Avi Loeb announced to lead new "UAP Science Advisory Council" for White House

[MyMatesBrainwashed]

(Let's not argue about the definition of) Professor Dave Explains has some videos highlighting why Avi's the perfect stooge for this administration that I'm sure some members will enjoy...


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCSTjnyxBdU

 

[FatPhil]

(Let's not argue about the definition of) Professor Dave Explains has some videos highlighting why Avi's the perfect stooge for this administration that I'm sure some members will enjoy...
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCSTjnyxBdU

I'm only ten whole minutes in and he's poked his rusty screwdriver between most ribs already and twisted several times (so let that be a warning to readers and potential viewers of a more delicate disposition) - does the trashtalk reach "most punchably smug face since since Martin Shkreli" levels later?

As science communication, I still don't think Professor Dave is doing a good job here.

However, as trashy entertainment - I've just pressed pause and am waiting for the microwave to go ping...

[EDIT, 50 mins later: It took only *2 minutes* before Dave insulted Avi's face ("creepy smile", IIRC) so I'm calling that a hit. However, at half an hour later he does actually start proper science communication - he brings a real scientist for a very useful interview.]

 

[John J.]

Professor Dave Explains has some videos highlighting why Avi's the perfect stooge for this administration that I'm sure some members will enjoy...

I feel criticism of Loeb's pronouncements about possible evidence of ETI is more than justified. I don't like the style of "Professor Dave's" videos, but I guess that's down to personal taste.

Dave's comment at 5 mins 10 secs into the video,

The blatant manipulation, opportunism and perpetual victim complex is par for the course when dealing with disgusting Zionist frauds like him

accompanied by the caption "typical Zionist fraud" and arrow pointing at a picture of Loeb go way beyond robust evidence-based criticism.
Which people are "typical Zionist frauds?" Why is anything Loeb has said about astronomy/ ETI connected with Zionism?

A troubling and (at the very least) unhelpful comment. This isn't part of scientific discourse or good science communication.

 

[Fritzkquzerk]

I feel criticism of Loeb's pronouncements about possible evidence of ETI is more than justified. I don't like the style of "Professor Dave's" videos, but I guess that's down to personal taste.

Dave's comment at 5 mins 10 secs into the video,

The blatant manipulation, opportunism and perpetual victim complex is par for the course when dealing with disgusting Zionist frauds like him

accompanied by the caption "typical Zionist fraud" and arrow pointing at a picture of Loeb go way beyond robust evidence-based criticism.
Which people are "typical Zionist frauds?" Why is anything Loeb has said about astronomy/ ETI connected with Zionism?

A troubling and (at the very least) unhelpful comment. This isn't part of scientific discourse or good science communication.

I honestly can't stand the guy, too much anger and aggression.
It's just not my cup of tea.
Avi is surely someone who needs to be criticized (just like any other scientist, they're all human), and I also think he comes to conclusions too easily, but I think there's many better ways to convey such a critic.

 

[JMartJr]

I was at one time a fan of Dave's videos. They have become more strident, less entertaining and in many ways less informative and useful. It's a shame.

For those not familiar with him, he seems to have originally focused on online tutorials on a variety of subjects, and those were very useful if comparatively dry. AT some point, he did a debunking video. I think I recall the first was about Flat Earth, which gave him opportunity to exercise a snarky sense of humor. It got a lot of views, and was probably fun to do, and he started mixing debunking vids into his channel. It is my impression that as the algorithm steers more people toward more divisive content, he's been rewarded for getting angrier and less fun.

I would steadfastly defend his right to make whatever content he wants, and to hold whatever political views he holds. Injecting his politics into his debunking vids is his right, doing so as an ad hominem attack on the person expressing views that need debunking is not a great tactic, though, in my opinion. If Avi is wrong (as he clearly seems to be) about alien stuff, he would not be less (or more) wrong about that stuff if his opinions on Middle East issues was the same as Dave's...

 

[Fritzkquzerk]

I was at one time a fan of Dave's videos. They have become more strident, less entertaining and in many ways less informative and useful. It's a shame.

For those not familiar with him, he seems to have originally focused on online tutorials on a variety of subjects, and those were very useful if comparatively dry. AT some point, he did a debunking video. I think I recall the first was about Flat Earth, which gave him opportunity to exercise a snarky sense of humor. It got a lot of views, and was probably fun to do, and he started mixing debunking vids into his channel. It is my impression that as the algorithm steers more people toward more divisive content, he's been rewarded for getting angrier and less fun.

