I thought the impact site was primarily determined by military satellites from the meteor flash, trajectory, etc. The entry velocity was also calculated with the same system which indicated an interstellar origin. I forget the details.
It is a US government satellite system that looks at reentry of objects like ICBMs. It has known issues and is apparently very poorly calibrated outside of the velocity range of those objects it is looking for. When the data set is compared with publicly available data sets from publicly known instruments and you find events in both datasets, all of the higher velocity numbers are all over the map. It's only the lower velocity objects that are accurate
@personzorz cuz they don't care if they need to intercept an ICBM headed to Cincinnati vs one headed to Columbus. They just get a rough "gist" of it and hit the StarWars button, right?
@@Shadare cuz by the time you are reentering you are less than a minute from target and very close, and cuz an instrument built and carefully calibrated for velocities between 6 and 8 km/s which is the maximum velocity an ICBM can have has no reason to also work well when looking at 20-30 km/s objects with much more energetic entries
If this is same paper as discussed by AngryAstronaut video, then i dont find that author very respectable since he writes lots of personal insults towards Avi Loeb instead of just/seriously falsify Avi Loeb paper!
Most serious scientists do not have the luxury of time to spend endlessly debunking obvious quackery. Sometimes you just have to laugh and carry on with what you were doing. Otherwise no one would ever get anywhere.
After all think of how stupid you think the average person is and realise they are average half are even stupider than that. After that realise those who make things happen are less than 1 percent of the population trying to drag all those morons along it's tiring :)@@andrewsarchus6036
Everything u know was obvious quackery at one point...smh..lol...bet you'd say that about different thoughts on the big bang...which has scientifically been disproven...feel bad for people like you. So brainwashed
Well, clearly they weren't fooled at all. They were definitely looking for a Mexican truck. What did you think they meant when they said they were looking for aliens?
"Ah, so you are also familiar with the falling to the floor trick!" -Inspector Clouseau "He's been shot dead, you idiot!" - Charles Litton, the Phantom
They look like something I've seen in samples of contaminants from mills. They were magnetic, being largely made of iron. We always attributed them as leftovers from spark producing operations like welding and grinding. They tended to be hollow too.
Absolutely with you on this. I was on site at an early industrial complex in the English Midlands and I picked up (still have it more than 30 years later) this shiny hollow nodule of pure black from a stream less, than an inch in diameter. I always presumed it was a bit of slag from the furnaces, which were some distance uphill. Then last year I heard of spherules, which I'm not totally discounting, but my money is still on it being slag; just unusual enough to hang on to.
Personally not seen anything like this from grinding, but certainly welding. I'm no sailor but I'd guess SMAW would have been used for a long time to do repairs on board. Manually feeding the stick while rolling with the waves would be very difficult and maybe the best way to cope would be to 'over feed' a bit to prevent losing the arc. That would increase the number of these little nuggets rolling away from the slag..... of course that's just guesswork really.
The location was not determined entirely by seismic data. How could they possibly use data from one seismic sensor? They didn’t, they used several sources of data. Not purely seismic data. The coal ash explanation had been addressed. The spherules may not be from a non human source but none of this is conclusive evidence either way…
They are just throwing darts at a board to try to explain this away at this point. This explanation to debunk this is so thin. There has got to be something better they can come up with
Tons of iron meteorites burn up in our atmosphere. Much of this reaches the ground in the form of microscopic spheres. I collect them from the rain downspouts of large, flat topped buildings with magnets when it rains. They are quite beautiful.
So microspherules are a byproduct of a meteorite? Then larger spherules like the ones found might be consistent with meteorite debris. Do coal mines produce waste in the form of spherules? If so, how did coal mine waste get to that location? Is it likely that the incorrect data from a truck detected by the sensor led to the exact location of a dump of coal mine waste? This explanation has a lot of strange holes in it….
@@halfstep44Using a magnet is a bit like cheating. The way the scientist who discovered it did it, is to scoop up that stuff from rain gutters from appropriate large roofs, and sort it by hand under a microscope. Remove everything of known, identifiable earthly origin and you get these spheres, some are from different kinds of rock, some are metal, and lab tests confirm that these are indeed meteorites, matching what we know about large meteorites. They have been there forever, but noone looked.
I'm disappointed that Anton didn't research this more before he piled on with the anti Avi Loeb sentiment. Avi has addressed these latest findings. A lot of these media people, and particularly one man I won't mention, seem to have a big problem with Avi "wasting" his time on things that they are uncomfortable with. Science should not be afraid of or closed off from anything. Let the data steer where you go. And... for the millionth time, these spherules are NOT fly ash.
The fact that the satellite was military has little to do with anything it's just one of the few looking in at the right angle science looks outwards coms downward and military at the horizon looking for launch plumes not re-entry to late to solve for intercept on downward part of a warheads run as they break into nine nukes and fifteen decoys before re-entry
Those debunking attempts are getting ridiculous now. Did that "magic truck" transport the unusual mix of Beryllium, Lanthanum and Uranium measured in the spherules too?
There does seem to be a fair bit of cherry picking and data ignoring going on here. I await Loeb's reply to all this with some interest. It might not be gentle...
@VultureGROUP-tx8yt He already replied in his "medium" space 3/11 2024. The article "Scientific Misinformation", Mar 11, 2024 _"The meteor’s fireball was localized on January 8, 2014 by satellites of the Department of Defense (DoD), not by the public seismometer data analyzed by Ben Fernando. The expedition I led in June 2023 surveyed the DoD localization box which measured 11.12 kilometers (7 miles) on a side. We criss-crossed 26 times in a region of 10-20 kilometers around the DoD box center."_
Avi Loeb has already sent an email to the rag that printed this article explaining that his team used the information from classified military satellites and data from NASA. The Space Force data claimed an accuracy of 99.97% for the objects speed, and final location of the debris. He also stated that the data from a single seismograph could not give a location for anything, so it was not used. The paper concerned has not printed his response. Neither has the seismologist who claimed that Loebs team used a single seismograph to pinpoint the location of an INTERSTELLAR object in the OCEAN! 😂
This is BS..if you dig into the matter, avi was using multiple sensors from satellites provided by the Dept of Defense showing the light cones of the object breaking apart as well as seismic sensors..also failed to mention how this article completely left this out as well as the gross tone of the piece .i expected better of you Anton
I am not a fan of either side of the Loeb argument, but I want to hear good scientific discussion on the merits of flaws his papers. It seems these days that any article or paper headline is enough to dismiss what he has postulated. In my view this is a disservice to science, much as it would be do dismiss someone's math in the late 19th century, just because their equations started turning up infinity. So you lost me at "they used Google maps". It seems that as long as an article is trying to shoot down scientific papers about the possibility of Extraterrestrial Intelligence, any data or argumnet will be accepted, no matter the lack of pier review or scrutiny. This is one of the most important scientific questions of our time. It would be good to see scientists applying the same rigour and methodology on both sides of the question. So I would like to hear more detail about the validity of the analysis both for and against. E.g. do these spherules contain the radioisotope signatures that indicate they are a by-product of smelting activity that happened on earth after the first open air atomic tests? This would be a good starting point to debate such argument rather than "hey smelting produces metallic spherules, so nothing to see here."
