That was my assumption.

This is an opinion based on these four instances, not the statistics.

That’s not the correct way to assess the issue.

Clever.

Prescient af.

Your evidence is utterly compelling.

The single paper that is linked as their research in this article itself states that the anomalies they are investigating have a reasonable likelihood of being contamination to the images. A comment on that paper points out other artifacts on the images that point to almost certainly being contamination.

They are also a further refutation of the common, yet unfortunate, critique that all transients are merely photographic or optical defects. That critique continues to circulate, despite being ruled out by our findings.

Their own papers, literally the one they link to in this article, state that this is a possible explanation.

Looking at a couple of the other papers they’ve published (I had to go to their main site to track them down) they also state that their findings can be explained by known phenomena of various types.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And this ain’t it.

Post whatever you want, let the voters decide :]

Yeah its really evocative.

Thanks for the comment, the sub is too quiet :]

This is good.

That’s totally fine, but don’t comment on the content of it in that case.

You literally engaged by commenting.

lot of people voting and commenting that didn’t read the article.

You didn’t read the article.

Yeah posting shit like this on obscure corners of the internet is really going to smash the system. Kudos.

This is an extremely normal and common opinion.

Brilliant, unique album.

It’s not a different “description”, it’s a fundamentally different set of rules governing how the facts are arrived at.

I mean, this is just factually wrong. Different types of authority are, very obviously, meaningfully different in more than just “backstory”.

Huh, weird.

Why the fuck is this getting downvoted?!