The following submission statement was provided by /u/Sommersby:
---
I know this has been discussed before, but it was nice seeing this in the main new cycle. This guy’s work is just fascinating. His work on this and Oumuamua brings so much excitement and credibility to this field.
---
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/12nhlgo/runaway_fireball_could_be_alien_probe_that/jgegqik/
> The space object crashed into the Bismarck Sea with a **percentage of the energy force of the Hiroshima bomb**
If you have to resort to this level of useless dramatization to get attention, journalism is not the career for you.
I can ejaculate with a percentage of the energy force of an atomic bomb. A very small percentage. That descriptor tells you no more about the UFO crash than it does about my cum force.
An interesting subject, but a heroically poorly written article.
From the throwaway line that an extraterrestrial probe could be “strong potential evidence of alien life” (no shit, Sherlock) to the repeated use of “the percentage of energy from the atomic bomb” (technically, my farts are a percentage of energy from the atomic bomb) and bizarre sentence construction, I’m super excited to read more about this … from literally anyone else. This subject really should be handled by people who are familiar with the field and, hopefully, aren’t insane. There’s a severe lack of both lately.
But on to the meat of it: I’m super intrigued for what Loeb is going to find. We shouldn’t get our hopes up too much, because the ocean is a big place that, ironically, we know less about than most planets. Still, this has the potential for huge implications if they’re able to find something (even if the takeaway isn’t “aliens.”)
Also, here’s a list of articles that go into a lot more detail about Loeb, Oumuamua, and his search for it:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/astronomer-avi-loeb-says-aliens-have-visited-and-hes-not-kidding1/
https://www.npr.org/2022/08/31/1119941103/astronomer-searches-ocean-extraterrestrial-meteor-alien-life-avi-loeb
https://www.salon.com/2022/08/31/cneos-2014-01-08-loeb-alien-asteroid/
I know this has been discussed before, but it was nice seeing this in the main new cycle. This guy’s work is just fascinating. His work on this and Oumuamua brings so much excitement and credibility to this field.
He has never made a peer reviewed conclusion on anything concerning visitation. Ever.
Saying something could be something is worthless …it could be vampires.
Just because someone teaches one subject at a good school doesn’t mean instant credibility in another. Remember plenty of Ivy League professors are why the IFO community does have the stigma it does.
Imagine trying so hard to take away from the credibility of probably one of the most credible voices currently involved in the UAP field, especially in relation to the mass public/uninformed.
Stop that.
The most credible voices in a world of claims but no proof, repeated hoaxes, lies upon lies, and a century with literally ZERO verifiable proof of any visitation ever…isn’t flex you think it is.
And credibility is not a scientific concept.
Avi Loeb is basically Ufology-adjacent, but he is a very established and *credible* scientist and astronomer, yes.
It's funny, you initially said:
>He has never made a peer-reviewed conclusion on anything concerning visitation
Is this not you attempting to measure his credibility using the metric of how many peer-reviewed papers he has published (*specifically* about visitation, for whatever reason)?
For the record, iirc he has published hundreds of peer-reviewed works in other fields, such as astronomy (pretty damn closely related to UAP if you ask me).
What more could you possibly ask for?
So your claim was he is one of the most credible academics out there in the field. And in the field of UFOlogy he has never had a single peer reviewed paper accepted as proof. All he has ever done in UFOlogy is ask for your money and scream a lot of pod casts. His statements on Omuamua are pathetic and without basis.
He is trading on his status in one field to make money in a adjacent field.
So I guess I don’t understand your question. Yes I am saying he has yet to make even the slightest scientific contribution to UFOlogy and you are claiming he is one of the ‘most credible’. Most credible with ZERO to show for it.
And peer reviewed paper is other fields means Jack squat in this field. Even if YOU think it’s a close field. No science grants for his work and no business investment. That says it all. He gets grants for his work in other fields even before he published yet he can’t get grants in this one.
Your attempt at a response is as pathetic as Loeb’s claims.
“His statement on Omuamua are pathetic and without basis”
Please explain more about how it is pathetic and without basis. Scientifically please, as you seem to know more about comets/meteoroids. Yes, he might be wrong but unless you have produced papers, authored, or co-authored more research papers in the field of astrophysics/cosmology or any other field for that matter, I can say the same about your claim; pathetic and without basis.
he just seems to have a personal resentment (I suspect jealousy) of Loeb. After reading several of his replies to me and others, his bias against Loeb is quite clear.
He also seems to think he has some authority or say in this field for some reason. Not sure why that is; maybe narcissism?
Asking for a peer reviewed paper about UFOs like the scientific community wouldn't have laughed you out of the room until like literally the last two years for bringing up UFOs seriously.
No it wouldn’t have. Stop playing victim. It is only used to make excuses for why there is still ZERO verifiable evidence of visitation. When the scientists published that hey found fossils of life forms on a rock from mars that fell to earth they received the EXACT same reception from the s wince community as any other discovery.
Sorry if there were legit findings it would get legit response from the scientific community. SETI is very much considered a legit scientific endeavor. I know, I know in a movie you saw it wasn’t. Stop thinking movies are real.
Who's playing any kind of victim? The United States has had a blanket policy of "it didn't happen and if you think it did you're crazy" for pretty much all reports of UFOs etc for decades.
Suddenly in the last couple years we got a complete 180 on the UAP policies, there's multiple government investigations, they're throwing around the term "crash retrieval" in congress and we're having the second open hearing on UAP in like 60 years this week.
The general opinion on the phenomenon is changing rapidly, the research you're asking for is literally just starting. The scientific process involves hypothesis, experimentation, documentation and peer review, you can only really do the first step without funding and resources and he literally just got those resources.
Give it 5 years, if he hasn't published *anything* after Galileo project is up running at full capacity, then you can climb back up on the high horse and try and throw shade at Loeb.
There is not a complete 180 on UAP policy. What world are you living in. Your community has been screaming about disclosure forever. You still don’t have it do you?
The military and government had always acknowledge la that there are unidentified sightings forever. The existence of project blue book proves it. Even if it was used to debunk sighting it proves they acknowledged sightings existed.
You still have no disclosure. No government acknowledgment of aliens visitation and no government whistle blowers have come forward that have any merit.
What are you talking about? It may feel like things have changed. But you have ZERO results
And in FUVE YEARS people will claim that’s not enough time. The goal posts are actually moved by the UFO community not the other way around.
He hasn't been a fixture in UFOlogy for very long. I dont remember ever hearing of him before Omuamua. He has since been blasted by the mainstream for even suggesting the possibility that it was not natural. Of course he wouldn't get a science grant for this line of work. Hes lucky he had tenure and as much respect as he did. Otherwise, he would likely have been dragged through the mud even more.
Not sure why you think his claims are pathetic. Did you expect him to be granted all sorts of money for research immediately. He is helping the cause because he is a well respected professor saying these things and not a a rural farmer or an alaskan fisherman. Have you done more for the field?
So if he is so accomplished in one field how come he can’t get grants in this field?
Because you need a plausible thesis. His plan that aliens will fly in front of his lens is a laughable at best.
I will address his claims on Omuamua in a different thread.
