Avi Loeb + ʻOumuamua and evidence for extraterrestrial intelligence

[jim mcnamara]

Pop Science reporting example above.

The book
"Extraterrestrial The first sign of intelligent life beyond Earth" Avi Loeb, has not yet been published.

I put this in General Discussion, if someone thinks sound byte previews of a yet unpublished book warrant something different please report this post.

I cannot really comment, for I do not know what is in the book. A priori, if Loeb has additional factual/observational data I think it should have been published or at least pre-published on ArXiv. Anyone have a link? Otherwise the book is very probably speculation.

So it seems reasonable to me to start a discussion thread.

 

[mcastillo356]

As I've seen it will be published or released this month, on the 26-th of this month. That's all I've seen, and that 'Oumuamua is controversial (Madrid, January the 4-th, Europa Press).
Greetings!

 

[Ygggdrasil]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Even claims suggesting non-terrestrial life vetted by experts and published in peer reviewed journals often turn out to be wrong.

 

[StevieTNZ]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Why should this be the case? What makes a claim extraordinary and if one states a claim is extraordinary, why should it need extraordinary evidence?

 

[Ygggdrasil]

I think of it from a Bayesian perspective. An extraordinary claim has a low prior. Achieving high confidence in a hypothesis with a low prior probability requires stronger evidence than for a hypothesis with a larger prior probability.

 

[Keith_McClary]

CBC Radio interview with Loeb starting at 47 minutes (15 minutes duration).

They may have a transcript in a few days.

 

[Bandersnatch]

Carroll recorded a podcast with Loeb recently, talking about just this stuff:
https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/podcast/2021/01/25/131-avi-loeb-on-taking-aliens-seriously/
Assuming it's representative of the contents of the book, it's not that Loeb claims to have some extraordinary evidence, tries to push a pet theory, or holds some patently kooky beliefs - rather, he makes an argument that academia is unjustifiably biased against investigating even the possibility of anything that as much as smells of extraterrestrials.

 

[mfb]

He made an AMA ("ask me anything") on Reddit. It... didn't go well.

 

[Keith_McClary]

To ‘Oumuamua, Aliens, And That Harvard Astronomer
Ethan Siegel

Loeb was a once-respected scientist who made important contributions to astrophysics and cosmology, particularly when it came to black holes and the first stars. But his work on extraterrestrial signatures continues to be largely unappreciated by the community — a position as justifiable as ignoring the comparable idea of Russell’s teapot — and rather than address their scientific objections, he’s stopped listening to other astronomers entirely, instead choosing to try his scientific case in the most unscientific place imaginable: the court of public opinion.

(I'm not quoting that because I necessarily agree, just pointing out the controversy!)

 

[Quotidian]

Developments in this case - a paper was published earlier this year suggesting that the irregular acceleration of 'Oumuamua might have been due to the ejection of gases heated by its proximity to the Sun, creating a kind of jet propulsion effect. Avi Loeb, however, disputes this, providing calculations purporting to show that the posited cause could not have been powerful enough to account for the observed behaviour.

https://earthsky.org/space/oumuamua-a-comet-avi-loeb-responds/

I also noticed a press article on an expedition Loeb plans to mount an expedition to fish (literally!) for a fallen meteor that he believes might be of alien origin.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...-pacific-expedition-first-interstellar-meteor

As a lay (i.e. non-physicist) reader, I'm kind of fascinated by Loeb, but it strikes me that he has become somewhat obsessed with his belief in interstellar life, to the detriment of his reputation in the mainstream science community. Part of me hopes that he's right, in that the discovery of extra-terrestrial life would surely be one of the biggest scientific discoveries in my lifetime, but at the same time, the tone and demeanour he adopts in many of the discussions about it undermine his credibility.

 

[Swamp Thing]

What makes a claim extraordinary and if one states a claim is extraordinary, why should it need extraordinary evidence?

I think of it from a Bayesian perspective. An extraordinary claim has a low prior.

Is it the case that in the Bayesian approach, one's estimate of prior probability can be informed by one's personal take on the situation being analysed?

(But subsequent updates to the estimate have to be done using more strictly objective inputs?)

 

[256bits]

to the detriment of his reputation in the mainstream science community.

Their loss.

Just one example of where mainstream, not necessarily the scientific, was to the detriment of individuals, is Galileo. Other examples are for the search of Troy, the Fedex business model, plate tectonics, and the list goes on....

