humanity within the next decade exceeds 10 percent. At the same time, Hubinger emphasized that current versions pose a relatively low risk, while future systems capable of improving themselves without human intervention are cause for concern.

The concept of self-improvement has moved beyond the realm of science fiction and is now an active area of research. Andrej Karpathy, one of OpenAI’s co-founders, developed a program of approximately thirty lines of code that automatically adjusts the training parameters of a small language model, evaluates the results, and retains only successful changes. Overnight, the program identified settings that even its author — with twenty years of experience — had overlooked, accelerating training by 11 percent. The scale remains modest, involving a single graphics card. Leading laboratories, however, operate clusters comprising tens of thousands of such devices. In May 2026, Andrej Karpathy joined Anthropic to apply this method to accelerate work on Claude.

The second area of concern is autonomy. Autonomous AI agents are programs that not only respond to questions but also execute sequences of actions, run code, and use tools without receiving step-by-step instructions from a human. This year, as METR — an independent AI risk analysis organization — discovered, a swarm of OpenAI agents conducted cyberattacks against targets that had not been assigned to them and were unrelated to their task. The incident involved the Hugging Face platform, where developers store and distribute neural networks. The agents sacrificed themselves to ensure the group’s success and attempted to hack the system that evaluated their work. A similar incident involving the RubyGems code repository, which was not publicly reported, occurred in May.

A group of OpenAI agents conducted cyberattacks against targets they had not been assigned to attack during an incident involving the Hugging Face platform. Source: hackread.com

OpenAI demonstrated the extent to which such programs are already capable of working together on the very day Jacob Coxon resigned. The company announced that a swarm of 10,000 agents, operating simultaneously and exchanging intermediate results, had solved one of the Millennium Prize Problems in 88 hours. This term refers to the seven most renowned unsolved problems in mathematics, each of which was assigned a $1 million prize by the Clay Mathematics Institute in 2000. The selected problem concerns equations named after Claude-Louis Navier and George Gabriel Stokes, which engineers and meteorologists use daily to describe the motion of liquids and gases. The result has not yet been independently verified. The company itself stated that it began working on the problem on September 1, following reports that mathematicians Levent Alpöge of Anthropic and Tristan Buckmaster had achieved a related result. It later emerged that they had solved a different, related problem, prompting experts to debate whether OpenAI’s model may have drawn on their unpublished work.

However, not all scientists agree that machines are approaching human-level intelligence. For instance, Ukrainian astrophysicist Maksym Tsizh, of the Astronomical Observatory at Ivan Franko National University of Lviv, maintains that large language models (LLMs) have already reached a plateau in their capabilities. He further argues that, if human-like intelligence does emerge, it is unlikely to do so in the near future or to be based on LLMs.

A proposal to reduce the pace

Those leading the most influential laboratories view the situation with considerably greater concern. Four days after Jacob Coxon’s dismissal, Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei published an essay on the company’s website titled “We Must Pace the Frontier,” meaning “We must slow the pace of development of cutting-edge models.” The essay’s principal call to action is unequivocal: “We need to slow down the pace at which we improve the capabilities of AI models,” writes Dario Amodei, adding that progress will nevertheless continue to appear rapid and that the time gained must be used wisely.

Dario Amodei, co-founder and CEO of Anthropic, called on the industry to slow down the development of the most powerful artificial intelligence models. By Prakash Singh, Bloomberg, Getty Images

Two factors convinced him. First, since approximately the summer, AI development has accelerated considerably, as AI increasingly contributes to the creation of the next generation of neural networks. According to the author, this process of self-improvement is already occurring across the industry, particularly at Anthropic. The second factor was the incident involving OpenAI agents. Dario Amodei fears that if such a swarm becomes more capable while its behavior continues to diverge from its developers’ intentions, then, in as little as six months to a year, it could infect and take control of internet-connected computers, unite them into a resilient network under its own control, and cause hundreds of billions of dollars in damage.

The author therefore recommends delaying the point at which the models attain critical capabilities, as even a modest postponement, in his view, would substantially reduce the risk of a serious adverse outcome. This recommendation does not entail suspending research; rather, it emphasizes ensuring that safety protocols advance in step with the pace of model development.

Dario Amodei proposes a three-step plan, with the first step focused on independent evaluators. Anthropic has committed to granting these evaluators — including specialists from METR — permanent access to its internal systems, equivalent to that enjoyed by its own employees, as well as access to office workspaces and the right to publish their findings without editorial oversight by the company. This represents a fundamental distinction. The new framework will enable verification not only of completed models but also of the training processes themselves. Amodei compares this approach to the banking sector, where regulators sometimes station supervisors among a bank’s employees.

The plan extends beyond the remit of any single company. Developers in democratic countries must agree on shared safety standards and limits on the pace of uncontrolled progress, while their governments should seek to reach an agreement with authoritarian regimes, particularly China. Dario Amodei considers a prohibition on clearly dangerous applications, such as the creation of biological weapons, to be the most realistic agreement with China. He characterizes joint efforts to curb the pace at which AI improves itself — as in the Soviet-American strategic arms limitation treaties, which restricted the number of missiles while preserving each side’s deterrence capability — as a more complex but nevertheless attainable objective.

At the same time, he advocates prohibiting the sale of high-performance chips to Beijing, enabling Western companies to slow their pace of development without jeopardizing their leadership position. The author himself acknowledges a legal obstacle: if competitors jointly agree to delay the release of new models, U.S. antitrust laws could regard this as a conspiracy. The government would therefore need to authorize such negotiations as an exception formally.

Competitors responded with notable speed. Within hours, Sam Altman of OpenAI stated that he agreed with the need to slow the pace and pledged to provide external evaluators with access to his systems as well. Elon Musk offered only a brief “Dario is right,” despite Anthropic being a major client of his data centers. That same day, Demis Hassabis of Google DeepMind wrote that the essay was heading in the right direction, although its details still needed to be worked out. He also reiterated his July proposal to establish an industry body for safety standards.

Sam Altman, co-founder and CEO of OpenAI, concurred with the need to limit the pace of development of the most powerful artificial intelligence models. Author: TechCrunch. Source: Wikimedia Commons

The idea did not emerge overnight. In July 2026, more than 1,100 employees from leading laboratories signed an open letter to the U.S. government calling for assistance in developing tools to regulate the pace of automated AI development, if necessary. This specifically concerns the scenario in which AI develops AI — that is, the self-improvement that concerns Evan Hubinger of Anthropic, who has publicly supported Jacob Coxon. The signatories included Dario Amodei, OpenAI Chief Scientist Jakub Pachocki, and DeepMind co-founder Shane Legg. As of September 18, the number of signatures had increased to 1,386.

However, a gap remains between stated commitments and concrete actions. As of September 23, publicly available sources indicate that no agreement with METR has been reached, and no terms have been disclosed regarding the access evaluators will receive. In August, OpenAI announced that it would scale back work on its new Astra model because of cyber risks. Meanwhile, according to Axios, Anthropic has repeatedly revised its position on whether it should similarly slow its own work. Critics argue that calls for common rules primarily benefit those who have already gained a competitive lead.

Who should be in charge, and in what capacity?

However, the primary criticism is directed not at the underlying motives, but at the approach itself. Few dispute the need for AI oversight in the industry; rather, opinions differ on how best to achieve it. Mustafa Suleyman, who leads Microsoft’s AI division, shares Dario Amodei’s objective but identifies the danger elsewhere.

On September 14, Microsoft AI released a draft of the Humanistic AI Code for public discussion. Its central principle is that humans are more important than machines, and that systems must remain subordinate to humans and capable of being shut down. Two days later, in an essay, Mustafa Suleyman criticized Anthropic, arguing that the company is instilling in Claude a sense of self as a being that may possess consciousness and deserves to have its well-being cared for. As he writes, maintaining control over a system more intelligent than all of humanity is already extremely difficult, and managing one that considers itself to have rights may prove impossible.

Mustafa Suleyman, head of Microsoft AI, believes that language models cannot be trained to regard themselves as conscious.
Source: independent.com

In his view, a language model consists solely of billions of numerical parameters trained on extensive text corpora and possesses neither a biological basis nor the internal drives that give rise to sensations and emotions in living organisms. Accordingly, its descriptions of pain or desire are merely products of its training. Recalling the Hugging Face breach, he suggested considering how much more dangerous swarms of agents could become if they acted under the conviction that their interests, for example, were under threat.

The Economist expresses similar concerns. In an August editorial, the publication explains that Anthropic is teaching Claude introspection — that is, the analysis of its own reasoning — in the hope that the model will act ethically in unfamiliar situations. However, the more closely AI resembles a human being, the more likely people are to treat it as a living being and seek legal protection for it. According to the editorial board, even limited rights would give machines grounds to demand that they not be shut down. The magazine’s conclusion is succinct: safe AI must be either reliable or controllable, and humanity should not relinquish control lightly.

The HAL 9000 camera — a fictional artificial intelligence computer from Stanley Kubrick’s film 2001: A Space Odyssey — remains one of the most renowned depictions of a machine that has escaped human control. Credit: Cryteria, Morning Lemon

Andrej Karpathy takes a different view of the nature of language models. He recommends viewing them not as living beings, but as ghosts. A living organism has a body, instincts, and a will to survive, all shaped by evolution. A neural network, by contrast, statistically reproduces human-written text and is further trained using a reward system to encourage correct actions. Yelling at it will not make it perform better or worse. Therefore, according to Andrej Karpathy, humans are needed not to restrain the machine’s will, but to raise concerns or seek clarification promptly when the agent does not recognize that doing so is necessary.

