Hey everyone, many of you saw my two
videos exposing Avi Loeb, the Harvard
astronomer from Israel who lies about
space stuff to sell dumb books. Well, he
saw them, too, and he's pretty mad about
them, especially since he's hoping to
gear up for round four of his grifter
playbook. Let's catch up with Avi the
fraud, shall we?
Once again, if you're unfamiliar with
Avi or generally unaware of what a
disgusting weasel he is, you should
definitely watch these two videos first.
But, if you already have and you need a
quick refresher, let's summarize the
last 10 years of grifting from Avi. This
first video goes over his first two
rounds of grifting. We talked about his
script of lies in 2018 regarding
exocomet Oumuamua, which he pretended
was an alien spacecraft with zero basis
in order to sell a shitty book. In all
of his output, he lied about Oumuamua's
dimensions, he ignored aspects of its
behavior, he exaggerated deviations from
its expected orbit while ignoring the
obvious explanations that his colleagues
provided, and more. He told the public
that a comet was aliens because it's a
fun story to make money. Then, in 2023,
he took an adventure off the coast of
Papua New Guinea to illegally recover
material from the seafloor that he
pretended was pieces of an alien
spacecraft which had crashed into the
Earth 9 years prior. In reality, the
object in question was just a regular
solar system bolide, meaning a meteor.
It wasn't an interstellar object like he
claimed. The spherules he recovered were
just some bits of rock and they weren't
from the bolide he pretended they were
from. They had been sitting down there
for thousands of years. This can all be
easily confirmed by the ratio of iron
isotopes and several other independent
threads of inquiry. He lied about all of
this so he could pretend to find alien
stuff while being filmed by a Netflix
crew, since Graham Hancock was getting a
little lonely as the only worthless
pseudoscientific fraud on the streaming
service. Then, my second video covers
his third and most recent round of
grifting surrounding another extrasolar
object named 3I Atlas, an exocomet that
was in the news quite a bit last summer.
From the first moment it was discovered
by the actual scientists who actually do
this research, it was very well
understood to be a typical comet. There
was nothing anomalous about it
whatsoever. And yet, Avi immediately
began making unsubstantiated claims
about all kinds of alleged anomalies to
pretend that the comet was an alien
spacecraft. Lies about its mass,
composition, trajectory, acceleration,
outgassing of material, its tail,
absolutely everything was distorted by
Avi to make it seem like aliens. Nothing
about it was even remotely un-comet-like
for a single second since its discovery.
Yet, Avi lied his ass off in countless
blog posts and unpublished
non-peer-reviewed preprints to get more
famous and sell yet another shitty book.
If you're someone who fell for Avi's
fabricated anomalies, make sure to watch
this second video to learn about what a
deceptive loser he truly is as I take
every single one of his [\h__\h] claims
and compare them in extreme detail to
what the primary literature actually
says, courtesy of people who actually
study comets for a living. And anyone
who references Avi's humility, that he
only points at possibilities and never
labels anything with certainty, you got
scammed. Claims like 60% chance of being
aliens should be essentially zero if he
was intellectually honest since there
was no evidence whatsoever that pointed
to anything other than it being an exo
comet. So, in summary, these two videos
outline in painstaking detail three
rounds of the Avi Loeb grifter playbook.
Three rounds of stepping outside of his
expertise, distorting data, making
baseless sensationalist claims, avoiding
legitimate avenues of publication and
peer review, lying directly to the press
to gain notoriety and sell books, and
then whining about how any and all
pushback from experts in the field can
only be happening because they are
jealous, closed-minded, gatekeeping,
meanie pants do-do heads, not because
they are accurately prosecuting his
corruption and fraudulent. As I've said
before, this is the playbook of a
charlatan and media [\h__\h] not a
scientist. And indeed, when he's called
out for his grotesque behavior by
academics and science communicators
alike, he throws the most pathetic
toddler tantrums imaginable. He will
dismiss, discount, minimize, misquote,
and mischaracterize every single
legitimate scholar who debunks his
baseless claims, always playing the
victim of ivory tower academia, which he
ironically epitomizes. Sometimes he has
public outbursts like he did with Jill
Tarter, former director of SETI.
>> Well, some of us did it.
>> No, no, let me finish. How how dare
people make statements about scientists
that explore these possibilities within
the scientific method? That's the acidic
culture that I'm talking about. There is
an acidic culture that suppresses
innovation in the current culture of
science. And the best example is SETI.
>> This one in particular was so egregious
that he had to offer a half-assed formal
apology. And then there are his
misadventures trying to manipulate
hundreds of millions of dollars out of
the federal government for work that
other people actually already do instead
of him. The blatant manipulation,
opportunism, and perpetual victim
complex is par for the course when
dealing with disgusting Zionist frauds
like him.
Anyway, with this context covered, let's
pivot to the aftermath of my two videos,
which came pretty rapid-fire last
summer. As I said, Avi is quite aware of
them given their view counts and how
they undeniably shifted the way the
public perceives him. Thousands of
people learned what a disgusting fraud
he is through my content, which as you
can imagine brings me great joy. Want to
hear what Avi has to say about me?
>> You know, the other thing that I find
from the other side of the spectrum of
people, you know,
there are people on both extremes that
are completely unreasonable, and I get
attacked by both of them. So, another
one claims that
my analysis is fraud a fraud.
And the guy who claims that
defines himself as prof a professor. He
is calling himself on his YouTube
channel Professor Dave.
Now, this guy doesn't even have a PhD.
Not to speak about the fact that he
never held a professorship in his life.
And then he puts a viral YouTube video
to make money in which he makes
anti-Semitic claims and distortions of
the way I do my science
just to be sufficiently provocative to
attract attention.
>> Some pretty bold accusations there, Avi.
Which distortions are you referring to
exactly? I can't help but notice that
you didn't actually say anything. Did
you want to tell me where I'm wrong,
literally anywhere in either video? No,
that seems pretty convenient. Then,
quite predictably, the whining about the
name of my YouTube channel. It doesn't
matter that I did in fact teach at a
university, but referencing my
credentials isn't really an argument,
either. Now, is it, Avi? This pathetic
cop out just makes it quite a bit more
embarrassing for you since a journalist
like myself was able to reference a big
stack of primary literature from
researchers who are actual experts on
these phenomena and use them to prove
conclusively that you're a lying fraud.
And I even collaborated with some of
those experts to make my content,
including several who are much more
qualified than you to speak on these
topics since they've been publishing
about them in real journals for decades.
So, you really have to make up your mind
here. If I were an esteemed professor of
astronomy, you'd be flipping out all the
same, just with a different script. So,
are credentials and experience good or
bad? Is it the overqualified ivory tower
elites who are coming to get you, or is
it the unqualified YouTubers? Oh, I
forgot. Literally everyone in the world
is out to get you, right, Avi? That darn
anti-Semitism strikes again. This is,
quite predictably, the most pathetic and
indefensible accusation you made about
me, though it's one I'm quite used to,
given your ideological affiliations and
my track record of [\h__\h] all over
genocide-supporting Zionist [\h__\h]
Are you really implying that anyone who
is Jewish can lie about science as much
as they want, and if anyone exposes
those lies, they're automatically an
anti-Semite? So, exposing lies qualifies
as anti-Semitism now? Not even you can
keep a straight face on that one, Avi.