The thing is, the guy jumps to outrageous conclusions based on the most cursory of findings. There was no spectroscopic analysis, no isotopic mass ratios, NOTHING to indicate these spheres came from outside the Solar System, much less Earth! He's basically just another "Ancient Aliens Guy".
Is it REALLY a disservice? Just like all of your credibility went out the window with your spelling errors that you chose to enforce instead of trusting spellcheck, their inability to perform their due diligence stands out.
@@francislutz8027 Thank you for responding to my comment with reasoned argumentation and consideration. I will make a note to use a spell checker next time.
I'd recommend looking at what Loeb actually says about it. His actual claims are far less spectacular than the mainstream quacks would have you believe. Not only do the "BeLaU" samples lack nuclear contamination, but the iron isotope ratios are unlike any sample that's ever been examined. That alone should have scientists more interested than they are. Too many PHDs fighting over too few grants to allow extremely compelling research like this to be taken seriously. Lucky for him, he has all the funding he'll ever need privately. People constantly stay mad about the fact that they can't gatekeep this guy.
I found Avi Loeb always wants people to keep an open mind when it comes to his conclusions, but when his conclusions are contradicted by other research, he is less open-minded. And this shows another case of him being biased towards a result that suites his conclusions without doing a lot of research into possible contradicting conclusions. Something that should be done if you want to substantiate such controversial claimes.
Seriously folks, which seismic station of any statue wouldn't filter out trucks? They probably pass by every day, maybe every hour. All their data would be completely useless.
I thought it had been known for decades that the deep oceans have fields of metallic nodules. Companies are just figuring out how to mine them at depth.
The fly in the ointment of that sort of mining is that any mining will involve metal machinery. If more metal is used to recover such extreme resources than can be recovered then that resource will always remain a resource and will never be upgraded to "reserve". The difference is the total known to exist as in "resource" and the total that can be extracted as in "reserve".. All the gold in the ocean is a vast resource but is not, and probably never will be, a recoverable reserve of gold.
There can’t possibly be enough concentrated in a given area to make the juice worth the squeeze. Picking out little collections of metals, however precious, in square mile after square mile in the vast ocean would have hardly any redeeming value
yeah nature mines them for you though hence nodules the roll around and gather more metallic compounds as they go takes thousands of years to form them so its a one hit wonder havest. @@coweatsman
it's more a matter of what its concentrating moving things in water is cheap and floor harvest is easy so won't take to many more ev's untill we scrape the ocean clean need the manganese for batteries :) @@ryanrobin12
I appreciate Loeb's enthusiasm to legitimize the search for aliens from an actual scientific perspective, but he had cried wolf too many times awhile ago. You can't just argue that everything weird IS aliens.
Never hear him said anything is for sure aliens, just that we should be closer studying these objects that come from outside our solar system, and that we need to keep an open mind to all possibilities
I believe the location of the ocean impact was determined by NASA and JPL, based on satellite data. Loeb has replied to this new paper. Shouldn't his reply be included in your analyzes?
No, it wasn't a truck. The PRIMARY method used to locate the meteor has NOTHING to do with this. It was tracked by MULTIPLE defense satellites used to track the reentry of ballistic missiles and was moving too fast to be gravitationally bound to any object in our solar system's local neighborhood. Moreover the object survived too long to be a solid condrite. This John Hopkins paper has already been 100% debunked. Lots of processes produce unusual spherical particles but not with the COMPOSITION collected by Loeb. The BEST most high tech instrument the US has put into space said: look here. He did, and found something non terrestrial... the only question that remains is, what is the LIKELIHOOD that it is it extrasolar? We have a number for that now. This means the proper way forward is to conduct a survey and look for evidence of other condrites with that composition and density. The attempts to debunk the paper are little more than a weak combination of cherry picking and disingenuous sophistry by psudointellectual pseudoscientists. You have to weigh all evidence in context. The seismic data was NOT the primary instrument used to track the object or establish the location of re entry and subsequent explosions. The track followed the object through the upper atmosphere down to a fairly low altitude before it finally vaporized and detonated. Throw away the seismic data and the claim is still strong. Object moving too fast, survived too long on re entry, and unusual dust found. Aliens? Strange extra solar condrite? Dunno.
Exactly.... Anton hasn't done his research on this one, they did prove they were looking in the area as best as could be calculated. Whether it is alien tech is a different story but at least give credit where is due
So, why is everyone who is pointing this out not providing the source of their information? I'm not disagreeing, but ffs a link or at least a clue where to look isn't too much to ask, is it? if you're going to say, "just google it", fine. I'll be the not lazy one, I guess... It still makes more sense to mention a source than to not mention it.
Mr. Petrov, I respectfully suggest you do more thorough research before posting. You’re just basically trusting the hit piece Fernando wrote in Scientific American. If you had done a little non biased research of your own you would have discovered that seismology data was not the only metric Loeb and his team used to track the meteorite trajectory. In fact it was actually data from United States military satellites that Loeb primarily used to triangulate where it landed, the seismic sensors were not needed or used to determine trajectory.
While the location issue is new, the "coal ash" idea has already been thoroughly debunked by numerous sources including the following info from the Science Times in an article by Caleb White on Nov 21/23. According to Jim Lem the head of the Department of Mining Engineering at the University of Technology in Papua New Guinea, who said, "The region where the expedition was carried, should have no coal mineralization. In addition, coal is non-magnetic and cannot be picked up by the magnetic sled that was used." Also numerous compositions in the space rock don't correspond to any natural or manufactured alloys. The meteor is low in concentrations of metals that link to iron, such as rhenium, one of the rarest elements on Earth, but high in lanthanum, uranium, and beryllium. The BeLaU pattern abundance found in the spherules of IM1 "may have potentially originated from a highly differentiated planetary magma ocean."