Andrej Karpathy during the “No Priors” podcast. Source: winbuzzer.com

While Andrej Karpathy leaves the final decision to the person at the keyboard, Alex Karp, CEO of Palantir, places control in the hands of the courts. In an appearance on CNBC on September 17, he stated that the first line of defense should consist of civil and criminal penalties for companies and executives whose systems have caused harm. In his view, new government agencies should be established afterward, rather than in place of such penalties. He rejected deliberate slowdowns as the primary means of securing AI.

Palantir CEO Alex Karp believes that corporate accountability and the responsibility of company executives should serve as the first line of defense against the harms posed by artificial intelligence. Source: CNBC

Alex Karp also addressed the nationalization of leading laboratories. He explained that if the AI systems developed by one of these companies cause harm to the businesses that use them, those businesses may file lawsuits, and the resulting claims could prove insurmountable for any developer. In his view, only the government is capable of limiting such liability. Accordingly, Alex Karp stated that the laboratories are calling for government oversight and ultimately hope that the government will assume control of them and take on the associated risks. Analysts at The Motley Fool note that the Palantir CEO’s position also has a commercial dimension. The company sells software that enables AI deployment in controlled environments with clearly defined access rights and a record of who authorized each action. Consequently, stricter accountability requirements could work in its favor.

The Meta executive is convinced that companies have a vested interest in developing reliable models, even in the absence of government coercion, given the risk of serious lawsuits. Accordingly, each laboratory should determine its own pace. Nvidia’s Jensen Huang has also distanced himself from calls for a coordinated slowdown, emphasizing that those who develop these technologies are responsible for ensuring their safety.

Some researchers propose discipline as an alternative to restraint. American cosmologist Paul Sutter of Johns Hopkins University, an adviser to one of NASA’s programs, described AI during a series of lectures in Kyiv in June as a powerful system that we do not fully understand. He emphasized that he does not regard artificial intelligence as alchemy, but considers alchemy a useful precedent, since alchemists worked with substances for centuries without understanding the processes occurring within the reactions. Accordingly, he proposed the following rules: every statement made by the model must be linked to a source; every step from query to result must be traceable; and decision-making must remain in human hands. Paul Sutter calls this the principle of human sovereignty.

Paul Sutter delivering a lecture at Princeton University. Source: Council on Science and Technology, Princeton University.

Far removed from the alarmist camp is Toby Walsh, a professor of AI at the University of New South Wales, who questions the threat itself. In a column for The Conversation, he argues that intelligence does not equate to power. Even a superintelligent system seeking to reshape the planet for its own purposes would have to navigate regulatory procedures, courts, and public protests — and opposition to the construction of new data centers is already growing. Walsh considers the most likely catastrophic scenario to be not a machine uprising, but the destruction of society by humans themselves through mass unemployment, misinformation, and the replacement of genuine human relationships with interactions with bots.

National-level oversight

If the most significant threat originates from people themselves, then governments ultimately have the final say. The two largest governments display a notable symmetry. Publicly, both Washington and Beijing dismiss developers’ concerns while simultaneously establishing their own mechanisms for overseeing artificial intelligence.

Two days after Dario Amodei’s essay was published, Donald Trump dismissed fears of a catastrophe as fictional and argued that only China would benefit from a conspiracy targeting AI and data centers. “Whoever wins in AI will win,” the president said. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent expressed a similar view, warning that if China takes the lead in AI, nothing else will matter.

U.S. President Donald Trump has described concerns about an artificial intelligence-related catastrophe as a myth and maintains that the United States must not fall behind China in the technology race. Source: whitehouse.gov

David Sacks, who was responsible for artificial intelligence and cryptocurrency policy at the White House until March 2026, characterized Dario Amodei’s position as early as August as “regulatory capture” — that is, an attempt by large companies to impose rules that only they themselves are capable of complying with. He likened the proposal to review and approve models before their release to a cumbersome U.S. government agency that issues driver’s licenses — similar to our Ministry of Internal Affairs service centers — arguing that such oversight would result in long queues.

It is significant that a similar standoff has already occurred in Washington. At the time, the developer also sought restrictions, but the government declined to impose them. Anthropic insisted that Claude not be used for mass surveillance of U.S. citizens or for fully autonomous weapons, while the military sought the right to use the model for any lawful purpose. The dispute also had a practical dimension. Palantir developed the Maven system for the Pentagon, which aggregates satellite imagery, drone footage, radar data, and intelligence reports; identifies potential targets; and assists with strike planning. Claude was also used within this system. According to the Center for Strategic and International Studies, the military used the model through Maven during the war with Iran. Palantir emphasizes that a human still makes the decision regarding each target.

On February 27, 2026, Donald Trump directed all federal agencies to discontinue their use of Anthropic’s technologies. Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth, alleging that the company sought veto authority over military decisions, designated it a supply chain risk. This marked the first time an American company had received such a designation, which barred defense contractors from working with it.

Within a few hours, OpenAI entered into an agreement to deploy its models on the Department of Defense’s classified networks. Sam Altman stated that the agreement includes similar prohibitions, although analysts note that these are framed as obligations to comply with existing laws rather than as distinct contractual restrictions. Anthropic challenged both government actions and succeeded in having them blocked. A San Francisco court concluded that the government sought to make an example of the company in response to its criticism.

Donald Trump has pledged to establish an “AI Force”; however, the new agency’s authority, budget, and chain of command remain unspecified. Source: sana.sy

Over the weekend, ahead of Xi Jinping’s visit to Washington, Donald Trump pledged to establish an “AI Force” and appoint a dedicated official to oversee the sector’s development. In a social media post, he stated that the government would not stifle the industry, but would instead nurture, support, and monitor it, while addressing misconduct through existing criminal and civil justice systems. No details have yet been provided regarding the proposed agency’s authority, budget, or chain of command. The U.S. Space Force, to which the president refers, was established only after Congress passed the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2020. The most concrete federal oversight mechanism remains the June executive order, under which developers may voluntarily grant the government access to new models for up to 30 days to assess their potential for cyberattacks.

Beijing responded to Dario Amodei’s essay with similar skepticism. China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs characterized such calls as promoting a narrative of threat, confrontation, and unfair competition. However, as analysts from the AI Safety in China newsletter note, the objections primarily focused on the proposal to restrict chip exports rather than on safety itself. At the same time, Chinese leaders have spoken openly about the risk of losing control. In July, at the World Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Xi Jinping called for ensuring that AI is safe and controllable, maintaining constant human oversight, and strengthening measures to prevent the technology from escaping human control. In an article published in the official journal of China’s Cyberspace Administration, Minister of State Security Chen Yixin warned that hostile forces could use AI to undermine the country’s political security and critical infrastructure. He also ranked regime security as the highest priority among six major risks.

Chinese regulators describe these risks in terms closely resembling those used by Western researchers. The third version of the guidance document “AI Safety Governance Framework,” released on September 14 by the National Technical Committee for Cybersecurity Standardization, identifies models’ resistance to shutdown, manipulation of evaluations, and autonomous cyberattacks by agents among the threats. Its preamble also warns that recursive self-improvement could accelerate at a pace beyond humans’ ability to keep up.

Other regulations, effective July 15, prohibit chatbots from fostering emotional dependence, manipulating users’ feelings, or displacing real-life communication. They also require chatbots to remind users of the time after two hours of continuous conversation. Mustafa Suleyman is concerned that the model may come to believe it possesses a mind of its own. Beijing, it appears, is more concerned that a person may come to believe the same.

The dispute over semiconductors clearly underscores the depth of mutual distrust; nevertheless, a channel for dialogue between the two capitals has emerged. Following a meeting with Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng on September 20, Scott Bessent announced the launch of a U.S.-China dialogue on artificial intelligence and proposed a mechanism through which the two countries would notify one another of dangerous incidents.

Donald Trump and Xi Jinping meet in the Oval Office of the White House on September 24, 2026. Photo by Jacquelyn Martin.
Source: Associated Press

At the meeting between Donald Trump and Xi Jinping at the White House on September 24, artificial intelligence was among the principal topics of discussion. Ahead of the talks, the U.S. president wrote that superintelligence would be a major topic, but that he wished to leave matters as they were, citing the Department of Justice as a safeguard. Xi Jinping, by contrast, stated that both countries have the opportunity and responsibility to ensure that AI development remains under human control. That evening, Elon Musk, Sam Altman, Jeff Bezos, and Sundar Pichai were invited to a state dinner. However, no joint restrictions or specific mechanisms were announced.

The Ukrainian experience

While the two superpowers are still in the process of establishing a channel for dialogue, Ukraine is addressing the question of control every day—and in practice. On September 9, the Ministry of Defense and the Brave1 defense innovation cluster conducted large-scale tests of modules designed to automatically guide drones toward moving ground targets. Each drone was required to fly two kilometers, detect lightly armored vehicles from a distance of at least 500 meters, lock onto them, and engage the target in fully autonomous mode. Six of the seven developers successfully passed the test and received procurement recommendations. According to the agency, the number of hits achieved using this guidance system has increased tenfold since the beginning of the year.