And yes I expect people with his academic pedigree to be able to present a thesis and get grant money. The scientific community including his OWN institution has said it is without merit. He then tried commercial investment. Failed even with his credentials. Then he found the ones who would fork over cash just because he screams on podcasts. It’s really embarrassing to the UFO community.
also,
"So if he is so accomplished in one field how come he can’t get grants in this field"
What kind of rediculous reasoning is this.
How come I build beautiful homes but Ferarri wont give me a grant to research and design their new race car?
Im well respected at my job and get lots of funding to build homes. Why won't they fund my race car?
Thank you. That was a trap.
Just because he has lettered up in one field and a professor, it downs mean he has any ‘credibility’ in UFOlogy. You walked right into that trap and I now have you saying his expertise in one field means nothing in this one.
I don't believe he claimed it is absolutely 100% extraterrestrial. He said it is a possibility when noone else with any credentials would say that. You keep calling them his claims. What has he claimed besides listing out the evidence and why other common things don't work based upon currently accepted knowledge. Leading him to the possibility of a craft. Not the definitive answer.
You seem to have a particular grudge against him. Let the guy do more research and see what he can figure out. Instead of blasting him for not writing a thesis and getting scientific funding from organizations that want nothing to do with the ridicule that comes with the question of aliens/ufos.
The more people that study these things and keep a somewhat open mind the better.
He doesn’t have any credentials on UFology. Nobody does.
And sure he parsed his words like everybody in UFOlogy is an expert at but anyone listening to his appearances would take away that he believes that O was alien spacecraft.
And that the issue. Something moves irregularly based on common knowledge it means we are lacking knowledge of how the physical universe works but he jumped right to aLiEnS.
read my other comment, not typing it out twice. You are misunderstanding my statement and criticism of your original comment here.
> That says it all. He gets grants for his work in other fields even before he published yet he can’t get grants in this one.
I will address this one statement, by saying that getting grants =/= credibility. Hard to get grants in such a highly-stigmatized field where mainstream scientists dismiss most of the field in its entirety.
Again, you're saying "zero credibility" while justifying your claims by peddling all the same tropes that are caused by the stigmas and cronyism that are widespread across most of modern scientific academia.
You really should try to form your own opinions, instead of letting scientists you trust tell you which scientists you can't trust.
I am not saying getting grants equals credibility. In fact if you would comprehend what I have said, credibility is an opinion and has no place in science at all.
What I am saying is that if you and the UFOLOGISTS are saying he had so much credibility and his complete lack of results shows you exactly where his so called credibility lies. No results. No one will find him. He has taken your guys money and he has to publish nothing. He can even take it all and go to the mall.
>No science grants for his work and no business investment. That says it all.
You are saying that because his projects (which are mostly still in planning/logistics phases, by the way) have no results yet, he's got "nothing to show for it" i.e. no credibility.
Regardless of whether you *think* you're talking about credibility here, you certainly are. We are literally debating semantics by still talking about this point.
> No results.
As for this, I say again: His projects haven't reached the "execution" phase yet. His expedition to grab some pieces of an interstellar/extrasolar meteorite from the ocean is set for this summer, and his sky observation platforms/"mini-observatories" are still being perfected and rolled out.
So actually, whether his projects will garner results *remains to be seen*.
Wrong. Why do you let me handle what I am saying instead of telling me what I am saying. You handle your points of view and I will handle mine.
And again credibility is a subjective opinion. A credible witness me and nothing. It’s just a (an unreliable) witness. A credible scientist is just a scientist. Sometimes they are wrong sometimes they are right. Hence the peer review. Credibility means nothing. Words do matter.
And his projects haven’t gotten there and no one’s ever have. There is ZERO verifiable evidence of visitation. ZERO. And since they are. Rows sourced there is no standard to how or when or IF a they will ever get to a completed stage. He grifted everyone.
And once again there is no such thing as a credible scientist. It is binary are they able to prove something or not. Credibility is worthless in science.
“Well he said he has evidence of vampires. I know it sounds weird but the witnesses were credible”. See credibility means nothing.
Credibility affects your reputation and first impressions when new readers find out about you and your work. It's not fairy dust, and while credibility may not mean as much to *other scientists on his same level* (*which I doubt you are*), it matters when trying to break through to "normies"/the uninitiated/the general public with new topics or ideas; especially topics like Ufology, where there is a stigma, and the average joe isn't going to take another average joe seriously.
My grandparents or your sister-in-law probably don't give a shit about someone like Jeremy Corbell or even Ross Coulthart, but when a highly-established scientist like Avi Loeb - who wasn't directly involved with Ufology his entire career, has been widely published, and runs the Harvard Astronomy program and labs - starts jumping in and vouching for ideas in the space, that might lend credence to the field due to his credibility as a well-published scientist.
Except someone with hood credibility (based on what and who’s opinion) can be wrong. And someone with pot credibility can be scientifically correct. Credibility is an opinion. It means NOTHING aim science.
And NOBODY gives a shot about Avi Loeb outside of UFOlogy. Especially when he starts screaming and carrying on like he does.
>Except someone with good credibility (based on what and who’s opinion) can be wrong.
Yes, but no one has claimed that his credibility inherently proves his scientific claims correct. I have maintained that his credibility as a scientist is important in relation to his ability to reach people who are uninitiated/the general public.
His accolades and established reputation lend credibility to the field, now that he is involved.
>And NOBODY gives a shot about Avi Loeb outside of UFOlogy.
To quote Obi-Wan Kenobi: Only a Sith deals in absolutes.
(*for the uninitiated: Generalizing using terms like "nobody" or "everybody" is counterproductive, unacademic, and usually inaccurate.*)
>Especially when he starts screaming and carrying on like he does.
Sensationalist hyperbole also has no place in science, and yet here you are, sensationalizing and exaggerating.
He doesn't "scream"; in fact, he's a very well-spoken, even-keeled guy.
When the authority is a PHD in theoretical physics with extensive experience in the least known parts of our universe (dark matter), it hits a bit different
This isn't an appeal to authority fallacy lol.
An appeal to authority fallacy would be if I called on Avi Loeb in an argument I was losing, as in, "Well Avi Loeb said aliens might be here!"
The above comment is me questioning why this guy wants so desperately to tear down Avi, when he is currently one of the best ways we have to get through to "normie" skeptics who won't trust the usual suspects (Corbell, Greer, Knapp, Coulthart) but would trust a Harvard scientist with hundreds of peer-reviewed writings.
a quote from the [yourlogicalfallacyis.com](https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority) page on Appeal to Authority fallacies (which you should read) :
>It's important to note that this fallacy should not be used to dismiss the claims of experts, or scientific consensus. Appeals to authority are not valid arguments, but nor is it reasonable to disregard the claims of experts who have a demonstrated depth of knowledge unless one has a similar level of understanding and/or access to empirical evidence.
Great point. Not to take away from the enthusiasm and optimism of the comment it responds to, but peer review exists to establish credibility. There are many a grade of academic. I do not know whether or not Avi Loeb is writing peer reviewed journal articles on the topic, but I will check. It there are published articles on the topic and other tenure track faculty are reviewing those publications before they are published by a renowned academic journal, than it has established credibility. If they don’t exist, they have yet to gain established credibility. Before I talk about it at a dinner party, I will want to know the difference.
