This post was originally published on here
In a recent All Things Unexplained episode, Vanderbilt’s Dr. Stephen Bruehl details peer-reviewed evidence that “transients” in pre-Sputnik sky plates spike around nuclear tests—and recounts an insider claim that Congress was privately briefed on the possibility of non-human intelligences living among us.
What the study found
Dr. Stephen Bruehl, collaborating with Dr. Beatriz Villarroel of the Nordic Institute for Theoretical Physics (Nordita), analyzed digitized Palomar Observatory plates from 1949–1957—an era before satellites or orbital clutter. Using approximately 2,700 days of observations, the pair compared the occurrence of transient, star-like points (appearing on one plate, gone on later ones) against dates of above-ground nuclear tests and cataloged UAP reports.
Their analysis revealed three striking patterns:
-
Days within a ±1-day “nuclear window” showed about a 45% higher likelihood of transients.
-
The effect peaked the day after a test, with roughly a 68% increase in transient odds.
-
Transients also tracked with ground UAP reports, forming a three-way pattern: nuclear tests ↔ transients ↔ UAP sightings.
Why pre-Sputnik skies matter
Because these photographic plates predate satellites and modern debris, they provide a uniquely clean dataset. Villarroel’s complementary analysis suggests many transients behave like sun-reflective objects in orbit—bright in sunlight, fading in Earth’s shadow—consistent with flat, reflective surfaces at altitude. The team’s findings now invite replication using other historical plate archives to confirm or challenge the correlation.
A claim about Congress
During the interview, Bruehl recounted a credible second-hand account that a private Congressional briefing included discussion of non-human intelligences (NHI) living among us.
This remains Bruehl’s personal account rather than an independently verified claim, but it resonates with increasing governmental interest in historical UAP data, archival collaborations, and formal investigation of unusual aerial phenomena.
Why the findings matter
-
The day-after spike hints at a time-linked relationship between nuclear detonations and transient phenomena, deserving renewed physical and statistical scrutiny.
-
The triangulated correlation among tests, transients, and UAP reports statistically strengthens decades of anecdotal “UFOs & nukes” stories—this time with quantitative evidence.
-
The pre-satellite era offers confidence that the patterns aren’t merely artifacts of modern orbital traffic.
What comes next
-
Replication: apply the same methodology to additional plate archives, such as those of the Vatican Observatory and other 1940s–1950s global collections.
-
Method refinement: integrate machine learning to reduce confounders; include controls for geomagnetic storms, test locations, and seasonal factors.
-
Open data collaboration: encourage institutional access to digitized plates and structured UAP databases for transparent cross-verification.
Key quotes
On a ±1-day nuclear window, we saw roughly 45% higher odds of a transient; most of the effect lands the day after—about 68% higher odds.
(Dr. Stephen Bruehl)
Pre-Sputnik skies were clean. That’s the strength of this dataset.
(Dr. Stephen Bruehl)
I was told that a private Congressional briefing touched on NHI living among us—and that was exactly what Congress was told.
(Dr. Stephen Bruehl, as recounted on the show)
The new paper: classifying the unclassified
Bruehl’s new preprint with Little and Powell (Cluster Analysis of Features Associated with Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena) tackled a different problem — how to make sense of hundreds of credible UAP reports spanning seventy years. Drawing from Powell et al.’s curated database of 301 high-quality cases, the team ran a two-step cluster analysis on 216 sightings complete enough for computation.
Five variables were fed into the model: shape, estimated size, ability to hover, presence of electromagnetic effects, and presence of sound.
The algorithm returned seven statistically distinct clusters with a silhouette score of 0.6, meaning strong cohesion and separation—proof that these patterns weren’t random noise.
The seven archetypes of UAP
Cluster 1
Classic disc: silent, hovering discs or spheres, often with domes, viewed close to the ground; “falling-leaf” or wobbling motions are common.
Cluster 2
Daylight disc: identical shapes but seen by pilots at altitude; non-hovering, often radar-tracked, sometimes in formation.
Cluster 3
Cylindrical giants: cigar or bullet shapes, the largest objects in the dataset; half could hover, some played “cat and mouse” with observers.
Cluster 4
Triangular craft: silent black triangles seen mostly at night, with red-and-white lights, hovering yet capable of Mach-1 bursts and instant acceleration.
Cluster 5
Ovoid flyers: oval or triangular craft lacking sound, hovering, or EM effects; likely distant or high-altitude observations—perhaps misidentified technology.
Cluster 6
Electromagnetic objects: discs or ovoids producing EM interference — car stalls, compass failures — almost all seen within 2,000 feet.
Cluster 7
Audible anomalies: varied shapes united only by the presence of sound; often near-ground, close-range, illuminated, but relatively slow.
The computer’s verdict echoed decades of anecdotal lore—yet with the statistical rigor of biomedical pattern recognition.
“When a clustering model yields a silhouette of 0.6,” Bruehl said, “that means there are real, separable structures hiding in the noise.”
Beyond shape: what the math reveals
Shape emerged as the strongest clustering driver, but not the only one.
Two clusters existed solely because they did not hover, likely reflecting different observation contexts (civilian vs military pilots).
Another pair was defined by energy signatures—electromagnetic interference versus audible propulsion.
Even more striking was what the clusters implied about propulsion physics. Roughly a third of the discs and triangles both hovered and accelerated silently beyond Mach 1—flight envelopes no known human craft can achieve without thunderous thrust or heat bloom.
The team compared these behaviors to every known platform—jets, helicopters, drones, lighter-than-air craft—and found none fit. Statistical analysis had backed what witnesses had long claimed: some UAP move as if inertia itself is optional.
Patterns through time
The dataset also captured history’s rhythm. Triangular and boomerang craft (Cluster 4) rose sharply in post-1980s reports, while daylight discs dominated the early Cold War.
Objects producing EM effects stayed remarkably consistent across decades — close, low-altitude, metallic — suggesting a stable phenomenon rather than cultural drift.
Bruehl interprets this as both caution and promise: “Even with witness error, when independent eras reproduce the same geometry and behavior, you’re probably measuring something real.”
Linking the two studies
At first glance, the nuclear-transients paper and the UFO-cluster paper address different domains—astronomical photography vs human testimony. Yet together they outline a continuum of anomalies:
-
Energy disturbances in the environment (nuclear tests, EM fields).
-
Observable transients or structured craft responding in measurable ways.
-
Statistical patterns are resilient across decades and data types.
In both cases, the signal only emerged after noise reduction—clean plates in one, curated witness data in the other. It’s the same methodology Bruehl honed studying chronic pain patients: isolate variables, let the clusters speak.
A scientific middle path
Bruehl remains cautious. His papers don’t claim extraterrestrial origin, only statistical distinctness. But in a field long divided between believers and debunkers, that may be the boldest claim of all—that the unknown can be analyzed.
“Science advances when you quantify curiosity,” he said. “We finally have enough data to treat UAP not as a rumor, but as a signal.”
Why it matters
Methodological proof-of-concept: Cluster analysis can convert qualitative UFO lore into testable archetypes.
Historical Baseline: Both studies use pre-satellite or tightly screened data, minimizing modern contamination.
Interdisciplinary Gateway: Astrophysics, psychology, and data science converge on questions once confined to speculation.
Bruehl’s next step, he says, is to scale the model with machine-learning classifiers across millions of reports, integrating atmospheric and radar metadata — a first true phenomenology of the unexplained.
[embedded content]
