Avi Loeb: We May Be Close to the Biggest Discovery in Human History

[00:00:02]Welcome to the Adoption in Power Live Channel. I'm a Tiago citizen scientist and astronomical observer, and today we have again the wonderful visit of the lovely friend Avi Loeb.

[00:00:14]It's a a pleasure to have you here again, Dr. Avi Loeb, and it's a special day because you are now the new UAP science advisory council um leader, and it's something new, and it's very very important. I can't think in a better person to to fit that that um that position, and immediately what I felt, apart from happiness for you, was that well, this will be awesome because might be it might be the bridge between uh classical science and the UAP realm that is so hard to have. We have one or the other, and people fighting each other always. Maybe we have a a sign of hope.

[00:01:03]But But, we need to First, let me tell you that I saw already the the news, so it's well confirmed officially. Let me share with with our with our viewers here because it's very well confirmed not only on X, for instance, the Dean Johnson said, Office of the Director of National Intelligence reveals the establishment of UAP governance uh board. So, he has a an official communication here on X about your your um new position. Here on Liberation Times, US government establishes new interagency UAP governance board to coordinate investigations and declassification.

[00:01:49]So, and your name here again. As you can see, you can read this. I will leave the links for this at the description at the end of the live stream. International Business Times, White House forms UFO science team to study and explain orbs and declassified military sightings. So, you will be able when I post there on the on the on the description by the end of this live stream.

[00:02:15]What is this all about? Tell Tell us because we need We need further information. There's lots of people with different information. We need to trust you as well. So, tell us what is the all about, please.

[00:02:29]>> Right. So, these are very encouraging news because um there are apparently objects that the US government cannot figure out. And the most recent release happened on June 12th, this Friday. It was the day that Steven Spielberg released his new film, Disclosure Day. And there was a real disclosure in reality by the US government. Uh and I should say that we should all rather than engage in wishful thinking or in uh statements made on social media by people who don't know much.

[00:03:05]Uh we should instead focus on reality, meaning evidence, data. And so, the US government, first of all, is releasing some data. And on Friday, we saw a letter from uh the director of the All Domain Anomaly Resolution Office, Dr. John Coslosky, that talked about an event for 2 days back in October 2023, when there were a number of objects identified in the sky by US um law enforcement officials. And these are trustworthy people. And they saw orbs that give birth to smaller orbs, a very unusual phenomena. You won't expect that from what we from drones that we are familiar with. Um they they there were also some orbs hovering for a long time, hours, more than you expect for flares. And that they concluded after studying the the evidence that 40% of the phenomena that took place on that that time cannot be reasoned out, cannot be explained in terms of either technologies that are processed by the US or by adversarial nations. So, the question is, what are these objects? And of course, if you are down-to-earth, a person that is worried about uh mundane explanations, you would say, "Well, these are human-made technologies." Well, if they US intelligence agencies and the Pentagon cannot figure them out, it means that it's a national security concern, a serious matter that needs to be resolved uh because apparently there are holes in the defense of strategic assets within the United States, and these need to be figured out. And so, um uh that's in case these are all human-made, but there is also a chance that maybe one or some of them are non-human made, and in that case, it will be the biggest discovery ever made by humanity. So, this is just one example. There are many more examples within the released batch on on Friday, June 12th.

[00:05:16]Um and as a scientist, it sounds to me like a detective story. We can figure it out by collecting evidence. When you are a good detective, you're not going around and asking people on social media, "What do they think?" and saying bad things about some uh other interpretations. You That's not That's a waste of time. This I call this noise. You're noise that is introduced by influencers on social media. They can suggest things, they can attack people, they can say, "Oh, this is not real." In fact, the existence of the council that I'm leading was even put in doubt. People said, "Oh, this is not real. We shouldn't believe Avi Loeb."

[00:05:57]But now you see it from official sources. So, the point is we should abide by evidence, not by storytelling, not by what some people because people get megaphones on the social media and they don't deserve these megaphones cuz they don't know the facts. They just talk. Okay? So, this is called noise. And influencers produce noise.

[00:06:18]The signal is the evidence, the data.

[00:06:22]And as I always say, let's keep our eyes on the orbs, not on the audience. That's to paraphrase on basketball players that say, "Let's keep our eyes on the ball, not the audience." Believe me, the the Knicks who won, you know, the championship in the US in basketball, they kept their eyes on the basketball, on the ball, even though the audience was shouting.

[00:06:47]And so, that's my duty as a scientist uh to keep my eyes on the orbs, >> Yeah.

[00:06:55]>> not on people on social media. They are no concern to me. I don't care what they are saying. Okay, that's completely irrelevant and they can jump up and down, it wouldn't affect me. Now, the point is that I did my best to select an amazing team of members.

[00:07:11]I call them the A team. They're really brilliant people, each one of them. And I made sure to have one skeptic because you always have to have in every committee a devil's advocate to make sure that there are no biases that enter into the discussion, into the conversation. Of course, you you know, there is this tendency in tribes on social media to always echo what other people around you say and say bad things about another tribe. And that's That's you get polarization in politics and in all other matters. But in scientific matters, we should make sure that we are not missing something. So, we should have someone who thinks differently. And that's why I put one person who is a skeptic. And by the way, since I mentioned politics, this is one subject that brings both parties, both, you know, people on on on across the political spectrum together. They cooperate in Congress and elsewhere. This is a subject that brings everyone together. And I salute the Trump administration for moving forward with the declassification. And so, I was asked um to lead the council about the UAP science that would serve and advise the White House, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the FBI, the All Domain Anomaly Resolution Office in the Pentagon, and all intelligence agencies members.