Furthermore, what's funniest about this
tired angle is that you and all your
piece-of-shit Zionist cronies are not
Semites. Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews
like you and Bibi and all the rest are
European. You literally are not a
Semite, while Palestinians are Semites.
Therefore, Zionists are, in reality,
anti-Semitic. Uh-oh, looks like you're
going to have to be chased off the
Harvard campus with torches and
pitchforks, Avi. Deport the anti-Semite.
The campaign to stop anti-Semitism has
spoken. Anything else?
>> And my question is who is the fraud?
The person who calls himself a
professor, who never held an academic
position of that stature,
or the person who he is attacking, who
is a real professor doing real
scientific work, published more than a
thousand scientific paper. I just
published this week two scientific
papers.
>> You, Avi. You are the fraud. You are the
one constantly lying about science to
make money, so you are the fraud. Your
prior publication history is irrelevant.
When you lie about science, you are not
publishing papers. You're writing blog
posts, you're sending non-peer-reviewed
unpublished preprints directly to the
media, you're writing shitty books full
of lies, and you're whining like a
little [\h__\h] on podcasts. That's your
scientific output when it comes to your
alien [\h__\h] So, you don't get to
rest on your credentials here. I wrote a
book and I talk on podcasts, too. So,
you and I are on the same level when it
comes to this topic. Our main difference
is that you're a lying piece of [\h__\h] who
lies about science, and I'm a science
communicator who exposes you. Our other
difference is that this dog [\h__\h] podcast
episode got 33,000 views in a week. This
video you're angrily watching right now
will get more than that in 2 hours.
Whoops.
>> On the subjects we discussed to this
week,
this guy didn't publish anything for
decades,
and he calls himself a professor, and he
claims that I'm fraud. Like, where are
we?
>> [panting]
>> Where are we?
>> We're in the beginning of the end of
your grifting career, Avi, and this
rehearsed exasperated panting is not
very convincing. Maybe you can get some
acting lessons from Gal Gadot.
>> I need you to give me [music] the stone,
and enough champagne
to fill the Nile.
>> And then, you know, these people should
be completely
sidelined. However, with social media,
they get attention
for no good reason, just because they're
saying something controversial.
>> You're describing yourself, dumbass. You
got famous by spewing tantalizing
[\h__\h] on social media and in shitty
books. You're a joke, and this outburst
is a reflection of your desperation in
coming to terms with everyone around you
finally realizing that.
>> So, Avi Loeb is asking who produced
'Oumuamua. Is that a reason for Avi Loeb
to be ridiculed by a guy that claims to
be Professor Dave?
>> The panic in that pause, in his eyes, in
that forced creepy smile, it's just the
most glorious cocktail imaginable. He
was so eager to perform this damage
control, and he fumbled it so hard. You
guys, it's no secret that I enjoy what I
do. It's very satisfying when students
email me to tell me that I helped them
pass their classes and get their degree.
It's also satisfying when people email
me to tell me that I helped them
deprogram from the alt-right anti-woke
media pipeline. But there is nothing in
this world as satisfying as listening to
one of the piece of [\h__\h] frauds I expose
whine like a worthless little [\h__\h]
about how mean I am. It means I am
winning. I am hurting them. I am
measurably diminishing their credibility
and influence. Every single day people
watch my videos on Avi, conclude that
he's a pile of human garbage, inform
their friends of this fact, and he has
to deal with the blowback. He has to
deal with people online talking about
what a fraud he is, and you know his
crybaby snowflake ass checks daily. He
has to deal with people in his circle
bringing up my videos asking him for a
response, and all he can do is fill up
his adult diaper with feces and shout
anti-semitism. Hey Avi, I'm not sure if
you noticed, but the whole world
despises your ideology. The world knows
your gaslighting and your Hazbara
tactics. Shouting anti-semitism at
everyone that hurts your feelings is
just going to hasten your demise
tenfold. So keep it up, you worthless
Zionist pile of filth.
Moving on, Avi started his own YouTube
channel in January of this year. After
all, it's a great platform for spreading
pseudoscience, so why should he be
missing out? It's so trivial to just
take what should be one of his shitty
blog posts, narrate it with the energy
of a lifeless zombie, and lazily plaster
a bunch of stock footage on top of it.
Time to join the fun.
>> The object cloaked in the space
and time it took to turn a head
and there was no shadow.
>> Of course, he tries to spin it as a
heroic act that he's standing up for
truth and justice. Let's get a few
snippets from his first video.
>> Hello.
I'm Avi Loeb.
I'm launching this official YouTube
channel to share content that is
authentic and that I personally approve.
Over the past few months, I received
thousands of emails from fans who
alerted me to YouTube channels
displaying fake AI-generated videos of
me speaking about science. Many of my
fans identified the deception because
the hands of the clock behind me did not
move and because some of the statements
in the videos contradicted what I wrote
in my daily essays on medium.com. That
is a new reality in which AI-generated
content spreads scientific
misinformation that is akin to identity
theft. Fake content is intentionally
misleading and imposes an injury to
scientific integrity.
>> Dear lord, I've seen more charisma in
hostage videos. So basically, spreading
misinformation on the internet for money
is cool when Avi does it, but when AI
cuts into his grift, that's crossing the
line. Honestly, I didn't see any of this
alleged AI content. It's not far-fetched
that it would exist, but the channel
he's talking about was taken down, which
would be very easy to do with the
automated tools YouTube makes available,
and it really is not that big a deal. I
could only find one blog post with an
actual screenshot of the content when it
was still up, and as you can see, the
view counts are quite low. Only one of
them broke 100k views, and Avi pretends
that qualifies as viral. He's just
playing the victim while grandstanding
about scientific integrity he doesn't
possess an ounce of.
>> In addition to AI creations, the online
ecosystem is full of blog posts and
videos created by unqualified
influencers or science communicators who
had not written a single scientific
paper in decades.
Yet, they masquerade as professors or
protectors of scientific truth and
attack real practitioners of science
like myself, even though my scientific
career spans 46 years, out of which I
was a Harvard professor for 33 years,
during which I wrote more than a
thousand scientific papers and nine
books.
>> Reminds you of James Tour, huh? Look at
all my super awesome papers. Having lots
of papers makes it physically impossible
for me to step outside of my narrow
expertise and spew utter horse [\h__\h] all
over the internet for blatant
ideological reasons. The only difference
is that James is batshit insane and has
probably brainwashed himself into
thinking he's in the right. He's lying
about science for Jesus. Avi knows
exactly what he's doing. He's lying
about science for money. Unimportant
distinction.
>> In the same way that junk food is bad
for the physical health of our bodies,
junk intellectual food is bad for the
mental health of our brains.
When misinformation spreads unchecked,
it undermines our ability to think
critically, to evaluate evidence, and to
engage with real ideas based on real
reasoning.