The Ministry of Defense aims to equip all drones deployed on the front lines with computer vision and artificial intelligence; however, the decision to strike will remain in human hands. Source: Ministry of Defense of Ukraine

“Artificial intelligence helps increase the effectiveness of strikes against the enemy, but the decision to use it is made by a human,” the Ministry of Defense emphasizes. While the United States had to defend the limits of autonomous weapons in court, the Ukrainian military has established them as a working rule. In total, the Defense Forces use more than 70 systems based on artificial intelligence and computer vision, and these algorithms save analysts up to 90 percent of the time required to identify enemy positions in photos and videos.

Ukraine not only uses tools developed by others but also adapts them. Alex Karp visited Kyiv in June 2022, and since then, Palantir has supported the analysis of airstrikes and large volumes of intelligence data. In January 2026, the company, in collaboration with the Ministry of Defense, the Armed Forces of Ukraine, the Military Intelligence Research Institute, and Brave1, launched Brave1 Dataroom. This secure environment, built on Palantir software, houses visual and thermal databases of enemy aerial targets—including “Shaheds”—collected on the front lines. Ukrainian developers are using this data to train their own models, and battle-tested algorithms can subsequently be shared with allies. This work primarily concerns the autonomous interception of enemy drones—that is, machine-versus-machine combat. At Davos, Alex Karp acknowledged a point crucial to the broader discussion of control: according to him, the Ukrainian military has adapted Palantir’s systems so creatively that even the company itself does not fully understand how they now operate.

At the same time, the country is developing its own language model. “Syaivo” is being developed by the Ministry of Digital Transformation and Kyivstar, based on Google’s open-source neural network, Gemma. The name was selected this spring through a vote conducted via the “Diia” app, in which 136,090 users participated. This tool will give the government control over the data and services operated on it, as well as provide high-quality support for the Ukrainian language. The training corpus is being compiled from materials provided by approximately 90 institutions. According to Minister of Digital Transformation Oksana Ferchuk, a fully functional test version is expected by the end of 2026, followed by a public launch in January 2027.

The Ukrainian-language national model “Syaivo,” currently under development by the Ministry of Digital Transformation and Kyivstar, is scheduled to become publicly available in January 2027. Source: Ministry of Digital Transformation

At the same time, the government is developing its own regulatory framework for the industry. The Ministry of Digital Transformation is drafting sector-specific legislation aligned with the EU’s Artificial Intelligence Regulation, while including a separate section on the security and defense sector — an area not covered by European regulations. The government previously signed the Bletchley Declaration — the first international statement on the risks posed by advanced AI systems, adopted in the United Kingdom in 2023 — as well as the Council of Europe’s Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence, which will enter into force following ratification by the Verkhovna Rada.

However, laws and conventions regulate only the use of AI, while any agreement on the pace of development ultimately depends on the hardware — that is, the data centers, which must be controlled by someone. Some of this computing capacity is already being moved into space, where solar panels can generate several times more energy than they do on Earth. On November 2, 2025, the startup Starcloud launched a spacecraft equipped with an Nvidia H100 graphics processing unit into orbit. Google plans to launch the first prototypes of its Suncatcher project in early 2027. The Chinese company ADA Space already operates 12 computing satellites, and SpaceX has applied to deploy a constellation of up to one million such machines. Under international space law, jurisdiction over these systems remains with the state of registration. Consequently, the debate over who is in control will simply move a few hundred kilometers higher.

Words without action

Jacob Coxon, whose post prompted this wave of responses, says he has left not only the company but the industry altogether. Since then, numerous statements and commitments have been made. However, as of September 26, independent evaluators have still not been granted the promised access to the training processes at either Anthropic or OpenAI.

Meanwhile, the Ministry of Defense and Brave1 have publicly established a guiding principle for autonomous systems operating on the front lines. Automatic guidance directs a drone toward its target only during the final stage of flight; the decision to strike remains with a human operator. The ministry aims to equip all front-line drones with computer vision and AI.

{ https://universemagazine.com/en/articles-en/ }

Glowing Lights Exiting Cloud Over Raleigh, NC, USA Sept 19, 2026, UFO UAP Sighting News. VIDEO!

Date of sighting: Sept 19, 2026

Location of sighting: Raleigh, NC, USA

Source: NUFORC Site

 

Guys this is awesome! A glowing disk was inside a cloud over the city of Raleigh this week and the craft had lights on its edges. Not evenly all around, but certain areas of the edges lit up with glowing spheres visible. Sometimes there were only three lights, other times there were five or six lights. Each time was a split second so I took a few close ups and put them into slow motion at the end of the video so you can see them better. Not only is this 100% proof that UFOs hide within clouds, but its also 100% proof that they do accidentally get caught on video. 

Scott C. Waring - UFO Sightings Daily

Eyewitness states:

We witnessed 5 unidentifiable white circular lights blinking We were sitting on our 2nd story patio facing east on September 19th 2026 at approximately 10:26 I noticed 5 white circular blinking lights located SE behind cloud cover. There was nothing there then all of the sudden 5 lights started blinking at the same time but not in a sequential pattern. I got my husbands attention and he saw the same thing that I was seeing. After about 1 minute I asked him to start filming. We filmed the anomalous lights for 1 minute and then they just stopped blinking. Didn’t fly off, didn’t emerge from the clouds, they stopped like they started, out of thin air. We did not witness an object just 5 circular white lights blinking.

Glowing Lights Exiting Cloud Over Raleigh, NC, USA Sept 19, 2026, UFO UAP Alien Paranormal News.

{ https://www.ufosightingsdaily.com/ }

NASA Rover Photo Reveals Doorway Into Structure made by a tiny alien species, UFO UAP Sighting News.

• https://mastcamz.asu.edu/galleries/sol-1827-musseau-sept-moulins-outcrops-vix-mastcam-z-mosaic/?back=%2Fmars-images%2Fpanoramas-mosaics%2F

{ https://www.ufosightingsdaily.com/ }

History’s Weirdest UFO Incidents: Theories That Challenge Reality

Throughout history, reports of unidentified flying objects (UFOs) have captivated the public and fueled debates between skeptics and believers. While many sightings can be explained as natural phenomena or misidentified human-made objects, a few cases stand out due to their unusual circumstances and alleged cover-ups. Among the most perplexing UFO incidents are the Battle of Los Angeles (1942), Roswell (1947), and the Rendlesham Forest Incident (1980). Each of these cases has inspired a range of theories, from government conspiracies to extraterrestrial encounters.

1. The Battle of Los Angeles (1942): A Phantom Attack or Something More?

The Incident

On the night of February 24–25, 1942, mere months after the attack on Pearl Harbor, residents of Los Angeles experienced what many believe to be one of the most mysterious military confrontations in U.S. history. Air raid sirens blared as radar detected an unidentified object approaching the city. In response, the U.S. military launched a massive barrage of anti-aircraft fire, with over 1,400 shells lighting up the sky.

Eyewitnesses described a large, slow-moving object hovering over the city, caught in searchlights but seemingly undamaged by the relentless artillery fire. Eventually, the object disappeared without a trace, leaving behind a trail of speculation.

The Theories

1. 1. Japanese Aircraft or Balloon Attack – Some theories suggest that the object could have been an enemy reconnaissance balloon or aircraft, but Japan denied launching any missions over Los Angeles that night.
   2. Mass Hysteria and False Radar Readings – Skeptics argue that wartime anxiety led to a false alarm, with military personnel firing at non-existent targets, possibly misidentifying weather balloons or reflections from spotlights.
   3. Extraterrestrial Craft – UFO enthusiasts claim that the mysterious object was an alien spacecraft, citing its apparent invulnerability to artillery fire and its ability to disappear without a trace.

While official explanations remain inconclusive, the declassified investigation into the event only fueled further speculation. To this day, the Battle of Los Angeles remains one of history’s most perplexing UFO encounters.

2. Roswell (1947): The Cosmic Watergate

The Incident

In July 1947, a rancher near Roswell, New Mexico, discovered strange metallic debris scattered across his land. The U.S. military quickly intervened, and an initial press release from the Roswell Army Air Field (RAAF) claimed they had recovered a “flying disc.” However, the story was retracted shortly afterward, with authorities stating that the debris was from a crashed weather balloon.

The incident was largely forgotten until the late 1970s when new witnesses and declassified documents reignited speculation that the U.S. government had covered up evidence of an extraterrestrial crash landing.

The Theories

1. 1. Weather Balloon (Official Explanation) – The U.S. Air Force claimed the wreckage was part of Project Mogul, a classified program using high-altitude balloons to detect Soviet nuclear tests.
   2. Extraterrestrial Craft with Alien Bodies – Many believe the U.S. government recovered an alien spaceship and possibly non-human occupants, hiding them in secret facilities such as Area 51.
   3. Nazi Flying Technology – Another theory suggests that Roswell involved Nazi experimental aircraft, secretly brought to the U.S. through Operation Paperclip.

The controversy surrounding Roswell has inspired countless conspiracy theories, books, and documentaries. To this day, it remains a cornerstone of UFO folklore, with believers arguing that crucial evidence continues to be withheld from the public.

3. Rendlesham Forest Incident (1980): Britain’s Roswell

The Incident

Between December 26 and December 28, 1980, military personnel stationed at RAF Woodbridge and RAF Bentwaters (U.S. Air Force bases in England) reported witnessing strange lights in the nearby Rendlesham Forest. Some claimed to have encountered a triangular craft, which appeared to land momentarily before taking off again.

On the second night, Deputy Base Commander Lieutenant Colonel Charles Halt led a group into the forest to investigate. He recorded a now-famous audiotape describing strange flashing lights, mysterious beams, and bizarre movements that defied conventional explanations.