I would steadfastly defend his right to make whatever content he wants, and to hold whatever political views he holds. Injecting his politics into his debunking vids is his right, doing so as an ad hominem attack on the person expressing views that need debunking is not a great tactic, though, in my opinion. If Avi is wrong (as he clearly seems to be) about alien stuff, he would not be less (or more) wrong about that stuff if his opinions on Middle East issues was the same as Dave's...

I think good debunking content should avoid ad hominem, this sometimes has actually reinforced the conspiracy theorists in their beliefs, but regardless of that, it's really just not very productive in my opinion.
Even if Avi is really just a fraud.
And also, it's not like he's a certified hoaxer or something.
I'm not even positive he'll find any evidence of aliens but still.
Is Neil Tyson also a fraud? He also wrote a book on aliens, so what?

 

[Gary C]

I think good debunking content should avoid ad hominem, this sometimes has actually reinforced the conspiracy theorists in their beliefs, but regardless of that, it's really just not very productive in my opinion.
Even if Avi is really just a fraud.
And also, it's not like he's a certified hoaxer or something.
I'm not even positive he'll find any evidence of aliens but still.
Is Neil Tyson also a fraud? He also wrote a book on aliens, so what?

It's not that Avi has engaged in the sort of behavior we normally associate with fraud. But he has both the training and the experience to recognize that his rash of claims about ETs based on interstellar comets and sea floor particles have been unjustified speculation. While he may be getting more funding because of it, he's produced nothing of scientific value in this area. Contrast that to his previous work in astrophysics and it's hard to say that society has seen any benefit from his excursion into the realms of woo.

NdT OTOH is just using popular interest in ETs to wrap his latest popularization of science book in some humor and try to get a few believers to think a little more carefully about the UFO genre.

 

[Gary C]

Apparently Shermer has gotten enough feedback on email and social media that he decided to address his participation directly.


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6z-VuyAv_W8


Times:

• 0 ~ 15 min - His participation, opinions on the subject, background on UFOs, disclosure on his bet with Avi
• 15 ~ 20 - Comments on Disclosure Day, the Fermi Paradox, and an AI generated UFO hallucination
• 20 - end - Updates on Skeptic Magazine and related topics

The only thing I saw that was new was the story about AI.

 

[jarlrmai]

Was it just me or was that just more confused and confusing than anything else?

random thoughts and paraphrasing below:

Avi was tasked by the government to investigate the videos that are being released by the government, but we are actually using the Galileo project to get our own new data? Also what is AARO for then if not to do the 1st part?

I guess he also mentions applying modern science methods to current reports, which ones? Will any sacred cows held by the members of the UFO community be a part of this?

Avi says "Since UAP are physical objects that interact with humans"

They are? Since when?

Also I thought going from UAP to UFO was literally to allow for non physical objects..

He mentions "angry UAP people that want to own the subject and have podcasts and books" which he says on his Youtube vodcast with his books displayed on a shelf behind him...

Says the missing scientist thing was nonsense they debunked, sure I agree it was nonsense, but where is this debunking shown?

He also says "biologics" at one point how has this Grusch word just become a part of the vocab so quickly, and for an apparent sceptic like Shermer?

If I was writing a TV show script, this guy would be being setup to be the token "boo, hiss" villain who has a turnaround..

It's all very odd, the way he references Grusch and Graves disparagingly but not Avi not so even though I don't seem much difference between them and most of the other council members, some of whom who Grusch probably references as a part of his general "insider" retelling of UFO lore.

It almost feels like a "aliens, but our way" split, like the old school people re-asserting control.

Maybe as a sceptic Shermer might give @Mick West an interview to actually clarify stuff...

 

[Gary C]

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvrHX0qRRMs

 

[Mendel]

Why is anything Loeb has said about astronomy/ ETI connected with Zionism?

I'm glad you asked, because I can now quote what I read on Wikipedia a minute ago.

Article:

According to Loeb, the "fundamental question" is if the Ark of Covenant was a device used to communicate with extraterrestrials and if the Jewish people were chosen by a race of aliens and imbued with "information from beyond our planet".[94] As reported by The Forward, Loeb contends that Earth may not be safe for the Jewish people and leaving Earth could be advantageous due to the absence of antisemitism in outer space.[95] Writing on his Medium blog, he has posited that "with long-term thinking, Jewish eschatology could be extended to trillions of years if a Jewish community with its synagogues and extraterrestrial Temple is established".[96]

In 2024, Loeb delivered a speech in which he declared his view that the Messiah will be an alien who arrives from outer space.[97]

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avi_Loeb#Judaism_and_extraterrestrials

 

[JMartJr]

Avi was tasked by the government to investigate the videos that are being released by the government, but we are actually using the Galileo project to get our own new data? Also what is AARO for then if not to do the 1st part?