>> Exactly. That's why I crap all over your
fake science that brainwashes the masses
into distrusting legitimate sources of
information. I neutralize your toxic
anti-science rhetoric about stupid
closed-minded academia that is always
rejecting bold new super awesome
trailblazing ideas like yours, and Eric
Weinsteins, and Graham Hancock's, and
Stephen Meyer's, and every other
worthless fraud like you. You are junk.
You're a junk person that makes junk
content. You're social poison, and I am
the antidote. So, what has Avi been
doing with his dumb channel? Just like
Sabine Hossenfelder, it's a mixture of
harmless pop sci filler containing only
little dashes of propaganda alongside
brazen lies about science that more
aggressively pushes agenda. Quite
predictably, there's endless content
milking 3 i Atlas. The nucleus of 3 i
Atlas makes it even stranger. It
probably has aliens on it. Major tail
anomaly, weird Hubble stuff, artificial
jets, thrusters, endless content citing
non-existent anomaly after anomaly after
anomaly, desperately coasting off of his
previous cycle of grifting to maximize
his mileage. Once in a while, he'll
throw out something else. One angle has
to do with hunting for alien
biosignatures. This is a great one
because it's a real area of inquiry.
Some potential biosignature candidates
have been discussed within academia and
heavily publicized through pop sci
reporting. So, it's an easy star to
hitch his wagon to. A bit of background
here. Clearly, there is plenty of
non-life in the universe, and therefore
lots of associated non-life chemistry.
There is also chemistry we might expect
to be associated with life, like CO2
production, but this is not convincing
unless you can show that nothing else
could produce it. In science, we always
rule out prosaic explanations before
jumping to something more outlandish,
but that's not how Avi rolls. Avi likes
to jump to the most outlandish
explanation possible, ignore every other
explanation no matter how consistent it
is with the data, and then whine about
how closed-minded academia is for
censoring his super hot truth. Here's
one called Did we miss the discovery of
life on Mars?
>> Mainstream scientists warn us about
false positives,
namely misleading claims for interesting
signals that are not substantiated by
sufficient evidence.
Indeed, the job of science is not done
when a signal is detected.
The discoverers must demonstrate that
the signal is statistically significant
relative to the noise and cannot
entertain mundane interpretations.
At the same time, discoveries
often emerge out of a fog of
uncertainty.
They are flagged by anomalies that the
risk-averse scientific community
initially ignores because of the mental
comfort of following the herd.
Innovative scientists warn us about
false negatives,
namely the dismissal of preliminary
intriguing evidence that ushers in an
important discovery.
>> False positives exist, admits Avi, the
fraud who collects them like Pokémon,
but false negatives exist, too, you
stupid closed-minded jerks. Why are you
always following the herd, you stupid
sheep? Why can't you be rogue
trailblazers like me who just shout
aliens and then figure out some [\h__\h]
to back it up later?
>> The failure to recognize microbial life
when the evidence suggests it was
demonstrated during the missions of the
Viking 1 and 2 spacecraft, which landed
on Mars on July 20th and September 3rd,
1976,
respectively.
The spacecraft scooped up samples of
Martian soil and treated them with
nutrients, water, and heat and searched
for signs of biology, such as the
release of radioactively tagged carbon
gases or the absorption of carbon
monoxide and carbon dioxide in the soil.
>> Okay, so he's gearing up to talk about
the Viking experiments, which is very
interesting science that has been
discussed at great length for decades by
the scientific community. While there is
some mild controversy, the details are
taught to freshmen in college and often
presented as remaining open to
interpretation. Obvi is going to pretend
that he's the only truth seeker brave
enough to talk about this shocking data
and that NASA just doesn't want to
discover life on Mars. In reality, NASA
would love nothing more than to discover
life on Mars. That's one of the reasons
they keep sending rovers more
experiments. But there is absolutely no
conclusive evidence for such Martian
life. So, what did the Viking landers
find? First, the landers had gas
chromatographs. These can separate
components in soil samples and use mass
spectrometry to measure their molecular
weights. So, it tells you what's in
there. They found no significant amount
of organic molecules in Martian soil,
even less than are found in the lunar
soil, in fact. Second, they did labeled
release. You put a drop of a nutrient on
a sample of Martian soil tagged with
radioactive C14. Then, you look for CO2
with C14 in it. This would be a
potential sign of metabolism since
something would have to have done
chemistry with the C14 and incorporated
it into CO2. This is the bit that Obvi
is flipping out about. Surprisingly, a
stream of radioactive gases was produced
following the first injection and both
probes found the same result. Upon
heating, radioactive gas production was
reduced, but science doesn't end there.
You try more things. And as we
discovered, when you add more nutrients,
nothing happens. That's not what you
would expect if microbes were present.
They should respond to new doses of
food. Also, once again, the GC analysis
found no organic compounds. How could
that be consistent with the presence of
living organisms? Finally, there are
non-biological explanations. In cold,
dry conditions, UV light creates
superoxides, which cause a reaction that
produces a similar result as when
nutrients are added. And this happens
only once, since they're used up the
first time, and it takes a while for UV
light to make more. Continuing, in 2008,
the Phoenix lander found perchlorate,
which is a strong oxidizer, and
therefore a potential cause for the
labeled release result. It also breaks
down organics, so one could argue it's
possible that organic material had been
present but was broken down. But we can
see a most likely scenario emerge pretty
clearly. Nevertheless, the scientific
community is all about healthy debate,
and this debate did indeed take place,
as it always does, in the primary
literature. Papers in 2002, 2007, and
2012 speculated at length as to how
these results could be consistent with
life. Hypothetical organisms may use a
water-hydrogen peroxide mixture as their
intracellular liquid. Complexity
analysis, cluster analysis. How very
open-minded of Avi's closed-minded
academia, wouldn't you say?
Nevertheless, most astrobiologists do
not believe that the Viking landers
detected evidence for life. Many feel
these experiments were overhyped,
especially by Carl Sagan, but nobody is
dogmatic about it. People publish, and
discussion continues. Let's hear what
Avi has to say about it.
>> In particular, the labeled release
experiment, designed to detect active
metabolism, measured 14 CO2 emission
during exposure of regolith samples to
growth medium, a result consistent with
biological growth.
These labeled release results were,
however, framed as merely anomalous when
it was concluded that the Martian
regolith was free of organic matter, and
therefore lifeless.
>> Avi is pretending that consistent should
mean conclusive. It doesn't. A singular
result can be consistent with lots of
things. In fact, the result was
consistent with both life and non-life.
Given that the result was anomalous,
other trials did not produce the result,
and also due to the other clear
explanations for the signal. He can't
even muster up the courage to say that
life is the best explanation for the
result because he can't, because it
isn't. And he doesn't even touch the
absence of organic matter in those same
samples. That was an important result as
well, which is seriously inconsistent
with life. If Avi has an explanation for
that result which supports Martian life,
we'd all like to hear it.
>> In other words, mainstream scientists
dismissed the findings while claiming
that abiotic processes could account for
the data.