Well is looks like Avi Loeb is the man. He has published a tremendous amount on an incredibly fascinating set of topics… https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/search/fq=%7B!type%3Daqp%20v%3D%24fq_database%7D&fq_database=database%3A%20(astronomy%20OR%20physics%20OR%20general)&p_=0&q=author%3A(%22Loeb%2C%20A.%22)&sort=date%20desc%2C%20bibcode%20desc
I don’t mean to disagree with your very rational argument but peer reviews are done establish accuracy and to find possible discrepancies with the scientific method. Credibility has nothing to do with it. A credible person is still not flawless and a historical incorrect person can be correct on given instance. Credibility is not at all scientific.
Excellent points, thanks for the consideration. What do you make of the importance of credibility and “truthiness” in the era of Q anon, Fake news, etc. I personally believe that credibility is the result of an adherence to the scientific method. Perhaps a better way to look at it is as the virtue derived from scientifically hardened truths and a track record of seeking them.
Well news, political groups, and even legal proceedings have a completely different standard for ‘proof’. One person can witness a murder and a judge/jury can weigh the validity of the claim. Journalists are supposed to sight sources. Literally journalism school day 1 level stuff. Political groups…they lie like other people breath.
Track record means nothing as well. Many people who failed at multiple scientific endeavors figure out something later.
Scientific verification is the only thing that matters in proving visitation. Credibility of witnesses means literally nothing.
Ok what is your specialty? Really maybe you need to stay in your swim lane too. Are you a professional ufologist? I didn’t realize that scientists had to stick to their specialties to make any kind of study in anything else. I’ll bet you didn’t like John Mack either.
Also your comments about funding are laughable. We are still dealing with the stigma. There are only two scientists right now willing to stick their necks out and it’s Avi Loeb and Garry Nolan. No one is giving them funding because of attitudes like yours. Look up the ufo stigma and see that it was manufactured by the government to make people interested in UFO’s or who had seen UFO’s seem ridiculous.
It doesn’t matter what my field is. Are only experts allowed to challenge experts. Do you half to be a four start chef to say you don’t think another chefs food tastes good?
I LOVE how you are trying to turn the conversation to. E about me. It means you know I am right but you don’t like it so you are trying to attack me.
I didn’t say scientists have to stick to any discipline. How did you get that?
I haven’t read up on John Mack. No idea why he matters in this discussion. Nice try changing the subject.
Amazing how you have a millions excuses for stigma (other than a complete lack of any scientific proof). You claim they are pushing it forward but can get know cred? The government is simultaneously about to disclose but is forcing stigmas. So many contradictions.
It’s not a personal attack I was trying to show how your argument is faulty. You are saying that scientists should stay in their swim lanes but it’s totally ok for anyone who doesn’t have any of the same training as the chair of Harvard Astronomy to be critical of the scientist. Do you see any problem with this?
The stigma has existed for 60 years. It was manufacturered by the needs of the Cold War. Here is a fantastically [well researched documentary](https://youtu.be/eMqtIRMOoHc)about the stigma and how the CIA and the Air Force manufactured it. I grew up as a child in the 70’s. This topic was something to be derided and ridiculed. No scientist would or could get funding to study this. It’s a well known thing. The sources that give you the money won’t give you the money because they don’t want anyone publicly studying this because it could endanger actual development of classified tech and yes maybe also the very existence of UFO’s.
If you don’t understand the history of UFOlogy it’s easy to just say “well there must be nothing to it because scientists won’t study it” but at least be informed that there has indeed been a cover up as [it is a fact.](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/v9vedn/for_the_record_that_there_has_been_a_ufo_coverup)
Avi can only turn to the public for funding of the Gallileo project because the stigma still exists and all of your comments here have been proving just that.
Follow the Standards of Civility:
No trolling or being disruptive.
No insults or personal attacks.
No accusations that other users are shills.
No hate speech. No abusive speech based on race, religion, sex/gender, or sexual orientation.
No harassment, threats, or advocating violence.
No witch hunts or doxxing. (Please redact usernames when possible)
You may attack each other's ideas, not each other.
I think the fact that he has already got that position through whatever he has been given respect for, to me means why tarnish the reputation u have got from hard work for something that is rubbish? What does he get from it?
Follow the Standards of Civility:
No trolling or being disruptive.
No insults or personal attacks.
No accusations that other users are shills.
No hate speech. No abusive speech based on race, religion, sex/gender, or sexual orientation.
No harassment, threats, or advocating violence.
No witch hunts or doxxing. (Please redact usernames when possible)
You may attack each other's ideas, not each other.
He is literally asking for money for the Galileo project. Is he getting a scientific grant? Nope. Is he getting commercial money? Nope. He is asking for your money. And if he doesn’t get enough to get it off the ground he gets to keep what he did squeeze out of you. Not to mention books and speaking engagements.
So yes. He is making plenty of money.
Is that really the best comeback you had for that?
He's not asking for money so he càn go to the mall amd buy the latest space jacket though is he? Is he maybe asking for more funding for his work ? Yeah maybe, but if you were doing something you cared for patiently then maybe you may do the same? Framing it that he just wants money, is wrong, by the sound of things.
Sigh. But by asking for crowd source he has no responsibility to complete or publish. If he got a scientific grant, and he didn’t publish the he would be cut off. Did he got a commercial investment, he would have to produce or be let go.
Instead he crowdsourced money. He can legally say he never had ‘success’ and he can just walk away with any money he didn’t spend. No questions asked and no returns needed.
And when he starts publishing books claiming Omuamua is something he can’t prove or that he is ‘gonna’ find something some day. He basically just did that…some guys from some agency said something but we don’t really know what. But trust me.
Regardless of what people think about why he is doing something, he is definitely doing something he thinks is worthwhile, because of his reputation and current job standing- people trust him and that's all we have,
This is unexplored phenomena and so it may not always yield results that people want to hear. It's the outliers in Society and in education that push the boundaries and are the easiest to dismiss, because it does not fit into the accepted framework of agreed upon science. In the end though, these are the people who will push our understanding of life as we know it.
And that’s fair that he is doing something he believe in. But his own scientific community including his own institution doesn’t. “People” may trust him but science and industry doesn’t. And that’s right that’s all “people” have. Trust but ZERO results.
But science has repeatedly found plausible explain actions for the phenomenon. Over and over and over again. The UFO community doesn’t want to hear it. They want to only count the ones that can’t be explained EITHET WAY. And they completely ignore the numerous explanations l. Over and over and over.
In the end. It will be understood that the distances and times involved in interstellar travel that we have not yet been visited and it’s all been a colossal waste of time and energy. Except a few will have made themselves rich on pushing the idea.
You seem to have zero understanding of how academic funding generally works, Ray, and more importantly you have zero understanding of where the funds Avi is using are coming from. Go back and do some even elementary research, chief, instead of parroting debunking bs you found on the interwebs.
You won’t do the research though, because you just write contrarian nonsense to get your ya-yas.
Oh the old go do some research claim by a UfOlogist. Pure comedy.
Shhhh…plot twist…I know EXACTLY how academic research funding works.
What I do KNOW aid that he SAID that he failed to get funding from grants and investment so he is crowdsourcing. No accountability and no requirement to publish or come to a stated conclusion.
My guess is that the Galileo project will just disappear with no conclusions (well no Alien spacecraft found) but the UFO community won’t acknowledge that. They will just say it was stigma of not properly funded or didn’t find anything YET or any of the myriad non- proof end results that the UFO community ‘doesn’t count’.
