Harvard Astronomy Professor Thinks He Has New Evidence of Alien Spacecraft (wgbh.org) 95
Last June, Harvard professor Avi Loeb said he may have found fragments of alien technology from a meteor that landed in the waters off of Papua, New Guinea in 2014. "Since then, several researchers unrelated to the expedition have pushed back on his analysis," reports Boston Public Radio. "One October 2023 paper deemed the spherules were made by human-produced coal ash." Now, Loeb has published new findings that he claims debunk that theory.
"What we did is compare 55 elements from the periodic table in coal ash to those special spherules that we found," Loeb said. "And it's clearly very different." From the report: He said his work follows the scientific method: collecting materials, analyzing them and following the evidence. "It's not based on opinions," Loeb said. "And, of course, if you're not part of this scientific process and you are jealous of the attention that it gets, then you can raise a lot of criticism." When asked how he deals with that criticism, he said that, "by now, my skin turned into titanium." [...]
He believes more observatories should be built to expand on research of what's passing through closer to Earth, since astronomers are often fixated on faraway objects. "The best approach to figure it out is actually to do the scientific work of building observatories that look out and check what these objects are," Loeb said. "And if they happen to be birds, or airplanes, or Chinese balloons, so be it. We can move on after that. But we need to figure it out, it's our civil duty as scientists. "The universe is so vast that, rather than keep telling ourselves that there is nothing like us, we should search for it," he added.
"What we did is compare 55 elements from the periodic table in coal ash to those special spherules that we found," Loeb said. "And it's clearly very different." From the report: He said his work follows the scientific method: collecting materials, analyzing them and following the evidence. "It's not based on opinions," Loeb said. "And, of course, if you're not part of this scientific process and you are jealous of the attention that it gets, then you can raise a lot of criticism." When asked how he deals with that criticism, he said that, "by now, my skin turned into titanium." [...]
He believes more observatories should be built to expand on research of what's passing through closer to Earth, since astronomers are often fixated on faraway objects. "The best approach to figure it out is actually to do the scientific work of building observatories that look out and check what these objects are," Loeb said. "And if they happen to be birds, or airplanes, or Chinese balloons, so be it. We can move on after that. But we need to figure it out, it's our civil duty as scientists. "The universe is so vast that, rather than keep telling ourselves that there is nothing like us, we should search for it," he added.
"if you're not part of this scientific process" (Score:1)
Ah yes; you're not a scientist. The go to line of science fraudsters.
Mythbusters (Score:5, Informative)
Fool around with cowpox (Score:2)
"The difference between science and fooling around is writing thing down."
You sound vaxxed.
And proud of it. If you fool around with cowpox and write down that practically nobody who catches cowpox goes on to catch smallpox, that's science. And it led to a world where nobody has to worry about living with measles, mumps, rubella, diphtheria, pertussis, or Tetris (sorry Mr. Pajitnov).
Re: (Score:3)
Evidence based slashdot comment (Score:5, Informative)
They could be pretty much from anywhere or anything. Human activity (ships, factories, space debris), metorites, comets, volanic eruptions.
Sounds like he's one of those types who has a theory he wants to prove and finds anything however implausible to back it up.
Avi Loeb's blog [medium.com] is an interesting read, at least the entries related to this issue - especially this one [medium.com].
1) The spheres were found close or nearby to the path of the meteor, no spheres were found in runs more distant to the track.
2) The spheres were mostly iron and no nickel.
3) The spheres were consistent with a droplets from molten explosion in the atmosphere.
4) The meteorite is almost certainly interstellar. NASA is 99.99% certain, and the only push back (that it comes from our solar system) requires new science not in evidence.
If volcanic, then the spheres would be found over a wide area, and not localized to the area of the explosion.
Raw iron always has Nickel, because the two elements are formed at the same time with the same process. No known astrophysical mechanism will separate the two elements, so you need to explain why there is no nickel in the spheres. Unless the spheres were from metal smelted to make steel, which both humans and aliens would do.
The elemental proportions of the spheres does not match the proportions found anywhere in our solar system - by a wide margin. Some elements had hundreds of times the proportion of that same element found in our system.
Making this issue about Avi Loeb is a complete mystery to me. He lays out his evidence and invites comment. Those comments *should* be of the form: this can be explained *this* way.
And not "the conclusion is wrong because you're a whacko".