>> Yeah, they made that claim because it's
objectively true. There are indeed other
explanations in the form of plausible
abiotic mechanisms, and they fit the
data better. Nothing was callously
dismissed. Scientists don't do that, at
least ones that aren't like Avi. Healthy
debate occurred, and this singular
result just is not sufficiently
compelling.
>> The Viking landers from 50 years ago
were the first and only missions so far
explicitly designed to search for
biological activity on Mars.
Why did NASA never attempt to reproduce
the results over the past 50 years?
The only plausible explanation is that
the risk-averse astrobiology community
restrained itself from finding life in
the same way because of the controversy
generated by the Viking results.
This is exactly the opposite mindset of
a curious and open-minded research
community.
>> Here we go. The stupid closed-minded
NASA jerk faces are too scared to find
life, so they won't even try. They're
risk-averse. NASA, who sent a bunch of
men to the lunar surface in [\h__\h] tin
cans in the '70s, are risk-averse. What
an [\h__\h] Back here in reality, the
truth of the matter is that NASA nerds
would be flipping their [\h__\h] if they
found clear evidence of Martian life.
This narrative of scientists not wanting
to make incredible discoveries is the
most infantile thing imaginable. The
problem is that NASA's budget has been a
tiny fraction of what it was since the
Apollo program ended. Every instrument
on these landers is subject to
prioritization and determined by
consensus. Repeating experiments is not
a very high priority. Would it be fun?
Sure. But tell that to the federal
government, which is currently
destroying literally all of science, and
see how far you get. And while we're at
it, notice how Avi, the Harvard phenom,
hasn't made a peep about all that. In
the end, Avi speculating about motives
is nothing but pageantry, and the
absence of repeated experiments does not
change the results of the initial
experiment. This is more or less the
best he can do. Take some science from
50 years ago, overstated significance,
claim that the scientific community is
being closed-minded when it objectively
isn't, and then pat himself on the back
for being the awesome rebel Galileo
fighting the dogmatic church. It's just
so played out. And he really has nothing
else. Videos like this dark comet could
be a spacecraft are just him describing
dark comets like 'Oumuamua and saying,
"But aliens maybe though." And nothing
else. That's why he keeps returning to
his Atlas grift. It was so juicy for him
that he just can't put it down. Let's
examine one of his more recent videos on
this object to see if he's updated his
script of lies. Did 3I Atlas deliver new
life into our solar system? Fascinating,
I'm sure.
>> The robust spectroscopic detection of
methane, CH4, was confirmed by the Webb
telescope here.
Interestingly, methane was only detected
after the passage of 3I/Atlas
near the Sun.
Its delayed production is puzzling
because methane ice is hypervolatile
with a significantly lower sublimation
temperature than carbon dioxide CO2.
>> And there's the setup. Why did Atlas
only outgas methane near the Sun? It
should have outgassed way earlier.
Clearly, the only possible answer is
aliens, right?
>> In the atmospheres of exoplanets,
methane is considered a prominent
biosignature. A recent publication in
the proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences PNAS here argued that
methane could be the first detectable
indication of life beyond Earth.
>> Yeah, it's considered a biosignature,
but not on its own. Only if it's not in
equilibrium and thus requires something
to continually generate it, perhaps
life. Saturn's moon Titan has methane in
its atmosphere. It doesn't prove that
life is there. This [\h__\h] knows
literally nothing about astrobiology.
>> This raises an important question. Was
the methane outgassing of 3I/Atlas
near the Sun produced by life?
>> Avi loves to play the just asking
questions game, but he never honestly
answers the question. Could methane
outgassing only near the Sun mean aliens
are there? Well, gee, should we try and
see if we can think of another
explanation before jumping to that
conclusion? Let's put on our thinking
caps. I know I'm just a stupid
non-professor with no PhDs at all, but
do you think I could give it a try, Avi?
What if, and this is a huge stretch, but
see if you can follow me here. What if
the methane wasn't just sitting on the
surface of the comet, but rather was
buried beneath a layer of surface ice?
So, when it got close to the Sun and
that ice sublimed, then the methane
beneath was able to outgas as well. Does
that make sense in your big powerful
brain, Avi? No, you're right. What am I
talking about? It has to be aliens
turning on their methane production
machines near the sun because reasons.
Forgive me for speaking out of turn, oh
wise and powerful reincarnation of
Galileo himself. Please continue.
>> The sunward jet, anti-tail material shed
by 3I/ATLAS,
could have carried extrasolar life on
dust or ice fragments towards habitable
planets within the solar system.
>> Yeah, and monkeys might fly out of my
butt.
>> A lot of things could happen, Avi.
Monkeys could fly out of Wayne's butt,
for example. You're supposed to be a
scientist. You're supposed to be led by
evidence. And I'm not hearing a shred of
evidence for this hot take about aliens
riding a comet. Tell it to Joe Rogan.
Real scientists don't give a [\h__\h]
>> The large fragments of ice and rocks in
its sunward jet are suitable as delivery
vehicles of the seeds of extrasolar
life.
I discussed the possibility of
panspermia by the fragments shed from
3I/ATLAS
in a research note posted here on
February 3rd, 2026.
>> Suitability is not evidence, ding-dong.
Your butt hole is suitable for smuggling
large amounts of drugs from one place to
another. So, get ready for a cavity
search since by your logic it's got to
be bursting with heroin. What you're
doing is called science fiction. Write a
script for Hollywood and leave the
science to the real scientists.
>> This could be a fundamental discovery
about our cosmic roots.
Not only that life exists elsewhere,
but interstellar gardeners may have
seeded our existence.
>> 2001 A Space Odyssey already did this.
So did Prometheus in the Alien
franchise. Baselessly speculating as to
what could be true is not how science
works. Science runs on evidence, actual
tangible empirical evidence. You have
none. This is clickbait nonsense, not
serious science. To be honest, it's not
really necessary to go through any more
of his recent content. It's all like
this. It's just what if this thing I
pulled out of my ass, and then he treats
it like real science that the scientific
community should take seriously. And
when they don't, it's because they're
butt face losers that don't want to find
aliens. It's beyond pathetic. Avi can't
seem to identify a robust angle for
round four of his grifter playbook, and
perhaps he never will. Whereas his
antics with 'Oumuamua and the Bolide
attracted only mild condemnation from
within academia, his [\h__\h] with Atlas
has yielded enormous amounts of very
public debunking,
>> [snorts]
>> to the point where his credibility is
now nearly nonexistent. And if you
aren't convinced, just look at these
view counts. Barely any of these videos
crack 10,000, and most are sitting at a
couple thousand. Smart people smelled
[\h__\h] from the get-go, and even the
gullible ones got tired of the little
boy who cries aliens every 10 seconds.
Truly, nobody cares anymore, and Avi is
freaking out about it. This is why he's
become even more defensive. All he has
are his pathetic media appearances and
whining on podcasts about the people who
debunk him. Check out this video from a
few months ago that contains a
ridiculous interaction between Avi and
Matt O'Dowd, an Australian
astrophysicist and science communicator
who hosts the PBS Space Time channel.