Yeah, first of all: It's not a scientific portal, not in the slightest, so please stop presenting it like that. Secondly, Lem is a member of Loeb's team. Don't you think there's a "lil bit" of bias there? He didn't even speak about it, it's just what Loeb claims that Lem said. Those spherules have never been available for examination by less biased labs. I don't understand the attempts at defending them.
You should explain what is coal mineralization, so everybody knows what the hell are you talking about. And say it simple so everybody understands. If i am not mistaken, coal sometimes contains iron. That could be reason why it was magnetic. Strange is you are talking about meteor, when we dont know if those samples are from meteor.
YUP! As a kid, back in the 60s, I used to find lots of tiny spherules in the soil of my back garden in London. I found them with a magnet, and they ranged in diameter from around 0.5 to 2 mm. Under a microscope they were relatively smooth, many with much smaller spherules embedded in their surface. The kid in me wanted them to be micrometeorites, but I later decided they were just a product of industrial or domestic waste ... most likely from burned coal, as ashes were often put on the garden to keep slugs away from the plants.
Rather than airborne coal particles, those "spheres" look very much like coal ash of the kind found in furnaces, boilers and domestic coal fires. I think it far more likely that after a couple of hundred years of steam power-driven ships burning huge amounts of coal, the seabed around the coastal areas of the world will be littered with particles of ash as the boilers of the steamships would have been dumped overboard. So areas suitable for anchorage in particular and on routes where traffic would generally converge would definitely show evidence of heavier coal ash particles on the seabed.
Coal contains many contaminants, particularly the coal used in shipping. Coal is often found in areas where iron ore is also present. The mixture of molten iron in boiler slag is, for people who have worked with boilers, quite common.
Loeb team was basically dragging a magnet on the bottom of the ocean to look for alien parts and exotic materials. What they overlooks is that many things like titanium, ceramics, plastics etc are not magnetic. Also, metals that have been on the ocean floor for a long time will change chemically or a volcanic vent will spit out elements that maybe mistaken for extraterrestrial . Just because they have Harvard in their name doesn’t mean they are doing good research, Harvard is under a microscope for numerous scandals lately.
Have you seen the Angry Astronaut's recent video debunking this latest 'study'? The actual data used was primarily from NASA satellites, not just seismic sensors. I think you really ought to revisit this, & perhaps reconsider your conclusion. Mitch, Australia.
So now the laws of physics have changed to allow ash to clump together into a sphere travel a moderate diistance fall down as rain, then remain as a sphere while submerged in water for several years. I call that magic... And a cool inspiration for d&d spell from the plane of ash. Thumbs up. Can I have some of whatever the scientists were drinking or smoking?
Isn't this supposed to be the point of Science?! Mockery & humiliation are so cheap - but when you actually look closely at the results, they really are just as fascinating as what they hoped to prove. And The Noisy Truck being recorded by the seismograph reminds me of the recordings made by that observatory, who thought they were picking up intergalactic pulses which turned out to be emissions from an old microwave in the staff room... - I bet there are loads of results out there like this, which are very useful and really teach some very important lessons, perhaps not the intended or hoped-for lessons, but important none the less: - proper SCIENCE!
Was NOT just a TRUCK. That theory was already disproven. Check for the real reporting by Avi Loeb and his peer approved scientific research paper on this subject.
I feel bad for Abi Loeb. He’s a very intelligent and driven guy with a lot of enthusiasm. The work and organisation he put into his expedition is well beyond anything most of us will achieve, so we have to respect him for that even if he is wrong.
This was explained by another channel. Anton, do more research on this one, sir. That wasn't the only data used, AND only 1 seismic station isn't enough to triangulate...as mentioned by Avi Loeb. Cmon, if you think avi would get that much funding based on 1 reading.
I've been following Loeb's initiative for a while. At no point has it held any water whatsoever besides your point. Do not attribute his ability to grift the curious as an actual search for data.
You find such spherules from all sorts of burning and metal smelting. I've formed rather large ones from melting copper wires, up to the size of grapes with aluminum. Surface tension and static tend to make things round when the conditions are right.
When I was a kid I threw a big handful of bb's I found in my backpack off the Catalina Island ferry on the California side of the Mariana Trench. If this is my fault I apologize. 🙏🏽
I heard Richard C. Hoagland on Coast to Coast AM last night accusing Avi Loeb of plagiarism, and that Richard was the first to publish a lot of Avi's ideas. Think about that. Send your kids to Harvard😂
The fact that there was significant atmospheric nuclear weapons testing in the South Pacific , Indian Ocean , and Central Australia , must raise doubts about any exotic materials found in the area.
Not to mention it could be extra terrestrial in nature but what of it a lot of the mass of the earth is. Just because dust from another system lands here it doesn't predicate it being sent by intelligence
@@leonmusk1040 leon i think with billions of years of cosmic dust landing on us from other galaxys, going outside and just picking up some sand would have about the same chance as finding dust in the ocean. probably a better chance due to ocean currents grinding that dust to powder. lol
Actually there is a lot of manganese that makes waxy balls that preferentially pick up other metals and forms nodules these are what they're trying to mine it separates itself so when mined it is extremely ore rich making it much less expensive to process when landed. @@cardmansales9376
He’s just more open to the possibility, therefore he’s attacked. Did the coal ash guy and this truck guy have direct access to Loeb and his team’s materials and research? Did they analyze the materials themselves? No, they’re speculating too.
@@dunnagan5 no, he isn’t attacked for being open to the idea. a lot of people and organizations with far more credibility than loeb are open to the idea. he’s attacked for being stubborn, unscientific, defensive, and ironically, entirely close-minded to anyone that stands in opposition to his THEORIES (which is literally the foundation of science).
@@dunnagan5 you’re severely uninformed if you think loeb’s “work” (speculations) aren’t peer reviewed. the thing is, most of his “work” isn’t adequate for peer review, it’s just idle speculation.
