Here is the link to Dr. Beatriz Villarroel’s piece in the Liberation Times, mentioned in the beginning of the episode.
Podcast transcript:
So I’ll just say straight off that the reason any of this matters is that, years before we put anything into orbit, something reflective and physical was already up there – appearing briefly, then vanishing.
But there’s a lot to this story so let’s back up.
Yesterday, an article was published in an outlet you’ve probably never read or heard of, written by an astronomer you’ve probably never read or heard of. This is not a criticism. It’s just how attention works now. Important things tend to arrive quietly, like a neighbor knocking to tell you your headlights are on.
The outlet was Liberation Times, edited by Chris Sharp. He tends to publish careful, unnervingly sober reporting about subjects most institutions would prefer to keep at arm’s length, which is why so few people are aware of his existence. I’ll link the piece in the description.
The astronomer was Beatriz Villarroel. Dr. Villarroel is an assistant professor at the Nordic Institute for Theoretical Physics – an establishment devoted not to the manufacture of fashionable certainties, but to the patient, often uncomfortable business of thinking at the outer edges of what is known. NORDITA exists precisely to ask questions that do not yet have agreeable answers, and to do so with mathematical rigor rather than ideological reassurance. To work there is not a credential one acquires by accident, nor one retained by indulging in intellectual frivolity.
She holds a PhD in astronomy.
She leads long-running projects that search historical sky surveys for anomalies most astronomers never think to question.
And before we talk about what she found in the sky, we need to talk about what happened to her on Earth.
Before the Science, the Treatment
In 2023, Beatriz Villarroel published a guest essay on Critical Mass, edited by Lawrence Krauss. It was not polemical. It was not angry. It was restrained in that very Scandinavian way where the sentences line up politely, remove their shoes at the door, and then proceed to describe something genuinely harrowing without ever raising their voices.
She wrote not to litigate her science, but to document what had happened to her professionally over the previous two years. Not because of misconduct. Not because of fraud. Not because of bad science. But because of who she chose to work with.
She described how, after deciding to collaborate with exoplanet pioneer Geoff Marcy, she became the target of sustained harassment and discrimination within the international astronomy community. Marcy had been accused of sexual harassment in 2015, subjected to public shaming, and forced into retirement from UC Berkeley after an internal investigation. There were no criminal charges. No court proceedings. No legal adjudication. And no pathway for rehabilitation.
Villarroel notes this with particular care, because she herself had experienced retaliation earlier in her academic life after rejecting quid pro quo advances from a superior as an undergraduate – an experience that helped drive her out of her original field and into astronomy. She understood, firsthand, the gravity of such allegations. Years later, she got to know Marcy personally and chose to work with him on scientific grounds.
She writes, plainly and without flourish, that she believes certain principles should not be controversial: that human beings have a right to dignity; that punishment without due process is not justice; that lifelong exile imposed by the court of public opinion is not morality. Even guilt, she argues, does not erase the right to rehabilitation. Without these principles, she suggests, human community becomes something smaller and crueler.
With that understanding, she joined the international VASCO collaboration, which searches for vanishing stars and anomalous transients using historical astronomical data, including pre-Sputnik images. The work includes a large citizen-science component and has expanded toward real-time detection using modern instruments. It is careful, technical, and openly exploratory. She describes Marcy as an inspiring and valued collaborator.
As a direct consequence of that collaboration, a SETI conference (which stands for search for extraterrestrial intelligence) at a public institution in the United States barred Villarroel from presenting results of her own research. The exclusion was not framed as punishment. It was executed through a newly crafted Code of Conduct provision, written broadly enough to sound principled and narrowly enough to apply only to her. The letter informing her of the decision cited Marcy by name and instructed her to withdraw her presentation.
The same institution later held another conference and kept the very same Code of Conduct provision in place – the one that had already been used to exclude her – making clear that this was not an isolated decision but an ongoing policy for them.