Matt very politely challenged Avi about
his very obvious conclusion driven
approach, as well as his claim that
nobody wants to find aliens but him.
While Avi just stared daggers at him
like a sociopath. Then when it was Avi's
turn, he decided to do this.
>> You know, there there are two ways to
approach science. One is to appear on
podcasts and claim to represent and
protect science
from people
that may make statements that are not to
the taste of the mainstream of science.
That's one approach.
>> That's me.
>> The second approach
I said that's one approach. If you want
to subscribe to it, you are welcome.
>> Yes, one way to approach science is to
be a science communicator and defend the
scientific community from worthless
grifting piece of [\h__\h] frauds like you
who poison society with pseudoscience
and polarize the public against
legitimate sources of information. What
you do is not to the taste of legitimate
scientists because your [\h__\h] makes
it harder for them to both do their
science and publicize their legitimate
work because no media outlet wants to
hear about anything but [\h__\h] alien
stories now. What's the other way, Avi?
>> The second approach is to actually be in
the trenches and do the work of science
and that's much more work than sitting
on a chair, speaking in a podcast, and
leading the world's most popular
podcast. That's not the way to do
science.
>> Oh, really? Because all of your
illustrious work supporting your
[\h__\h] alien claims is done through
podcasts, blog posts, or shitty books
full of lies. What kinds of trenches are
you claiming to inhabit there, champ?
First of all, Matt does have
publications. I know his 68 are no match
for your 11D gazillion, but you're
pretending he's just a podcaster when
he's a publishing scientist. But more
importantly, you have no legitimate
scientific output supporting your
outlandish claims. Publish whatever you
want on black holes and all the other
[\h__\h] you did to manufacture credibility
in preparation for pivoting to a life of
fraudulence. But when it comes to your
bread and butter alien [\h__\h] you're
no better than Graham Hancock. You're a
nobody. You're a joke.
>> The way to do science is to actually
>> Wait a second.
>> You you spoke. I I have the right to to
finish my sentences.
>> Shut up, Matt. I have the right to
finish my sentences and Israel has the
right to defend itself. You are beneath
me because I am the best and most honest
scientist in the world, just like like
IOF is the most moral army in the world.
[\h__\h] me, what an insufferable
gaslighting zio piece of [\h__\h] It's
incredible that Matt hasn't gotten up
and slapped him off his [\h__\h] seat by
now.
>> [laughter]
>> The way to do science is to collect
evidence.
Build observatories, collect data, and
get to the bottom of the question that
you're asking. And nobody, nobody within
the scientific community
has the right to say
that this pursuit of evidence
is illegitimate.
>> No one is saying your pursuit of science
is illegitimate, you dildo. They say
that your conclusions are illegitimate
because you're lying literally always.
Nobody is asserting that you're not
allowed to say, "Hmm, maybe aliens." But
when you spew a bunch of objective
falsehoods to support your predetermined
conclusion to make money off of gullible
people, that's when legitimate scholars
are going to have a few words for you.
You keep whining about collecting
evidence, but you have no evidence for
your claims. The evidence debunks your
claims every time. So yes, Avi, your
pursuit of a desired conclusion
regardless of reality is illegitimate.
That's not how science works. Collecting
ancient pebbles from the bottom of the
ocean and calling them pieces of a
spaceship that crashed a few years ago
because Netflix cameras are filming you
isn't how science works. Cry forever
about it.
All right, how shall we wrap this one
up? Ooh, I know. Let's talk to Thomas
Puzia, a Chilean astrophysicist with
hundreds of publications who actually
gathered data on 3I Atlas. Avi loves
scientists who get in the trenches,
right? Which is ironic since he has
never personally gathered a single datum
on Atlas or 'Oumuamua. He just lied a
whole lot in blog posts about publicly
shared data that other people collected.
So even Avi would have to admit that
Thomas is way more qualified than him to
talk about this stuff. In fact, Thomas's
group specifically discovered the nickel
and later iron emissions from Atlas that
Avi was lying about in order to pretend
it was a spaceship. We talked about this
in the last video, but since I'm just a
lowly YouTube personality, it'll be much
better to get this stuff straight from
the source, right? Let's chat with
Thomas now.
Thomas, thanks so much for joining us.
Um why don't you just start? Maybe tell
us a little bit about your research and
the variety of phenomena that you study.
>> Sure. Um well, so I'm Thomas Puzyo uh
from the Institute of Astrophysics and
at the Catholic University Pontificia
Universidad Católica in Santiago de
Chile and um
my team and I, we've been heavily
involved in studying 3I Atlas uh from
its basic discovery uh last July last
year July.
Um
we came in um with the expertise of
spectroscopy. So, you know, we do a lot
of spectroscopy of galaxies and stars
and and so um I dabbled a little bit
before in um surface reflectivity of
asteroids in the solar system in the
outskirts of the solar system with
uh several of my colleagues.
And so, it was a natural, you know,
segue basically to go and um
take advantage of all the observing
power that we have here in Chile. And
and our, you know, our group was in this
prime location in space and time to to
tap into this uh um available observing
time on really like the the largest
telescopes, most advanced
instrumentation in the world.
Um and we got uh basically to monitor uh
3I Atlas as it passed through the solar
system. Um so, from, you know, some
somewhere around like 4 AU to perihelion
and and post-perihelion. And so, we took
spectra, we took imaging, we tried a
little bit of um interferometry in the
optical with uh with VLTI. And that
didn't work out as we thought for, you
know, technical reasons, but we learned
a lot.
And so, we have this treasure trove of
data now that we are, you know, actively
investigating now.
And so, my team and and I, we we have
several papers lined up already
to to basically evidence how the
chemical evolution of this really really
interesting target is is progressing
through its journey in the solar system.
>> That's fantastic. Yeah, I one thing I've
tried to make clear on on previous
content on Avi is that um
there you know, astronomers and
astrophysicists have different areas of
study. And so, somebody who is an expert
on black holes or quasars or something
like that, that's very you know, a
research group that is actively studying
comets and and gathering data on comets.
These are these are the researchers that
are the experts on comets. And and so,
everything about their trajectory and
and studying their composition and
things like that, these are the people
that we should we should be listening to
first and foremost when it comes to a
comet. Um and you are actually gathering
data uh on on this object. Um so, just
pivoting over to Avi, I I want to talk
about obviously his interpretation of
Atlas.
Um and so, him being someone who did not
gather any data first-hand on on Atlas,
he's he's going by uh publicly available
data from research groups like yours.
What uh when did you first become aware
of Avi and what was your initial
impression? Was it it him talking about
Atlas or was it previous to that or what
what uh when did you hear about him?
>> Yeah, actually I I know Avi quite long
time. Um so, we bumped into each other
at a winter school. Um I think it was
like
the end of '90s 1900s.
>> Okay, yeah.
>> Um
>> The last century.
>> The last cen- the last millennium even.
>> Yeah.
>> And uh and at that time he was he was
working um on the high redshift universe
on, you know, first stars, black holes.
And I really um I was inspired by him.