And on a final note, his expedition (to recover bits of an interstellar meteorite) cost a mere $5 million. That's peanuts, and easily funded by private donations. He wants to go back to see if he can recover a larger piece, which might take a little more money - maybe twice as much? - and I personally think that's a fine goal.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
2) The spheres were mostly iron and no nickel.
So - advanced interstellar spaceships are made of iron - like steam engines?
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe not all that advanced if they got blown up. But seriously, why not? If it's built in space, and intended to stay in space as large interstellar craft most likely would be, why not iron? Cheap, easy to find, easy to refine, strong enough to withstand vacuum of space and nominal space debris, blocks magnetic fields, etc.
Might not be intuitive, but it is the most abundant metal in the universe and might be "good enough" for cheap drones sent to the far reaches.
Re:Evidence based slashdot comment (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe not all that advanced if they got blown up. But seriously, why not? If it's built in space, and intended to stay in space as large interstellar craft most likely would be, why not iron? Cheap, easy to find, easy to refine, strong enough to withstand vacuum of space and nominal space debris, blocks magnetic fields, etc.
Might not be intuitive, but it is the most abundant metal in the universe and might be "good enough" for cheap drones sent to the far reaches.
When Copernicus postulated that the Earth moved around the Sun, he had no more evidence than Ptolemy or Aristotle, but at least he had the virtue of parsimony. Loeb's explanations, on the other hand, keep requiring more and more assumptions.
Re: (Score:2)
Who upmodded your vacuous bullshit that had no relation to my post at all. I don't care about Loeb, I didn't speak about him or his claims. I was directly replying to someone who scoffed that interstellar craft might be made from iron when it seems to me that iron would actually be pretty high on the list of possible materials.
Re: (Score:2)
Its also heavy and not as strong as other materials for its weight.
And what are the chances that a drone travels across the galaxy using who knows what sort of beyond magic tech yet at the last minute fucks up its re-entry and burns up?
Riiiight.
Re: (Score:2)
And what are the chances that a drone travels across the galaxy using who knows what sort of beyond magic tech yet at the last minute fucks up its re-entry and burns up?
Riiiight.
In all seriousness, a modest sized drone is actually something that makes some sense to crash.
I can easily imagine us earthlings building 10,000 drones and flinging them out into the stars on a voyage of discovery knowing full well that 99% will malfunction in various random ways over their many century journey and not return any data. One of the likely "not return data" states could be described by "I actually got to the intended planet, but I my computer is too damaged by cosmic rays to find a stable orb
Re: (Score:2)
It's very unlikely that an interstellar probe will have the capability to enter orbit. If you want to get someplace in a reasonable time, it will take an astounding amount of energy to accelerate. Assuming no magic*, the probe will not have a propulsion system that'll allow it to stop when it gets there. All the mass you can carry goes into science payload and comms. It'll zip through a star system taking pictures and beaming back data. If you have a target planet, you could conceivably aim directly at it f
Re: (Score:3)
It's also presumptuous to think that it's beyond magic tech. It's possible that it's not much more advanced than what we've developed and simply has the benefit of a huge time scale to travel.
Do you think it's a huge conspira
Re: (Score:2)
How many man-made objects failed just before touch-down, both on Earth and on other objects (Moon, Mars, etc).
The answer is: plenty.
Landing is one of the most (if not THE most) sensitive steps in a journey, from airplanes and drones to spaceships.
Re: (Score:2)
Same reason we crashed stuff into the moon on purpose?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Anyway you don't want to make something too high tech if you planning to send a impactor drone on a one way trip to a planet with intelligent life. May give the intelligent life too many ideas or info. And the impactor could be transmitting till it hits the surface and disintegrates.
Re: (Score:2)
Anyway you don't want to make something too high tech if you planning to send a impactor drone on a one way trip to a planet with intelligent life.
But surely you'd want to make it so it doesn't disintegrate on the first opportunity ?
Re: (Score:2)
We generally don't expect our space probes to come back. After their mission is completed, we abandon them either on the surface of a planetary body or in space. If abandoned in space, they will eventually end up crashing into something (e.g. Earth). This is the cheapest thing to do, energy-wise. The mass you save by omitting return capability will directly correspond to larger science payload and/or cheaper launch cost. Both would be desirable to hypothetical aliens just as they are to us.
Crashing into a p
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't say it was part of an alien craft, seems extraordinarily unlikely to be so. All I said was the fact that its iron doesn't automatically disqualify it as being alien as the person I responded to was implying.
Re: (Score:2)
But seriously, why not?