When Villarroel published a first-author paper in Scientific Reports in 2021 with Marcy as a co-author, screenshots of her name circulated on social media alongside accusations that said things like “Yes, women participate in rape culture”, because of her collaboration with Marcy. Other scientists publicly urged that the paper not be cited or promoted. A prominent astronomy promotion platform announced that it would not promote the paper at all, nor another exoplanet paper by a California team with Marcy as a co-author, citing opposition to sexual harassment – without reference to the content of either paper.
A senior academic editor excluded Villarroel’s first-author paper from a scientific newsletter, asserting that she could not plausibly have been the intellectual driver of her own work. He claimed to recognize her co-author’s “style” and refused to promote the paper on that basis.
* After Villarroel organized a successful academic meeting and invited the same collaborator to participate, she was subjected to direct, threat-like communications and severe public allegations. The sustained pressure culminated in a medical emergency, and she was admitted to the emergency room weeks later.
* As her postdoctoral funding neared its end, a SETI-affiliated institute informed her that she would be barred from applying for grants or publishing papers unless her research team excluded that collaborator. She withdrew her application.
* Another SETI-friendly conference invited her, then ceased all communication without explanation and failed to confirm her registration.
* During this period, Villarroel observed social-media calls for “academic death kisses” for all collaborators of the same individual, including explicit instructions for how such punishment should be carried out.
* The pattern extended beyond her case. A former graduate student – now an assistant professor – was pressured to remove the collaborator’s name from a paper despite his substantial contributions, following sustained online harassment and intimidation directed at her and her tenure prospects. Several senior academics participated in the campaign, including individuals previously involved in actions against Villarroel.
* A subsequent article in Science praised this outcome, without acknowledging that denying proper authorship credit constitutes academic misconduct and violates editorial standards.
* Villarroel submitted formal complaints to professional organizations, including the American Astronomical Society. She was later informed that the cases were considered closed. No corrective action was taken, and the harassment continued.
* All of this occurred before the publication of the transients paper.
So this was not punishment for startling conclusions. It was preemptive discipline – a message delivered quietly and repeatedly. You may work. But not with everyone. Not on everything. Not without permission.
There’s this one quote from Orwell, when he said that power does not need to announce itself. It merely needs to be obeyed.
This is what that looks like in modern academia.
The most recent paper she published is the most groundbreaking:
She co-authored this paper in October of last year, 2025, a paper published in Scientific Reports – a fact that should arrest the listener before any conclusions are drawn. This is a peer-reviewed journal within the Nature family, among the most exacting and prestigious scientific publishing institutions on the planet, where conjecture is not rewarded, fashion is not indulged, and assertions survive only by submitting themselves to hostile scrutiny.
Papers are peer-reviewed.
Methods are scrutinized.
Statistics are checked.
Nothing about this was casual.
What the Transients Paper Actually Did
This is the point at which the conversation needs to slow down, because it is also where misunderstanding most often takes hold. The paper does not argue for extraterrestrial origin, intentional design, or any settled conclusion at all. Instead, it undertakes a far more careful task: a systematic examination of historical photographic plates of the night sky taken between 1949 and 1957, years before humanity had launched a single satellite into orbit.
A photographic plate, for those of us who did not grow up in observatories, is essentially a large, glass-backed photograph of the sky – an early, analog method of recording forty or fifty minutes of starlight at a time, long before digital sensors made such things feel effortless.
On a small but persistent subset of these plates, the researchers identified bright, star-like points that possess the same optical characteristics as stars and yet behave in a distinctly different way. These points appear only once, remain visible for less than a single fifty-minute exposure, and are absent both from images taken shortly before and from every image taken afterward. Because they are transient by nature – appearing briefly and then vanishing without recurrence – they are referred to simply and precisely as “transients.” The first and most essential task of the study, therefore, was not to interpret these phenomena, but to determine whether they could be dismissed as artifacts, errors, or other familiar imperfections in the photographic record.
Why These Are Not Defects
Photographic defects don’t behave like real objects. They don’t hold their shape the way stars do, they don’t register with the same optical fingerprint, and they don’t follow any rules except randomness. Most of all, they don’t respond to the geometry of the Earth and the Sun. Real objects do. When Villarroel’s team mapped where these brief flashes appeared in relation to the Sun, they found something decisive: the flashes were almost entirely absent from Earth’s shadow.