Well, apparently there were multiple explosions and, if you look at the Figure 7. from the cited study, Loeb's location is still on the meteor trajectory and directly at one location reported by CNEOS (which could be the location of one explosion) , so it's still possible that the spherules collected did come from the 2014 meteor. It's easy to mock others for their bias or beliefs, and, in my opinion Avi is biased (which does NOT imply he's wrong), but Anton here is pretty much biased himself. Even if it turns out to be coal ash it could be alien coal ash. A thorough and non-biased study should be done to determine what kinds of coal ash are produced terrestrially and what kind of isotopes they contain. This could be relatively confidently ruled out or confirmed as alien if someone would do a SERIOUS study, but if no one takes the guy seriously and is only trying to find ways to mock him, no one will do a serious study. That, in my opinion, is pathetic, not Avi Loeb.
The guys actually doing good science and pushing the boundaries always get an entire crowd of people fighting them tooth and nail. "100 authors prove Einstein wrong" "if they were right, it would only take one." I wanna see the SEM analysis on these. The establishment has been sending people barking up empty trees since string theory.
Furthermore, if people like Anton would care for truth they would check out the response of A. Loeb. In it, he says that US DoD in its response to NASA confirmed with 99.999% confidence that this is an interstellar object (and he provides evidence for this). Loeb also says that the location was not determined using seismic data analyzed in this study (which, btw, has not been peer-reviewed yet) and has pointed out the flaws in it. I recommend checking out the A. Loeb response, it can be found on his website on medium.
He didn't. There were multiple military satellites with a visual on that impactor. Scientists working independently of Loeb triangulated its position and confirmed that it had to come from outside the solar system. Seismic data never came into the equation. Fernando is attacking Loeb on this because it's the only thing he has to attack him on.
I thought at first it was a different spheroid that is often found scattered on the ocean floor but these ones are a bit bigger than those Avi found and are usually made of iron and some rarer metals. I haven't seen anyone definitively come to a conclusion how they are form but apparently there's so many that there are companies considering harvesting them so idk
It feels like it should be "straightforward" (for people with the skills and gadgets) to establish whether or not the same spherules appear "all over the place" (including not on the bottom of the ocean). If they don't, it feels like there is more going on here than a funny headline (albeit I would hesitate to go right to little green men lol).
It is, and Loeb did all that work in his original study. Did you notice coal ash wasn't mentioned in this video like it was in the last one? You might be seeing the articles, but not the retractions. Loeb refuted this entire video before Anton sat down to shoot it.
Hey Anton, Been following you for years now. You my friend are a wonderful person as well! I really appreciate your unbiased and informative videos. I can trust that you will give me the facts and allow me to draw my own conclusions. I appreciate that. You're doing great man! I'd like to share my condolences on the hardships you have faced. Even though we don't actually know each other, your face and calm nature help ease my day and mind, and I get to learn something interesting! You are a beacon of light in a lone and desolate world. You help me keep my faith in humanity. Keep up the great work! If you ever find yourself in Detroit Michigan, please give me the honor of buying you a beer.
It’s even more important for Loeb to not force connections to extra terrestrials because he’s looking for it. That’s the difference with science, it’s not a belief system it’s evidence based. Let the evidence lead.
@@stephensmith7995 Religion is dogmatic -- questions are not allowed, as the material is considered sacrosanct, the words of an infallible deity who is never to be questioned, only obeyed. Science is corrective -- mistakes are anticipated, since we know that we don't know or understand everything. So it is allowed -- and expected -- to change and evolve as more questions are asked, more data is received, and a better understanding is developed.
@@Dooguk Science is proven wrong all the time since it's conception trial & error failures &:triumphs Einstein Ignaz Ludwig Boltzmann & many others scientists too once thought to be quacks & gawked at disregarded
@@Dooguk Science is proven wrong all the time it's those who risk thinking outside the box going against the mainstream narrative science is trial &: error failure & Triumph, many great Scientist were gawked at and disregarded since its conception scientists such as Einstein Boltzmann Semmelweis Zweig who went against the mainstream narrative of the times, Galilei was persecuted
I thought just the same, the practice of the study is something wrong but the conclusion is astonishing. Who would think the polution would accrete there? This is a very very important issue. We are changing the nature, alterimg its natural course and we have no idea what’s happening due to those interventions.
The people claiming coal ash have had zero access to the data on the spherules. Their claims are opinions not scientific! Us space force tracked the object entering the atmosphere on radar. That's where the original location date came from. Shame on you Anton! Do some research!
@@danij5055 no he's stating that if someone keeps seeking the truth from people who choose make-believe, then the actual truth will never be found? Go ask an Egyptologist how and why the pyramids were built and they will give you a straight faced answer; but do you believe them? I sure as hell don't no matter how much of an expert they think they are? They are just spruking their theoretical BS to keep their names embedded into the history books. Anybody who dares to challenge their theories are almost treated like they are the devil that should be burnt at the stake? But all that does is prove to the rest of the sane world, that these people who think they are experts and merely lunatics not worthy of an ear to listen to!
Not so. Loeb proved chemistry did not match coal ash. Also Loeb did comparative samples that showed the spherules were localized. I have studied micrometeoroids - even collected them from the atmosphere. It is easy to tell the difference between them and furnace products.
Refreshing & interesting perspective on Avi Loeb's work! ✌️ At least you understand principles supporting scientific discovery & retaining a skeptical but open mind. My time was better spent watching this video than reading anything the New York Times puts out...
I don't know much about this guy, but I find it odd that he and his team wouldn't have attempted to use all data sources to come up with their proposed expedition location.
They did, as their paper suggests, verify the target location from military satellite data, CNEOS data, and AU.MANU data. The error ellipsis determined by the public infrared data is much larger than what they found and the relevance of AU.MANU data appears to only be ancillary in nature.
"Ive not seen this before" ..... ALIENS!! "I dont know what this is" ..... ALIENS!! "I only put my keys here a minute ago and now i cant find them" .... ALIENS!! Thank you for sanity Anton, stay wonderful!
Bit disappointed in this video, I know that Avi has been extremely critical of this study and it would have been fair to include what he has said in response. I've been watching this channel for years and I'm now a little concerned regarding what else has been omitted in other videos.
He's generally pretty fair with cutting-edge stuff as its generally undisputed (yet). Just be wary of anything controversial he seems to be attempting to assuage you about.
@@Shadare I'm pretty much immune to being assuaged of anything as I'm quite long in the tooth, I just like to be presented with the full range of the facts and opinions. Science is not my field but in the humanities it's pretty standard academic practice to include any rebuttal the original author has offered in response to criticism, which is missing from this piece.
@@Sulurianxx I'm not trying to totally trash the dude but his degree is in teaching. The fact that he communicates as much nuance as he does is a plus for me. Most educators just quote abstracts.