[00:08:45]And you know, we will do the best we can to provide scientific advice. And as far as I can imagine, you know, it would be very difficult to decide what past reports mean if there is limited data. If we cannot go back in time, we cannot revisit those incidents. They're of course intriguing, but the way forward is to collect better data with better sensors, better artificial intelligence algorithms. And that's where I feel that I can help the government figure it out like a detective. And then, of course, even if we end up not finding any extraterrestrial non-human made technology, even if that's the absolute end result of all of this effort, I would not feel that my time is wasted because I'm doing it as a citizen of the United States and I'm trying to help the Pentagon uh uh do its job which is to protect national security. Uh if there are strategic assets and if for example an adversarial nation is using drones of a new technology and we are not aware of how they operate you know, we should figure it out and as a scientist I feel good dedicating time to help the defense of the nation.

[00:10:09]>> Yeah.

[00:10:11]>> Go ahead.

[00:10:12]>> Um no, so I but of course even if one in a million objects ends up being extraterrestrial technological artifact it would be the biggest discovery ever made by humanity.

[00:10:24]How would we find this object or uh objects uh is by getting exceptional data so that beyond any reasonable doubt it will become clear to everyone.

[00:10:36]So I know that there there are lots of people who are believers. They're already sure that such things exist and that includes Steven Spielberg. You know, he spoke about it and he in his new film he's showing uh of course based on artistic freedom he's showing images of alien bodies that were captured by the US government and so forth. You know I cannot uh this freedom of imagining things and believing in them. That's the privilege of Hollywood script writers. But as a scientist I can respond only to evidence. If I'm not shown if I'm not given evidence that indicates that these bodies exist that materials from crash sites exist then I I I will not assume that that's the case. Okay, but a lot of people that went to see the movie believe it. Uh and you know, they they are welcome to believe whatever they want. You know, there are people who have uh a lot of ideas that they believe in, but as a scientist, we can only be guided by evidence. And that is the the safest way for us to learn something new.

[00:11:45]So, yeah, we can discuss it further if you want.

[00:11:48]>> Yes, yes. You you as usual you you you go ahead of everything. Well, let's go by parts. Well, about the toxicity that we have on social, well, it always will happen. It happened in the past with you and many people as well. It it's proportional or even exponential. It's proportional to the to the to the interest that a person generates envy, bad feelings. It's all bad. So, let them as you are >> No, no, my my daughter says that the every you know, rockstar has haters.

[00:12:26]>> Yes, yes. And then they're they are surrounded by people that poison them and they it's a negative and dark and darker snowball. Well, let's forget them. And here you are with the people that that likes that loves you. And I immediately what I thought was this is amazing because I can't think in a better person to make the bridge that we desperately need between science, the classic science, and the UAP phenomena.

[00:13:00]Instead of fighting each other and being polarized as usual. So, I'm thinking in the different perspective. I don't know if it's it's me. And and when I thought in you, I thought, well, it's perfect because not only Eviloet has always, and I insist, always a scientific approach. Well, Eviloet was a speculating with Real apples? No, Avi Loeb was adding an hypothesis that it should be added to three apples.

[00:13:33]>> I should explain in that context >> Yeah.

[00:13:35]>> these people do not know how science is done.

[00:13:38]So, just to give them an example, to those critics, here is a simple example.

[00:13:43]For 50 years, 50 years, the mainstream of people who work on the universe, cosmologists, were arguing about the nature of dark matter. What is the 84% of the matter in the universe? We don't know what it is. It's called invisible matter. Okay? 50 years they were talking about it, writing thousands of papers.

[00:14:07]The most popular view was that it's weakly interacting massive particles.

[00:14:12]Now, these haters, these critics will say, "Oh, they were speculating. They haven't seen weakly interacting massive particles, and they were speculating.

[00:14:21]How dare they bring it up? They're grifters." No, nobody said that because those people on social media are not interested in dark matter. But I'm just saying, for 50 years the mainstream of hundreds and thousands of astronomers were talking about dark matter being weakly interacting massive particles.

[00:14:40]Now, the Large Hadron Collider was built in part to detect those particles.

[00:14:45]Specific hypothesis that they exist, and the grifters on social media would say, "Oh, that's a waste of this you know, these are speculators. How dare they?"

[00:14:56]But that's the mainstream of science that was doing that. And guess what?

[00:15:02]Guess what? The Large Hadron Collider was built. It cost $10 billion.

[00:15:08]We looked for weakly interacting massive particles, >> and we haven't found them.

[00:15:13]>> Yeah. And now it's just >> So, it was wrong in the natural parameter space that the mainstream of physicists thought that these particles would be, they were not found. Bottom line, period. That's the experience of 50 years in the mainstream of physics.

[00:15:31]And now these critics want to say that this is not allowed in science.