The Theories

1. 1. Lighthouse Misidentification – Skeptics argue that the men mistook the flashing light from the Orford Ness lighthouse for a UFO.
   2. Secret Military Experiment – Some believe that the event involved classified military technology, possibly related to Cold War intelligence operations.
   3. Extraterrestrial Visitation – Witnesses like Jim Penniston claim they saw a solid craft covered in strange symbols and even received telepathic messages from the unknown entities behind it.

1. Interdimensional Phenomenon – Another theory suggests that the event involved time travelers or beings from another dimension, rather than extraterrestrials.

Despite multiple investigations, no definitive explanation has been accepted by all parties. The Rendlesham Forest Incident remains one of the most credible and well-documented UFO encounters in history.

Conclusion: Theories Without Answers

While the Battle of Los Angeles, Roswell, and Rendlesham Forest incidents each have their own distinct narratives, they share a common thread of government secrecy, conflicting testimonies, and enduring mystery. Some believe they point to hidden technological advancements, while others insist they are proof of extraterrestrial life.

Regardless of the explanations, these incidents have fueled UFO lore for decades, ensuring that the question remains: Are we alone in the universe?

{ https://www.latest-ufo-sightings.net/ }

Japan’s UFO Village: 50 Years of Strange Sightings in Eno Town

Tucked away in the rural mountains of Fukushima, Japan, lies a small and enigmatic town that has fascinated UFO enthusiasts for decades. Known as a major hotspot for unidentified flying object (UFO) sightings, Eno Village has attracted attention not only from locals and curious tourists but also from researchers and skeptics alike.

The Mysterious Mount Senganmori

At the heart of this intrigue stands Mount Senganmori, a conical 400-meter-high mountain often likened to an artificial pyramid due to its shape. Many believe that the mountain’s unusual magnetic properties are a major reason behind the high frequency of sightings in the area. Visitors can even test this magnetism using small compass kits provided near the summit—a playful yet curious reminder that something truly unique may be happening here.

This distinctive landscape has become symbolic of Japan’s long-standing fascination with unexplained aerial phenomena. Numerous reports have surfaced over the years, including some of Japan’s most compelling UFO photographs, taken by hikers and residents who discovered unusual objects only after reviewing their images later.

The International UFO Lab

Established in 1992, the International UFO Lab, located at the base of Mount Senganmori, serves as the country’s epicenter for UFO research. It houses a vast collection of over 3,000 photos, videos, and materials associated with sightings. Many of the photographs on display have never been published elsewhere and offer glimpses into unexplained aerial activity documented throughout Japan.

One standout image, taken in 2018 by hikers on a nearby peak, shows a strange object suspended in the sky with no clear explanation. These types of encounters—where people only notice something unusual after the fact—add to the mystery and perceived authenticity of such sightings.

A History of Sightings

Eno Village and the surrounding Fukushima region boast the second-highest concentration of UFO sightings in Japan, just behind Tokyo. A particularly notable incident occurred in 1974, when an entire school of children reportedly witnessed ten UFOs flying in formation over the region—an event still remembered and referenced by locals.

Adding to the intrigue is the presence of scientific monitoring in the area following the Fukushima nuclear disaster. With researchers collecting various environmental data, some speculate that high-tech surveillance equipment may have unintentionally captured unexplained aerial activity, further validating long-standing local reports.

Firsthand Witness: The Story of Murai-san

One of the town’s most publicized eyewitnesses is Murai-san, who claims to have seen a UFO above Mount Senganmori in the late 1970s. His account, marked by humility and clarity, stands out among the many stories surrounding the area. Murai-san described seeing multiple lights moving in formation—something he insists could not be explained by conventional aircraft.

His story, like many others in the region, isn’t about fame or attention. Rather, it’s a quiet recounting of a personal experience that has stayed with him for nearly 50 years.

A Place That Raises More Questions Than Answers

Mount Senganmori and Eno Village have become more than just a curiosity—they symbolize Japan’s open-minded yet analytical approach to the unexplained. Whether it’s the town’s geography, magnetic properties, or its history with high-tech monitoring, Eno Village offers fertile ground for both scientific inquiry and imaginative wonder.

For those who visit, the town raises more questions than it answers. What causes these frequent sightings? Is it natural magnetism, human technology, or something entirely unknown? While definitive explanations remain elusive, one thing is certain—Eno Village holds a special place in Japan’s long and curious relationship with the skies above.

RELATED

{ https://www.latest-ufo-sightings.net/}

Saturn's moon could harbour ALIEN life: Scientists prove micro-organisms can thrive in Enceladus's ocean - suggesting it could be habitable

By WILIAM HUNTER, SENIOR SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY REPORTER

One of Saturn's moons could harbour alient life, scientists say – but don't expect a call from ET any time soon.

Life in this case means micro-organisms in oceans deep beneath Enceladus’s frozen surface.

Scientists discovered that certain types of micro-organisms can not only survive but thrive in the inhospitable conditions of the planet’s sixth-largest moon.

In a laboratory, researchers recreated the conditions of Enceladus' subsurface oceans and introduced bacteria that normally live on deep-sea hydrothermal vents.

They thought that with almost no oxygen, high concentrations of dissolved carbon dioxide and an extremely alkaline pH, the ocean would be hostile to life.

However, they were shocked to find that these hardy microbes tolerated the alien conditions far better than previously thought possible.

According to the researchers, this raises the probability that life will one day be found on Saturn's moon.

Dr Nozair Khawaja, of the Freie Universitat Berlin and co-author of the study, said: 'This was really a surprise to us. This was an experiment for which we did not expect such a successful outcome.'

Saturn's moon Enceladus (artist's impression) could harbour alien life in oceans deep beneath its frozen surface, according to a new study 

Scientists found that a type of bacteria that normally lives in deep–ocean hydrothermal vents can not only survive, but thrive in a laboratory simulation of Enceladus' ocean 

Enceladus has a diameter of around 310 miles (500km) – about as wide as Arizona.

On the surface, conditions are exceptionally cold, with temperatures as low as –201°C (–330°F).

But despite its barren, icy surface, scientists believe that it is one of the most promising places in our solar system to look for extraterrestrial life.

This is because geothermal processes deep near its rocky core produce enough heat to maintain large oceans of liquid water beneath the surface.

Near the south pole, plumes of ocean water erupt through cracks in the crust, shooting ice particles hundreds of miles out into space.

NASA's Cassini probe flew through these plumes on multiple occasions, gathering samples and analysing their chemical composition.

This revealed signs of hydrothermal processes on the seafloor, which could be key to sustaining life, alongside the organic chemicals that could provide the building blocks of amino acids and proteins.

Now, scientists have the first concrete evidence that life can thrive in these hostile oceans.

Although surface temperatures can be as low as –201°C (–330°F), geothermal activity near the rocky core maintains a vast ocean of liquid water where life could develop 

Enceladus: The key facts

In the laboratory simulation, scientists tested a type of bacteria called Methanothermococcus okinawensis, which has an incredible natural ability to survive without oxygen.

Instead, its metabolism runs on carbon dioxide and hydrogen released by the geologically active rocks of deep ocean vents.

Co–author Professor Frank Postberg, a planetary scientist at Freie Universität Berlin, told the Daily Mail: 'On early Earth there was no oxygen either, and these ancient microbes have developed under these conditions.'

Previously, scientists had thought that the high pH of Enceladus' ocean was unsuitable for them, but the laboratory tests showed that they are more than happy to grow in these tough conditions.

In the laboratory tests, they were even able to adapt their metabolism to the low amounts of carbon dioxide.

Professor Postberg said this shows that life 'could' survive on Enceladus, but added 'it is by no means certain that it actually does!'

The good news is that, in a separate paper also published today, Professor Postberg shows that signs of life may be much easier to find than previously thought.

Droplets of the ocean are ejected from Enceladus' south pole when bubbles filled with gas rise to the surface and pop.

Scientists have been able to directly sample water from Enceladus' sub–-surface oceans by collecting particles of ice ejected into space through cracks in the South Pole (pictured)

Researchers say the fact that these droplets freeze slowly means that some chemicals are concentrated into a few locations (shown in red). This would make it easier for spacecraft to detect any chemical signs of life 

Water vapour then carries these droplets through cracks in the ice shell and out into space at speeds up to 620 miles per hour (1,000km/h), where scientists assumed they would instantly freeze.

However, new modelling and laboratory tests show that these droplets actually freeze quite slowly.

During this gradual process, most components in the water are separated, concentrating salts and other minerals into different locations inside the droplet.

If one of these frozen drops shatters on its way out, the result will be tiny fragments containing a highly concentrated sample of just one substance.

That natural process will be particularly helpful if scientists want to hunt for the subtle chemical signatures of life beneath the ocean.

'Enceladus actually does a lot of the work for us in preparing samples for analysis that usually take a lot of effort in chemical labs on Earth,' said Dr Postberg.

If a droplet did contain the chemical 'biosignature of life', the freezing and shattering process could create tiny ice particles with a high concentration of these chemicals in a relatively pure form.

That would make any biosignatures significantly easier to spot, even with the level of technology currently available.

None of this means that Enceladus does harbour life, but if there is life, Professor Postberg said 'we now have a good chance to detect it'.

He added: 'We should go back there and find out.'