You said the truck readings "Led researchers to look for a meteor in the completely wrong location" yet their "completely wrong location" was only 106 miles off? That sounds wrong. That means a random truck vibration happened to pinpoint a meteor landing within 106 miles accuracy?!
The site was not actually located from the seismic data but from military satellites. This is why some people think this debunking is rather rubbish. Not to say that Loeb is right but this does not seem to prove him wrong either.
more likely looking for new sources of manganese spherules but trying to find a non commercial guise to get first orbit funding. I mean he was jumping up and down about the stupid interstellar rock being a solar sail ffs when the radio imagery could quite plainly see it was a regular rock long yes but rock also and its mass changing from the deep dark to a slingshot around the sun is hardly a surprise anything lose would have found its own exit path and anything cryo's gunna melt creating a thrust force pretty sure he'd see a photo of a hubcap and yell aliens for more money pmsl.
Rather recently there was a cool discovery. Someone took the debris out of rain gutters from appropriate (large, clean) roofs and sorted it under the microscope, sorting out anything that is known to originate from our planet. Aaaand yep, he found tiny spherical meteorites of all varieties. It turns out you can basically find them everywhere, but its much easier when you look in places where they accumulate. Your explanation with the coal soot or mining debris seems less likely, and unnecessary to me. Micrometeorites or small pieces of larger meteorites just melt into spheres, which when they are small enough can slow down and cool quickly and fall down peacefully the rest of the way. Tiny spherical objects from space are not rare and not special. If you can show that your tiny sphere is not from earth but also not a meteorite but somehow technological, may i suggest that the same processes should happen also to re-entering space debris? I found a great video about it: "Tiny meteorites are everywhere. Here’s how to find them."
@@nandersoulif something appears every thousand years, considering how recent technology has gotten to a point we can detect things like that, it will appear to be, "never before seen," to us, but in time relative to the universe, this will be an overwhelmedly common phenomenon. Bottom line, the universe is ENORMOUS and old compared to us tiny, very short living humans
One day SETI will find an undeniable radio signal and skeptics will run head first into a wall trying to figure out how it could be possible. They just cant wrap their heads around the possibilities.
Whether something comes from earth or not, can be easily verified: Any decent mass spectromter is enough to determine isotope ratios of the composing elements. By this mean, ancient Egyptian metorite-knifes could by investigated.
@@RuneRelic Not exactly. Our whole solar system comes from a supernova and all heavier elements have been created by a quite fierce and messy process termed nucleosynthesis. Therefore not all isotopic ratios are equal within the solar system and we can check, whether something originates from earth, Oort's cloud or another planet (e.g. Mars).
They didn't use the seismic data to locate where the meteor fell. Shame on you, Anton! Read the paper. Look at the composition of the spherules and tell us where they came from.
There have been several papers that tried to dispute his findings. The people writing these papers had zero access to his data. They are basing their papers on theories well he is basing his on evidence.
They did pick up a truck but you are wrong about the location, they have published the other seismometer data and the US military helped them pinpoint the location using satelite data..... this has largely been glossed over as the news only covered the truck story and neglected to mention the other seismometers in use all over the world and other tracking methods. I would hope that you did more research on something before just coming to a conclusion being such a smart person. Whether it is a sign of alien life is a different story but the location was as good as it gets with our current technology.
This has already been covered, and these new debunkers have already been debunked. It's understandable how they came to their wrong conclusions though, so no egg on their face this time.
Randall Carlson has some vids explaining that micro spherules can be an impact proxy. Apparently the Tunguska sky-burst impact event in the early 1900s, has a layer of these micro spherules imbedded in the trees and soil correlated with that time. He explains that the process of rapidly superheating this matter, then cooling it rapidly creates this effect, while it rains back down on the surface. I am excited to hear about this subject and would love to hear more!
Is he the same guy that thinks some super advanced ancient civilization ruled the Earth before the Ice Age? Or am I confusing the name with someone else?
@@A.T.-89 I didn’t realize he described himself as a renegade scholar. But, he was a physician and scientist, so how does he correlate to what is being discussed?
@@MetastaticMaladiesAre you just pretending that you don't know what point is being made here, or are you really incapable of connecting two dots with a line? Ignaz Semmelweis is an example of someone who fits the description of a "renegade scholar", as someone who was shunned and ridiculed by the scientific community of his time, fought against its establishment and was proven correct in the end. It doesn't matter what he called himself, for all we know he could've used that moniker in private, or something even more cheesy, but that's beside the point. The point is that the author of the comment I was replying to deals in absolutes, saying that ANYONE who describes themselves as a "renegade scholar" should be ignored. This obviously implies that the author is going to ignore scientists who have the courage to go against the grain and challenge established views, regardless of the substance of their arguments, based on some completely irrelevant quirk that they have, e.g. the habit of using a cheesy nickname. The specificity of the quirk, nickname, doesn't matter at all. Now, the fact that you fired up, took it literally and went "nooo Semmelweis didn't call himself renegade scholar!!!" is kind of hilarious, really. I bet when you hear a sentence like "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times", you probably cry "hey make up your mind!", do you?
What about the strange chemistry of the metallic balls? They contain unusual elements that are non-terrestrial in origin? How did those balls travel into the depths of the oceans and not dissolve already? Especially considering their already small size? This explanation doesn't consider any of that? Yes I agree with this truck interference but that shouldn't dismiss the chemical composition of the discovered metallic balls? This should highlight that we are maybe looking at something used back in ancient times, possibly ball-bearings from sophisticated machinery?
@@vivisects-and-regicide omfg dude this is the most hilarious comment I've read in a long while! Oh and such a controversial argument to propose! Heck all I can say is I like supercharged 2 strokes. I'm not waving any flag unless it's white
@@ledarbyromeo9667 I thought a little more of Anton to get tired up in all this though? But I suppose I thought I higher of Kayley big boobs to do the exact same thing, but she did
A person who thinks peanut butter cures cancer, also, 'thinks outside the box'. It's just a thought terminating cliché, devoid of meaning. Like 'woke'.
What? Why would they wait for his response, it's not needed. Those spherules need to be released to other labs, nobody should care what he says otherwise.
Note something new: the bots with lurid profile images, all joined TH-cam with the last hour and made a single comment ever. I wonder what is the point of this campaign.