AARO was not tasked with finding the desired answer.

 

[John J.]

Avi says "Since UAP are physical objects that interact with humans"

They are? Since when?

Agreed, I'm surprised Shermer quoted this but didn't challenge it.

He also says "biologics" at one point how has this Grusch word just become a part of the vocab so quickly, and for an apparent sceptic like Shermer?

Strongly agree.
We need to understand what claimants and UFO enthusiasts mean, but that doesn't mean we should adopt examples of pseudoscientific jargon.
As mentioned in other posts, "biologic" has a well-established meaning in biochemistry and medicine, and it isn't a synonym for "organism" or "creature". Biologists, biochemists, medical doctors studying hypothetical aliens/ their remains would not call them "biologics".

 

[Ann K]

We need to understand what claimants and UFO enthusiasts mean, but that doesn't mean we should adopt examples of pseudoscientific jargon.
As mentioned in other posts, "biologic" has a well-established meaning in biochemistry and medicine, and it isn't a synonym for "organism" or "creature". Biologists, biochemists, medical doctors studying hypothetical aliens/ their remains would not call them "biologics".

What word would you suggest be used in the sense that Grusch uses the term?

 

[jarlrmai]

What word would you suggest be used in the sense that Grusch uses the term?

Well part of the problem with Grusch using that term is we don't know the sense in which he is using it

But maybe biological material, organism, creature etc

 

[FatPhil]

We need to understand what claimants and UFO enthusiasts mean, but that doesn't mean we should adopt examples of pseudoscientific jargon.
As mentioned in other posts, "biologic" has a well-established meaning in biochemistry and medicine, and it isn't a synonym for "organism" or "creature". Biologists, biochemists, medical doctors studying hypothetical aliens/ their remains would not call them "biologics".

They have "biopharmaceutical", why do they need an additional term?

And is it really "well established" if it takes me precisely 5 seconds of searching pubmed to find a paper that uses the term differently? (it was the second paper containing the term - as a bayesian, should I presume that it's 50/50?)

Biologic therapy includes a diverse group of drugs that act directly on the immune system. Sometimes referred to as "targeted therapy," the biologics include cytokines and monoclonal antibodies. These agents can be genetically engineered versions of naturally occurring substances, or novel compounds used for the treatment of cancer and for nononcology diagnoses.

-- https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22955152/

Let them both have it as their jargon. All fields' jargons are broken somehow, I don't think we should be trying to impose more restrictions on the UAP crowd than we're prepared to impose on actual scientists who should know better.

We know what they mean. They have communicated successfully.

 

[John J.]

What word would you suggest be used in the sense that Grusch uses the term?

Aliens. Extraterrestrials. Extraterrestrial (or alien) beings/ creatures/ organisms.
Pretty much anything whose meaning is clear in the context, but which doesn't reward (e.g.) Grusch, or his confidantes, for making up new science-y terms without even being bothered to check if that term already means something.

And is it really "well established" if it takes me precisely 5 seconds of searching pubmed to find a paper that uses the term differently? ...

Biologic therapy includes a diverse group of drugs that act directly on the immune system. Sometimes referred to as "targeted therapy," the biologics include cytokines and monoclonal antibodies. These agents can be genetically engineered versions of naturally occurring substances, or novel compounds used for the treatment of cancer and for nononcology diagnoses.

Yes, "biologic" is a well-established term in medicine and pharmacology.
If the author of the paper cited has extended the definition (which arguably isn't the case, novel compounds can be of biological origin) then it might be fair to consider their authority on the subject.

 

[Harabeck]

I'm glad you asked, because I can now quote what I read on Wikipedia a minute ago.

Article:

According to Loeb, the "fundamental question" is if the Ark of Covenant was a device used to communicate with extraterrestrials and if the Jewish people were chosen by a race of aliens and imbued with "information from beyond our planet".[94] As reported by The Forward, Loeb contends that Earth may not be safe for the Jewish people and leaving Earth could be advantageous due to the absence of antisemitism in outer space.[95] Writing on his Medium blog, he has posited that "with long-term thinking, Jewish eschatology could be extended to trillions of years if a Jewish community with its synagogues and extraterrestrial Temple is established".[96]

In 2024, Loeb delivered a speech in which he declared his view that the Messiah will be an alien who arrives from outer space.[97]

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avi_Loeb#Judaism_and_extraterrestrials

Escaping to space, you say?