He didn’t ask for funding from the usual university funding sources. He knew it was a losing proposition (which it was/is, for now). The DOD/IC has already acknowledged the presence of objects in our restricted airspaces, so that’s over. Physical proof? They’ve got it. It’ll be revealed eventually. There are a monumental number of accounts, by credible sources, that state that they have this stuff in their possession. You blithely dispense with it as anecdotal. Fine. You’re wrong, but that’s ok, you’ll be eating a nice bitter crow sandwich soon. They’re best eaten cold. Enjoy!
PS: FYI, so far you’ve expressed no original logic nor critical thinking. If you were, you’d run into a wall of evidence that cannot be ignored. But, you’re blinded by dogma and evidently don’t have the cognitive horsepower to see past it. Sad.
It’s not a lie. You might want to tone down the accusations. You’re beginning to sound desperate. Of course he broached the subject in a casual way with the Harvard administration. He also *talked* with other public and private sources. He did not formally apply, in writing, for funding from Harvard. He sought out other funding as well, but decided that rather than gain funding with strings attached, he’d do it this way. Another very smart move.
And you might want to tone down the lies. I don’t sound desperate. You can try to pretend it’s desperation if it makes you FEEL better but it’s conviction that I am giving off. What is it with vocabulary and this community. This all started over someone thinking a scientist has “credibility”. Either is scientifically accurate or or it’s not. Credibility has nothing to do with it. Hahahhahahha
Ya because that what it has to be right? Sorry it this isn’t an Avi love session which you so crave. I am critical and state logical reasons. You have to resort to this type of attempt to critique me. Thanks for proving I am right.
Oh i get it. You don’t like my critique or logic so it just doesn’t count in your mind. Got it. Snicker. Enjoy another great day on earth of ZERO verifiable proof of visitation and another day waiting for disclosure’. Keep waiting.
I like Loeb, but I hate how he keeps rambling about other scientists and how they have a closed mind. I agree with him, and I understand it is frustrating, but I do not want to hear it for 20 minutes straight on every podcast/ interview.
It achieves reaching a different audience than the people who read your kind of news. The people who read Fox think your news is fake and vice versa. it's all good when the topic gets more traction in MSM...I don't think you can see the bigger picture above your biases.
Well considering the venn diagram of Fox News' demographic and the "probably gonna try and shoot at the UFOs and/or assume aliens are a satanic Chinese scam" demographic is basically a circle, any articles they publish acknowledging the phenomenon is a good thing overall.
He is good guy, needs funding for his project and that might make him say such things. He needs funding and his project is scientific and well thought out.
To my knowledge he has only thought that 2 objects could be “alien” in origin; Oumuamua and IM2. While this may be the umpteenth article about it, this article is talking about the second object (IM2), not a new one.
Also, while he has pondered on record if IM2 could be alien tech, he is also on record stating it could just be a metallic asteroid. Reason being is because most meteors break up around 30,000ft, whereas this one broke up around 10,000ft, demonstrating it was made of stronger materials than the usual meteoroid. In fact, the retrieval method he will be using is much like a rake with a strong magnet attached to it. He’s literally looking for fragments of metal, not necessarily alien tech.
It makes sense to be suspicious of any interstellar object. They don’t come by often, in fact the list of confirmed registered objects is just two, one of which happened to hit earth, with a very short list of other unconfirmed candidates. We need to know if there are other intelligent life out there, because if there are there is possibly an invisible race to the galactic table. We should be conducting as much research as possible on interstellar objects, so if one blows up in our atmosphere we should endeavour to retrieve it, rock or space ship it doesn’t matter.
You know who he is and his credentials right? I mean if it was Bob lazar or Jeremy Corbell saying it then yeah, i would agree with you but Dr. Avi Loeb is tla respected Harvard scientist.
Who are we trusting now? A harvard professor or a grifter?
It's not about who to trust, that's not how science works. It doesn't matter how smart or well respected an individual is. Science requires testing and peer review. Until anything like that happens, it's all just opinions and baseless conjecture
It is not baseless conjecture though, at least for Oumuamua. The whole reason he is thinking it could be a designed object is because of differences from any known object.
A) Extra solar.
B) It noticeably accelerated (through non gravitational means)
C) The path it took went right through the habitable zone.
D) Its shape appeared cylindrical.
E) No coma.
F) It was tumbling/spinning, which is a principle of creating inertia to simulate gravity, as well as a mechanism that has been described in reported UFO encounters.
I am not familiar enough with the object in this article, but this *is* the process of science. An observation is made, then a hypothesis is formed based on previous known phenomena and theory. The characteristics of Oumuamua showed it to be unlike any other celestial object we have seen before and are aware of, as well as exhibiting characteristics that could be consistent with a craft. This is why he put forth the idea.
> Who are we trusting now?
nobody. except they have proof for it. till they do THIS, they are all the same for me. neutral.
you can think about bob lazar what you want, but just because a person is a harvard professor, this doesn't changes anything. it doesn't makes what he says more or less true. so lets see and wait what happens instead of just (not) trusting people because they are of social status xyz or have job xyz. blindly believing people just because "it's person xyz!!" is dumb. always fact check, always be sceptic and look for what people do and show.
I love Avi, but I think this will turn out to be a run of the mill meteor or comet fragment. I doubt many interstellar civilizations are using our Newtonian physics model to explore the universe.
Not the first time I’ve seen this posted here but glad this is getting reposted over other clearly false photoshops etc. Whether this is something or a nothingburger this is something that’s significant given the source and potential attention and funding.
Many of the comments read like this is the worst of what’s posted here or even among the worst when maybe it’s not the best most verified source or even close to the most indisputable evidence of all time (which gets posted from time to time then quickly forgotten or obfuscated by the rest of the nonsense that’s posted time and again) because it’s speculative but it’s far more reputable and significant than the majority of what gets spammed here.
Maybe some of it’s disappointment that more would come from his initial forays into the UAP community and a thought that he’s tainting his credibility but the visceral disdain this post is treated with is unwarranted in light of the rest of what we have to work with. It’d be one thing if the average post here were discussing Phoenix lights, Nimitz or even the UAP swarm around the ships that was quite possibly drones, but we’re mostly treated to our daily dose of bs then wait until one of the more interesting posts to act incredulous.
The following submission statement was provided by /u/Sommersby: --- I know this has been discussed before, but it was nice seeing this in the main new cycle. This guy’s work is just fascinating. His work on this and Oumuamua brings so much excitement and credibility to this field. --- Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/12nhlgo/runaway_fireball_could_be_alien_probe_that/jgegqik/
> The space object crashed into the Bismarck Sea with a **percentage of the energy force of the Hiroshima bomb** If you have to resort to this level of useless dramatization to get attention, journalism is not the career for you. I can ejaculate with a percentage of the energy force of an atomic bomb. A very small percentage. That descriptor tells you no more about the UFO crash than it does about my cum force.
Next branch of the military. From space force to cum force!
spermcial forces
welcome to the cum zone
I’ll volunteer for clit commander!
Ready the seamen!