Please for the love of God look at Avi's response to this. He didn't use the seismic data to pinpoint the location he used NASA provided, extremely accurate, light flash data when the meteor entered the atmosphere and again when it broke up lower in our atmosphere. This article is a poor attempt at a hit piece and you're doing a disservice to science by circulating it.
The NYT article was less than helpful, it all seems to have created a huge chilling effect, just when research was starting to get going, emerging from the "crackpot" closet, it's getting shoved back inside. Of course, many people won't look at the data, most of it is straight to comments stuff.
Avi loeb has the alien guy label now because of Oumuamua. You should read his paper addressing those theories. Wait until he has a chance to speak for himself. He is the cream of the crop period.
There's always so much derision about the subject of aliens that it almost seems counter productive. Although Avi has kinda spiraled off into Art Bell land now, and a few tiny balls of metal from the ocean floor doesn't prove anything at all.
at this point, discussion about aliens has become relatively accepted. that general derision on the topic of aliens that you speak of is largely a result of loeb himself.
The search area was based on the satellite data, and the seismic data was used only to increase accuracy. Besides, they did not find interesting spherules in the control areas. It's kinda funny that people who think Loeb is "controversial" always seem to cherry pick their data or arguments to make him look bad.
I thought the impact site was primarily determined by military satellites from the meteor flash, trajectory, etc. The entry velocity was also calculated with the same system which indicated an interstellar origin. I forget the details.
We wouldn't get many details, just a location.
It is a US government satellite system that looks at reentry of objects like ICBMs. It has known issues and is apparently very poorly calibrated outside of the velocity range of those objects it is looking for. When the data set is compared with publicly available data sets from publicly known instruments and you find events in both datasets, all of the higher velocity numbers are all over the map. It's only the lower velocity objects that are accurate
@personzorz cuz they don't care if they need to intercept an ICBM headed to Cincinnati vs one headed to Columbus. They just get a rough "gist" of it and hit the StarWars button, right?
@@Shadare cuz by the time you are reentering you are less than a minute from target and very close, and cuz an instrument built and carefully calibrated for velocities between 6 and 8 km/s which is the maximum velocity an ICBM can have has no reason to also work well when looking at 20-30 km/s objects with much more energetic entries
Yes it was. The seismic information wasn't used at all because it wasnt of any quality.
But what if an alien were DRIVING the truck? Check and mate.
Are you Heckle Fish?😅😅😅😅
Why have the equipment next to a road? Why hasn't this happened before?
Yeah they came here making a pit stop to refuel on Mountain Dew.
If you zoom in real close you can tell that's exactly what it is
driving a coal truck..........
Anton why don’t you include Avi Loebs response!!! Why sir please explain!!!
Avi Loeb’s response is titled: “A Meteor is a Truck, According to The NY Times” where he addresses all points.
If this is same paper as discussed by AngryAstronaut video, then i dont find that author very respectable since he writes lots of personal insults towards Avi Loeb instead of just/seriously falsify Avi Loeb paper!
Most serious scientists do not have the luxury of time to spend endlessly debunking obvious quackery. Sometimes you just have to laugh and carry on with what you were doing. Otherwise no one would ever get anywhere.
After all think of how stupid you think the average person is and realise they are average half are even stupider than that. After that realise those who make things happen are less than 1 percent of the population trying to drag all those morons along it's tiring :)@@andrewsarchus6036
@@andrewsarchus6036 ah yes, nothing more scientific than shitting on your peers because you don't like the work they're doing.
@@BattousaiHBr Ah yes, nothing more scientific than belonging to a cult pushing pseudoscientific woo and demanding everyone accepts it sans evidence.
Everything u know was obvious quackery at one point...smh..lol...bet you'd say that about different thoughts on the big bang...which has scientifically been disproven...feel bad for people like you. So brainwashed
Ah, the old "disguise the alien spacecraft as a truck full of ball bearings" trick. Oldie but a goodie.
😂
Well, clearly they weren't fooled at all. They were definitely looking for a Mexican truck. What did you think they meant when they said they were looking for aliens?
Pssst, let them believe it was a truck. The less they know, the better
They can't keep getting away with it!
"Ah, so you are also familiar with the falling to the floor trick!" -Inspector Clouseau
"He's been shot dead, you idiot!" - Charles Litton, the Phantom
They look like something I've seen in samples of contaminants from mills. They were magnetic, being largely made of iron. We always attributed them as leftovers from spark producing operations like welding and grinding. They tended to be hollow too.
Absolutely with you on this. I was on site at an early industrial complex in the English Midlands and I picked up (still have it more than 30 years later) this shiny hollow nodule of pure black from a stream less, than an inch in diameter. I always presumed it was a bit of slag from the furnaces, which were some distance uphill. Then last year I heard of spherules, which I'm not totally discounting, but my money is still on it being slag; just unusual enough to hang on to.
Personally not seen anything like this from grinding, but certainly welding. I'm no sailor but I'd guess SMAW would have been used for a long time to do repairs on board. Manually feeding the stick while rolling with the waves would be very difficult and maybe the best way to cope would be to 'over feed' a bit to prevent losing the arc. That would increase the number of these little nuggets rolling away from the slag..... of course that's just guesswork really.
That moment when your truck is so badass that scientists go looking for aliens in the middle of the ocean whenever you drive by... 🤣
The location was not determined entirely by seismic data. How could they possibly use data from one seismic sensor? They didn’t, they used several sources of data. Not purely seismic data. The coal ash explanation had been addressed. The spherules may not be from a non human source but none of this is conclusive evidence either way…
They are just throwing darts at a board to try to explain this away at this point. This explanation to debunk this is so thin. There has got to be something better they can come up with
I was starting to hope he wasn't going to cover this one, but I guess the greed got the better of him.
Didn't watch the full video, did you?
Got a link?
The video doesn't claim to have a definitive conclusion.
Tons of iron meteorites burn up in our atmosphere. Much of this reaches the ground in the form of microscopic spheres. I collect them from the rain downspouts of large, flat topped buildings with magnets when it rains.
They are quite beautiful.
So microspherules are a byproduct of a meteorite? Then larger spherules like the ones found might be consistent with meteorite debris. Do coal mines produce waste in the form of spherules? If so, how did coal mine waste get to that location? Is it likely that the incorrect data from a truck detected by the sensor led to the exact location of a dump of coal mine waste? This explanation has a lot of strange holes in it….