Minimize mass to maximize acceleration, for a given force produced any propulsion mechanism. I imagine scientists, humans or aliens, would not be indifferent to the fact that the probes would reach their target some millions years late just because you did not wan to spend a little more resources sourcing materials lighter than iron.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not a physics guru, so feel free to correct me if I make a mistake. Given we don't know of an infinite propulsion mechanism and we don't know of a way to break the speed of light which would be necessary to return from distant galaxies on a timescale relative to any form of life we can imagine, interstellar travel as we know it has to be a one-way trip.
So if someone were planning to send out craft on this one way trip for whatever reason does it make more or less sense to build a lot of craft out of the
Re: (Score:2)
[quote]If it's built in space, and intended to stay in space as large interstellar craft most likely would be, why not iron?[/quote]
Yeah, but [i]just[/i] iron? Aliens wouldn't have used anything else but iron in their space ships?
Look, this Loeb guy is hell-bent on calling anything not easily exlpained by current knowledge a clear sign of aliens. He's not trying to prove what is out there, he's trying to prove his fantasy is right. So he's extremely biassed. IMO he's not much better than the 'It's aliens' g
Re: (Score:3)
Avi Loeb is no whacko. But he seems less "scientist" and more "attention whore". His M.O. is to publish a huge number of short grad-student-level papers (more "essays" than "studies") on a wide variety of topics in order to pad his publication record and make himself look like an expert on everything, while making a big, very public, angry fuss about other scientists tending to be too "conservative" and not "open-minded". We just "need to learn from the evidence", he says.
My favorite bit is when he had a [youtu.be]
Re: (Score:2)
He publishes the equivalent of undergrad homework problems. It's akin to asking a politician, "So it's not true then that <some wild ass conspiracy made up on the spot>?" level of "reporting".
Re: (Score:2)
Just because there seems to be a process here that humans use (smelting), does not mean it cannot be an odd natural phenomenon. Plenty of bizarre discoveries end up being natural instead. Just take as an example the naturally formed nuclear reactors that have been found. Blew my mind when I read about them!
Not to say it isn't interesting, what he's found. But extraordinary claims need corresponding evidence, and I just don't see anything that compelling here.
Re: (Score:2)
I would really like it to be an alien spacecraft.
But given interstellar origins wouldn't it be simpler to just assume that whatever star system the meteorite came from had different conditions from our own? Isn't that exciting enough, especially if the elemental ratios are wildly different? If the meteorite is a fragment of a larger planetary body, all manner of processes would have "refined" the minerals in it before it was blasted out into space by some cataclysmic event. Near-pure telluric iron exists on
Re: (Score:2)
No known astrophysical mechanism will separate the two elements, so you need to explain why there is no nickel in the spheres.
What he has in hands in "First observation of iron isolated from nickel in interstellar matter" and it's already breakthrough research. He does not need to speculate about the mechanism, he just needs to let other astrophysicists and planetary scientists pick up on his paper and imagine other mechanisms. And not speculate about mechanisms that do not pass Occam's razor, that tells us to minimize the unknowns such as: extraterrestrial, intelligent, technologically advanced life forms able of interstellar tra
Re: (Score:2)
And, being an experienced field researcher, not a desk-jockey astrophysicist, he fucked up his sampling protocol in the field.
How many "runs" of his sample-catching machine did he make outside his "fireball trajectory" area? The purpose of this is to establish the baseline amount of "interesting shit" you collect from uninteresting areas, so that you can say things like "in the target areas, we collec
Re: (Score:1)
Not fly ash, anyway (Score:3)
The new findings paper's conclusion: It's not fly ash (based on government standard sample).
They should maybe do a similar comparison against known meteoroid and comet compositions, but ultimately it seems quite difficult to prove anything exactly. That's fine. I was most concerned with the presence of Uranium and nanometer-size spherules while the photo shows those I assume are grad students without masks using tweezers.. not that I know anything but I hope it is a safe process.
Re: (Score:2)
> grad students without masks using tweezers
If they've been on the ocean floor for three-plus years is there much dust left?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Not fly ash, anyway (Score:3)
This is the way.
misleading quote about coal ash (Score:2)
The article summary is a little misleading. It says "One October 2023 paper deemed the spherules were made by human-produced coal ash." .
But the actual paper referenced said that the composition published was "consistent with coal ash," not that it was coal ash.
Very different.
Re:I have a piece of a spear at home... (Score:4, Funny)
Did you find them at the evil Jamaican gangs hideout?