[00:15:36]Now, so when you see an object that has anomalies and Avi Loeb says, "These anomalies could be technological signatures." This is the way science is done. You are allowed to put forward a hypothesis that is a potential interpretation of anomalous data. Weakly interacting massive particles were a hypothesis that was speculative, apparently, because they were not found.

[00:16:04]Definitely was speculative, otherwise it would have been found. So, it was not only speculative, it was even wrong. So, that was proposed. $10 billion were put to find it and we didn't find it. So, this is the way science is done. You put forward hypothesis.

[00:16:23]Some of them end up being wrong. Many of them end up being wrong because we just don't know what this thing is or the dark matter. That's the way science is done. All these critics who say, "Avi Loeb is not allowed to consider hypothesis."

[00:16:40]They are against science because that's the way science is done. So, they are fighting. They are anti-scientists.

[00:16:47]They are anti-science. They don't want science to work in the way that science is working, which is to put hypothesis forward and then test them with data, with evidence. That's the way science Now, Albert Einstein said, and listen to what Albert Einstein said, please, all these critics. Albert Einstein said, "Imagination is more important than knowledge."

[00:17:14]Why would Albert Einstein say that?

[00:17:16]Because if you are right that Avi Loeb is not supposed to speculate, then obviously knowledge is more important than imagination. So, you would say Albert Einstein is wrong. No, Albert Einstein was right because the way science is done is by imagining the unknown and then pursuing data evidence to check if this imagination is correct or not.

[00:17:42]>> And not only that, the eight super important into the brain, we need that and specially nowadays and in the future, the imagination to be to be improved in our children because otherwise they will just memorize everything. They will do less than AI because AI will do that. So, >> No, we will not discover anything new if we don't imagine it. So, the point is the way science is done is you have to decide what kind of evidence you're looking for. People think, "Oh, science will always find the facts." No, that's not true because we have to decide what kind of data we are seeking and if the data we are seeking is always in the direction of things that we already know. If it's always, "Oh, every object in the sky must be a comet." And if we don't see evidence for a comet, we call it a dark comet, then you will never discover anything other than dark comets. And the best, you know, there is an example of a dark comet, you know, that idea is of dark comets was suggested in response to Avi Loeb's speculation that Oumuamua could have been a technological object.

[00:18:52]What was the response? The response is, "No, it's actually a comet where you don't see the cometary evaporation." So then, the same advocates, which are called comet experts, okay? So, the critics on social media should be happy.

[00:19:07]Here are comet experts talking about it and And say that Oumuamua is a dark comet, and they completely debunk Avi Loeb's speculation. So, okay. So, these people were saying, "Oh, there are some dark comets in the inner solar system that come close to Earth.

[00:19:24]Let's put a list of them. One of them uh is is called the 1998 KY and at any event, that one >> We'll go there.

[00:19:36]>> Yes, that one the Japanese space agency said, "Great.

[00:19:42]This is a dark comet. We will visit it in July 2031 because we want to understand how the outgassing takes place on this rock on this iceberg cuz we can't see any gas coming off it, but yet it has non-gravitational acceleration just like 'Oumuamua."

[00:20:00]So, we will land on it in July 2031.

[00:20:03]>> Yeah.

[00:20:03]>> So, all the people on social media that are upset about my speculation would say, "Great. We will now understand how 'Oumuamua works because we will land on a dark comet." So, last year, astronomers from the mainstream said, "Great. We want to in anticipation of the mission of JAXA, the Japanese space agency, that will send Hayabusa >> to >> to to land on this dark comet, we will take data from observatories on Earth."

[00:20:36]And this data indicated that this dark comet is roughly the size of 10 m.

[00:20:42]Okay? It's very shiny.

[00:20:45]>> Super bright.

[00:20:46]>> It reflects half of the sunlight that is impinging on it. So, it's very shiny.

[00:20:51]Half of the light comes back.

[00:20:53]Usually for icebergs, for for comets, you get a few percent, 5% of the light reflected. The rest is absorbed. This one, 50%. Half of the light comes back. And in addition, uh this object is spinning really rapidly every 5 minutes. So, they said, "Oh, it must be very sturdy, very solid object because if it was a rubber rubble pile, you know, that like made of a lot of fragments, it would be difficult to keep them together, glued together because of the rapid uh spinning." And so, they said, "Oh, it's a very sturdy object, very reflective, shiny. We will visit it and understand how a dark comet works." Now, in a paper just submitted >> I saw it.

[00:21:36]>> of weeks ago that I co-authored, we showed that this object, this dark comet, is very close to the trajectory of a failed Soviet spacecraft called Fobos 1 that was launched in 1988.

[00:21:53]>> Yeah.

[00:21:53]>> And the technician in the Soviet Union back then made a mistake and sent a prompt on the computer that including a semi included a an extra semicolon. You know, just a mistake and they they lost communication with the object because of this mistake on the computer system. And the object lost power because it was not locked on the sun anymore. So, then it disappeared. There was no transmission.

[00:22:18]We don't know where it is. It's actually moving along [clears throat] the trajectory uh to a good precision of this dark comet. So, we say it's the lost Soviet spacecraft. And just imagine this thing landing Hayabusa 2 by JAXA on top of this object and finding that it's not an iceberg. It actually has a label made in USSR.