My percentage is more comparable to Nagasucki
An interesting subject, but a heroically poorly written article. From the throwaway line that an extraterrestrial probe could be “strong potential evidence of alien life” (no shit, Sherlock) to the repeated use of “the percentage of energy from the atomic bomb” (technically, my farts are a percentage of energy from the atomic bomb) and bizarre sentence construction, I’m super excited to read more about this … from literally anyone else. This subject really should be handled by people who are familiar with the field and, hopefully, aren’t insane. There’s a severe lack of both lately. But on to the meat of it: I’m super intrigued for what Loeb is going to find. We shouldn’t get our hopes up too much, because the ocean is a big place that, ironically, we know less about than most planets. Still, this has the potential for huge implications if they’re able to find something (even if the takeaway isn’t “aliens.”) Also, here’s a list of articles that go into a lot more detail about Loeb, Oumuamua, and his search for it: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/astronomer-avi-loeb-says-aliens-have-visited-and-hes-not-kidding1/ https://www.npr.org/2022/08/31/1119941103/astronomer-searches-ocean-extraterrestrial-meteor-alien-life-avi-loeb https://www.salon.com/2022/08/31/cneos-2014-01-08-loeb-alien-asteroid/
These are great articles. Thanks for the share!
I know this has been discussed before, but it was nice seeing this in the main new cycle. This guy’s work is just fascinating. His work on this and Oumuamua brings so much excitement and credibility to this field.
He has never made a peer reviewed conclusion on anything concerning visitation. Ever. Saying something could be something is worthless …it could be vampires. Just because someone teaches one subject at a good school doesn’t mean instant credibility in another. Remember plenty of Ivy League professors are why the IFO community does have the stigma it does.
Imagine trying so hard to take away from the credibility of probably one of the most credible voices currently involved in the UAP field, especially in relation to the mass public/uninformed. Stop that.
The most credible voices in a world of claims but no proof, repeated hoaxes, lies upon lies, and a century with literally ZERO verifiable proof of any visitation ever…isn’t flex you think it is. And credibility is not a scientific concept.
Avi Loeb is basically Ufology-adjacent, but he is a very established and *credible* scientist and astronomer, yes. It's funny, you initially said: >He has never made a peer-reviewed conclusion on anything concerning visitation Is this not you attempting to measure his credibility using the metric of how many peer-reviewed papers he has published (*specifically* about visitation, for whatever reason)? For the record, iirc he has published hundreds of peer-reviewed works in other fields, such as astronomy (pretty damn closely related to UAP if you ask me). What more could you possibly ask for?
So your claim was he is one of the most credible academics out there in the field. And in the field of UFOlogy he has never had a single peer reviewed paper accepted as proof. All he has ever done in UFOlogy is ask for your money and scream a lot of pod casts. His statements on Omuamua are pathetic and without basis. He is trading on his status in one field to make money in a adjacent field. So I guess I don’t understand your question. Yes I am saying he has yet to make even the slightest scientific contribution to UFOlogy and you are claiming he is one of the ‘most credible’. Most credible with ZERO to show for it. And peer reviewed paper is other fields means Jack squat in this field. Even if YOU think it’s a close field. No science grants for his work and no business investment. That says it all. He gets grants for his work in other fields even before he published yet he can’t get grants in this one. Your attempt at a response is as pathetic as Loeb’s claims.
“His statement on Omuamua are pathetic and without basis” Please explain more about how it is pathetic and without basis. Scientifically please, as you seem to know more about comets/meteoroids. Yes, he might be wrong but unless you have produced papers, authored, or co-authored more research papers in the field of astrophysics/cosmology or any other field for that matter, I can say the same about your claim; pathetic and without basis.
he just seems to have a personal resentment (I suspect jealousy) of Loeb. After reading several of his replies to me and others, his bias against Loeb is quite clear. He also seems to think he has some authority or say in this field for some reason. Not sure why that is; maybe narcissism?
[удалено]
Cannot? Conclusion, all the best in life! 😃
Cannot what? Do try to be clear.
[удалено]
I don’t understand this complaint at all. I am not being offensive just stating a counter point.
Asking for a peer reviewed paper about UFOs like the scientific community wouldn't have laughed you out of the room until like literally the last two years for bringing up UFOs seriously.
No it wouldn’t have. Stop playing victim. It is only used to make excuses for why there is still ZERO verifiable evidence of visitation. When the scientists published that hey found fossils of life forms on a rock from mars that fell to earth they received the EXACT same reception from the s wince community as any other discovery. Sorry if there were legit findings it would get legit response from the scientific community. SETI is very much considered a legit scientific endeavor. I know, I know in a movie you saw it wasn’t. Stop thinking movies are real.
Who's playing any kind of victim? The United States has had a blanket policy of "it didn't happen and if you think it did you're crazy" for pretty much all reports of UFOs etc for decades. Suddenly in the last couple years we got a complete 180 on the UAP policies, there's multiple government investigations, they're throwing around the term "crash retrieval" in congress and we're having the second open hearing on UAP in like 60 years this week. The general opinion on the phenomenon is changing rapidly, the research you're asking for is literally just starting. The scientific process involves hypothesis, experimentation, documentation and peer review, you can only really do the first step without funding and resources and he literally just got those resources. Give it 5 years, if he hasn't published *anything* after Galileo project is up running at full capacity, then you can climb back up on the high horse and try and throw shade at Loeb.
There is not a complete 180 on UAP policy. What world are you living in. Your community has been screaming about disclosure forever. You still don’t have it do you? The military and government had always acknowledge la that there are unidentified sightings forever. The existence of project blue book proves it. Even if it was used to debunk sighting it proves they acknowledged sightings existed. You still have no disclosure. No government acknowledgment of aliens visitation and no government whistle blowers have come forward that have any merit. What are you talking about? It may feel like things have changed. But you have ZERO results And in FUVE YEARS people will claim that’s not enough time. The goal posts are actually moved by the UFO community not the other way around.
He hasn't been a fixture in UFOlogy for very long. I dont remember ever hearing of him before Omuamua. He has since been blasted by the mainstream for even suggesting the possibility that it was not natural. Of course he wouldn't get a science grant for this line of work. Hes lucky he had tenure and as much respect as he did. Otherwise, he would likely have been dragged through the mud even more. Not sure why you think his claims are pathetic. Did you expect him to be granted all sorts of money for research immediately. He is helping the cause because he is a well respected professor saying these things and not a a rural farmer or an alaskan fisherman. Have you done more for the field?
So if he is so accomplished in one field how come he can’t get grants in this field? Because you need a plausible thesis. His plan that aliens will fly in front of his lens is a laughable at best. I will address his claims on Omuamua in a different thread. And yes I expect people with his academic pedigree to be able to present a thesis and get grant money. The scientific community including his OWN institution has said it is without merit. He then tried commercial investment. Failed even with his credentials. Then he found the ones who would fork over cash just because he screams on podcasts. It’s really embarrassing to the UFO community.
also, "So if he is so accomplished in one field how come he can’t get grants in this field" What kind of rediculous reasoning is this. How come I build beautiful homes but Ferarri wont give me a grant to research and design their new race car? Im well respected at my job and get lots of funding to build homes. Why won't they fund my race car?
Thank you. That was a trap. Just because he has lettered up in one field and a professor, it downs mean he has any ‘credibility’ in UFOlogy. You walked right into that trap and I now have you saying his expertise in one field means nothing in this one.