 

[Scaramanga]

I watched Age Of Disclosure ( yeah...I'm a mug for paying for it ).....and what truly struck me was the sheer mind numbing dichotomy between all the CLAIMS of UFO shenanigans.....and the practically non-existent actual evidence. All these scientists, Avi Loeb, Gary Nolan, former CIA chiefs, David Grusch, yada, yada, and many others....you'd think there would be staggering evidence and we'd at least have an inkling of it by now.

But the 'evidence' is just crappy videos...every single one of which has been debunked. I find this dichotomy more baffling than the UFO phenomenon itself. How can SO many people be so deluded ? That is way scarier than being invaded by 13 tentacled insectoids from the Delta quadrant. Something about it all is just not right....and I don't think I'm the only one who feels that way.

 

[FatPhil]

mind numbing dichotomy

Those whose cognitive dissonance damping circuits are most active don't need to worry about such things. It's quite literally baffling!

 

[MapperGuy]

Let them both have it as their jargon. All fields' jargons are broken somehow, I don't think we should be trying to impose more restrictions on the UAP crowd than we're prepared to impose on actual scientists who should know better.

Groups like to have control of the jargon/vocabulary they use when describing their topic of interest. It allows them to feel they are in control of the dialog. It also allows the group to change the scope of the discussion by changing the meaning of their jargon when it is convenient to expand the scope, or to banish elements that have become "inconvenient". Since when were ghosts and Psi part of UFOlogy? Since this year it seems to me.

 

[MapperGuy]

Also what is AARO for then if not to do the 1st part?

A fine question, and one which is getting harder to answer.

AARO was supposed to investigate new claims of anomalous things.
The retrospective review of past sightings was supposed to be a one-time only review of the "story-so-far", to serve as some sort of baseline. But the retrospective keeps getting expanded by the demands for videos and documents from Congress, expanding the scope of the retrospective review. I expect this will continue for a long time, because so many in UFOlogy have their favorite fuzzy photo they will insist AARO look at again and again for endlessly evolving reasons.
Keeping the retrospective study alive is also important for the Conspiracy Theorists, who need to keep finding new "links" to explore and write books about.

 

[Smythe Bacchus]

How can SO many people be so deluded ?

This is the very definition of fanaticism. For some, blind faith in various UFO stories is a substitute for religion, and for others it is an extension of it, where it plugs into a wider paranormal belief framework, as in the case of Avi Loeb, relayed by Mendel in post #91.

All of this is bound together by the attraction of being "special" and "part of something that is bigger". For some this can become a messiah complex, whilst others are content with playing the role of a devotee, offering their prayers and sometime financial support.

Religious prophet = UFO "whistleblower" whose only evidence comes from their belief.

Religious leader = UFO "expert" who wants to raise funds and lead a new "organization".

Religious heretic = UFO "skeptic" who follows the evidence, and keeps calling out fraud.

For those who may think this analogy is a stretch, I cite an example below. There is also a bonus claim that Mick West is some kind of disinformation specialist (i.e. heretic) with an open (even flattering) acknowledgement of his effectiveness in challenging bogus claims.

Dr. Garry Nolan on The Good Trouble Show with Matt Ford, Jan 5, 2026

52:25 [Ford] If Mick's watching right now and you were to talk to Mick, what would the deal look like? What would you say, Mick, you got to do this for me to, to do this thing? (participate in a debate with Mick West)

52:36 [Nolan] Well, I think, I would have to have the guerrilla skeptics, delete all of their editing accounts, openly admit what they've been doing, admit who their funders are. Mick should admit who his funders are. I mean, they have a pretty decent budget.

Maybe they should, donate to a whistleblower's charity. You know, a significant amount, 1 or 2 million, I think would be, would be good.

My take from the Debunking Humor thread at the time:

Dr Garry Nolan's reasoning mirrors that of a religious zealot who considers skeptics as an enemy of the faith. This flawed logic is essentially:

"Convert to my religion first, donate a substantial sum to it, and repent! We can debate it once I am convinced you share in my fundamentalist beliefs."

Fanaticism is like the psychological equivalent of a computer virus, to the point where a victim of it can turn into a "bot" under the command of a master controller (cult leader). And fanatics will try to spread their blind faith in the same way as a virus tries to spread.

The only reason the UFO space is so obsessed with disclosure, is the realization that their religion has reached a hard limit in it's potential to expand without it. The general public is demanding hard evidence, and they are now "caught between a rock and a hard place".

Unfortunately it does not have the same luxury of "established" religion which can skirt right past the inconvenient question of historic proof without damaging their following.

 

[Ann K]

Well part of the problem with Grusch using that term is we don't know the sense in which he is using it

But maybe biological material, organism, creature etc

And how would you simplify the term "biological material"? That's right, "biologics". Language is descriptive, not prescriptive.