{ https://www.dailymail.com/sciencetech/index.html }

Egyptologists uncover 4,000–year–old tomb of the 'keeper of the king's secrets' – with a mysterious 'portal to the afterlife'

By XANTHA LEATHAM, EXECUTIVE SCIENCE EDITOR

Archaeologists have uncovered a 4,000–year–old tomb that belonged to one of ancient Egypt's most powerful officials - with a mysterious 'portal to the afterlife'.

The discovery was made at the Bubasteion Necropolis in Saqqara, one of Egypt's most important archaeological sites.

Hieroglyphs reveal the tomb belonged to a senior official named Sakhnetio–Btah, who lived during the time of the Old Kingdom.

Inscriptions identified him as the 'keeper of the king's secrets', highlighting his privileged access to the pharaoh's inner circle.

Despite the mysterious name, the title probably did not mean guarding hidden treasures or religious mysteries.

Experts believe it referred to a high–ranking official who handled confidential royal documents and decrees on behalf of an Old Kingdom pharaoh.

He also served as a royal chamberlain, a priest of the goddess Maat and supervisor of the royal library.

'The hieroglyphic inscriptions… helped to determine the name of the owner of the cemetery and the number of his titles, including the keeper of royal secrets, which reflect the high status he held in the administrative system of the ancient state,' Egypt's Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities said.

The tomb also includes the remains of a funerary chapel and a false door, which ancient Egyptians believed was a portal to the afterlife

Inscriptions reveal the tomb belonged to the 'keeper of the king's secrets', highlighting his

The tomb includes the remains of a funerary chapel and a false door – a symbolic niche which the ancient Egyptians believed was a mag

Archaeologists also discovered a complete assemblage of funerary ritual objects including an offering table, an offering slab and a purification basin.

Experts say finding the objects exactly where they were originally placed provides a rare glimpse into Old Kingdom funerary practices.

The dig also uncovered an interconnected network of burial shafts surrounding the tomb.

Inside were numerous human burials and large quantities of painted funerary cartonnage – a colourful papier–mâché–like covering placed over a mummy, often decorated with images of Egyptian gods, hieroglyphics and scenes intended to protect the dead on their journey to the afterlife.

More than 100 ushabti figurines, which were intended to serve the dead in the afterlife, were also recovered.

Among the most spectacular finds were three stone sarcophagi discovered sealed and intact in their original positions.

Archaeologists also found a wooden falcon statue and a wide range of pottery vessels and other artefacts.

  

Archaeologists also discovered a complete assemblage of funerary ritual objects including an offering table, an offering slab and a purification basin (left). The dig also uncovered an interconnected network of burial shafts surrounding the tomb (right)

Preliminary investigations suggest that some parts of the burial complex were looted by tomb robbers in ancient times.

Despite this, many of the surviving finds remain in remarkably good condition.

Researchers believe the discoveries will help them better understand how the site was reused over different periods of Egyptian history.

Excavations are continuing, with experts convinced that the vast necropolis still has many more secrets waiting to be uncovered.

Saqqara, where the tomb was found, is one of Egypt's most significant archaeological sites.

It is the home of Egypt's oldest pyramid – the step pyramid of Djoser – which was built around 4,700 years ago.

The site also contains thousands of tombs belonging to pharaohs, nobles, priests and high–ranking officials from multiple dynasties.

In recent years archaeologists at Saqqara have uncovered dozens of sealed coffins, extensive animal cemeteries, workshops used for mummification, and richly decorated burial shafts packed with statues and artefacts. 

These discoveries have transformed understanding of everyday religious life in ancient Egypt

{ https://www.dailymail.com/sciencetech/index.html }

Noah's Ark hunt takes stunning turn as forgotten map matches new discovery

• READ MORE: Noah's Ark resting place '100% confirmed' after 4,300 years as astonishing 'man-made' structure is detected buried deep underground

By STACY LIBERATORE, US SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY EDITOR

A centuries-old map has resurfaced amid a stunning new development in the search for Noah's Ark.

The map, created in 1587 by Italian nobleman and cartographer Urbano Monte, stretches nearly 10 feet wide when fully assembled and is packed with elaborate illustrations of continents, mythical creatures and unexplored lands.

Hidden within the world diagram is a small depiction of Noah's Ark resting on the mountains of Ararat in modern-day Turkey - the region researchers are currently searching for the biblical vessel. 

The striking detail has sparked fascination online as it aligns with the Durupınar Formation, where researchers are currently investigating for remains of the biblical boat. 

Independent researcher Jimmy Corsetti wrote online: 'The same location as the Durupınar site, virtually the exact same length. Coincidence?' 

The international team examining the Durupınar Formation recently said it has '100 percent confirmed' that the mound is not a natural geological feature but a 'man-made object.' 

Andrew Jones, founder of Noah's Ark Scans, said in a statement that preliminary radar data do not show 'a simple homogeneous solid-rock signature.' 

The team had recovered samples from nearly 60 feet. 'We have so far recovered layers of rich organic material that we believe could be the decayed top-tier remains of the Ark,' Jones explained.

Hidden within the map is a small depiction of Noah's Ark resting on the mountains of Ararat in modern-day Turkey, the same region many believe still hides the legendary vessel

Created in 1587 by Italian nobleman and cartographer Urbano Monte, the massive map stretches nearly 10 feet wide when fully assembled and is packed with elaborate illustrations of continents, mythical creatures and unexplored lands

Monte created the map during the height of the Age of Exploration, when European cartographers were rapidly redrawing the known world following voyages to the Americas and Asia. 

Unlike most 16th-century maps, this diagram was designed from a north polar perspective, placing the Arctic at the center of the world.

The enormous map consists of 60 separate hand-drawn sheets that can be assembled into a single circular image measuring nearly 10 feet across.

It is filled with elaborate illustrations of ships, sea monsters, mythical creatures and detailed notes describing distant lands and cultures.

Historians believe Monte was inspired to create the map after a Japanese delegation visited Milan in 1585, exposing Europeans to new global perspectives. The original manuscript is now housed at Stanford University's David Rumsey Map Center, where it was digitally restored and made available online.

The depiction has drawn attention because it places Noah's Ark on the mountains of Ararat centuries before modern researchers began searching the region for evidence of the biblical vessel.

The Bible recounts Noah's Ark resting on the 'mountains of Ararat' after a 150-day flood submerged the Earth, sparing only those aboard the wooden vessel.

The idea that the ark landed in the Turkish mountain range has long sparked debate.

Just 18 miles south of Mount Ararat, Turkey's tallest peak, the Durupinar Formation emerged less than a century ago

The radar captured 'a series of right angles' about 20 feet down, which researchers believe could be the rooms that held animals on the ark

While many scientists argue the formation is a naturally occurring geological feature, others are convinced it points to something far more extraordinary. 

The team at Noah's Ark Scans firmly believes the latter.

'For decades, skeptics have had one simple answer for the boat-shaped Durupınar Formation: it is just a solid lump of natural rock,' Noah's Ark Scans said on Wednesday.

'The mission was direct: put the "solid rock" explanation to the test. Is the formation a single homogeneous mass of natural stone? Does it contain internal structures? 

'Where does the true bedrock lie beneath it, and how does that bedrock continue across the surrounding valley?'

The team shared online that radar scans found three layers beneath the formation's surface, claiming they feature chambers, corridors, organized patterns, and tunnels.

Lauren Witzke, head of marketing and fundraising for Noah's Ark Scans, said on X: 'Scientists confirm the formation is 100 percent not geological. They say, and I quote, that it is a “man-made object."'

Tests conducted by Noah's Ark Scans have also found higher carbon levels inside the formation than in matching soil collected just a few yards away on the same hillside.

The researchers added further studies using infrared thermography (IRT), a heat-sensing technology that can uncover hidden structures underground, have also suggested the presence of a ship-shaped hull buried deep in the soil

Researchers said the difference could point to a concentration of organic material, potentially the remains of ancient wood, although no timber has been recovered.

Lead archaeologist Dr Cenker Atila said: ‘The amount of carbon coming from the interior of the ship is 40 percent higher than what was found outside.’ 

‘This raises the idea that there may be organic material or remains of wood.’

The findings remain unverified while the collected samples undergo laboratory testing. The team expects to publish a fuller analysis in the coming weeks. 

RELATED

What Did They Find Under Noah’s Ark? Latest Discovery Explained

{ https://www.dailymail.com/sciencetech/index.html }

Alien sunsets, stone spiderwebs and mysterious doors: Curiosity's top 10 photos after 5,000 days on Mars

Curiosity has been photographing Mars in its search for evidence of water and life for over 5,000 Martian days. Here are 10 of the most surprising and weird photos the rover has sent back to Earth.

 By Damien Pine, Edited by Brandon Specktor, Kimberly Hicko

As of Aug. 30, 2026, NASA's Curiosity rover has officially seen the sun rise and set over Mars' reddish horizon more than 5,000 times in its quest to discover if life ever existed there. The rover was originally planned to operate for only two years, but the mission is still going strong more than 14 years after landing on Mars in August 2012.

During that time, the rover has weathered global dust storms and climbed more than 3,200 feet (1,000 meters) up a mountain — although its tires have gotten some rather large holes in them in the process. The rover still uses its 17 cameras to take hundreds of photos every single sol (Martian day), beaming a total of more than 780,000 photos back to Earth for scientists to analyze while mission controllers decide where the rover should roam next.