[00:22:49]Imagine that. What will astronomers say?

[00:22:53]What will these people on social media that are attacking Avi Loeb's speculations say if it ends up as a technological object, well, they would say, "Okay, we got it wrong this time."

[00:23:08]But, what is the actual lesson? The actual lesson is you have the mainstream of comet experts calling an object a dark comet even though it shows very unusual anomalies. You know, it's very shiny, it has non-gravitational acceleration, it's spinning very rapidly. Still, you say, "Ah, no problem. It's a rock." Can you believe those people when they said that Oumuamua was a rock? Why would you say that the speculation that Oumuamua was technological is inappropriate? It's something that should not be contemplated. That's that's the sin that Avi Loeb made. He considered that possibility, and I'm telling you that in fact the mainstream comet experts might have made a mistake in identifying spacecraft as a rock. Okay? So, given that perspective, I hope that the people who listen would moderate their criticism of Avi Loeb's speculation.

[00:24:10]>> Please, never say that he's a a Tesla, please.

[00:24:13]Because someone in the past did did did made a mistake making the confusion and identifying an asteroid as a an asteroid, and it wasn't. It was the Tesla. No, that Elon >> Yeah, the Tesla Roadster. The main such examples. But, this one is special because we will land on it.

[00:24:34]And just think, I really am waiting for July 2031 and all those critics on social media. I I wonder whether they would learn the lesson or say, "Okay, this one we got it wrong, but Oumuamua was definitely a dark comet." Let them say that.

[00:24:49]>> I will bet on you. I will bet on you in that one. We are watching. We are watching. I'm sharing the screen with that paper that you you've done with your colleagues and we can see the the overlap of the the two orbits the the 1998 KY26.

[00:25:08]So the the asteroid they will land on and the Phobos one that that part of the probe that part of the rocket from from the spacecraft from Russia and it fits very well and you may well be >> the difference in terms of the difference may be just in terms of relatively modest thrust that the engine of Phobos 1 could have provided. We we showed that.

[00:25:33]>> Yeah, but I was talking about this I was going to talk about this at at the end but let's let's finish this one.

[00:25:41]And if he what if Dr. Avi Loeb What if you are wrong and they are wrong as well and they get there Hayabusa 2 is very good. They you went to who would know.

[00:25:55]They made a a great job with collecting the samples with better technology not corrected.

[00:26:03]I follow it everything. It's amazing and amazing. They will do a good a good job with it. 11 m roughly wide asteroid. Or whatever it is. What if you are wrong or half half wrong and it's a something technological but at the end >> that's the way science goes, you know, some I can be wrong.

[00:26:23]>> No, no, no, no, if it is if it is a spaceship but not ours.

[00:26:27]>> Oh, not ours. Yeah, of course. So my point is Oumuamua or any other object that we did not launch. We are not aware of whether it's technological or not. So we should be open to that possibility.

[00:26:39]That's all I'm saying. And why would weakly interacting massive particles would be a legitimate idea that nobody on social media attacked whereas if Avi Loeb suggests something is might be technological, I'm immediately attacked.

[00:26:56]Why is this not a a valid hypothesis that can be tested by data? And I was never claiming that I know it for a fact. I was just saying this is a possibility that we should contemplate, that we should explore with better data.

[00:27:11]Unfortunately, Oumuamua went away. But, the same approach should be applied to unidentified anomalous phenomena because serious people within the US government, not people that are just talking, you know, there are lots of people who talk.

[00:27:26]The The mistake many people make about science is science is not about detecting signals. You can detect signals all day long. The point is you have to separate the signal from the noise because you can find signals that are nothing. It's just noise. And obviously, on social media, you have a lot of noise because everyone speaks and says their opinion, and most of it is just noise. And you can waste your time.

[00:27:53]You You can waste your life chasing ghosts based on what people say.

[00:27:58]And uh the point is science is about separating signals from noise. How do you do that? By collecting better data.

[00:28:06]It's not by asking people what do they think. It's actually about getting better data that beyond any reasonable doubt will convince us. So, for example, in 1992, the [clears throat] Vatican admitted that Galileo Galilei was right. That was 350 years after Galileo died. Why would the Vatican, why would the Pope come out with a public announcement that Galileo was right? Was that a good political move? Uh the answer is it was not a political move.

[00:28:36]There was you know, there were by then there were a spacecraft that were looking at the Earth from a distance, and you can see the Earth moving around the sun. You it's clear that the sun is not moving around the Earth. And in fact, the the earth was moving around the sun 4.5 billion times before the Vatican even existed. So, the fact that it was popular view and back by the way, 400 years ago, if there was social media, I'm sure that there would have been huge population, you know, communities of people getting extremely upset by Galileo, canceling Galileo, saying bad things about him, and wanting to kill him just because he advocated for something. I mean, we can see the sun moving in the sky. How dare you even say that? And who put you in a position to express your opinion based on what you see through a tube of a telescope?