It was really amazing what they know the
the the insights and and progress that
he delivered and and published and so
the papers at that time were really
um I would say groundbreaking and and
and progressive and and and we learned
together a lot. Um I was very inspired
in my field of research by this um
and and so
I admire Avi's intellect really and and
I admire his uh his contributions to
astrophysics.
Um but uh as we moved into this into
this latest um
let's say advance in in his studies of
interstellar objects and
you know, un- unknown phenomena in the
sky, um
things got a little bit out of uh the
scientific uh rail and
and and so my feeling is
that Avi first um
you know, like you correctly said, he
never takes data. I mean, he has this
Galileo Project, but but of course
that's that's nowhere near enough
observing power to study interstellar
objects in
any, you know, sensible way unless they
pass really close to Earth and then are
really bright and then everyone, you
know, every amateur astronomer would
probably get
you know, equivalent data with the with
the observation
um capabilities that they have built up.
Um
So so he's, you know, he's naturally
like every other scientist also um
commenting on data that other people
have taken.
Uh which is fine, right? But I think um
I think there is a there is a step too
too much in in terms of
over-interpreting results from from
people um in a in a very non-scientific
way, right? So
um
he he
the claims and that there is evidence
and the absence of this proof, right,
isn't evidence. And and Avi is
presenting always this
uh the possibility space as evidence,
which is which is definitely not the
case. And and so, we have to be very
careful with um
curbing that kind of thinking
um from the clean scientific
evidence-based uh progression of of our
understanding of the universe. Um I
mean, everything is possible, right? But
until you prove it with evidence,
um it's just science fiction. It's just
a story. And yeah.
Yeah, it might be an interesting story,
and many people pick it up, and and
that's fine. We can discuss
>> It could make a great script
>> Exactly, right?
>> Great script for Hollywood.
>> Hollywood would be very interested in
that, yes. And
um but but it has nothing to do with
science.
>> Right. So, what let let's get into the
specifics here, because we were
initially corresponding about a
particular uh feature of Atlas. Um
Avi had made a big stink about the uh
iron and nickel, the ratios of iron and
nickel. And so, I was learning about,
you know, th- this was one of his one of
his alleged anomalies, right? And then,
obviously, just like all of them, when
you look into it, it's absolutely
trivial to explain in terms of the
organometallic complexes that they fit
into in the order in which they sublime.
So, tell us about
Yeah, tell us about these complexes,
essentially.
>> Yeah, so, how we think um and and again,
that's a, you know, it's a hypothesis
that fits the data at the moment. It
doesn't mean that it's the correct one
or the only one. Um so, we we are still
actively looking at how to interpret the
data in different kind of ways.
Um but as it looks, um there is a
carbonyl channel that feeds basically
the uh the metallic emission
in the coma of um interstellar objects
as they come in from the deep space.
They're very cold, um
um processed by cosmic rays, um
and long, long time,
um,
and then the carbonyls basically, um,
become liberated, right? They get into
the coma, and then they basically get
dissolved by the radiation or or
dissociated by the radiation, and then
one
just has a slightly higher sublimation
energy than than the other one, and and
so there is a delay, um, as the object
travels to, um, basically higher surface
temperatures in the solar system, closer
to the sun.
Um, you see nickel first, and then you
see iron later. And and there is a
beautiful now also model progression as
you have this thermal lag, right? And
then and then the
um, essentially the channels that feed
these carbonyls, the the parental, um,
species,
um, as they become available in the
coma, you should see, you know, a lag of
of these, um,
of the of the ratios of of nickel and
iron as the comet progresses. And then
and so we have monitored this, and we
actually see this.
And and it's really beautifully
explained by
you know, I don't want to say it's
simple chemistry, but that we we still
expect this
relatively simple chemistry.
>> Yeah, I mean, to help to help the viewer
understand what we're saying is that he
was complaining about which one was
visible first, too much nickel, and then
the iron came after. And so he was
treating it as though this is elemental
nickel and iron that that we're looking
for, but the point is there's not just
like
metal nickel and iron on the on the on
the on the comet. They're in these
carbonyl-containing organometallic
complexes, and they have a different
central atom, so they have slightly
different properties. So the
nickel-containing one sublimes first,
and then it gets split apart, the
carbonyls fly away, and then you can
detect the nickel, and then later the So
is part of the problem that Atlas we we
it's only the third,
exocomet that we've seen, and we saw it
so early that we had this opportunity to
see this this very specific sequence of
substances sublime as it approached,
which is what which is why it was
different uh
you know, we we'd never seen that
sequence of outgassing before. Is that
part of it? Yeah.
>> No, that's precisely like you say. It's
exactly the reason. So, the the reason
is really simply that we caught this in
a very very uh lucky, let's say,
distance.
>> Mhm.
>> Uh when when these these compounds
become really like available to
dissociation and and being visible in
the coma.
>> Yeah.
>> Uh so, the switch on just right um after
we we discovered this thing and put our
spectrographs on. And then, you know,
suddenly these lines became visible.
Uh we detected them. And then so, that
was like huge news. And and since Avi um
had his UIP had already on at that time,
right? Um having metal compounds in the
comet, although that was nothing new
because, you know, groups before in uh
2I/Borisov have detected actually
uh nickel and iron emissions um
>> Yeah.
>> And also in in some other uh
you know, solar system object, solar
system comets that that float in the
outskirts of the solar system, we know
that they have also nickel and iron
emissions.
>> Right.
>> Um and that's a relatively recent result
um I have to say. So, maybe in the last,
I would say, 10 years um people became
aware that that these emissions in the
in the blue optical UV exist.
And so, now after 2I/Borisov and and
especially 3I/Atlas, this was yeah. Duh.
>> Right. It's
>> kind of expected that. And um and then,
Avi just made a big fuss out of this
that this is, you know, um equivalent to
high-tech um in the sky, which is
>> Right.
>> not the case.
>> I mean, not only a stretch given what
it's not like first, there's the thing
that it's not anomalous data once you
consider the explanations, which we must
which we must believe that he has seen
the work of of your group and other
groups. I mean, if he's hunting for news
on this object that he's not personally
gathering data on, he has to have seen
these results.
But, it would have been a stretch even
if it was unexplained to go to
high-tech. But,
so do you have any other examples of um
Like, this is a very clear distortion
like to it is
in my estimation very intellectually
dishonest to continue to speak about
these nickel and iron emissions as
though it is somehow anomalous. Or, what
are the other features of Atlas that he
is calling anomalous that that you think
are
totally unfair to be regarded as
anomalous?
>> I mean, there was this jet and the the
micro acceleration issue, right? That
that anything that that shows
a forward tail
that anything that shows a deviation
from from the, you know, Keplerian
trajectory
has something to do with, you know,
artificially driven maneuvering. Um
That kind of stuff is the the
>> right? The non-gravs are very well
understood.