Re: (Score:3)
I don't do voodoo shit, man. It just happens.
Re: (Score:3)
While not as good as the first one I've always thought Predator 2 was an underrated movie.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, I like it too.
Cool (Score:3, Interesting)
Even if it is not true, it is well conceived.
Oh please (Score:3)
They could be pretty much from anywhere or anything. Human activity (ships, factories, space debris), metorites, comets, volanic eruptions.
Sounds like he's one of those types who has a theory he wants to prove and finds anything however implausible to back it up.
Re: (Score:1)
Elon Musk under a pseudonym then?
Re: (Score:2)
> pretty much from anywhere or anything
Yet in the spot where they know a superfast (interstellar) meteor exploded after entry, from tracking data.
> a theory he wants to prove and finds anything however implausible to back it up
Can these questions be answered by successive iterations of the scientific method?
Re: (Score:2)
Although if it had been moving as fast as he claims, it would have been effectively vaporised. More likely the tracking data was inaccurate and it did not enter at interstellar velocities.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Oh please (Score:5, Interesting)
They could be pretty much from anywhere or anything. Human activity (ships, factories, space debris), metorites, comets, volanic eruptions.
Sounds like he's one of those types who has a theory he wants to prove and finds anything however implausible to back it up.
I've read some of his books. He is a scientist, and does focus on science, but he's also a fantasy fetishist. He usually starts every discovery process with the premise that whatever he's looking at is alien in origin, which tends to taint everything he reports with alien colored lenses. I do think he's made *some* valid observations. Sadly, those observations are super easy to debunk by simply pointing at his more preposterous fantasy musings.
I have my doubts this current story is going to end up being what he says it is. Though I do think at least some of his observations about Oumuamua probably should have been taken a tiny bit more seriously, if only for the sake of exploratory discovery by others, I think he shoots himself in the foot repeatedly by hopping onto the most alien focused obsessive possibilities and hyping them into the stratosphere.
It sometimes pays to listen to the kooks in the fringes, if you're firm enough on your own feet to not have to throw a hissy fit while listening to things you don't necessarily agree with. You can find little seeds of interesting possibility scattered throughout the lunatic fringe. And let's be honest, a scientist given to hyperbole to promote his findings is hardly the most egregious character in our current society. He's just a bit outside the standard deviation of what current science deems acceptable.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm skeptical by nature, but most self-professed skeptics drive me insane with some of their implausible scenarios in thei
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I think it's a good thing. Ideally scientists wouldn't immediately assume that it's of alien origin nor should they immediately assume that it's not. But when you have nearly all scientists immediately dismiss any idea of alien origin and perform mental gymnastics to explain how it couldn't possibly be.... then it's good to have at least a handful of counterbalancing actors in the mix. I'm skeptical by nature, but most self-professed skeptics drive me insane with some of their implausible scenarios in their attempts to disprove claims. They often become more fantastical than the original claimant. Michael Shermer has gotten way better about this as he's matured in his career. He's more interested in suggesting ways to disprove hypothesis so they may actually be tested rather than making wild claims merely in an attempt to dismiss others.
I've noticed a lot of supposedly scientifically minded folks going into apoplectic shock syndrome over any mention of things that aren't known 100% facts. Theories are theories to those with an open mind. Theories are worthy of derision and scorn to those who view science as a replacement for religion, and those who want to be sure they don't trip the "not the normal view" trigger and be derided for having a thought that isn't approved.
I don't believe we have strong enough evidence to support either A) Ther
Re: (Score:2)
But when you have nearly all scientists immediately dismiss any idea of alien origin and perform mental gymnastics to explain how it couldn't possibly be...
It's the other way around. It's Loeb that usually twists and turns really hard to make his outlandish hypothesis seem even remotely likely. Remember Omuamua?
And he's been making these kinds of claims for a long time, and every time it turns out his position is unholdable.
Re: (Score:2)
Th
i don't know what it is (Score:5, Insightful)
Therefore aliens.
Also isn't he just flat out lying about scientific community not caring about observing nearby objects?
Re:i don't know what it is (Score:5, Insightful)
Probably. But in mainstream science extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. A few metallic globules at the bottom of the ocean that Mr Loeb can't figure out the provenance of is not it.
Lightning-induced volcanic spherules (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They probably did figure out how to land, in theory.
But a lot of things could happen during the journey, in practice. A small screw came loose, a sensor malfunctioned, an airbrake got stuck in its OFF position, I could list a hundred small things that could cause a landing failure.