[00:29:24]That's ridiculous. So, they would have basically destroyed his reputation. And then the point is, it doesn't really matter. You know, it doesn't matter what these people are saying on social media, what the Vatican is saying. It's not a matter of authority. It it's not a matter of getting a lot of likes. You know, it has nothing to do with that. It's question of whether the earth moves around the sun or the sun around the earth is a question about reality, the physical reality. Whether we have a neighbor or not, will not depend on what people say within our home. You know, who cares if if my view is popular or not. And by the way, this is one way to tell the difference between influencers. I call them the Kardashians of science. These are people who talk about science, but they don't practice science. They it includes a lot of well-known influencers that people follow on podcasts and so forth. They haven't written a single scientific paper over the past two decades. I wrote two papers last week.

[00:30:27]So, I'm in the soccer, you know, now there is the World Cup. Just think about the players in the field compared to a lot of people in the audience.

[00:30:36]The difference between me and those influencers, the Kardashians of science, that get a lot of views and likes. The difference is that I can score a goal because I'm in the field. They are not in the field. So, you can tell the difference between an influencer on YouTube, on social media, on a blog, and me because I'm engaged in the actual research. I can I don't care how many likes I get.

[00:31:05]I will tell you what I find. And I'm willing to have a hypothesis that is not popular. I'm willing to do that. Why?

[00:31:13]Because I'm not an influencer. I'm not trying to be liked. I'm just exploring possibilities, and if it other people don't like them, it's their problem.

[00:31:22]It's actually the problem of their therapist. They can be very upset, and their therapist will solve their problems. I'm just trying to figure out reality. That's what I'm engaged. That's my business to figure out the physical reality.

[00:31:35]>> Yeah, and they they go accordingly to to the wind.

[00:31:39]>> Exactly.

[00:31:39]>> And they >> You will find, for example, 5 years ago, Neil deGrasse Tyson would say, "I don't want to discuss this subject.

[00:31:47]It's crazy. It's ridi- ridiculous." Now, he would write a book.

[00:31:51]>> He would write a book about it because it's becoming more acceptable, more popular.

[00:31:56]I said 5 years ago what I'm saying now.

[00:32:00]How is that possible? Because I was not paying attention to how many likes I get. Neil deGrasse Tyson was paying a lot of attention. So, now, when this subject is popular, he's changing what he says. Another example, I have been saying that these unusual lights that were recorded in photographs taken by the Apollo astronauts may be cosmic rays.

[00:32:22]I was saying that an object could have been a satellite.

[00:32:27]And then, people that really are believers in UFOs were attacking me and saying, "How dare you even mention those things?" Well, guess what? In science, you are allowed to do that.

[00:32:43]>> Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.

[00:32:45]Look, there's a difference. It's important to enhance that difference here.

[00:32:51]Because the first one, let me explain, the first one was about 3 hours. Many people accuse you, oh, because in 3 hours you said, no.

[00:33:02]In 3 hours AVLO consider it always the hypothesis of being techno signature there >> Right.

[00:33:11]>> and being extraterrestrial.

[00:33:14]Always. Never said and never ever said and we said that here a lot, never said it is 100% it is freaking spaceship. No.

[00:33:25]>> And you ask, why is that?

[00:33:28]>> Why should I even bring up this possibility? Because without imagining this possibility, we will not seek the evidence, we will not look for the data that would test it. And that's the main reason I was bringing this up. In also in the case of unidentified anomalous phenomena, I'm trying to motivate collection of data so that we will figure out, so that we will not make the mistake of the Vatican opposing an idea for 400 years and then realizing that we were wrong. I don't want us to do that.

[00:33:57]And how do we avoid that? Is if the Pope or or someone in the Vatican would have said, okay, let's build a bigger telescope better than Galileo and check whether what he said is correct or not.

[00:34:08]Let's do that. If the Vatican would have done that, which was not a popular view at the time, then they would have realized that they need to correct what they say, not in 1992, but when 350 years earlier when Galileo was alive. They should have built a bigger telescope, checked it out and then admit that Galileo was right. That would have saved them from uh four centuries of being on the wrong side of history.

[00:34:39]>> Dr. Avi Loeb, but following what I was saying about 'Oumuamua, so that was not true. The the You always were consistent with what you And that's one of the reasons that I believe that you fit very well that uh position now in the council is that you always have science, real and pure science, in the in the background. And then you have the open mind enough to consider different possibilities. But there will be people, and there's another difference that is important to state here, that will say, "Well, but Avi Loeb, when it's something that he hypothetical thing, he he talks about that. And if it's others, he will attack because he wants everything to to himself or whatever." Let's Let Let me Let me say what I believe in that because many people think like me.

[00:35:35]And and people change and manipulate what people think in social networks. It's like this. Avi Loeb, as you said because of Galileo, we wish that there was more people studying that. That will be a confirmation that Galileo was true.

[00:35:53]And if it wasn't true, that will be a confirmation that it wasn't true. So, what Avi Loeb does with other uh investigation from other people is to do the same investigation. That is called science. Never, and this is important, never ever attacking anybody.

[00:36:15]Never ever attacking anybody. Just making the work the work of Avi Loeb, which is be a scientist. And when the scientist decides, "Okay, let me study this because it's intriguing." And discover, "Well, this might be something else and this work from other people might be wrong from different people, doesn't matter."

[00:36:37]You will show your work and you will argument with a scientific paper, with your conclusions, with hypothesis, whatever. That is not an attack.