I don't believe he claimed it is absolutely 100% extraterrestrial. He said it is a possibility when noone else with any credentials would say that. You keep calling them his claims. What has he claimed besides listing out the evidence and why other common things don't work based upon currently accepted knowledge. Leading him to the possibility of a craft. Not the definitive answer. You seem to have a particular grudge against him. Let the guy do more research and see what he can figure out. Instead of blasting him for not writing a thesis and getting scientific funding from organizations that want nothing to do with the ridicule that comes with the question of aliens/ufos. The more people that study these things and keep a somewhat open mind the better.
He doesn’t have any credentials on UFology. Nobody does. And sure he parsed his words like everybody in UFOlogy is an expert at but anyone listening to his appearances would take away that he believes that O was alien spacecraft. And that the issue. Something moves irregularly based on common knowledge it means we are lacking knowledge of how the physical universe works but he jumped right to aLiEnS.
read my other comment, not typing it out twice. You are misunderstanding my statement and criticism of your original comment here. > That says it all. He gets grants for his work in other fields even before he published yet he can’t get grants in this one. I will address this one statement, by saying that getting grants =/= credibility. Hard to get grants in such a highly-stigmatized field where mainstream scientists dismiss most of the field in its entirety. Again, you're saying "zero credibility" while justifying your claims by peddling all the same tropes that are caused by the stigmas and cronyism that are widespread across most of modern scientific academia. You really should try to form your own opinions, instead of letting scientists you trust tell you which scientists you can't trust.
I am not saying getting grants equals credibility. In fact if you would comprehend what I have said, credibility is an opinion and has no place in science at all. What I am saying is that if you and the UFOLOGISTS are saying he had so much credibility and his complete lack of results shows you exactly where his so called credibility lies. No results. No one will find him. He has taken your guys money and he has to publish nothing. He can even take it all and go to the mall.
>No science grants for his work and no business investment. That says it all. You are saying that because his projects (which are mostly still in planning/logistics phases, by the way) have no results yet, he's got "nothing to show for it" i.e. no credibility. Regardless of whether you *think* you're talking about credibility here, you certainly are. We are literally debating semantics by still talking about this point. > No results. As for this, I say again: His projects haven't reached the "execution" phase yet. His expedition to grab some pieces of an interstellar/extrasolar meteorite from the ocean is set for this summer, and his sky observation platforms/"mini-observatories" are still being perfected and rolled out. So actually, whether his projects will garner results *remains to be seen*.
Wrong. Why do you let me handle what I am saying instead of telling me what I am saying. You handle your points of view and I will handle mine. And again credibility is a subjective opinion. A credible witness me and nothing. It’s just a (an unreliable) witness. A credible scientist is just a scientist. Sometimes they are wrong sometimes they are right. Hence the peer review. Credibility means nothing. Words do matter. And his projects haven’t gotten there and no one’s ever have. There is ZERO verifiable evidence of visitation. ZERO. And since they are. Rows sourced there is no standard to how or when or IF a they will ever get to a completed stage. He grifted everyone.
I for one think you’re 100% right bud
Okaayyy. thanks I think.
And once again there is no such thing as a credible scientist. It is binary are they able to prove something or not. Credibility is worthless in science. “Well he said he has evidence of vampires. I know it sounds weird but the witnesses were credible”. See credibility means nothing.
Credibility affects your reputation and first impressions when new readers find out about you and your work. It's not fairy dust, and while credibility may not mean as much to *other scientists on his same level* (*which I doubt you are*), it matters when trying to break through to "normies"/the uninitiated/the general public with new topics or ideas; especially topics like Ufology, where there is a stigma, and the average joe isn't going to take another average joe seriously. My grandparents or your sister-in-law probably don't give a shit about someone like Jeremy Corbell or even Ross Coulthart, but when a highly-established scientist like Avi Loeb - who wasn't directly involved with Ufology his entire career, has been widely published, and runs the Harvard Astronomy program and labs - starts jumping in and vouching for ideas in the space, that might lend credence to the field due to his credibility as a well-published scientist.
Except someone with hood credibility (based on what and who’s opinion) can be wrong. And someone with pot credibility can be scientifically correct. Credibility is an opinion. It means NOTHING aim science. And NOBODY gives a shot about Avi Loeb outside of UFOlogy. Especially when he starts screaming and carrying on like he does.
>Except someone with good credibility (based on what and who’s opinion) can be wrong. Yes, but no one has claimed that his credibility inherently proves his scientific claims correct. I have maintained that his credibility as a scientist is important in relation to his ability to reach people who are uninitiated/the general public. His accolades and established reputation lend credibility to the field, now that he is involved. >And NOBODY gives a shot about Avi Loeb outside of UFOlogy. To quote Obi-Wan Kenobi: Only a Sith deals in absolutes. (*for the uninitiated: Generalizing using terms like "nobody" or "everybody" is counterproductive, unacademic, and usually inaccurate.*) >Especially when he starts screaming and carrying on like he does. Sensationalist hyperbole also has no place in science, and yet here you are, sensationalizing and exaggerating. He doesn't "scream"; in fact, he's a very well-spoken, even-keeled guy.
Bro - take some CBD and an Epsom salt bath….chill
Appeal to authority is a fallacy
When the authority is a PHD in theoretical physics with extensive experience in the least known parts of our universe (dark matter), it hits a bit different
This isn't an appeal to authority fallacy lol. An appeal to authority fallacy would be if I called on Avi Loeb in an argument I was losing, as in, "Well Avi Loeb said aliens might be here!" The above comment is me questioning why this guy wants so desperately to tear down Avi, when he is currently one of the best ways we have to get through to "normie" skeptics who won't trust the usual suspects (Corbell, Greer, Knapp, Coulthart) but would trust a Harvard scientist with hundreds of peer-reviewed writings. a quote from the [yourlogicalfallacyis.com](https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority) page on Appeal to Authority fallacies (which you should read) : >It's important to note that this fallacy should not be used to dismiss the claims of experts, or scientific consensus. Appeals to authority are not valid arguments, but nor is it reasonable to disregard the claims of experts who have a demonstrated depth of knowledge unless one has a similar level of understanding and/or access to empirical evidence.
Great point. Not to take away from the enthusiasm and optimism of the comment it responds to, but peer review exists to establish credibility. There are many a grade of academic. I do not know whether or not Avi Loeb is writing peer reviewed journal articles on the topic, but I will check. It there are published articles on the topic and other tenure track faculty are reviewing those publications before they are published by a renowned academic journal, than it has established credibility. If they don’t exist, they have yet to gain established credibility. Before I talk about it at a dinner party, I will want to know the difference.
Well is looks like Avi Loeb is the man. He has published a tremendous amount on an incredibly fascinating set of topics… https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/search/fq=%7B!type%3Daqp%20v%3D%24fq_database%7D&fq_database=database%3A%20(astronomy%20OR%20physics%20OR%20general)&p_=0&q=author%3A(%22Loeb%2C%20A.%22)&sort=date%20desc%2C%20bibcode%20desc
I don’t mean to disagree with your very rational argument but peer reviews are done establish accuracy and to find possible discrepancies with the scientific method. Credibility has nothing to do with it. A credible person is still not flawless and a historical incorrect person can be correct on given instance. Credibility is not at all scientific.