 

[Hornbein]

Developments in this case - a paper was published earlier this year suggesting that the irregular acceleration of 'Oumuamua might have been due to the ejection of gases heated by its proximity to the Sun, creating a kind of jet propulsion effect. Avi Loeb, however, disputes this, providing calculations purporting to show that the posited cause could not have been powerful enough to account for the observed behaviour.

https://earthsky.org/space/oumuamua-a-comet-avi-loeb-responds/

No no, the problem was that if gasses were escaping to accelerate the object then entrained dust would have been visible, as with comets. No such dust was seen.

I also noticed a press article on an expedition Loeb plans to mount an expedition to fish (literally!) for a fallen meteor that he believes might be of alien origin.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...-pacific-expedition-first-interstellar-meteor

This seems an eminently reasonable approach. I have read that such meteors have been detected. Anything with a speed greater than X must be of extrasolar origin. However such detection is by military satellites so the data are classified. (One researcher got them to say a certain meteor was extrasolar but that was all.)

I can't be bothered today to look up references, but the basic problem is that all objects observed before 'Oumuamua were either stony asteroids or dusty ice comets. It didn't fall into either of these categories and the shape was highly unusual. To me the most promising theories are that it was a pure crystal that had largely evaporated before detection. This would explain the unique shape and lack of dust. One theory held it was a crystal of hydrogen formed in interstellar space. Another was that it was ice ejected in an extrasolar planetary collision. I haven't checked up recently though.

 

[Quotidian]

No such dust was seen.

That was not Avi Loeb's explanation for his rejection of Berger's paper. A précis of the reasons for his rejection is given here.

By way of clarification, the expedition that is being mounted near New Guinea is the attempt to locate another object, that was also judged to have been from outside the solar system due to the velocity at which it hit the Earth's atmosphere. His account of this expedition can be found here. (I note that he too refers to it as a fishing expedition, in quotes.)

 

[Hornbein]

That was not Avi Loeb's explanation for his rejection of Berger's paper. A précis of the reasons for his rejection is given here.

By way of clarification, the expedition that is being mounted near New Guinea is the attempt to locate another object, that was also judged to have been from outside the solar system due to the velocity at which it hit the Earth's atmosphere. His account of this expedition can be found here. (I note that he too refers to it as a fishing expedition, in quotes.)

Aha, I did not read your post carefully. I stand corrected. It's nice that the crystal hypothesis is still being worked on. From that summary it seems to me that Loeb is criticizing that paper from a purely physical/mathematical standpoint. Surely that is OK. I didn't see anything that suggested that "Loeb is standing by his assertion for the possibility that ‘Oumuamua isn’t a natural object." He does advocate that in his books, but that's different.

 

[russ_watters]

Their loss.

Just one example of where mainstream, not necessarily the scientific, was to the detriment of individuals, is Galileo. Other examples are for the search of Troy, the Fedex business model, plate tectonics, and the list goes on....

What's the issue with the fedex business model?

The others...well, plate tectonics is about 100 years old, the rest are quite literally ancient, from before "science" was a formal thing. I think you'd be hard pressed to find modern examples of this claimed problem, but please do provide some examples from this "list" if any are scientific.

This supposed problem is often cited by lets just call them 'outside the mainstream thinkers', but there's little evidence that the problem exists at all and if it does it is so small as to not be a big loss if an idea or two takes a few extra years to gain traction. The case in this thread is different though; Loeb was solidly mainstream and that makes him harder to ignore, even if he has left the fold in terms of scientific thinking.

 

[JLowe]

The alien conspiracies have gotten out of hand again. I knew it was just a matter of time after the Pentagon and the US government went public about taking UAP seriously. That's the problem with this topic, while UAP should be investigated for a number of reasons (extra terrestrial being just one of them, albeit a low probability one), by going public with it you open the door to overwhelming silliness.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

the Pentagon and the US government went public about taking UAP seriously.

How about that. It seems that someone here strongly and consistently made that argument - that this subject should to be taken seriously - and presented evidence to support such a position starting 20 years ago. Now who was that....?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I think of it from a Bayesian perspective. An extraordinary claim has a low prior. Achieving high confidence in a hypothesis with a low prior probability requires stronger evidence than for a hypothesis with a larger prior probability.

"Extraordinary" is a subjective term. The entire argument is subjective.

Late edit: Or perhaps I should say, it is an argument in favor of subjectivity.

 

[JLowe]

How about that. It seems that someone here strongly and consistently made that argument - that this subject should to be taken seriously - and presented evidence to support such a position starting 20 years ago. Now who was that....?