[00:36:48]>> No.

[00:36:48]>> An attack is when you say that to insult you everywhere. That is an attack. That is poison and that is bad. That is not what we want.

[00:36:57]>> also need to understand that cosmic rays exist, astronomers include them in the noise of all the data, satellites exist, astronomers include them in all the data analysis that they do. So, cosmic rays and satellites are well known to every astronomer.

[00:37:15]And if you don't like them, they they will not go away. For the same reason that the sun did not move around the earth because the Vatican said that.

[00:37:24]It doesn't matter what you say. If cosmic rays exist and there are 60,000 of them hitting a photographic plate during 1 hour, you have to worry about that. Why? Because there would be 60,000 events of cosmic rays hitting your photographic plate. So, it's not up to Avi Loeb or whatever whoever talks about it as to how many cosmic rays will hit the photographic plate. They hit the photographic plate, period. You have to ask, "Is it possible that some of the transients that I'm seeing relate to cosmic rays?"

[00:37:59]Second point, the people who did the analysis argued in a paper dedicated to that that there is an anti-correlation with geomagnetic activity. These are the storms created by plumes of plasma coming from the sun and they found an anti-correlation. They said, "Fewer [snorts] UFOs are when there is activity, when there is a plume of plasma coming from the Sun on Earth. And you might ask, why would UFOs be anti-correlated? Well, I just put it in Google and asked, how are cosmic rays correlated with geomagnetic storms? Put it in Google, check, okay? If you check, you find that cosmic rays are anti-correlated. This is a well-known phenomena that when a plume of plasma with magnetic fields uh collides with Earth, it sweeps away the cosmic rays. So, cosmic rays are anti-correlated with geomagnetic activity. Now, you find that UFOs are anti-correlated with geomagnetic The first thing that comes to mind is check if there are new cosmic rays. Why?

[00:39:02]Because that's exactly That's exactly the signature of cosmic rays. If you see less transients when there is geomagnetic activity, that would be an indication that you are your data is contaminated with cosmic rays, cuz that's what cosmic rays do.

[00:39:18]They get swept away because they're charged particles. They get swept away from Earth by geomagnetic activity, by plumes of plasmas uh carrying them, pushing them away from Earth. So, I'm just saying, we have to consider this possibility because the anti-correlation appears well-known, documented for decades in the literature. So, when you find an anti-correlation, you have to worry, is my data contaminated by So, then people attack me for just bringing this up. I didn't even mention any specific name of any investigator. And then other people wanted to create a a a a personal uh argument. This is not a personal argument. This is an argument about cosmic rays. You want to prove the point that they have nothing to do with the transients? You can prove it by scientific means. You can say the characteristics of the transients do not resemble cosmic rays. But I just pointed out the anti-correlation. So, what do you do with that? Why would UFOs be anti-correlated with geomagnetic activity? Give me an explanation for that because I know how cosmic rays would do it.

[00:40:21]>> Yeah. And and also I have to to say and this is in my personal experience with you and with other people that sometimes you come here a lot and to visit us and we love. But sometimes I disagree with you here in the live streams. Right now I'm agreeing because I agree, but sometimes I disagree and I say to you, well, and maybe and and and privately as well.

[00:40:45]And you never ever rejected me or treated me differently because of that.

[00:40:51]>> Right.

[00:40:52]>> You expose your opinion and I'll take it and accept it or not, it's my problem.

[00:40:58]>> [clears throat] >> And that's important. But other people don't do that. Other people if if you don't The simple fact that I'm talking with you cut my simple relationship with other people.

[00:41:13]I I really appreciate the pride.

[00:41:15]>> This is a big problem and this problem is that's why I explained at the beginning that I chose at least one member of my committee to think differently because I value you know, this is a way of avoiding biases. You need to listen to the other side. You need to respect people with different opinions. You have to do that because you know, otherwise we are doomed and you see that in politics where people are not willing to have guests that have different opinions to dinner. They're not willing to see them because they're saying, you know, these people are deplorable. I don't want to this but you know, and the other thing is you have to keep in mind, you know, the only people that we are willing to kill are people who we don't know. And that's why you know, soldiers in the military, you know, they're willing to kill the enemy because they don't know them. But if they knew them, if they knew that the person standing on the other side of the border, you know, that person has a family, that person is very kind, you know, you wouldn't pull the trigger because that person would look just like you. And you know, my grandfather was in Germany and they he fought for Germany in the First World War against the French and he survived. And when Hitler came to power, he gave him an award.

[00:42:34]That was a very famous battle called Verdun. And even though my grandfather was Jewish I'm called after him. His name was Albert and Albert is Abraham, so that's my first name. And I carry his name. So then in 1935, a member of the Nazi party stood up at their town and said, "You know, the Jews are using up our society."

[00:42:59]And therefore, you know, we should do something about it. And my grandfather raised his hand and said, "How dare you say that? I fought I was 2 years in the mud fighting for Germany. I'm a Jewish and you, the speaker, dodged the draft.

[00:43:19]You were a communist at that time."

[00:43:21]So the Nazi, former communist, said, "Well, we all know about you, Mr. Loeb. I'm talking about the other Jews."

[00:43:31]And what do you learn from that interesting story? What you learn is that it's very difficult to hate people that you don't know.

