Did we read the same paper? I didn’t see any conclusions based on unsubstantiated non-scientific guesswork. I saw some speculation, but always tempered with explicit acknowledgement that it was hypothetical and speculative. The only conclusion they reached was that many reported UAPs could potentially be explained by plasma activity in the thermosphere.

Yes, they do hypothesize that it’s conceivable that dusty plasmas could foster conditions which could allow for the synthesis of amino acids and even RNA. They do also hypothesize that the structure and complexity of the plasmas could allow for the possibility of a non-organic kind of life. But then they are very quick to say that both of those hypotheticals are purely speculation, and that the plasma behavior can be explained by electromagnetic differentials without necessitating intelligence.

Overall, the paper seems like a collaboration between a number of authors working on different tangentially related topics, broadly under the heading of “extra-terrestrial cellular plasmas”: electromagnetic life, abiogenesis in the environment of plasma, and the complex behavior of plasma bodies observed in the thermosphere. Those in the first two camps seen very excitable (I would speculate they are responsible for all the !s and ?s in the paper) and prone to speculation, with those in the latter camp reigning in that speculation and trying to bring focus back to the main conservative claim: that observed plasma phenomena are consistent with many UAP reports.

Interesting! I was actually looking for a simple workflow to accomplish something similar, creating 3d models from AI generated images, but more for objects than environments. That might be slightly beyond the scope of this method, or at least so manually intensive as to be pointless.

Thank you

I think Blender can extrapolate 3d space from 2d images. I’m not certain though, and I’d certainly like to know more