Scientists discover mysterious sphere in Colombia, sparking UFO speculation
Scientists have made a remarkable discovery of a sphere that some believe to be an unidentified flying object (UFO).
The sphere, according to social media page @Truthpolex, was spotted March 2 flying over the town of Buga, Colombia, before it landed. Jose Luis Velazquez, one of the researchers studying the three-layered sphere, noted that it shows "no welds or joints," characteristics normally indicative of human manufacture, which further bolstered his belief in its extraterrestrial origin.
Julia Mossbridge, the executive director of the Institute for Love and Time (TILT), and a member of the University of San Diego Department of Physics and Biophysics, told Fox News Digital she remains skeptical of its extraterrestrial origins.
"It looks to me like a really cool art project," she said, urging caution in drawing immediate conclusions.
Ufo Footage Captured By Us Navy Shows Mysterious Aircraft Launching From Sea, Expert Says
Mossbridge framed the mysterious object as part of a "bigger picture" in which humanity must confront its own limitations.
Read On The Fox News App
"We are entering a time when we don't have the control that we thought we had," she said, noting that prior "grandiose" beliefs in total mastery blind us when "something shows up that doesn't fit our model of the world.
"If an artist is doing this, why is that? Well, I think it's partly the same reason. It's because we're learning that we don't understand what's in our skies, what's in our waters. And there's something going on that's essentially bigger than us," she said.
Former Defense Official Makes Earth-shattering Ufo Revelation As Unexplained Drones Leave Millions On Edge
She says sightings of unexplained objects have been around for decades.
"Frankly, we've been looking at UAPs (unidentified anomalous phenomena) for decades, and the federal government has admitted that there are things that we don't understand, but we are investigating them," she said.
Mossbridge said the coalition of individuals working to find answers, such as the Scientific Coalition for UAP Studies, the UAP Disclosure Fund and the Galileo Project, are made of people of "all political persuasions."
"They are all trying to get rigorous information themselves, not necessarily waiting on the federal government, about what's going on in our skies, what's going on in our waters and actually trying to get international cooperation around these things," she said. "Because, for instance, the sphere in Colombia is in a different country. So, what are the rules about how we deal with something that's interesting that's found there?"
Pentagon Solves One Of Its Highest-profile Ufo Mysteries
Mossbridge urged thorough vetting before declaring anomalies in mysterious discoveries.
"Before you decide something's anomalous or a UFO, bring the object to a group like the Galileo Project," she said.
She said experts can determine if the material is "clearly non-human-made."
Despite her misgivings about the discovery in Buga, she said it doesn't "discount all the other objects that are of extraterrestrial origin."Original article source: Scientists discover mysterious sphere in Colombia, sparking UFO speculation
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
13 hours ago
- Yahoo
These plants might actually be de-evolving
If you purchase an independently reviewed product or service through a link on our website, BGR may receive an affiliate commission. We know that the world and its various inhabitants, from plants to animals, are still evolving. In fact, some even believe that humans are actively evolving in different parts of the world right now. But a group of plants found in the Galápagos archipelago might be doing the opposite and de-evolving. Researchers argue that despite how controversial it might sound, tomatoes in the Galápagos actually seem to be going backwards, not forwards. De-evolution, or reverse evolution, is a bit of a controversy among evolutionists, and for good reason. Evolution isn't really meant to have a rewind button. Some organisms might re-acquire old traits that were once lost, but they usually do so through new genetic pathways. But these tomato plants appear to be doing something unexpected. Today's Top Deals Best deals: Tech, laptops, TVs, and more sales Best Ring Video Doorbell deals Memorial Day security camera deals: Reolink's unbeatable sale has prices from $29.98 'It's not something we usually expect,' Adam Jozwiak, a molecular biochemist at UC Riverside and lead author of the study, shared in a statement. 'But here it is, happening in real time, on a volcanic island.' The primary reason that the researchers believe these plants are de-evolving is because they appear to be reverting to a more primitive genetic state, complete with an ancient type of chemical defense. One of the key changes seen is alkaloids, a type of bitter molecule that usually acts as a built-in pesticide. These chemicals help to deter predators like insects, fungi, and even grazing animals. Modern tomatoes and other plants all make use of alkaloids. But it's not the presence of alkaloids that attracted scientists to these plants. Instead, it's the fact that the tomatoes appear to be making the wrong alkaloids. Instead of creating the alkaloids that the researchers expected to see in a tomato, the de-evolving plants are churning out a version of alkaloids that have the same molecular fingerprint as eggplant relatives from millions of years ago. What's even more impressive is