harvard & aliens & crackpots: a disambiguation of Avi Loeb

posted here a few days ago: [ harvard & aliens & crackpots: a disambiguation of Avi Loeb ]( [VIDEO] ) by Angela Collier. It's 1h6m long but I was surprised about myself that I watched the entire thing and I guess it's because of the high quality of the presentation and the occasional deadpan remark that keep you awake. Talk about Avi Loeb specifically start at 24 minutes. The most damning part of her takedown is probably when she shows zoom footage of a physicists' video conference and other snippets where Loeb is literally foaming with expletives directed mostly at fellow physicists, y'know, the Establishment who just wouldn't follow his by-now predictable but wholly unsupported jump from "I found mineral spherules on the bottom of the ocean" to "these must come from that deep space meteorite that I lately discovered" to "It's aliens!". Collier is such a sound antidote to all that flaky and faky science coverage we're getting. For all the clear words that she finds she still leaves viewers with an open question: "So is Loeb a grifter? I don't think so. Is he a crackpot? Future will tell."

Yeah, that guy again. Required viewing: acollierastro harvard & aliens & crackpots: a disambiguation of Avi Loeb [VIDEO]

This isn't the first time Loeb has shouted "aliens!" Previously he said Ouamuamua was aliens based on a hunch, and after the news got their hands on it and declared aliens to the public, astronomers were understandably peeved with him and asked him not to shout "aliens!" unilaterally based on a hunch. Loeb didn't take it well. There's an amazing clip where he rants about how he is the only one serious about finding extraterrestrial intelligence... To a room full of career SETI astronomers. Here's a video essay about him. (People who have a strong preference for direct/to the point videos would probably be better served seeking out another source, I feel like this video adds interesting context but I know a lot of you would feel it's fluff.) [VIDEO]

Since it's on topic, I'd like to share a small youtuber who does science communication. She covered Loeb and the topics of crackpots in science [1]. Her other video on string theory and how it damaged science communication is really good too. [1] [VIDEO]

Thanks to hikingsimulator's link below, here is Loeb interacting with Tarter [0]. The entire video is worth listening to and the vlogger is refreshingly fair minded. 0. [VIDEO]

> He's written "over 800 scientific papers". Is that... a good thing in his field? No...it really isn't. If you want a very accurate and in depth breakdown of why, i suggest you watch this: [VIDEO] If you don't want to do the whole thing, just jump to his lovely little interaction with Jill Tarter. Then look at all the comments trying to somehow give this snake oil salesman credibility. He's a publicity chaser who's past his prime and cashing in on his reputation and abusing his position. The fact harvard is profiting from it frankly is a disgrace.

OK so maybe I should've just linked e.g. to that very detailed (and sort of lengthy, but entertaining) video by acollierastro "harvard & aliens & crackpots: a disambiguation of Avi Loeb" ( [VIDEO] ) which is definitely not flamewar-ish. Guess I've gotten somewhat thin-skinned given the volume of faux / overblown science news of late. For those reading this, there's yet another post here ( [LINK] ) that links to a harvard.edu article that gives more details on why the collectors of the spherules believe they have reason to assume that (1) they are really from the suspected meteorite, (2) the material's composition doesn't resemble materials known from other meteorites. Many questions remain though; for those interested in spherules from outer space, there's yet another earlier post ( [LINK] ) that links to a video that shows how excrutiating it is to collect and sort out teeny meteorites from the environment. Having seen that and a clip about the expedition's method of collecting (lowering a strong magnet to the seafloor) I wonder how often they lifted the thing up to collect material because otherwise they could not produce statistics about abundance in relation to the asteroid's flight path.

I watched his chat with SETI in full and it was unprofessional to say the least. I stand by that. Here's an article talking about it: [LINK] As to the part on the papers, I was open that it was just hearsay and asked for someone with better background to weigh in. Here's a physicist going into some depth on what I referred to: [VIDEO]