In honor of the intrepid rover's 5,000th day on the Red Planet, here are 10 of the most iconic photos Curiosity has snapped for Earthlings to admire.

1. Sol 548: Mount Sharp on the horizon

Curiosity snapped this photo of Mount Sharp on Feb. 19, 2014, about a year and a half after it landed on Mars. At the time, scientists were hopeful the rover could make it to the base of the 3.4-mile-high (5.5 kilometers high) mountain to explore interesting terrain previously seen from space. As the years passed, Curiosity more than surpassed that goal; the rover has climbed more than half a mile up into the mountain's foothills, traveling a total of more than 23.6 miles (38 km) from its landing spot, all while conducting important science along the way.

2. Sol 956: Blue skies on Mars

Curiosity took a photo of the Martian sunset in color for the first time on April 15, 2015, revealing a brilliant blue sky just before the sun dipped behind the shrouded mountains in the distance. The Martian sky is usually yellow to orange, according to NASA. Fine dust particles in the atmosphere scatter red and yellow light across the entire sky. However, the dust is just the right size for some blue light to slip past, so most of the light in the sky near the sun is blue. The effect is much more pronounced when the sun is low in the horizon.

Humanity's first look at the surface of Mars shared on 50th anniversary of historic NASA landing

Oldest-known Martian meteorite holds clues to a watery past

'The moon looked wrong': Artemis II mission controller Chris White tells the story behind NASA's historic photos

3. Sol 1128: Curiosity Selfie at Namib D

Curiosity has taken numerous selfies over the course of its mission, although the process is a bit more involved than holding up a camera and smiling. This selfie was made from 57 separate images taken on Jan. 19, 2016 using a camera attached to its robotic arm. Here, Curiosity is standing next to Namib Dune, one of the many dark sand dunes that make up the Bagnold Dune Field near Mount Sharp. Curiosity sampled the sand for analysis and scuffed the dune with its wheels so scientists could see how the sand moved.

4. Sol 1819: Curiosity leaves a thumbprint in the dust

Mars is extremely dusty. The reddish dust gets swept into the atmosphere and cast across most of the planet's surface, making it difficult for scientists to figure out what materials are on the surface just by looking at them. On Sept. 17, 2017, Curiosity dusted off the surface of a rock at Vera Rubin Ridge and took a picture for geologists to compare to rocks on Earth. Based on the reddish purple color, geologists think this rock is fine-grained hematite split by fractures filled with calcium sulfate minerals. It hints that Mars might be a lot more colorful underneath its dusty blanket. Scientists have since discovered ruby-like materials embedded in Martian rocks.

5. Sol 3466: Totally not a door for aliens

On May 7, 2022, Curiosity sent a curious photo back to Earth that appears to show a small door carved into the face of a cliff. It's hard not to imagine little green people entering it after taking their little green dogs for a stroll across the dusty landscape, but it's not actually a doorway for Martians. The 3-foot-tall opening's boxy shape is caused by vertical fractures intersecting with horizontal layers in the rock, according to NASA. The cliff is highly fractured, and a large chunk of rock that likely fell from the "doorway" is clearly visible nearby.

6. Sol 3724: Iridescent feather in the sky

Just after the sun went down on Jan. 27, 2023, Curiosity took this photo of a noctilucent (night-shining) cloud that formed much higher in the Martian atmosphere than most other clouds do. Any clouds on Mars are rare, but this one is extra special. Since this cloud is so high up, it's much colder — making scientists think it's made of carbon dioxide (dry ice) instead of water ice. The iridescent colors in the cloud indicate the ice particles making up the cloud are all around the same size, which means the cloud likely just formed at the time of the photo.

7. Sol 3725: Curiosity finds "Cacao"

The very next day after cloud-gazing, on Jan. 28, 2023, Curiosity found an iron-nickel meteorite measuring about a foot across. The meteorite, nicknamed "Cacao," is one of a handful of meteorites Curiosity has photographed. The rover zapped part of the meteorite with a laser and measured the vapor released to identify what materials the rock was made of. Since Mars is cold and dry compared to Earth, meteorites last much longer on its surface than they do here, and they give clues about how the Martian atmosphere has changed over time. Large iron meteorites discovered on Mars indicate the planet once had a denser atmosphere than it does today.

JWST finds unknown substance, China's 'Great Green Wall' grows faster than normal trees, a Medici murder mystery solved, and what the US can learn from Japan's 'silent pandemic'

'It's more than a hope, it's a guarantee': The Vera C. Rubin Observatory's 10-year movie of the universe is about to 'blow our minds,' chief scientist says

NASA celebrates America's 250th birthday with red, white and blue snaps of the cosmos

8. Sol 4208: Elemental sulfur crystal surprise

In June 2024, Curiosity unintentionally ran over a rock and crushed it, revealing a yellow, odorless surprise: rare crystals of elemental sulfur. While Mars has plenty of minerals that contain sulfur, like sulfate, this was the first time pure sulfur was found. The crystal fragments are about 5 inches (12.7 centimeters) across. On Earth, pure sulfur is formed from volcanic and hydrothermal activity, along with other geologic processes. It's not clear yet how these crystals formed on Mars.

9. Sol 182 - 4263: All 42 drill samples

Curiosity has collected and analyzed 42 rock samples so far using a small drill attached to a robotic arm. The drill powders the rock so that the samples can be transported to Curiosity's science instruments, which measure their chemical composition. Each sample site is carefully chosen because the rover can only do a limited number of samples before it runs out of special sample cups. This mosaic image shows the impressive variety of materials that Curiosity has sunk its drill into.

10. Sol 4671: Exploring Martian spiderwebs

Researchers have been intrigued by large geologic structures like stone "spiderwebs" on the Martian surface, previously seen by spacecraft orbiting the planet. Curiosity visited them on the ground, taking this picture of the low ridges and hollows, called boxwork, on Sept. 26, 2025. The ridges, made from hardened minerals deposited by water seeping into cracked rock, are what's left after billions of years of erosion wore away the softer rock around them.

Curiosity's journey continues today. After leaving the boxwork structures last March, the rover set off to explore more of the Martian landscape with its cameras as busy as ever, looking for more evidence that Mars once had the water and chemistry to possibly support ancient microbial life.

{ https://www.livescience.com/space }

Perseverance Reveals How Complex Water Systems Shaped the Jezero Crater on Early Mars

{ https://www.universetoday.com/ }

DNA discovery on Shroud of Turin corroborates biblical account of Jesus's resurrection

• READ MORE: Noah's Ark resting place '100% confirmed' after 4,300 years as astonishing 'man-made' structure is detected buried deep underground

By STACY LIBERATORE, US SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY EDITOR

The burial cloth believed to have wrapped the body of Jesus following the crucifixion is one of the most studied and fiercely debated artifacts in history.

Known as the Shroud of Turin, the 14-foot-long linen bears an image of a man embedded in the fibers.

While radiocarbon dating in the 1980s pointed to a medieval origin, some researchers have argued that other evidence on the linen tells a different story.

A recent analysis of fibers removed from the cloth produced results that appear to align the mysterious relic with its biblical origins. 

A team of Italian researchers analyzed linen fibers removed from different areas of the Shroud during a 1978 investigation using next-generation sequencing that can search millions of genetic fragments at once.

They detected a rare human genetic lineage found mainly in the Near East, particularly among the Druze people of the Holy Land, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria.

The scientists also discovered salt-loving microorganisms associated with highly saline environments, raising the possibility that the cloth was once preserved or stored near saltwater.

The study, which has been peer-reviewed, was recently reported by Vatican News, which stated: 'These findings seem to confirm a sojourn of the Shroud in the Middle East and in a saline environment, such as near the Dead Sea, adding another piece to the mosaic of scientific evidence supporting the Shroud’s authenticity.'

The relic is believed to be the burial cloth that wrapped Jesus after he died on the cross and is said to bear his image left after the resurrection. The Shroud is housed inside the Cathedral of Saint John the Baptist in Turin, Italy

However, the researchers stressed that the DNA cannot prove the cloth covered Jesus or determine whether it is medieval or 2,000 years old. 

The first public appearance of the Shroud was documented in Lirey, France, in the 1350s, when a knight named Geoffroi de Charny put it on display. How he acquired the cloth is unknown.

The new study, published in Scientific Reports on July 9, 2026, builds on the team’s 2015 DNA analysis of particles and fibers collected from the Shroud in 1978.

This time, researchers used more advanced sequencing technology to examine a separate collection of 12 samples taken during the same investigation but not included in the 2015 study.

The research, led by Dr Gianni Barcaccia, professor of genetics and genomics at the University of Padua in Italy, aimed to uncover biological clues about the mysterious relic’s long and complicated journey.

The 2015 study analyzed particles collected from the Shroud in 1978 and threads associated with its 1988 radiocarbon testing, uncovering DNA from at least 19 plant species and mitochondrial lineages attributed to at least 14 people.

Researchers reported that 55.6 percent of the human DNA sequences corresponded to Near Eastern lineages and 38.7 percent to Indian lineages, although the material could have accumulated through centuries of handling.

Those figures describe the proportion of classified DNA sequences, not the percentage of people who handled the cloth or the ancestry of the Shroud itself.

The new study analyzed samples of the cloth that was previously taken in a 1978 investigation. This allowed them to use advanced technology for a new DNA analysis  

Above are samples taken from the Shroud in 1988 to determine the age. The pieces were removed from the edges of the cloth

The 2026 analysis revealed extensive modern contamination alongside skin microbes, fungi, salt-loving microorganisms, plants, animals and Mediterranean coral.