that this isn't all the of the tomatoes found in the Galápagos. Instead, the plants that grow on the eastern islands appear to have the same molecular structure as modern tomatoes found elsewhere. However, those found on the western islands produce alkaloids that look more fitting for an ancient plant, suggesting they have de-evolved in some way. This discovery pushed the researchers deeper, as they started looking for clues as to how this de-evolution had taken place. They discovered that it only took changes to four amino acids in a single enzyme to lead to the change seen in these plants. They further proved this discovery by synthesizing the same genes coding the new enzymes in the lab and then inserting them into tobacco plants, where they promptly began producing the old alkaloids. Their findings are published in Nature Communications. The researchers believe that the cause of the de-evolution may come down to the harsher environment found on the western islands. The western section of the Galápagos is younger and less stable. The landscape is far more barren, and the soil is less developed. This could have pushed the plants to adopt the older chemistry setup. Of course, the researchers are aware of just how controversial their claims might be in some circles. 'Some people don't believe in this,' Jozwiak stated. 'But the genetic and chemical evidence points to a return to an ancestral state. The mechanism is there. It happened.' Further, the researchers believe that this same mechanism could possibly affect humans, too. Over time, changes to our environment might push the human body to pick up past traits that we evolved away from long ago. Yes, it's controversial, but the possibility that evolution is not a one-way street could fundamentally challenge everything we thought we knew about it. It could also completely change how we view the history of evolution and provide more insight into our own ancient history as a result. That's one of the most beautiful things about science, though. Scientists are always challenging their assumptions. And while the idea of de-evolution might sound absurd, the fact remains that these tomato plants in the Galápagos are a perfect example of how new developments can often challenge long-standing beliefs. More Top Deals Amazon gift card deals, offers & coupons 2025: Get $2,000+ free See the
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
Researchers found three minerals never before catalogued on Earth
If you purchase an independently reviewed product or service through a link on our website, BGR may receive an affiliate commission. We're always learning more about our planet. From figuring out where life on Earth originated to exactly what lies beneath the Earth's surface, there's plenty we still don't know about our little floating rock. However, researchers have found another piece of the puzzle recently with the cataloguing of three new minerals never before recognized by scientists. The minerals in question are known as raydemarkite, virgilluethite, and stunorthropite. They're just three of the 5,998 minerals we currently know about on Earth. While it might not seem like that big of a deal, it actually is. We're always adding new species of animals to the animal kingdom, but mineral families are a lot harder to come by. Today's Top Deals Best deals: Tech, laptops, TVs, and more sales Best Ring Video Doorbell deals Memorial Day security camera deals: Reolink's unbeatable sale has prices from $29.98 So, the discovery and cataloguing of three new minerals at Cookes Peak in New Mexico is a huge deal for geologists. Each of these minerals has a distinct look from each other, with raydemarkite sporting a colorless needle appearance that usually only measures around a millimeter long. It's also flexible enough to bend without breaking. On the other hand, virgilluethite is more yellow and green, and it forms in little plates that grow larger than other crystals around them. Finally, stunorthropite has a milky, blade-like appearance, which can sometimes replace the yellow mineral sidwillite. The minerals are all named after New Mexicans who have devoted their lives to studying the geology of the area. Despite not seeming like a huge deal to most people, the discovery of new minerals is a massive leap for geologists. Each yeah, the International Mineralogical Association's Commission on New Minerals, Nomenclature and Classification handles around 100 proposals. Even when accepted, though, a new mineral may only exist at one site. But the discovery of new minerals, even those that only form in one area, helps geologists understand the nature of how these crystalline items form. And those that are found in more than one area open the door for more research into whether they can work for use in sensors, batteries, and more. It's also worth noting that some minerals found in the wild, like raydemarkite and virgilluethite, have been synthesized in labs over a century ago. But this is the first time they've been catalogued in the wild, having formed naturally. Not only does it provide more data to work with, but researchers found that these minerals actually behave differently in the wild than in the lab, providing even more questions for them to answer. The research is published in two papers featured in The Canadian Journal of Mineralogy and Petrology. More Top Deals Amazon gift card deals, offers & coupons 2025: Get $2,000+ free See the
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
Is the bar higher for scientific claims of alien life?