 

[jarlrmai]

And how would you simplify the term "biological material"? That's right, "biologics". Language is descriptive, not prescriptive.

You don't need to simplify it, especially when you are trying to communicate what Grusch is, you should be clear and not inventing slang in your official statements.

Especially not when the word you choose has a real meaning used by scientists.

We criticise the use of terms like orbs and pyramids this is kind of the same.

When someone like Dr. Shermer seemingly criticises Grusch but then also uses the term (when not directly addressing Grusch's specific statements) as well I have to ask why he's adopting that language, given he is scientist and the term does not appear to have been used in the context before Grusch.

 

[FatPhil]

Especially not when the word you choose has a real meaning used by scientists.

Show me this "real" meaning as a deliberate and precise definition in a well-established reference source. I don't think it exists.

Note - if you find a dozen papers using the term, each explaining what they mean by the term, all in agreement with each other, heck, even a hundred of them, then that would *make my point*. If it had a single precise definition as a term of art, then it wouldn't need explaining. (And I will also simply counter by referring to my previous post, where I show a contradictory usage.)

 

[jarlrmai]

Does it have any used definition anywhere else?

 

[John J.]

if you find a dozen papers using the term, each explaining what they mean by the term, all in agreement with each other, heck, even a hundred of them, then that would *make my point*

So if we find a hundred papers that define a term, it demonstrates that term isn't widely understood or in use in the relevant field?

The term "biologic" clearly is in widespread use in medicine, biochemistry and pharmacology. I'd agree it might not be well-defined, but it does not refer to intact or deceased multicellular organisms.
Though a contraction of "biological", in those fields it is no longer a synonym for "biological".
Patients, endogenous in-situ tissues are never described as biologic. Physiological systems are biological, not biologic.
Biological specimens in transit are never labelled "biologic specimens" (AFAIK).

"What Are "Biologics", Questions and Answers", US Food and Drug Administration
https://www.fda.gov/about-fda/cente...cber/what-are-biologics-questions-and-answers
"Biologics (Biologic Medicine)", The Cleveland Clinic
https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/treatments/biologics-biologic-medicine
"biologic", Merriam Webster dictionary https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/biologic
"biologic", Dictionary.com https://www.dictionary.com/browse/biologic
"Biologic and biosimilar medicines", National Health Service (UK) Kingston and Richmond NHS Trust
https://www.kingstonandrichmond.nhs...atient-leaflets/biologic-biosimilar-medicines
"Understanding Biologics – What Patients Need to Know", Core Prescribing Solutions
https://coreprescribingsolutions.co.uk/understanding-biologics/
"What are biologics?", Medical News Today https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/what-are-biologics

There are examples of "biologic" being used as an informal abbreviation of "biological" elsewhere.

My antipathy to Grusch's use of the term is this: If, as he sort of claims, there are aliens or alien remains held by well-resourced concerns in the US, they would be a subject of great interest. Presumably the custodians would want competent (and probably highly-regarded) medical doctors, biochemists etc. to study them. It is highly unlikely these experts would describe the aliens/ cadavers as "biologics", because they would already be familiar with the use of that term in their professions.
Grusch or perhaps his anonymous informers have chosen to use "biologic", but their use of the term probably isn't from the hypothetical experts who have actually studied the (hypothetical, and IMHO non-existent) aliens/ alien remains.
So where did it originate from?
I suspect it's a deliberate piece of jargon, in effect a neologism (the users are unfamiliar with the term's meaning in medical science) that Grusch, or an informant, thought sounded better than "alien" or "extraterrestrial". By having a new term (in this context), it creates a superficial impression that they know what they're talking about. And it sounds science-y (hey, it ends in "logic").

Grusch means aliens. In the context, "alien" is widely understood. But we know many past claims of aliens are highly questionable, and in some cases outright hoaxes. Use of a different term might be an attempt to distance Grusch's claims from that baggage.

 

[Mendel]

And how would you simplify the term "biological material"? That's right, "biologics". Language is descriptive, not prescriptive.

I'd simplify it as "biomatter".
Biologics
Biomatter
Same word length.
And it already means what Grusch wants it to mean.

 

[FatPhil]

Does it have any used definition anywhere else?

It doesn't need one. -y -> -ic is a perfectly standard production in english, e.g. geology -> geologic, pedagogy -> pedagogic. If you object to rampant nounification of adjectives, you're going to have to stop snooker players potting reds before you address the current trend in that direction. And promise to never pop out for an indian or a chinese after drinking a bellyful of stout. And never speak english, I guess. Language is as language does.