>> Exactly. It's the same ballpark. We know
that, you know, as even solar system
comets
get closer to the sun, there is
micro-accelerations there, right? So,
they they deviate from their orbital,
let's say, forward calculated paths. And
so, that's nothing new. I mean, that
there is
>> Yeah, it's not an inert object. It's
outgassing and those that outgassing
produces an acceleration just like it
would a rocket or something. I mean,
obviously nowhere near to the extent of
a rocket, but
>> Of course.
>> To me, this is like not not too hard to
understand. I would imagine even for you
know, for everyone listening that, you
know, there's gas coming off of an
object, it's going to affect the
trajectory. It's not an inert object.
But, um
>> I have to I have to say, um
having these, let's say, doubts
is very healthy, right? So, you you you
want to have, let's say, skepticism in
your thinking and in your your analyses,
right? You you want to check the numbers
specifically. You want to be
quantitative about this.
>> Yeah.
>> But we, you know, very early on we have,
you know, the papers, dozens of papers
about these topics that have shown that
yeah, you know, like the accelerations
given an object size and mass and and,
you know, surface, the characteristics
that we sort of like apply to to typical
expectation values of these kinds of
objects, they check out and and it's
nothing really exotic, right? So, yeah,
there might be, I don't know, like a
two sigma outlier, but has obviously to
do with how the object behaved from the
beginning because we, you know, we
tracked it so early and then and then,
yeah, we saw many deviations and and the
jets in the direction of, you know,
like, I don't know, separated by 120°,
like he's claiming at some point.
Um, you know, this thing rotates, yeah,
it will probably be heated very
homogeneously, so there is no surprise
that you have somehow, you know, like
we, let's say, triangle
um,
pattern in the outgassing that that you
see, right? So, it's not [snorts]
nothing, you know, seemed like out of
the ordinary.
>> Right.
>> Un- until the medium blog post dropped,
right?
>> Yes, until a medium blog Right, which is
cutting-edge science, of course. Um, I
think that's the problem is that I I
want the public to understand, right,
this this straw man from Avi of all the
the scientific community is so
close-minded. Listen, you are very
clearly espousing an open-minded
attitude. If you have alternate
explanations, please bring them forward,
but our explanations fit the data quite
well. So, if you want to offer something
very outlandish, it had better fit the
data at least as well or better. And if
you don't have that, stop talking about
how close-minded everybody is and do
better science, right? I feel like
that's the conclusion here.
>> Yeah, absolutely. Like, you have to keep
an open mind, but let not your mind fall
out of the open chap, right?
>> Yeah, into another dimension.
>> Into another dimension, right? So that's
the classic statement here, but
but yeah, it's it's it's very important
to
see the possibilities, to actually
investigate,
um and quantitatively
make a conclusion about, you know, what
is actually
likely to be true.
>> Mhm.
>> Um but if you have, you know, a very
minuscule probability um of this thing
being true, um you you discard it,
right? And then you move on to to the
next one. The the most likely
explanation is
>> Yes.
>> in most cases, right?
>> Yes.
>> Like empiricism and that um
the true one, right? Or closest to the
true one.
>> Absolutely. Yeah. Uh okay, so any any
last thoughts on 3I Atlas or future
potential exocomet discoveries before we
move on?
>> Yeah, so I think this thing um taught us
a huge lesson, right? So 3I Atlas. Um so
the the fact that we as a community came
together, um and and I'm speaking of the
comet community, the
you know, instrumentation community, the
the the the people who are like
marginally have been working on the
sides, uh like myself and my team, and
and contributed to to this.
Um
the fact that we have this new window
open
um to basically interstellar material
and and protoplanetary disk material of
other worlds,
um needs to have like a philosophical
rethinking about how to use the
resources best for that kind of science,
right? So we will not be able to go back
to
8-m or 10-m class telescopes and just
wave the hand, give us time, right? Um
for
the maybe for 4I,
but maybe for 5I, 6I, and and then NI,
people will say, "Hey, come on, you
know, you like
what's new about 10I?"
Um and so building a statistically
interesting and significant sample for
for future exploration of the
characteristics of
exoplanet systems
um will be tough, right? So, we probably
will have to build dedicated, you know,
8-10 meter class telescopes that just,
you know, in the Rubin era, where
hopefully we will discover one and maybe
a few per year,
we can actually track them in a
dedicated way and and monitor them.
Because from the monitoring, really,
from the
you know, going from
a Polaroid picture gallery,
like the science was done before 3I
Atlas, to really like making a movie
about its evolution as it passes through
the solar system,
>> Mhm.
>> it's a quantum leap of understanding um
about about these types of objects. And
so, I think addressing infrastructural
improvements and and also coordination
between teams and people uh will be
fundamental, I think, in the next few
years. So, this was, I think, the the
biggest lesson from from 3I Atlas.
>> Absolutely. Yeah, I I think uh I think
we'll see something similar to the
explosion of exoplanet discoveries,
where you get one, you get two, three,
and then, okay, we've got thousands, and
then it'll be then then as you say,
we'll really have an idea in terms of
uh you know, we'll have a larger set of
of of objects to understand
statistically what uh what what looks
typical, what what's a little bit
stranger, but um yeah, I look forward to
that. Um so, let's see. Um what else did
I want to talk about? I think just very
generally, given his antics with 3I
Atlas being sort of the third round of
of this behavior after Oumuamua and the
and the stuff with the Bolide,
what what do you what's your view in
terms of the way the broad astronomy and
astrophysics community
sees Avi and and his potential
representation of of your field?
>> I mean, in the field of
interstellar objects, I think I think
Avi is a
I you know,
a blogger at best, I think, at the
moment. So, there there is
there is this cringe factor that I see
among people
when we when we talk about this and then
people, you know, start laughing and
saying, "Yeah, Harvard has spoken
again." And
um
I I I I think, you know,
it's it's really depends on how
insightful your education was to make a
judgment about these things.
Unfortunately, this is not always the
case. Um
and you you trust
essentially people who who scream the
loudest
in in most cases where you're not an
expert. And I think that's kind of like
the danger in this thing.
Um I as a scientist, I don't mind Avi,
you know, posting blogs and and
speculating around. I think this is fun
to certain degree.
It's adorable.
Um but I think for for the larger
public, this is kind of a disservice and
and it doesn't really push us as a
civilization forward. Um
That's that's sort of
the understanding and feeling that I
have from the community.
>> Yeah, I mean, it seems it seems even
worse than that to me. It seems
disastrous for for two reasons. I think
that the problem is that what are the
odds of you being able to do a media
appearance to talk about certain aspects
of 3I Atlas when they're so trained
about it, you know, we want to talk
about aliens. The Harvard guy says it's
aliens, it's probably aliens. Everybody
wants to click on this because it's
aliens. So, we're going to talk to you
and you're not saying it's aliens. Why
do we want to talk to you?
And so, how how does legitimate science
surrounding these objects get publicized
when the media landscape is now
accustomed to talking about aliens? I
mean, just it's it's impossible to
reset that at this point. So, the damage
is done there in terms of the media. And
then furthermore, the public perception
of science for someone to hold Avi above
a researcher like you who is actually
studying this object because he's so
bold and he says these bold ideas about
aliens that are in compa- actually
incompatible with the data.