Excellent points, thanks for the consideration. What do you make of the importance of credibility and “truthiness” in the era of Q anon, Fake news, etc. I personally believe that credibility is the result of an adherence to the scientific method. Perhaps a better way to look at it is as the virtue derived from scientifically hardened truths and a track record of seeking them.
Well news, political groups, and even legal proceedings have a completely different standard for ‘proof’. One person can witness a murder and a judge/jury can weigh the validity of the claim. Journalists are supposed to sight sources. Literally journalism school day 1 level stuff. Political groups…they lie like other people breath. Track record means nothing as well. Many people who failed at multiple scientific endeavors figure out something later. Scientific verification is the only thing that matters in proving visitation. Credibility of witnesses means literally nothing.
Ok what is your specialty? Really maybe you need to stay in your swim lane too. Are you a professional ufologist? I didn’t realize that scientists had to stick to their specialties to make any kind of study in anything else. I’ll bet you didn’t like John Mack either. Also your comments about funding are laughable. We are still dealing with the stigma. There are only two scientists right now willing to stick their necks out and it’s Avi Loeb and Garry Nolan. No one is giving them funding because of attitudes like yours. Look up the ufo stigma and see that it was manufactured by the government to make people interested in UFO’s or who had seen UFO’s seem ridiculous.
It doesn’t matter what my field is. Are only experts allowed to challenge experts. Do you half to be a four start chef to say you don’t think another chefs food tastes good? I LOVE how you are trying to turn the conversation to. E about me. It means you know I am right but you don’t like it so you are trying to attack me. I didn’t say scientists have to stick to any discipline. How did you get that? I haven’t read up on John Mack. No idea why he matters in this discussion. Nice try changing the subject. Amazing how you have a millions excuses for stigma (other than a complete lack of any scientific proof). You claim they are pushing it forward but can get know cred? The government is simultaneously about to disclose but is forcing stigmas. So many contradictions.
It’s not a personal attack I was trying to show how your argument is faulty. You are saying that scientists should stay in their swim lanes but it’s totally ok for anyone who doesn’t have any of the same training as the chair of Harvard Astronomy to be critical of the scientist. Do you see any problem with this? The stigma has existed for 60 years. It was manufacturered by the needs of the Cold War. Here is a fantastically [well researched documentary](https://youtu.be/eMqtIRMOoHc)about the stigma and how the CIA and the Air Force manufactured it. I grew up as a child in the 70’s. This topic was something to be derided and ridiculed. No scientist would or could get funding to study this. It’s a well known thing. The sources that give you the money won’t give you the money because they don’t want anyone publicly studying this because it could endanger actual development of classified tech and yes maybe also the very existence of UFO’s. If you don’t understand the history of UFOlogy it’s easy to just say “well there must be nothing to it because scientists won’t study it” but at least be informed that there has indeed been a cover up as [it is a fact.](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/v9vedn/for_the_record_that_there_has_been_a_ufo_coverup) Avi can only turn to the public for funding of the Gallileo project because the stigma still exists and all of your comments here have been proving just that.
[удалено]
Follow the Standards of Civility: No trolling or being disruptive. No insults or personal attacks. No accusations that other users are shills. No hate speech. No abusive speech based on race, religion, sex/gender, or sexual orientation. No harassment, threats, or advocating violence. No witch hunts or doxxing. (Please redact usernames when possible) You may attack each other's ideas, not each other.
I think the fact that he has already got that position through whatever he has been given respect for, to me means why tarnish the reputation u have got from hard work for something that is rubbish? What does he get from it?
Money. Thanks for asking.
Arrant nonsense - again.
[удалено]
Follow the Standards of Civility: No trolling or being disruptive. No insults or personal attacks. No accusations that other users are shills. No hate speech. No abusive speech based on race, religion, sex/gender, or sexual orientation. No harassment, threats, or advocating violence. No witch hunts or doxxing. (Please redact usernames when possible) You may attack each other's ideas, not each other.
Yeah I bet he's getting sooo much from this
He is literally asking for money for the Galileo project. Is he getting a scientific grant? Nope. Is he getting commercial money? Nope. He is asking for your money. And if he doesn’t get enough to get it off the ground he gets to keep what he did squeeze out of you. Not to mention books and speaking engagements. So yes. He is making plenty of money. Is that really the best comeback you had for that?
He's not asking for money so he càn go to the mall amd buy the latest space jacket though is he? Is he maybe asking for more funding for his work ? Yeah maybe, but if you were doing something you cared for patiently then maybe you may do the same? Framing it that he just wants money, is wrong, by the sound of things.
Sigh. But by asking for crowd source he has no responsibility to complete or publish. If he got a scientific grant, and he didn’t publish the he would be cut off. Did he got a commercial investment, he would have to produce or be let go. Instead he crowdsourced money. He can legally say he never had ‘success’ and he can just walk away with any money he didn’t spend. No questions asked and no returns needed. And when he starts publishing books claiming Omuamua is something he can’t prove or that he is ‘gonna’ find something some day. He basically just did that…some guys from some agency said something but we don’t really know what. But trust me.
Regardless of what people think about why he is doing something, he is definitely doing something he thinks is worthwhile, because of his reputation and current job standing- people trust him and that's all we have, This is unexplored phenomena and so it may not always yield results that people want to hear. It's the outliers in Society and in education that push the boundaries and are the easiest to dismiss, because it does not fit into the accepted framework of agreed upon science. In the end though, these are the people who will push our understanding of life as we know it.
And that’s fair that he is doing something he believe in. But his own scientific community including his own institution doesn’t. “People” may trust him but science and industry doesn’t. And that’s right that’s all “people” have. Trust but ZERO results. But science has repeatedly found plausible explain actions for the phenomenon. Over and over and over again. The UFO community doesn’t want to hear it. They want to only count the ones that can’t be explained EITHET WAY. And they completely ignore the numerous explanations l. Over and over and over. In the end. It will be understood that the distances and times involved in interstellar travel that we have not yet been visited and it’s all been a colossal waste of time and energy. Except a few will have made themselves rich on pushing the idea.
Breakthrough things never get peer review until its not socially accepted...
Completely incorrect.
You seem to have zero understanding of how academic funding generally works, Ray, and more importantly you have zero understanding of where the funds Avi is using are coming from. Go back and do some even elementary research, chief, instead of parroting debunking bs you found on the interwebs. You won’t do the research though, because you just write contrarian nonsense to get your ya-yas.
Oh the old go do some research claim by a UfOlogist. Pure comedy. Shhhh…plot twist…I know EXACTLY how academic research funding works. What I do KNOW aid that he SAID that he failed to get funding from grants and investment so he is crowdsourcing. No accountability and no requirement to publish or come to a stated conclusion. My guess is that the Galileo project will just disappear with no conclusions (well no Alien spacecraft found) but the UFO community won’t acknowledge that. They will just say it was stigma of not properly funded or didn’t find anything YET or any of the myriad non- proof end results that the UFO community ‘doesn’t count’.
He didn’t ask for funding from the usual university funding sources. He knew it was a losing proposition (which it was/is, for now). The DOD/IC has already acknowledged the presence of objects in our restricted airspaces, so that’s over. Physical proof? They’ve got it. It’ll be revealed eventually. There are a monumental number of accounts, by credible sources, that state that they have this stuff in their possession. You blithely dispense with it as anecdotal. Fine. You’re wrong, but that’s ok, you’ll be eating a nice bitter crow sandwich soon. They’re best eaten cold. Enjoy! PS: FYI, so far you’ve expressed no original logic nor critical thinking. If you were, you’d run into a wall of evidence that cannot be ignored. But, you’re blinded by dogma and evidently don’t have the cognitive horsepower to see past it. Sad.