How do you know that the debri on your magnet came from meteorites? I think it's super interesting
@@halfstep44Using a magnet is a bit like cheating. The way the scientist who discovered it did it, is to scoop up that stuff from rain gutters from appropriate large roofs, and sort it by hand under a microscope. Remove everything of known, identifiable earthly origin and you get these spheres, some are from different kinds of rock, some are metal, and lab tests confirm that these are indeed meteorites, matching what we know about large meteorites. They have been there forever, but noone looked.
Too bad they were really dust from a coal burning power plant in China all this time 😂
@_Rachel_Hiller_ The spherules are very small, once in the atmosphere they can potentially be carried thousands of miles downwind.
I'm disappointed that Anton didn't research this more before he piled on with the anti Avi Loeb sentiment.
Avi has addressed these latest findings.
A lot of these media people, and particularly one man I won't mention, seem to have a big problem with Avi "wasting" his time on things that they are uncomfortable with.
Science should not be afraid of or closed off from anything. Let the data steer where you go.
And... for the millionth time, these spherules are NOT fly ash.
Why no mention of the military tracking of the object?
Seems like an important piece of information.
The fact that the satellite was military has little to do with anything it's just one of the few looking in at the right angle science looks outwards coms downward and military at the horizon looking for launch plumes not re-entry to late to solve for intercept on downward part of a warheads run as they break into nine nukes and fifteen decoys before re-entry
That data doesn't fit this narrative, so it gets disregarded. Don't you know how science works?
Those debunking attempts are getting ridiculous now. Did that "magic truck" transport the unusual mix of Beryllium, Lanthanum and Uranium measured in the spherules too?
There does seem to be a fair bit of cherry picking and data ignoring going on here. I await Loeb's reply to all this with some interest. It might not be gentle...
@VultureGROUP-tx8yt He already replied in his "medium" space 3/11 2024. The article "Scientific Misinformation", Mar 11, 2024
_"The meteor’s fireball was localized on January 8, 2014 by satellites of the Department of Defense (DoD), not by the public seismometer data analyzed by Ben Fernando. The expedition I led in June 2023 surveyed the DoD localization box which measured 11.12 kilometers (7 miles) on a side. We criss-crossed 26 times in a region of 10-20 kilometers around the DoD box center."_
Avi Loeb has already sent an email to the rag that printed this article explaining that his team used the information from classified military satellites and data from NASA. The Space Force data claimed an accuracy of 99.97% for the objects speed, and final location of the debris. He also stated that the data from a single seismograph could not give a location for anything, so it was not used.
The paper concerned has not printed his response. Neither has the seismologist who claimed that Loebs team used a single seismograph to pinpoint the location of an INTERSTELLAR object in the OCEAN! 😂
This is BS..if you dig into the matter, avi was using multiple sensors from satellites provided by the Dept of Defense showing the light cones of the object breaking apart as well as seismic sensors..also failed to mention how this article completely left this out as well as the gross tone of the piece .i expected better of you Anton
I am not a fan of either side of the Loeb argument, but I want to hear good scientific discussion on the merits of flaws his papers. It seems these days that any article or paper headline is enough to dismiss what he has postulated. In my view this is a disservice to science, much as it would be do dismiss someone's math in the late 19th century, just because their equations started turning up infinity.
So you lost me at "they used Google maps". It seems that as long as an article is trying to shoot down scientific papers about the possibility of Extraterrestrial Intelligence, any data or argumnet will be accepted, no matter the lack of pier review or scrutiny.
This is one of the most important scientific questions of our time. It would be good to see scientists applying the same rigour and methodology on both sides of the question. So I would like to hear more detail about the validity of the analysis both for and against. E.g. do these spherules contain the radioisotope signatures that indicate they are a by-product of smelting activity that happened on earth after the first open air atomic tests? This would be a good starting point to debate such argument rather than "hey smelting produces metallic spherules, so nothing to see here."
The thing is, the guy jumps to outrageous conclusions based on the most cursory of findings. There was no spectroscopic analysis, no isotopic mass ratios, NOTHING to indicate these spheres came from outside the Solar System, much less Earth!
He's basically just another "Ancient Aliens Guy".
Is it REALLY a disservice?
Just like all of your credibility went out the window with your spelling errors that you chose to enforce instead of trusting spellcheck, their inability to perform their due diligence stands out.
@@francislutz8027 Thank you for responding to my comment with reasoned argumentation and consideration. I will make a note to use a spell checker next time.
I'd recommend looking at what Loeb actually says about it. His actual claims are far less spectacular than the mainstream quacks would have you believe. Not only do the "BeLaU" samples lack nuclear contamination, but the iron isotope ratios are unlike any sample that's ever been examined. That alone should have scientists more interested than they are. Too many PHDs fighting over too few grants to allow extremely compelling research like this to be taken seriously. Lucky for him, he has all the funding he'll ever need privately. People constantly stay mad about the fact that they can't gatekeep this guy.
I found Avi Loeb always wants people to keep an open mind when it comes to his conclusions, but when his conclusions are contradicted by other research, he is less open-minded. And this shows another case of him being biased towards a result that suites his conclusions without doing a lot of research into possible contradicting conclusions. Something that should be done if you want to substantiate such controversial claimes.
The science community is doing the same thing in the opposite way...
Back in the day, we were more straightforward: He's a crank.
Isnotreal scientist.
He will get his aliens by 2027
But he is successful in grabbing the attention he desires
Seriously folks, which seismic station of any statue wouldn't filter out trucks? They probably pass by every day, maybe every hour. All their data would be completely useless.
I thought it had been known for decades that the deep oceans have fields of metallic nodules. Companies are just figuring out how to mine them at depth.
The fly in the ointment of that sort of mining is that any mining will involve metal machinery. If more metal is used to recover such extreme resources than can be recovered then that resource will always remain a resource and will never be upgraded to "reserve". The difference is the total known to exist as in "resource" and the total that can be extracted as in "reserve".. All the gold in the ocean is a vast resource but is not, and probably never will be, a recoverable reserve of gold.
We even built the Glomar Explorer to go look for them, silly buggers found a sunken Soviet submarine instead.
There can’t possibly be enough concentrated in a given area to make the juice worth the squeeze. Picking out little collections of metals, however precious, in square mile after square mile in the vast ocean would have hardly any redeeming value
yeah nature mines them for you though hence nodules the roll around and gather more metallic compounds as they go takes thousands of years to form them so its a one hit wonder havest.