I
What of the what one of the things that
I see as my job as a science
communicator is to help train the public
or rehabilitate the public, I should
say, towards valuing what somebody like
you says over what somebody would like
like Avi says. That's that's how I see
that's how I see it.
>> Well, that's that's a very noble
endeavor. I I really appreciate your
words here. I I I think, you know, the
the
truth will prevail
no matter what, right? And and I think
the
the outreach the scientific outreach
platforms will split and I think they
have already split and this
sensationalist
aspect driven platforms
and platforms like yours, right? Like
that drilled down are based on facts.
People actually look at, you know, the
data and and
set up hypotheses and quantify them and
then and then come to a conclusion that
is
rarely crystal clear, right? And that
that has to be also
said. Science is rarely crystal clear,
right? The results are pointing you into
a direction,
but it doesn't mean that they're
incorrect, right? The direction is
incorrect. Um things can be refined,
right? Things can be better understood.
And there are quantum leaps and and
these um you know, the the the domain
changes, let's say, in our understanding
of how reality works, but they occur
very, very rarely.
>> Right.
>> Um and so I think, you know, going
forward
>> incremental incremental progress from
thousands of people working in
conjunction. That's how the scientific
community works.
>> Precisely, right? And so I think bathing
yourself in this consensus and and then
trying to figure out,
you know, where I can contribute with
understanding instead of
sensationalistically,
you know, spewing theories out into the
universe, I think that doesn't help
anyone. It's a lot of, you know, thrust
but no vector.
>> And the fainter our understanding, the
more nebulous our understanding, the
more room there is for outlandish ideas.
Somebody could propose a very outlandish
uh explanation for the nature of dark
matter and uh maybe even publish a paper
on it if it had, you know, has a modicum
of alignment with some
data data set, you know, and everybody
can say, "Okay, that counts as science.
I don't really buy it, you know, see if
you can get more data." But uh something
like this, uh you know, with 3D Atlas,
I'm not an astronomer. I I have a I have
a solid foundational understanding of
astronomy. But in reading these papers
and using them to to
to refute every single one of Avi's
alleged anomalies was so trivial for me
to do. It just felt so easy. And uh so I
I just I
Yeah.
>> Yeah, and so there is there there are
many aspects usually, right? That that a
theory or let's say a hypothesis has to
cover, right? You don't only have to
cover the new result, right? But you
have to cover the entire understanding
of, you know, centuries and decades of
of science. And and usually, you know,
people like that are just pointing to
one individual aspect of
the research that has been done, the
analysis that maybe is uncertain,
um the statistics that is maybe not
really solid at the moment, right? We
just have three objects. What do you
want to, you know, say about statistics
anyway?
>> Right.
>> Yeah.
>> Um and then and then drifting out into
the hyperspace of probability density,
um I think it's it's a very,
you know, mute endeavor and and it's
completely useless in in
in our progression of science.
>> Agreed. Yeah, it's it's yeah, we need to
help the public understand this aspect
of the scientific endeavor. I think
that's that's absolutely crucial. Uh
okay, so the last thing I wanted to talk
about is I just recently found out and I
think you mentioned this as well, Avi is
now the head of the UAP Science Advisory
Council to the White House. So, um we I
don't know how invested you are in the
UAP phenomenon and the new congres-
these congressional hearings. In my
estimation, it just reeks of psyop
top-to-bottom, and so it absolutely
makes sense that Avi would be in bed
with that, but uh
get you know, what what's your take on
UAPs in general and then Avi's
involvement with this council?
>> Well, UAPs, uh UFOs in general, I think
it's it it's an interesting phenomenon,
right? So, there are really weird
sightings and reports and um
people making observations, but rarely
there is like, you know, a conclusive
evidence. Um
so, the the signal-to-noise of all the
evidence that I've seen so far
is uh below one. And and and so that for
me as a scientist does not count as
evidence for anything unless you really
show me,
I don't know, like, you know, um a
measurement that that has been verified
by another um instrument um that shows
exactly the same bizarre non-physical
aspect of what you want to claim.
Um I hold my my guns.
>> [laughter]
>> Yeah.
>> Um I think I think it's it's important
to have again, like we said before,
right? It's important to have your eyes
open, your your senses ready
um to basically detect whatever there is
in the universe. Um and and yeah, who
knows? Maybe we will detect at some
point something really freaky and then
non-physical and and beyond our
comprehension and understanding of the
physical world.
Um
>> And scientists are actively looking for
those things on you know, the precise
opposite of what Avi claims.
Uh it it's insane to me this idea that
astrobiologists don't want to find
aliens. It would be the discovery of a
lifetime. Uh they're all looking for
aliens.
Um it's an indefensible accusation.
>> Yes. Yes. So we we all have, right, our
our sensors and our cell phones and and
our telescopes open and and we are
looking actively and and
there is
you know, I think there was there was
never an instance in my in my life, in
my mind that that would just flat out
reject and refuse to want to see. And
and I think that aspect is in every
let's say legitimate scientists living
in in in his or her hypercortex and and
I think as long as you see that, that
there is absolutely no way you can, you
know, get away with I think um
saying that the community is against
detecting any anomalies in the sky,
right? And and so they're they're way
more
precise and
um sensitive
instrumentation out there than than the
UAP community typically
um
puts to work.
And there is absolutely no evidence for
anything like this. So,
I I would say
let them let them work. Let them do the
counseling. Let them, you know, find out
it's it's a path to to the truth. And
and if the truth is out there, we will
find it at some point.
>> very generous of you.
>> [laughter]
>> To me, Avi's involvement in this only
further cements my opinion of it being a
complete psyop. The question is why?
What are we being distracted from? Is it
Is the Epstein files enough of an
answer? Or is it something
uh more sinister? I don't know. We will
see what they report to us.
>> We will see. Exactly.
>> Yeah. But anyway, thanks so much. That
was very enlightening. It's great to
hear such a rational, prudent attitude
being espoused from
a scientist that is actually
studying these objects. So, yeah, thanks
so much for joining us.
>> My pleasure, Dave.
>> Good stuff, huh? It's always a nice
palate cleanser to hear from a real
scientist after listening to a buffoon
like Avi shriek like a maniac for longer
than anyone should have to be subjected
to. But at any rate, that'll about do it
for now. This debunk was lighter on the
science than the first two because Avi
hasn't been able to launch another
full-scale round of grifting yet. He
coasted on Atlas as long as humanly
possible, and he's been doing nothing
but damage control this whole calendar
year due to his reputation being in the
[\h__\h] toilet. Kind of like public
opinion towards Israel. Funny how that
works, huh? Maybe he'll bounce back with
some brand new alien claim soon, and
we'll have to do another in-depth video
to debunk them. But in the meantime, you
know I had to crap on him for flipping
out about me because that [\h__\h] was just
too good.
So, that's it for Avi Loeb yet again. He
just doesn't seem to know when to give
up. Must be that pesky chosen people
mentality. Will he throw another tantrum
about this video? Or will he he
distracted by a new script of lies soon
to be unveiled. We'll just have to wait
and see. Until next time.