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission. The search for extraterrestrial life has long gone back and forth between scientific curiosity, public fascination and outright skepticism. Recently, scientists claimed the 'strongest evidence' of life on a distant exoplanet – a world outside our solar system. Grandiose headlines often promise proof that we are not alone, but scientists remain cautious. Is this caution unique to the field of astrobiology? In truth, major scientific breakthroughs are rarely accepted quickly. Newton's laws of motion and gravity, Wegener's theory of plate tectonics, and human-made climate change all faced prolonged scrutiny before achieving consensus. But does the nature of the search for extraterrestrial life mean that extraordinary claims require even more extraordinary evidence? We've seen groundbreaking evidence in this search beforehand, from claims of biosignatures (potential signs of life) in Venus's atmosphere to NASA rovers finding 'leopard spots' – a potential sign of past microbial activity – in a Martian rock. Both stories generated a public buzz around the idea that we might be one step closer to finding alien life. But on further inspection, abiotic (non-biological) processes or false detection became more likely explanations. In the case of the exoplanet, K2-18 b, scientists working with data from the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) announced the detection of gases in the planet's atmosphere – methane, carbon dioxide, and more importantly, two compounds called dimethyl sulphide (DMS) and dimethyl disulphide (DMDS). As far as we know, on Earth, DMS/DMDS are produced exclusively by living organisms. Their presence, if accurately confirmed in abundance, would suggest microbial life. The researchers even suggest there's a 99.4% probability that the detection of these compounds wasn't a fluke – a figure that, with repeat observations, could reach the gold standard for statistical certainty in the sciences. This is a figure known as five sigma, which equates to about a one in a million chance that the findings are a fluke. So why hasn't the scientific community declared this the discovery of alien life? The answer lies in the difference between detection and attribution, and in the nature of evidence itself. JWST doesn't directly 'see' molecules. Instead, it measures the way that light passes through or bounces off a planet's atmosphere. Different molecules absorb light in different ways, and by analysing these absorption patterns – called spectra – scientists infer what chemicals are likely to be present. This is an impressive and sophisticated method – but also an imperfect one. It relies on complex models that assume we understand the biological reactions and atmospheric conditions of a planet 120 light years away. The spectra suggesting the existence of DMS/DMDS may be detected because you cannot explain the spectrum without the molecule you've predicted, but it could also result from an undiscovered or misunderstood molecule instead. Given how momentous the conclusive discovery of extraterrestrial life would be, these assumptions mean that many scientists err on the side of caution. But is this the same for other kinds of science? Let's compare with another scientific breakthrough: the detection and attribution of human-made climate change. The relationship between temperature and increases in CO₂ was first observed by the Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius in 1927. It was only taken seriously once we began to routinely measure temperature increases. But our atmosphere has many processes that feed CO₂ in and out, many of which are natural. So the relationship between atmospheric CO₂ and temperature may have been validated, but the attribution still needed to follow. Carbon has three so-called flavors, known as isotopes. One of these isotopes, carbon-14, is radioactive and decays slowly. When scientists observed an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide but a low volume of carbon-14, they could deduce that the carbon was very old – too old to have any carbon-14. Fossil fuels – coal, oil and natural gas – are composed of ancient carbon and thus are devoid of carbon-14. So the attribution of anthropogenic climate change was proven beyond reasonable doubt, with 97% acceptance among scientists. In the search for extraterrestrial life, much like climate change, there is a detection and attribution phase, which requires the robust testing of hypotheses and also rigorous scrutiny. In the case of climate change, we had in situ observations from many sources. This means roughly that we could observe these sources close up. The search for extraterrestrial life relies on repeated observations from the same sensors that are far away. In such situations, systematic errors are more costly. Further to this, both the chemistry of atmospheric climate change and fossil fuel emissions were validated with atmospheric tests under lab conditions from 1927 onwards. Much of the data we see touted as evidence for extraterrestrial life comes from light years away, via one instrument, and without any in situ samples. The search for extraterrestrial life is not held to a higher standard of scientific rigor but it is constrained by an inability to independently detect and attribute multiple lines of evidence. For now, the claims about K2-18 b remain compelling but inconclusive. That doesn't mean we aren't making progress. Each new observation adds to a growing body of knowledge about the universe and our place in it. The search continues – not because we're too cautious, but because we are rightly so. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