UAP with credible evidence and legitimate threat potential for national security has always been taken seriously. The problem is those cases are miniscule compared to the number people who can't tell the difference between the planet Venus and an alien mothership coming to abduct them. Going public with it is good for transparency but now we get to sit through everyone's alien stories again.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

UAP with credible evidence and legitimate threat potential for national security has always been taken seriously. The problem is those cases are miniscule compared to the number people who can't tell the difference between the planet Venus and an alien mothership coming to abduct them. Going public with it is good for transparency but now we get to sit through everyone's alien stories again.

It is potentially the most significant science story in human history. And it has not been taken seriously by the scientific community. Only now are eyes beginning to open beyond a very limited few; at least publicly so.

I saw Neil deGrasse Tyson backpedaling hard for the first time ever. I had to laugh out loud. He has always been so smug and arrogant.

IMO, no objective person could look at the wealth of credible reports and dismiss it all as nonsense. But that is exactly what the mainstream in science has done for decades.

 

[JLowe]

It is potentially the most significant science story in human history. And it has not been taken seriously by the scientific community. Only now are eyes beginning to open beyond an elite few.

Confirmation of extraterrestials would indeed be one of the most significant stories in history. But actual evidence for such a thing is incredibly low, and the probability that a civilization advanced enough to travel the stars would repeatedly crash land on Earth is silly. Everyone is always curious and loves a mystery, but chances are the UAP are of terrestrial origin and there's no reason to try to force aliens into the mix before irrefutable evidence is presented.

In fact, it's counter productive if it means actual human made UAP with malicious intent gets under investigated. And this is a major reason why the government is trying to remove the stigma, claims of aliens are potentially getting in the way of reporting things that may actually pose a threat and need to be investigated.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Confirmation of extraterrestials would indeed be one of the most significant stories in history. But actual evidence for such a thing is incredibly low, and the probability that a civilization advanced enough to travel the stars would repeatedly crash land on Earth is silly. Everyone is always curious and loves a mystery, but chances are the UAP are of terrestrial origin and there's no reason to try to force aliens into the mix before irrefutable evidence is presented.

In fact, it's counter productive if it means actual human made UAP with malicious intent gets under investigated. And this is a major reason why the government is trying to remove the stigma, claims of aliens are potentially getting in the way of reporting things that may actually pose a threat and need to be investigated.

We don't know the probability of a visitation. It could be 100%. Or it could be 0%. We don't even have a complete model of physics so claiming we can know is flawed logic. And claims of aliens are not simply imagined because of lights in the sky. That too arises due to claimed direct observations.

Much of this has come out because of one man who is essentially a whistleblower -

Luis Elizondo. ​

He ran the program at the Pentagon and resigned so he could go public. He is also the one who released the Navy videos. You can find plenty of interviews with him.

See also Jay Stratton. He was very high up and is the one who changed UFO to UAP.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

We have another alleged whistleblower, a widely respected intelligence official, who claims we have ET crafts. And he is forcing a Congressional investigation on this. So this seems to get even crazier...

The powerful House Oversight Committee is in the "early stages" of preparing a hearing on UFOs in the wake of unconfirmed claims from a former intelligence official that the U.S. has allegedly found crashed alien spacecraft -- an account the Pentagon says is unsubstantiated.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hou...ng-after-unconfirmed-claims/story?id=99899883

 

[JLowe]

We don't know the probability of a visitation. It could be 100%. Or it could be 0%. We don't even have a complete model of physics so claiming we can know is flawed logic. And claims of aliens are not simply imagined because of lights in the sky. That too arises due to claimed direct observations.

Much of this has come out because of one man who is essentially a whistleblower -

Luis Elizondo. ​

He ran the program at the Pentagon and resigned so he could go public. He is also the one who released the Navy videos. You can find plenty of interviews with him.

Even if the probability is 100% that aliens have visited the Earth in the last century, the vast majority of claimed sightings are still not of alien origin. The average person has demonstrated time and time again that they are absolutely terrible at correctly identifying flying objects.

Look, I'll be the first to happily eat crow if the time comes. But rumors, grainy videos and wild claims isn't gonna cut it.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Even if the probability is 100% that aliens have visited the Earth in the last century, the vast majority of claimed sightings are still not of alien origin. The average person has demonstrated time and time again that they are absolutely terrible at correctly identifying flying objects.

Look, I'll be the first to happily eat crow if the time comes. But rumors, grainy videos and wild claims isn't gonna cut it.

As Stan Friedman used to say, the question is not whether UFOs are ET. The question is, are any?

