---
title: "Scientists dispute study claiming UFOs orbited Earth in the 1950s"
url: "https://usubjects.com/article/scientists-dispute-study-claiming-ufos-orbited-earth-in-the-1950s-3444"
updated: "2026-08-28T16:04:40.913Z"
description: "A study claimed that UFOs orbited Earth in the 1950s, drawing attention for an extraordinary interpretation of old observations. Scientists then examined the calculations and argued the math did not support the alien-orbit conclusion."
sources: ["https://bigthink.com/13-8/a-study-claimed-ufos-visited-earth-in-the-1950s-then-scientists-checked-the-math/"]
licence: "All rights reserved"
---

# Scientists dispute study claiming UFOs orbited Earth in the 1950s

Published: 2026-08-27  
Source: [Google News](https://bigthink.com/13-8/a-study-claimed-ufos-visited-earth-in-the-1950s-then-scientists-checked-the-math/)

### Overview

A paper published in **October 2025** drew immediate attention in the UFO/UAP community by making an extraordinary claim: that researchers had identified **objects orbiting Earth in the 1950s**, long before the first human-made satellites. A follow-up paper went even further, suggesting a possible relationship between those apparent sightings and **U.S. nuclear tests** conducted during the same period. If correct, the findings would point to **non-human technological artifacts** in near-Earth space and imply a possible interest in human nuclear activity. But as often happens when sensational claims meet scientific scrutiny, the story quickly turned to a basic question: **does the math actually support the conclusion?**

### The VASCO project and the original claim

The papers came from astronomer **Dr. Beatriz Villarroel** of Nordita in Stockholm and her collaborators, who are part of the **VASCO project** — short for *Vanishing and Appearing Sources during a Century of Observations*. The project is built around a compelling idea: archived sky surveys may contain evidence of **technosignatures**, or signs of advanced technology, because older astronomical data predate much of the clutter introduced by modern human satellites and space debris. In this case, the researchers examined digitized images from the **Palomar Observatory Sky Survey (POSS-I)**, taken in the early 1950s on photographic plates at Mount Palomar in California. The survey’s paired exposures — one red-sensitive and one blue-sensitive — allowed the team to search for **“transients,”** or objects that appeared on one plate but not the other. The hypothesis was that some of those fleeting points of light might represent **sunlight glinting off orbiting objects**.

### Why the study attracted attention

The VASCO approach was noteworthy because it used a historical archive in a new way, applying modern computation to a huge body of analog data. That alone makes it of interest to astronomers and UAP researchers alike. But the implication that those transients could represent **artificial objects in orbit decades before Sputnik** pushed the work into far more controversial territory. The authors’ additional suggestion that the appearances of these objects might correlate with **nuclear tests in the 1950s** further amplified the stakes, since any meaningful link would raise profound questions about both the nature and behavior of the phenomena. For supporters, the papers seemed to offer a rare data-driven route into one of the most debated topics in anomaly research. For skeptics, the extraordinary conclusion demanded extraordinary proof.

### The criticism: the math doesn’t close the case

That proof, however, appears to be missing. In **June**, a critique soon to appear in *Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia* challenged the calculations and reasoning behind the original interpretation. According to the response, the data do not establish that the transients were orbiting objects — much less that they were non-human artifacts. The critic’s central argument is straightforward: **the mathematical and observational assumptions are not strong enough to support the alien-orbit conclusion**. That matters because on historical photographic plates, transient detections can arise from many mundane sources, including plate defects, processing artifacts, atmospheric effects, and the limitations of the imaging system itself. Without a robust chain of inference, apparent points of light remain just that: apparent.

### Why the dispute matters for UAP science

The exchange is a useful case study in how UAP-related research can progress — and where it can go off the rails. VASCO’s premise is scientifically legitimate, and the effort to mine old astronomical data for unusual signatures is exactly the kind of methodical work that could, in principle, produce something important. But the dispute also shows that **a provocative pattern is not the same as a validated discovery**. For the UAP field to gain credibility, claims must survive careful independent review, especially when they rely on indirect evidence from decades-old observations. In this case, scientists have not yet found support for the idea that **UFOs orbited Earth in the 1950s**. What they have found is a reminder that the road from anomaly to explanation runs through rigorous checking — and, sometimes, a hard look at the math.

## Provenance

This USUBJECTS page is a summary or digest of the linked original source. Any accompanying generated visual is an illustrative reconstruction, not evidence.