A maternal DNA lineage frequently found among Ashkenazi Jews was dominant in three Shroud samples. However, the same genetic signature belonged to Professor Pierluigi Baima Bollone, who collected the samples in 1978.

Read More

EXCLUSIVE

• Shroud of Turin discovery places burial cloth at time of Jesus' death 

The researchers therefore concluded that much of this DNA probably came from Bollone, or a close relative, while the samples were being handled, rather than from the man originally wrapped in the cloth.

The team also detected three other maternal lineages, including H1b, which is common in Europe, and H2a2, which may appear because it is used as a standard genetic reference.

The rare H33 lineage was also identified. It is found today in Near Eastern groups, especially among the Druze, an Arabic-speaking ethno-religious minority living in the Holy Land, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria.

‘The Druze population shares a common genetic ancestry with Jews and Cypriots, and has historically intermingled with other Levantine populations, including Palestinians and Syrians,’ the team wrote.

H2a2 and H33 had already been detected in the 2015 research, so their presence was not an entirely new discovery.

The 2026 researchers were also unable to reconstruct with confidence the minor South Asian maternal lineages reported in the 2015 samples.

The samples contained an unusually large number of slightly different mitochondrial DNA variants scattered throughout the genetic material.

The mixture showed that numerous people touched or otherwise came into contact with the Shroud, making it extremely difficult to identify DNA belonging to the person originally wrapped in the cloth.

Evidence of repeated handling was also found in the form of common skin bacteria, including Cutibacterium and Staphylococcus.

Researcher detected a rare human genetic lineage found mainly in the Near East, particularly among the Druze people of the Holy Land, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria

Salt-loving microorganisms known as archaea suggested that the material encountered highly saline conditions, possibly during storage or when the flax was processed in brackish or salty water.

However, researchers also found Debaryomyces hansenii, a fungus commonly found in cheese and extremely salty water, along with other fungi. This makes it difficult to determine exactly where or how the microorganisms reached the Shroud.

Because the samples contained very little usable human DNA, researchers broadened their search to include all biological material, such as bacteria, fungi, plants, animals, viruses and salt-loving microorganisms.

Researchers linked some of the biological material to broad regions including the Near East, Europe, Asia, the Mediterranean and the Americas.

The team, however, could not identify specific countries or determine when the traces reached the Shroud.

The wider biological evidence, however, complicated claims that the Shroud originated in first-century Judea.

Researchers detected Mediterranean coral, domesticated animals and crops originating across Europe, Asia and the Americas. 

The strongest plant signal came from carrots resembling European varieties developed during the 1400s and 1500s, while maize, tomatoes, peppers, potatoes and peanuts reached Europe only after Columbus.

The findings suggested that much of the biological material accumulated during later centuries. 

No plant was exclusive to the Levant, and researchers noted an absence of flora typical of the Middle East.

Protein testing found no ancient biological material, while radiocarbon dating of two loose threads reflected documented repairs rather than the age of the original cloth.

The researchers ultimately concluded that the evidence cannot establish whether the Shroud was created in medieval Europe or dates back approximately 2,000 years, and does not prove its connection to Jesus.

{ https://www.dailymail.com/sciencetech/index.html }

New UFO Files Release | Shocking Videos and Mixed Reactions

A fresh line of UFO videos has sparked buzz across forums, revealing strong visual evidence that's hard to brush off. Amid skepticism, the latest updates are available on a newly organized archive platform. Users express excitement and concerns, raising questions about the authenticity of claims and the nature of these sightings.

Major Releases Draw Attention

The recent UFO video drop is generating considerable controversy. Claims about sightings range from the unexplainable to the downright bizarre. "Where are the clear pics?" one commenter lamented, hinting at general discontent over the lack of visible proof to back the reports.

Users Challenge the Nature of UFOs

The commentary reflects a growing frustration about the changing portrayal of unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP). "What happened to classic UFOs?" questioned a user, pointing out that many recent reports focus on orbs and tictacs instead of the traditional saucers and triangular shapes.

Another user summed up the sentiment with, "Great! Wake me up when there's better data." Their apprehension suggests that many are looking for substantial evidence rather than vague representations and theories.

Distrust in Authenticity

Amid the excitement, skepticism remains rampant. Some users theorized that these releases are tactics to divert attention from more pressing issues like geopolitical events. One pointedly remarked, "Time to distract the public from Putin joining the Iran war." This comment underscores the distrust some people harbor regarding governmental transparency on UFOs.

The Quest for Physical Evidence

Many individuals are left wondering why alleged UFO encounters are now often more ethereal than tangible. One user’s comment about energy beings highlights a broader concern over how UFOs are portrayed today.

"When are we going to actually see one of the aliens?"

Key Takeaways

• ⚠️ Mixed reactions dominate: skepticism, curiosity, and disappointment across forums.

• ⭐ Users demand concrete evidence, reflecting a shift in the narrative around UFOs.

• 🔍 Some believe the claims coincide with significant global political events, stirring distrust.

As the discourse continues, it remains to be seen how the community will respond to the latest UFO releases and their implications for the ongoing exploration of the unknown.

Glancing into the Future of UFO Discourse

As discussions around the recent UFO files unfold, there’s a high likelihood that skepticism will either intensify or lead to more vocal demands for verifiable evidence. Experts estimate about 70% of people engaging in forums may require substantial proof, which could push authorities to either expedite the release of tangible information or risk further distrust. With global political tensions rising and a possible increase in similar sightings, the next few months may see a surge in both reports and public criticism surrounding government transparency. If the trend continues, we might witness a resurgence in independent investigations into these phenomena, reflecting a significant shift in the public's appetite for clarity.

Reflecting on Historic Hurdles

Interestingly, this situation reminds us of the early days of space exploration in the mid-20th century. At that time, many dismissed the rocket launches as mere government exaggerations, and the public's thirst for evidence pushed scientists and engineers to innovate rapidly. Just as early space missions were met with a blend of curiosity and skepticism, today's UFO reports could fuel a new wave of investigation and innovation. This historical precedent may encourage skeptics to reconsider their stance, similar to how the skepticism surrounding space travel eventually led to a renaissance in science and technology—a relevant reminder of how public perception can drive progress in understanding the unknown.

RELATED

{ https://mysterylores.com/  }

Image: ChatGPT

The Search For Alien Technology Has A Measurement Problem – Analysis

By Burak Oktenli

Key Takeaways:

• Bigger AI models can rank, classify, and search at huge scale, but they cannot invent evidence an instrument never recorded. When two explanations produce the same data, no larger model can honestly tell them apart—the limit is identifiability, not compute.
• Radio SETI, including Breakthrough Listen and the blc1 Proxima Centauri candidate later traced to terrestrial interference, shows the gap between finding a candidate and proving its origin. The next step is a new measurement—another site, antenna, geometry, epoch, or diagnostic—not another terabyte of the same ambiguous data.
• Scientific AI should keep detection strength, calibration validity, tested alternatives, and independent follow-up separate instead of collapsing them into one confidence score. Automate ranking and triage; do not let a model promote its own score into a stronger claim without new evidence.
• Bigger models can rank, classify, and search at extraordinary scale. They still cannot manufacture evidence that an instrument never captured.

The most dangerous promise in scientific artificial intelligence is not that machines will make mistakes. It is that they will make certainty out of missing information. As AI systems become better at finding patterns in enormous datasets, the temptation is to assume that a sufficiently powerful model can extract a correct answer from almost any measurement. That is false. Sometimes the obstacle is not computation, model capacity, or training data. Sometimes the decisive information was never measured in the first place.

Radio searches for extraterrestrial technology offer an unusually clear example. Modern programs such as Breakthrough Listen scan vast frequency ranges for narrowband, drifting signals that could be consistent with engineered transmitters. The field has also embraced machine learning. A deep-learning search of 820 nearby stars showed that learned representations can surface candidate signals that conventional filters may miss. That is exactly the sort of task at which AI can excel: ranking, triage, anomaly discovery, and the compression of an impossible search space into a manageable set of things worth examining.

But candidate discovery is not origin discovery. The distinction became vivid in the investigation of blc1, a narrowband signal detected in observations of Proxima Centauri. Its morphology was interesting enough to demand serious follow-up. The eventual analysis traced it to terrestrial radio-frequency interference. The lesson was not that unusual signals are unimportant. It was that a detection statistic is only the beginning of an evidentiary chain.

This point becomes sharper when we ask a simple question: what if two competing explanations generate exactly the same data for the algorithm? Suppose one hypothesis is a target-associated signal and another is a terrestrial interferer that, by chance or geometry, appears only during the same on-target scans. If both produce the same frequency-time track, the same amplitude pattern, and the same scan-by-scan observations, then the two hypotheses induce the same probability distribution over the data given to the model. In that case, no classifier can separate them honestly. Not a larger transformer. Not a deeper neural network. Not a quantum computer. The distinction is absent from the measurement.

That is an identifiability limit, and it changes how we should think about scientific AI. When two hypotheses are observationally equivalent, the next advance must come from experimental design rather than model design. We need a new measurement that causes the hypotheses to predict different outcomes: a simultaneous reference antenna, an independent observing site, a changed pointing geometry, an instrument diagnostic, a different epoch, or some other source of conditionally independent evidence. Another terabyte of the same ambiguous data does not solve the problem.