Did I say anything about you accepting anything as proof? I have only stated the facts.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

And to be clear, I didn't mean a 100% chance that we have been visited. I meant we don't know the odds of a visitation., regardless of whether or not we have ever been or will ever be visited.

This notion that we can talk about the odds of a visitation is flawed logic. We don't know the odds,

 

[JLowe]

And to be clear, I didn't mean a 100% chance that we have been visited. I meant we don't know the odds of a visitation, whether or not we have ever been or will ever be visited.

This notion that we can talk about the odds of a visitation is flawed logic. We don't know the odds,

I know what you mean, I used 100% because even in that case the odds are very low a correct identification would be ET, considering the vast number of mundane, everyday things that get misidentified as ET.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

These are some heavyweights. Mr Stratton (below) is now retired and telling his story.

Office of Naval IntelligenceSenior Analyst, Nimitz
OperationalIntelligence Center
Mr. Stratton entered Senior Executive Service in September 2018. He has accumulated over thirty-two years of experience in progressively responsible positions with the UnitedStates Army, United States Air Force Reserve, and U.S. Federal Civil Service. Mr.Stratton is currently the Senior Analyst, Nimitz Operational Intelligence Center, Office ofNaval Intelligence (ONI). As the center’s senior analyst he is responsible for deliveringcomprehensive intelligence to Navy leadership and representing the Navy as a seniormember of the Intelligence Community (IC).Prior to this appointment, Mr. Stratton served as the Director of Intelligence (J2) with theJoint Warfare Analysis Center; Deputy Director Executive Support with Office of theDeputy Chief of Naval Operations for Information Warfare (N2N6); Director AirWarfare/SPEAR with the Nimitz Operational Intelligence Center, ONI; Chief of Air and Space Warfare, Defense Warning Office, Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA); AerospaceEngineer with ONI; Aerospace Engineer (Flight Test) with Naval Air Systems Command(NAVAIR); and Senior Weapons Systems Engineer with ManTech International Corporation. He has completed a variety of active and reserve positions as an IntelligenceOfficer and Foreign Area Officer with the Air Force Reserve including SeniorIntelligence Officer (SIO) with the 459th Air Refueling Wing; Chief Space Technology with the Defense Technology Security Administration, Office of the Secretary of Defensefor Policy (OSD-P); Chief, Intelligence Stan/Eval with the 459th Air Refueling Wing;Detachment Commander with the II Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp LeatherneckAfghanistan; Military Advisor to the President’s Special Advisor for Middle EastRegional Security, US Embassy Tel Aviv; and Operations and Intelligence with the 917thFighter Wing.A native of East Texas, Mr. Stratton holds a Bachelor’s of Science from Embry RiddleAeronautical University, Masters of Military Operational Art and Science from AirUniversity. Mr. Stratton holds the IC Joint Duty Officer Designation, formerly the ICOfficer Designation. He is a veteran of Operations Desert Shield, Desert Storm, JointEndeavor, Deny Flight, Deliberate Force, Allied Force, Southern Watch, Deny Flight,Iraqi Freedom, Enduring Freedom, and Noble Eagle. His personal military decorationsinclude the Meritorious Service Medal (two awards), the Joint Commendation Medal, theAir Force Commendation Medal (two awards), and the Air Force Achievement Medal.He has been awarded numerous joint and service unit commendations both combat andgarrison. He has several expeditionary and campaign medals from his deployments. Hewas also awarded the DIA Director’s Award, DIA Expeditionary Medal, NavyMeritorious Civilian Service Award, Central Intelligence Agency Meritorious UnitCommendation and ODNI Meritorious Unit Commendation.
https://www.secnav.navy.mil/donhr/About/Senior-Executives/Biographies/Stratton, J.pdf

 

[Vanadium 50]

Rebranding UFOs as UAPs does not make it more likely that they are extraterrestrial spacecraft.

 

[Bandersnatch]

I wish they rebranded these as 'I can't believe it's not aliens!'. The whole sentence, including the exclamation.
The upsides are manyfold. UFO conventions would be harder to advertise, the media would perhaps get the message right for once, and the pilots (sorry, aviators) could even sometimes decide to report a flock of birds or a plane whenever there's something blurry at 3 o'clock because ICBINA! just doesn't roll off the tongue as easily.

 

[Vanadium 50]

sorry, aviators)

What's the difference?

A Navy aviator breaks ground and flies into the wind.
An Air Force pilot....

 

[russ_watters]

Thanks everyone. We no longer do UFO=UAP=Aliens! debunking here. Thread locked.