So, yes, entirely possible to have a failure at 99.99999999% completion percentage.
I'm not sure why would you find that bit surprising.
Out of his mind (Score:5, Insightful)
Found meteorite residues, analyzes them and they don't match "fly ash" standard sample, publishes a rigorous scientific paper with only these findings, THEN goes to the media and says it's aliens... poor guy, and poor Harvard students who have to get classes from him. 1) Composition: the pieces are iron-based with half the periodic table as impurities. This is still a natural pattern unsurprising for meteorites, not something likely to come from advanced metallurgy. 2) Shape: Even human spacecraft partly survive reentry and a few large pieces are preserved. If it was a spacecraft he likely would have found some shaped pieces. No reason to invoke artificial origin until he finds shaped pieces of a pure material.
Re: (Score:1)
> poor Harvard students who have to get classes from him
Do you think he's bad at astronomy or that Harvard would make him department chair if he were a bad teacher or researcher?
Is he teaching an undergrad class in identification of interstellar meteor fragments?
Re: (Score:1)
> poor Harvard students who have to get classes from him
Do you think he's bad at astronomy or that Harvard would make him department chair if he were a bad teacher or researcher?
Yes.
Also, it's quite sad that apparently it's *much* easier to get kicked out of Harvard for political wrongthink, than for shit like this.
Re:Out of his mind (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you think he's bad at astronomy or that Harvard would make him department chair if he were a bad teacher or researcher?
I can't imagine a serious institution, and Harvard of them all, would hire him with this on his CV. So I think he crossed the lines after becoming an important professor and now one would need a lot of more momentum to have him sacked.
Is he teaching an undergrad class in identification of interstellar meteor fragments?
I mostly pity the embarrassment of his current students. I don't know what he teaches, but I can see his rational thinking has declined, and we can't know what *else* he reasons wrong. Now there is at least a trust problem with what comes out of his mouth. You'd want to be close to clever professors, those who are going to make you an awesome master degree or PhD research that let you land a dream job in astronomy. While his mind is busy thinking of alien tech, he misses worthwhile ideas to put into his (and your) research, and so outlook as an astronomy student or young professional worsens.
Re: (Score:2)
Or maybe he has tenure and decided to stop being afraid.
I actually admire that.
Re: Out of his mind (Score:3)
This is the side of tenure we don't often think about - the retention of professors beyond their "best by..." date.
I bet he's a popular lecturer and liked by his students, that he earned tenure (supposedly) supports the idea he at least used to be an effective professor.
Based on recent events, it's hard to imagine this intellectual adventure is having any serious impact on Harvard's reputation - I think racist quotas to exclude Asian students, the flurry of plagerisim claims snd accusations, and the shortes
Re: Out of his mind (Score:3)
An astronomer dabbling in a metalurlogical mystery isn't really THAT embarrassing.
Loeb was saying it's ALIENS before the expedition to even get the supposed interstellar debris. He's still saying it's ALIENS! It doesn't matter if the rocks are from the earth, the solar system or interstellar, it's ALIENS is the issue.
I know why this "science" doesn't embarrass you. This IS your science. That highly correlates with everything else you share an opinion on here and is totally unsurprising.
I want it on the record you're talking about interstellar ALIENS, not metallurgy.
Re: Out of his mind (Score:2)
I don't understand why hypotheses need to be debunked as unscientific.
Looking at something extremely closely like he did, postulating ideas and trying to falsify them.
That's science. Don't call him a whack job, find a better explanation or shut the fuck up.
Re: (Score:2)
Tenured professors are often a bit nuts. You just have to keep a lid on your crazy until they give you tenure, then you can let it out to play.
Giving someone a Nobel prize is another step up from that, thus Nobel Disease.
Re: Out of his mind (Score:2)
No he was saying aliens before that. Possibly interstellar object crashed into ocean, therefore alien technology. It can't just be a rock. It's been his whole thing, aliens all the way down.
This isn't the right way to get funding for science even if he means well. Like calling every interesting footprint a baby Sasquatch print to get dumb dumbs to pay for an expedition.
Re: (Score:2)
Found meteorite residues, analyzes them and they don't match "fly ash" standard sample, publishes a rigorous scientific paper with only these findings, THEN goes to the media and says it's aliens... poor guy, and poor Harvard students who have to get classes from him.
Looking at things like this would actually make him a fascinating teacher of undergraduate courses.