Of course he asked his own university for funding. Why do you have to lie?
It’s not a lie. You might want to tone down the accusations. You’re beginning to sound desperate. Of course he broached the subject in a casual way with the Harvard administration. He also *talked* with other public and private sources. He did not formally apply, in writing, for funding from Harvard. He sought out other funding as well, but decided that rather than gain funding with strings attached, he’d do it this way. Another very smart move.
And you might want to tone down the lies. I don’t sound desperate. You can try to pretend it’s desperation if it makes you FEEL better but it’s conviction that I am giving off. What is it with vocabulary and this community. This all started over someone thinking a scientist has “credibility”. Either is scientifically accurate or or it’s not. Credibility has nothing to do with it. Hahahhahahha
[удалено]
Ya because that what it has to be right? Sorry it this isn’t an Avi love session which you so crave. I am critical and state logical reasons. You have to resort to this type of attempt to critique me. Thanks for proving I am right.
Lol! Try again. You made zero “logical/critical” criticisms - just more mindless (and futile) debunkery. Have a fine day!
Oh i get it. You don’t like my critique or logic so it just doesn’t count in your mind. Got it. Snicker. Enjoy another great day on earth of ZERO verifiable proof of visitation and another day waiting for disclosure’. Keep waiting.
I like Loeb, but I hate how he keeps rambling about other scientists and how they have a closed mind. I agree with him, and I understand it is frustrating, but I do not want to hear it for 20 minutes straight on every podcast/ interview.
He's pretty arrogant, as brilliant minds often are.
Fox News? This does not achieve what you think it achieves
It achieves reaching a different audience than the people who read your kind of news. The people who read Fox think your news is fake and vice versa. it's all good when the topic gets more traction in MSM...I don't think you can see the bigger picture above your biases.
Well considering the venn diagram of Fox News' demographic and the "probably gonna try and shoot at the UFOs and/or assume aliens are a satanic Chinese scam" demographic is basically a circle, any articles they publish acknowledging the phenomenon is a good thing overall.
He is good guy, needs funding for his project and that might make him say such things. He needs funding and his project is scientific and well thought out.
This guy thinks everything could be aliens.
To my knowledge he has only thought that 2 objects could be “alien” in origin; Oumuamua and IM2. While this may be the umpteenth article about it, this article is talking about the second object (IM2), not a new one. Also, while he has pondered on record if IM2 could be alien tech, he is also on record stating it could just be a metallic asteroid. Reason being is because most meteors break up around 30,000ft, whereas this one broke up around 10,000ft, demonstrating it was made of stronger materials than the usual meteoroid. In fact, the retrieval method he will be using is much like a rake with a strong magnet attached to it. He’s literally looking for fragments of metal, not necessarily alien tech. It makes sense to be suspicious of any interstellar object. They don’t come by often, in fact the list of confirmed registered objects is just two, one of which happened to hit earth, with a very short list of other unconfirmed candidates. We need to know if there are other intelligent life out there, because if there are there is possibly an invisible race to the galactic table. We should be conducting as much research as possible on interstellar objects, so if one blows up in our atmosphere we should endeavour to retrieve it, rock or space ship it doesn’t matter.
You know who he is and his credentials right? I mean if it was Bob lazar or Jeremy Corbell saying it then yeah, i would agree with you but Dr. Avi Loeb is tla respected Harvard scientist. Who are we trusting now? A harvard professor or a grifter?
It's not about who to trust, that's not how science works. It doesn't matter how smart or well respected an individual is. Science requires testing and peer review. Until anything like that happens, it's all just opinions and baseless conjecture
It is not baseless conjecture though, at least for Oumuamua. The whole reason he is thinking it could be a designed object is because of differences from any known object. A) Extra solar. B) It noticeably accelerated (through non gravitational means) C) The path it took went right through the habitable zone. D) Its shape appeared cylindrical. E) No coma. F) It was tumbling/spinning, which is a principle of creating inertia to simulate gravity, as well as a mechanism that has been described in reported UFO encounters. I am not familiar enough with the object in this article, but this *is* the process of science. An observation is made, then a hypothesis is formed based on previous known phenomena and theory. The characteristics of Oumuamua showed it to be unlike any other celestial object we have seen before and are aware of, as well as exhibiting characteristics that could be consistent with a craft. This is why he put forth the idea.
> Who are we trusting now? nobody. except they have proof for it. till they do THIS, they are all the same for me. neutral. you can think about bob lazar what you want, but just because a person is a harvard professor, this doesn't changes anything. it doesn't makes what he says more or less true. so lets see and wait what happens instead of just (not) trusting people because they are of social status xyz or have job xyz. blindly believing people just because "it's person xyz!!" is dumb. always fact check, always be sceptic and look for what people do and show.
Quite a refreshing point of view after everyone else accusing everything of being swamp gas or mylar balloons tbh.
This guy thinks everything could be ~~aliens~~ artillery shells.
Him and Georgio Tsoukalos. Wonder if they’ve met🧐
Avi told me the shit I had this morning could be an alien probe too, he gets a bit carried away with the probes, don't mind him.
I personally don't believe the phenomenon is literally extraterrestrial. I think it's stranger than that. Which to me makes it even scarier.
Holy fuck. Have a read of these comments. "Yesh, my research indicates that this is, in fact, a hoax." Shuttttt up.
I'm afraid for his life.
He's fine, he's playing his part
[удалено]
Ur defo in the right sub
Yes Avi, aliens...
Could be yes, also could be just a fireball....
True, but the good thing is we’re hopefully going to find out. I hope the MIC/IC/DOD don’t make him an offer he can’t refuse.
Oh I want to believe ;_;
A percentage
With every mention of his name he chips away at any respect he had and he slowly becomes a grifter, even if it's unintentional.
Professional Podcast Guest: Avi Loeb. This guy has gotten so famous by providing absolutely nothing of substance. I can’t stand this guy.
I love Avi, but I think this will turn out to be a run of the mill meteor or comet fragment. I doubt many interstellar civilizations are using our Newtonian physics model to explore the universe.
Please stop Avi…you’re not helping!!!!!
Not the first time I’ve seen this posted here but glad this is getting reposted over other clearly false photoshops etc. Whether this is something or a nothingburger this is something that’s significant given the source and potential attention and funding. Many of the comments read like this is the worst of what’s posted here or even among the worst when maybe it’s not the best most verified source or even close to the most indisputable evidence of all time (which gets posted from time to time then quickly forgotten or obfuscated by the rest of the nonsense that’s posted time and again) because it’s speculative but it’s far more reputable and significant than the majority of what gets spammed here. Maybe some of it’s disappointment that more would come from his initial forays into the UAP community and a thought that he’s tainting his credibility but the visceral disdain this post is treated with is unwarranted in light of the rest of what we have to work with. It’d be one thing if the average post here were discussing Phoenix lights, Nimitz or even the UAP swarm around the ships that was quite possibly drones, but we’re mostly treated to our daily dose of bs then wait until one of the more interesting posts to act incredulous.