[00:43:39]And I really can say with 100% confidence all the people that know me, that worked with me, that interacted with me, will never say the kind of things that are being said on social media. These are people These haters are people who never met me, never interacted with me, or are simply jealous of the attention. And the point is, when you know someone, you cannot hate that someone.

[00:44:08]>> Yeah. Yeah. And And then these groups that fight each other in different realms, they don't follow a common goal. That's why, and this is important, and all this conversation leads to this council that the UAP council that you are leading leading right now. It's very important, and it's the focus of this. It's very important because by the opposite by the opposite, we expect you, at least me, to make that bridge that we desperately want, and I know that you want as well.

[00:44:41]Now, other thing another thing will be how you will deal with that because there's many people, Dr. Loeb, that are with fear, that feel the fear of okay, till now I okay, Avi Loeb makes sense, and I like him.

[00:44:58]But and I read him. But will it be now the moment that you will become a gatekeeper or something like that?

[00:45:08]>> Look, I I never changed my tunes. Um I never changed I I I I never manipulated people. Uh when I got married with my wife, she said that she will be able to tell instantly whether I have an affair because I'm relatively straightforward, you know, what you see is what you get.

[00:45:27]And that was true since my childhood.

[00:45:30]Anyone that knows me knows that, you know, when I was chair of the astronomy department at Harvard for 9 years, the longest serving chair, the reason I was uh doing well and you know, served for the longest time ever that anyone served in that position is that the faculty members of my department always had confidence in me. I never manipulated them. I was very transparent. I provided them with all the information. I I explained how I think about a problem, and nobody went went against me because if they had different view they would express it and then I will accommodate. So, the way I manage people is by building trust by basically what you see is what you get. I I'm not manipulating anyone and I've always been that way.

[00:46:19]And you shouldn't worry that I will change as a result of this. Of course, the only thing that may happen is if I get exposed to classified information I'm not allowed to disclose it, but that is a completely different matter. That is you know, information that I'm not allowed by law to reveal, but in terms of my deliberations you will always hear the truth from me. I mean I will not confuse try to confuse you on or misinform you. And so that's what you should think when hearing me speak.

[00:46:54]>> But imagine for instance, let's go back in time and imagine that you were already We already had that council.

[00:47:02]>> Okay.

[00:47:02]>> And we have something like 3 i Atlas and we have a probe that can go there like Hayabusa will go to the the the KI KI 26.

[00:47:14]And if you discover [snorts] you go and you discover that well this is this is technological or this has something that shows that it has the ends of another another civilization. You you go to your team and you talk with your team. Well, yeah, so we all confirm that. And then you have someone that says, well you can't this is classified and you can't say anything. We won't get the truth they will allow >> I don't think that will be that is a realistic scenario.

[00:47:52]>> No.

[00:47:52]>> Because if we deal with a situation where we know that we have a neighbor >> Mhm.

[00:47:58]>> Uh it makes no sense to hide this fact from our family members, all people on Earth.

[00:48:06]So, I I think it's very unlikely that this will happen. And uh you know, as a scientist, you know, what I usually do for my day job is share information.

[00:48:17]>> Mhm.

[00:48:17]>> It's not about hiding information. Uh and so, um I would advocate very strongly that such information would be shared because uh we are all in the same boat, you know, all humans on Earth need to know about something like that.

[00:48:31]>> And is something different for the our viewer. It's something different to have an interstellar object that imagine that it is and you confirm that it is from a different alien civilization and you have already that data in the future. It's different than object that we see around that because uh you know, very honestly, when I look and I was a bit surprised you said that the third batch of the the disclosure from from the the administration was intriguing. And yes, it is intriguing, but how can I distinguish what is I can't say I said my my my community >> Yeah. No, no, it's >> can't say distinguish if it's human-made or not. And human-made perfectly because >> No.

[00:49:24]>> Chinese for instance, they do lots of >> Yeah, yeah. That's completely right and that's why we need better data. And but you need the other thing you everyone needs to understand is most of the time in science, we live in uncertainty. What you find in textbooks where the laws of physics are written on a book in a book, >> Mhm.

[00:49:43]>> you know, that's after decades of uncertainty when people didn't know the answer, okay? And that is true right now about the nature of dark matter. It's true about the nature of unidentified anomalous phenomena. We don't know what they are, but that's the way science happens because most of the time it's a learning experience. So, you know, we have to get accustomed to be living in an uncertainty.

[00:50:07]If we do what the Vatican did, which is to decide what the truth is without having sufficient evidence, we might be wrong. And that's the wrong thing to do.

[00:50:17]So, we should feel comfortable in an uncertainty without adapting a narrative. You know, we we shouldn't say we know, you know, that dark matter is weakly interacting massive particle because it may turn out to be wrong, okay? We shouldn't say unidentified anomalous phenomena must be aliens because it might be wrong. So, what do we do? We just don't say those things.

[00:50:41]You know, on social media obviously people don't adhere to that, but as a scientist, you know, I just learned to live my life in uncertainty. There is no way around it because if you adapt an explanation to the uncertainty, you might be wrong and you will go on a wrong path, and that's not a good idea, okay? So, you know, for example, if you want to think that you have a trillion dollars in your bank account, that sounds great, right?