I think his results need a lot more work before you can rule out the null hypothesis ("these are naturally occurring ocean-floor deposits"), but if you look at his work as propounding a hypothesis and presenting some evidence for it, rather than stating a conclusion, ok, it's an interesting hypothesis to look at.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Knee jerk reaction.
History abounds with cases of scientists being ridiculed for their research, only proven to be right after years, decades or even post-mortem.
And history has this annoying tendency of repeating itself.
Now, I'm not saying this dude is right or wrong. There's not enough evidence either way. It's an interesting research, though, and I am looking forward to see how it plays out. It's like watching an interesting soccer match where you don't root for any team.
Re: (Score:3)
He collected samples outside of the meteorite trajectory to test that very null hypothesis and did not find any of these sphericals.
Not enough data and not documented well enough. They needed to collect samples using precisely the same methodology from a statistically-significant number of sites that aren't in the predicted area. From the documentation, it looks like they did only two trawls (17 and 22) outside the predicted area. And what they found was "Given that the highest-yield (yellow) regions in the heat map account for roughly twice the background yield owing to the excess spherules added by IM1"-- so, they were seeing spheru
Shave yourself with Occam's Razor (Score:2)
There are so many other explanations. It may well come from one of the faster stars and have hardened extra due to the high speed, among many other things. But some people blame aliens for anything outside normal parameter space.
Aliens fly around in iron spacecraft (Score:2)
Is this the advanced metal alloy you would find in interstellar craft?
Re: Aliens fly around in iron spacecraft (Score:2)
Since we don't have interstellar spacecraft, we don't know what the material composition should be. Just because it is made of common materials doesn't make it more unlikely, we have no idea what properties are important for every part of the spacecraft. This could actually be the ideal alloy for the hull, for all we know. Or just for one part of an engine. Or what they use for the hoop in a weird alien version of basketball.
There are many reasons to reject the alien spaceship hypothesis, but containing a l
Re: (Score:2)
Not a single error bar... (Score:2)
> What we did is compare 55 elements from the periodic table in coal ash
Apparently a single example from the US, not the far east. Data presented with no error bars.
Rather embarrassing for Harvard (Score:2)
Imagine paying someone to teach science who doesn't understand it and regularly goes off half-cocked crowing to the world about having discovered proof of aliens based on evidence everyone else immediately and legitimately determines is perfectly normal known materials and not a product of aliens at all.
Re:Rather embarrassing for Harvard (Score:5, Interesting)
He's being paid to do research, not teach so much. He got his name from research in astrophysics and cosmology, which was quite good. That led him to research on exoplanets. From there, twas but a short step to astro-biology. Then he found he rather liked the fame that astro-biology gave him. Twas but another short step into speculation on alien life forms visiting Earth or sprinkling it with alien fairy dust.
I don't know what is his current serious research, but now he mainly gets press for these sorts of whizzy items that can generate page hits. I think he should be on the first mission to Mars along with Elon Musk so that we may be protected from them.
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, recent events has showed Harvard don't hire based on merit. So there's that.
Analysis of Avi Loeb's alien research (Score:4, Interesting)
Dr Angela Collier, an astrophysicist, did an analysis [youtube.com] of Avi Loeb's alien research ...
Definitely worth watching ...
Please stop platforming Loeb. (Score:4, Insightful)
You might as well platform the History Channel "Aliens!" guy.
The next step in exploration... (Score:1)
Isn't it obvious? (Score:2)
It's steam-powered alien spacecraft (and of course the aliens wear goggles)....
Avi "It's always aliens" Loeb (Score:2)
'Nuff said.
assembly theory (Score:1)
It's difficult to accept (Score:2)
I think there is intelligent life on multiple planets in the Universe. But actually travelling interstellar distances seems unlikely. Even going beyond a few light-years with a manned craft is unlikely to work. And we have not observed any radio communications closer than that, and we was almost certainly have found them over the years.
The only option I can conceive that is left open is that an unmanned probe might be able to travel to us. For the sake of alien scientists a probe would hopefully not have cr
Evidence of aliens is always indistinct and unclea (Score:2)
Ever notice how, with dramatic advances in camera technology over the last 50 years, and the proliferation of cameras literally in everyone's hand all the time, the picture we see of UFOs are always still blurry and indistinct? If these things were so common that we have literally thousands of "documented" sightings, why don't we have any *clear* detailed photos yet?
Same goes for this professor's "evidence." He found some unusual spheres. Could it be evidence of aliens? I suppose. But the evidence is far fr