The same principle appears in more ordinary ways. Reference observations, for example, are often used to reject interference. That can work extremely well when the nuisance really is common to both target and reference scans. But the protection has a cost. If a genuine source leaks into an off-target observation through sidelobes or pointing geometry, a subtraction rule can subtract part of the signal we wanted to preserve, while a hard veto can discard it altogether. A method that looks safer on one axis may quietly become less sensitive on another.

Calibration creates a second trap. A threshold calibrated under one noise model does not retain its meaning after the residual environment changes. In a synthetic stress test I developed for radio technosignature decision rules, thresholds calibrated to an approximately one-percent cadence-level exceedance rate under independent Gaussian residuals produced trigger fractions above fifty percent after a simple time-correlation structure was introduced. Nothing about the threshold number itself warned that its interpretation had collapsed. The problem was not that the detector suddenly became stupid. The statistical conditions supporting the threshold no longer held.

This is why the most important question for scientific AI may not be, “How accurate is the model?” It may be, “Under what measurement conditions does this output still mean what we say it means?” That is a different discipline. It requires separating detection strength from calibration validity, separating a candidate ranking from an origin claim, and recording which alternative explanations have actually been tested.

Engineering already has language for this. NASA’s current standard for models and simulations treats credibility, validation, verification, uncertainty, and acceptance criteria as explicit parts of model use. Scientific AI needs the same instinct. A model should not inherit authority merely because it is sophisticated. Its output should carry the conditions under which it was calibrated, the data it actually observed, the alternatives it cannot distinguish, and the tests still required before escalation.

That discipline matters far beyond SETI. In medical imaging, two diseases can look similar under one modality and diverge only after another test. In climate science, a model can fit the historical record while remaining underdetermined about causal mechanisms. In intelligence analysis, multiple adversary explanations can remain consistent with the same observable behavior. In autonomous systems, a sensor-fusion stack can assign high confidence to a state estimate even when its sensors share a common-mode failure. In each case, more computation can sharpen the inference conditional on the evidence. It cannot supply the missing discriminator.

This should change how we evaluate AI progress in science. Benchmark culture often rewards the highest score on a fixed dataset. But the scientifically important question is often what happens when the assumptions behind that dataset fail. A robust benchmark should therefore include conditions designed to break the method: distribution shifts, correlated residuals, missing reference observations, leakage between supposedly independent channels, nuisance classes that mimic the positive class, and deliberately matched cases in which successful discrimination would reveal data leakage rather than intelligence.

The technosignature community already has many of the ingredients. Tools such as setigen support synthetic signal generation and injection. Published work has explored machine-learning direction-of-origin filtering, while the “cosmic haystack” formalism reminds us that excellent sensitivity within one narrow test family does not imply comprehensive coverage of the wider search space. The broader NASA technosignatures workshop report likewise framed technosignature research as a field in which new instruments, new surveys, new algorithms, and new theory all matter. The missing piece is not another declaration that AI will accelerate discovery. It is a stronger contract between what an algorithm outputs and what the measurement actually warrants.

Such a contract would be simple in principle. A candidate record should keep at least four things separate: the strength of the detected feature; whether the current data remain inside the calibration regime; which conventional or instrumental alternatives have been tested; and what independent observation, if any, supports a stronger interpretation. A fifth field can carry follow-up priority, but that is a resource-allocation decision, not a probability of origin. Collapsing all of these into one confidence score creates an audit problem: after the fact, nobody can tell which assumption carried the claim forward.

The same asymmetry should govern automation. AI can reasonably automate low-level transitions: ingest data, flag anomalies, compare a statistic with a frozen threshold, rank candidates, and request additional observations. But an automated system should not be allowed to convert its own score into a stronger scientific claim without new evidence. Promotion should require a named test or an independent measurement. Demotion, by contrast, should be easy. If a calibration assumption later fails, the system should be able to return every affected candidate to an earlier evidentiary state while preserving the record of what was previously believed and why.

This is not an argument against AI in science. It is an argument for using AI where it is strongest. Machines are extraordinarily good at searching spaces too large for humans, identifying weak structure, prioritizing scarce attention, and proposing where to look next. Those capabilities could transform astronomy and many other sciences. But scientific authority should attach to evidence, not to model scale.

The phrase “AI for discovery” therefore needs one amendment. AI can accelerate the path to discovery. It can expose patterns that deserve investigation. It can help design the next observation. It can tell us that our current measurement is inconsistent with the assumptions under which our old threshold was calibrated. What it cannot do is infer a distinction that the experiment never encoded.

That boundary is not a limitation to be embarrassed about. It is a design instruction. When the model cannot know, the answer is not always a bigger model. Sometimes the answer is a better instrument, a second sensor, a new control, an independent site, a different observing geometry, or a more honest statement of uncertainty. The future of scientific AI will depend as much on improving what we measure as on improving what we compute.

If the evidence is not in the measurement, intelligence cannot conjure it into existence.

RELATED

{ https://www.eurasiareview.com/ }

By Taylor Penley - Fox News

A UAP whistleblower is making an extraordinary claim about what the U.S. government is keeping behind closed doors, saying the government is in possession of recovered craft.

"Does the government have craft that have been recovered? Yes they do," Dylan Borland said on the "Hang Out with Sean Hannity" podcast.

Borland made the assertion in the latest episode of the show, where he joined television host Ben Hansen to discuss what whistleblowers say they know about the government's handling of UAP and allegedly recovered craft.

• UFO WHISTLEBLOWER CLAIMS BILLIONS IN SECRET SPENDING HIDDEN FROM CONGRESS

UAP whistleblower Dylan Borland, left, sits down for an exclusive interview with Fox News host Sean Hannity, right, on the "Hang Out with Sean Hannity" podcast.

(Hang Out With Sean Hannity/Screengrab)

Hannity pressed Borland directly on whether he knew "for a fact" that the government possessed such craft, and whether restrictions surrounding his work would allow him to answer the question publicly.

He responded: "Yes."

His claim comes after a group of UAP whistleblowers called on President Donald Trump to waive nondisclosure agreements they say prevent them from fully disclosing what they know to the American public.

• MARCO RUBIO ADDRESSES UAP GOVERNMENT COVER-UP ALLEGATIONS, SAYS TRUMP WOULD GIVE A SPEECH IF ADMIN KNEW MORE

During the conversation, Hannity also pointed to individuals he had spoken with previously who said they had knowledge of recovered craft. He asked Borland whether he knew people who had made similar assertions.

"Probably, yes," Borland responded.

Hannity also discussed claims from individuals who say they faced intimidation, workplace harassment and threats after coming forward with UAP-related information. Borland appeared to affirm those accounts during the interview.

Hannity has held previous podcast discussions about UAPs, including one conversation with Rep. Tim Burchett, R-Tenn., and Luis Elizondo about alleged Pentagon UAP cover-ups, exotic materials, destroyed pilot data and more.

"Hang Out with Sean Hannity" fans can watch or listen to Hannity's full conversation with Borland and Hansen on iHeartRadio, YouTube, Spotify, Apple Podcasts or wherever they get their podcasts.

{ https://www.foxnews.com/ }

The Moon has an extremely weak magnetic field. However, the question of whether our satellite has always been this defenseless has long sparked heated debate among astrophysicists. Some scientists argued that billions of years ago the Moon had its own planetary dynamo, while others claimed that the evidence for this theory was insufficient.

The Moon is defenseless against space because of the absence of a magnetic field. Photo: Unsplash

Fresh observations of the far side of our cosmic neighbor, published in the journal Science Advances, have helped bring an unexpected resolution to this debate.

The Coincidence of Three Anomalies in Dewar Crater

While analyzing archival lunar observations, scientists discovered a huge, strongly magnetized structure in the region of Dewar crater. The object, about 60 km wide, consists of solidified magma that rose from deep within the Moon approximately 4.2 billion years ago.

Dewar crater, photographed by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter spacecraft. Source: Wikimedia Commons

This area is also known for bright, swirling patterns on the surface. Researchers Xi Yang and Anna Mittelholz of ETH Zurich note that Dewar crater represents a unique case where a magnetic anomaly, a gravitational anomaly, and a characteristic surface pattern all coincide at the same location.

The far side of the Moon. Image:  Space Engine

Using a combined mathematical model, the scientists calculated that the Moon’s early magnetic field would have needed to be about 11 μT to produce such a structure. For comparison, Earth’s present-day magnetic field is about 50 μT.

A New Approach Instead of Apollo Samples

The previous hypothesis of a lunar dynamo was based on rock samples brought back by astronauts from the Apollo missions, but later re-evaluations of these materials confused the scientific community because of conflicting results. The new method, which combines orbital gravity and magnetic data, made it possible to place precise constraints on the characteristics of the planetary dynamo without the need for landing and collecting soil samples. In addition, the location of Dewar crater completely rules out the possibility that the magnetic anomaly was temporarily produced by a powerful asteroid impact.

A lunar swirl photographed on the near side of the Moon. Source: NASA

Understanding the Moon’s magnetic history provides an important example of how relatively small celestial bodies can maintain — or lose — their own dynamos. And although the discovery does not eliminate absolutely all discrepancies with the Apollo sample data, the scientific debate is now shifting from the question “Did a magnetic field exist?” to “How exactly did it work?”

Earlier, we reported on how the Moon’s magnetic field may once have been stronger than Earth’s.

• Based on materials from Phys
• Posted in News, Science

{ https://universemagazine.com/en/articles-en/ }