That matters because light behaves differently depending on how it’s produced. A scratch or a flaw glows nowhere and everywhere at once. But a reflection only appears when sunlight strikes a surface at the right angle. When the Sun is blocked, the reflection vanishes. What these plates show, again and again, are flashes that behave exactly like reflected sunlight – brief glints off flat, mirror-like surfaces moving high above the atmosphere. And because this occurred years before Sputnik, before human-made objects filled orbit, the usual explanations – dust, scratches, film contamination – simply fall away. What remains is something real, physical, and unaccounted for.
The Correlations
At that point, the team did something deliberately conservative. They didn’t ask what these objects were, because that question invites speculation. They asked something much safer: when do they show up? To answer it, they aligned three independent timelines – dates when transients appeared, dates of above-ground nuclear weapons tests, and dates when people reported seeing unidentified aerial phenomena – and looked for patterns across them.
What emerged was understated in presentation but consequential in implication. Transients were significantly more likely to appear within a day of a nuclear test, and on days with higher numbers of UAP reports, the number of transients rose as well, increasing by roughly 8.5 percent for each additional report.
The associations are modest, but they recur with a regularity that chance alone does not explain. Crucially, they cannot be attributed to observer bias or photographic error, because neither the astronomers analyzing decades-old plates nor the witnesses reporting sightings at the time had any knowledge that such correlations existed.
What This Means, and What It Does Not
What the paper offers is not a theory of motive or origin, and it is careful not to indulge in speculation that outruns the evidence. Instead, it establishes something narrower and far more difficult to dismiss: that reflective objects, behaving like sunlight glints rather than self-luminous sources, appeared repeatedly at high altitude or orbital distances in the years before the space age, and that their appearances were not randomly distributed in time, but clustered around periods when humanity first began detonating nuclear weapons in the open air. That finding alone constitutes a serious scientific result, independent of whatever future explanations may eventually emerge. It is also worth noting, without drama but not without weight, that this work was carried out by a scientist who had already incurred professional cost for declining to conform to the unspoken boundaries of acceptable inquiry.
A Defense, Plainly Stated
If Villarroel were mistaken, the remedy would be elementary: replicate the analysis, interrogate the statistics, and publish a rebuttal. That is the ordinary hygiene of a healthy scientific culture. What followed instead was exclusion, intimidation, and a silence so deliberate it functioned as a verdict.
Can I ask astronomers a genuine question?
And I ask this as someone very much outside your world, standing at a respectful distance, doing my best not to knock over any sacred furniture.
Why is it that academic astronomers – of all people, the professionals whose literal job is to stare into eternity – are behaving like a medieval guild during the time of the plague, huddled together with torches and pitchforks, policing the boundaries of thought like a nervous theocracy?
There is no moral universe – none – in which the punishment of one man justifies the exile of everyone who dares to work alongside him. To collaborate with someone is not to excuse them. It is to affirm the possibility of dignity, due process, and redemption. Without those, human community collapses into something smaller and crueler, even when it wears the right language.
And there is a bitter irony here that deserves to be named plainly.
Many of the same institutions that speak endlessly about inclusion and protecting women have seen fit to harass, marginalize, and professionally strangle one of the most promising and intellectually bold astronomers of her generation.
If that contradiction does not trouble you, it should.
Dr. Villarroel should not be shunned. She should be supported. She should be celebrated. And – this may be the most uncomfortable part – she should probably be emulated.
And to Dr. V, if you’re listening: there is a world beyond the cloistered monastery of the academy. It is larger, rougher, and far more interesting. We see you there, standing. That some of your peers deride you should not slow your stride.
You do not answer to them.
The sky goes on doing what it has always done. Light moves, glances off surfaces, disappears. Nothing waits to be named. The work of discovery has always belonged to those willing to look without assurance of safety or reward. When that willingness is punished and curiosity becomes a nuisance – the loss does not arrive with ceremony. It arrives later, as blank space. As questions no longer asked. As instruments turned aside. And one day we will realize that something crossed above us and left no trace, not because it could not be known, but because we taught ourselves not to look.
This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit gregscaduto.substack.com/subscribe