[00:51:12]And and a lot of people would would get pleasure thinking that. But there is only one person right now that actually has more than a trillion dollars, it's Elon Musk.

[00:51:21]And you have to check your ATM, your your bank account to to learn that you don't have a trillion dollars. So, that's called looking for the evidence, okay? Even though the thought of us having each of us having a trillion dollars gives us pleasure, this is wishful thinking, okay? And the way to figure out whether this is right or wrong is by checking the amount in your bank account. Now, as science is done exactly the same way.

[00:51:49]You know, it might be very appealing to argue that UAP must be or UFOs must be alien visitation. We get pleasure by thinking about it. Steven Spielberg made a whole film about it. People pay money to see the film.

[00:52:03]The fact that it's entertaining, that it gives us pleasure, doesn't mean anything. It could be wrong. Reality is under no contract to make us happy.

[00:52:13]Unlike Steven Spielberg, Steven Spielberg wants to make money, he needs to make the audience happy. And that's why he provides sort of like intellectual junk food. You know, all of us are when we taste junk food, we feel happy because it has a lot of sugar, but it's not good for our body, okay? So, you can feel happy by eating intellectual junk food and it's bad for your mind. Why is it bad? Because it leads you in the wrong direction that has nothing to do with reality. And therefore, I mean, I have no problem, you know, some people do take recreational drugs and hallucinate, but this is not my job definition. My job definition as a physicist is to figure out like a detective what is happening in reality. That's what a detective does. And of course, a detective may be high on drugs, you know, and feel that he solved the mystery, but it would have nothing to do with the actual mystery.

[00:53:09]So, what I'm suggesting is don't consume junk intellectual food on social media.

[00:53:15]Let's figure out the truth like a detective based on evidence that we collect.

[00:53:20]>> Yeah, yeah. But Steven Spielberg is is not a scientist, no.

[00:53:24]>> He's not a scientist. You know, I met him I met him a decade ago when he got an honorary degree at Harvard. I I said hello and he said, "Well, Avi, if you find any evidence for extraterrestrial visitation, let me be the first one to know about it. That's what he said. And why did he say that to me? It's because he realizes that reality is much more imaginative than Hollywood directors. So, he wants to know about it, but he realizes that for now, because we don't know about it, he can have some [clears throat] uh uh artistic freedom and invent stories.

[00:54:03]>> Yeah, but I I at least I speak for myself, I will keep imagining and what we don't know, we don't know and I will give the benefit of the doubt and maybe maybe it's something as >> Maybe and you know, that's as I said before, part of science is imagining things that are possible, but we should all agree >> Yeah, yeah.

[00:54:23]>> that we need evidence in order to accept a reality, okay?

[00:54:29]>> That's why that's why it's another reason that I believe you fit that position. It's because not only all that we said here, but you have the instruments as well. You have the Project Galileo. You're not somebody else. You have also in addition to everything that your profile and what you do because you practice science every day.

[00:54:52]>> Yeah.

[00:54:53]>> You have >> I I I'm not waiting for the US government to tell me what's in the sky.

[00:54:57]I can just look up. So, if the US government has data that can save us time, I will be really helpful. I'm also happy to help them figure things out, even in case we are talking about human-made objects, that's not an issue because as a citizen, that's my duty to help them. Uh but at the same time, it's not their their duty to find out what lies outside the solar system.

[00:55:25]That's not their their day job. Their day job is national security. So, my day job as an astrophysicist is to learn about our cosmic neighborhood and whether we have a neighbor or not is not up to anyone to decide. It's up to the evidence to to convince us.

[00:55:41]>> Yeah. Well, we hope that that evidence can be can be discovered and then released. That triangulation that you make with those three, hopefully more in the future, instruments of the Galileo Project is very very important because it can because it's what you said about these objects. We don't know the speed. We don't know the size of it exactly with with measurements. We don't know them nothing about them. We just have a blurred image here and there and testimonies. Well, I saw this but not with instruments not with uh uh I'm hoping that that's part of that job that was never done.

[00:56:25]>> Yeah. So, the best is yet to come and and I will do my best to deliver to the best of my ability uh and to justify the trust of people in my work.

[00:56:37]Uh so, stay tuned, you know, I will just do my best.

[00:56:40]>> We will.

[00:56:41]>> But I can make a lemonade only out of the lemons that are given to me.

[00:56:45]Uh I cannot create a a fancy dish uh if I'm not handed the materials for that. So, we shall see what comes along.

[00:56:55]>> We'll see. We'll see. We trust you, Avi Loeb, but uh I hope I hope I'm being positive that you will have uh space enough. Let's see how I say this.

[00:57:09]They will give you space enough and freedom enough to do your job properly.

[00:57:14]>> Thank you. Thank you.

[00:57:15]>> Okay.

[00:57:15]>> Yeah.

[00:57:16]>> Thank you very much for being here.

[00:57:18]Uh I'll see you in the next visit. Have a nice day and be positive. Okay.

[00:57:23]Bye-bye, Dr. Avi. Bye-bye.

[00:57:25]>> Bye-bye.

[00:57:26]>> I will end the live stream now.

[00:57:28]Bye.