@@coweatsman
it's more a matter of what its concentrating moving things in water is cheap and floor harvest is easy so won't take to many more ev's untill we scrape the ocean clean need the manganese for batteries :)
@@ryanrobin12
I appreciate Loeb's enthusiasm to legitimize the search for aliens from an actual scientific perspective, but he had cried wolf too many times awhile ago. You can't just argue that everything weird IS aliens.
right. it was admirable briefly. at this point, it’s crossed over to being extremely counterproductive in legitimizing the discussion.
Avi Loeb is weird, perhaps he's the alien.
Never hear him said anything is for sure aliens, just that we should be closer studying these objects that come from outside our solar system, and that we need to keep an open mind to all possibilities
I believe the location of the ocean impact was determined by NASA and JPL, based on satellite data. Loeb has replied to this new paper. Shouldn't his reply be included in your analyzes?
No, it wasn't a truck. The PRIMARY method used to locate the meteor has NOTHING to do with this. It was tracked by MULTIPLE defense satellites used to track the reentry of ballistic missiles and was moving too fast to be gravitationally bound to any object in our solar system's local neighborhood. Moreover the object survived too long to be a solid condrite. This John Hopkins paper has already been 100% debunked. Lots of processes produce unusual spherical particles but not with the COMPOSITION collected by Loeb. The BEST most high tech instrument the US has put into space said: look here. He did, and found something non terrestrial... the only question that remains is, what is the LIKELIHOOD that it is it extrasolar? We have a number for that now. This means the proper way forward is to conduct a survey and look for evidence of other condrites with that composition and density. The attempts to debunk the paper are little more than a weak combination of cherry picking and disingenuous sophistry by psudointellectual pseudoscientists. You have to weigh all evidence in context. The seismic data was NOT the primary instrument used to track the object or establish the location of re entry and subsequent explosions. The track followed the object through the upper atmosphere down to a fairly low altitude before it finally vaporized and detonated. Throw away the seismic data and the claim is still strong. Object moving too fast, survived too long on re entry, and unusual dust found. Aliens? Strange extra solar condrite? Dunno.
Aliens are here. We ve seen their vessels 19x and they shoot at each other. Loebs boat trip is a coverup for a navy retrieval operation.
Thank you... I would have said it myself but I'm not smart enough 😅
So everything is based on "secret military technology" which of course can't be verified. Right.
Exactly.... Anton hasn't done his research on this one, they did prove they were looking in the area as best as could be calculated. Whether it is alien tech is a different story but at least give credit where is due
So, why is everyone who is pointing this out not providing the source of their information? I'm not disagreeing, but ffs a link or at least a clue where to look isn't too much to ask, is it? if you're going to say, "just google it", fine. I'll be the not lazy one, I guess... It still makes more sense to mention a source than to not mention it.
Mr. Petrov, I respectfully suggest you do more thorough research before posting. You’re just basically trusting the hit piece Fernando wrote in Scientific American. If you had done a little non biased research of your own you would have discovered that seismology data was not the only metric Loeb and his team used to track the meteorite trajectory. In fact it was actually data from United States military satellites that Loeb primarily used to triangulate where it landed, the seismic sensors were not needed or used to determine trajectory.
While the location issue is new, the "coal ash" idea has already been thoroughly debunked by numerous sources including the following info from the Science Times in an article by Caleb White on Nov 21/23. According to Jim Lem the head of the Department of Mining Engineering at the University of Technology in Papua New Guinea, who said, "The region where the expedition was carried, should have no coal mineralization. In addition, coal is non-magnetic and cannot be picked up by the magnetic sled that was used." Also numerous compositions in the space rock don't correspond to any natural or manufactured alloys. The meteor is low in concentrations of metals that link to iron, such as rhenium, one of the rarest elements on Earth, but high in lanthanum, uranium, and beryllium. The BeLaU pattern abundance found in the spherules of IM1 "may have potentially originated from a highly differentiated planetary magma ocean."
Yeah, first of all: It's not a scientific portal, not in the slightest, so please stop presenting it like that.
Secondly, Lem is a member of Loeb's team. Don't you think there's a "lil bit" of bias there? He didn't even speak about it, it's just what Loeb claims that Lem said.
Those spherules have never been available for examination by less biased labs. I don't understand the attempts at defending them.
You should explain what is coal mineralization, so everybody knows what the hell are you talking about. And say it simple so everybody understands. If i am not mistaken, coal sometimes contains iron. That could be reason why it was magnetic. Strange is you are talking about meteor, when we dont know if those samples are from meteor.
YUP! As a kid, back in the 60s, I used to find lots of tiny spherules in the soil of my back garden in London. I found them with a magnet, and they ranged in diameter from around 0.5 to 2 mm. Under a microscope they were relatively smooth, many with much smaller spherules embedded in their surface. The kid in me wanted them to be micrometeorites, but I later decided they were just a product of industrial or domestic waste ... most likely from burned coal, as ashes were often put on the garden to keep slugs away from the plants.
Rather than airborne coal particles, those "spheres" look very much like coal ash of the kind found in furnaces, boilers and domestic coal fires. I think it far more likely that after a couple of hundred years of steam power-driven ships burning huge amounts of coal, the seabed around the coastal areas of the world will be littered with particles of ash as the boilers of the steamships would have been dumped overboard. So areas suitable for anchorage in particular and on routes where traffic would generally converge would definitely show evidence of heavier coal ash particles on the seabed.
Coal ash isn't magnetic!
@suesun7072 Coal ash does contain iron.
Coal contains many contaminants, particularly the coal used in shipping. Coal is often found in areas where iron ore is also present. The mixture of molten iron in boiler slag is, for people who have worked with boilers, quite common.
@@suesun7072 It often is because iron is mixed within it as others have pointed out.
Iron world have rusted into nothing between steam engine peak usage and now? You're argument is null
Loeb team was basically dragging a magnet on the bottom of the ocean to look for alien parts and exotic materials.
What they overlooks is that many things like titanium, ceramics, plastics etc are not magnetic.
Also, metals that have been on the ocean floor for a long time will change chemically or a volcanic vent will spit out elements that maybe mistaken for extraterrestrial .
Just because they have Harvard in their name doesn’t mean they are doing good research,
Harvard is under a microscope for numerous scandals lately.
Have you seen the Angry Astronaut's recent video debunking this latest 'study'? The actual data used was primarily from NASA satellites, not just seismic sensors. I think you really ought to revisit this, & perhaps reconsider your conclusion. Mitch, Australia.
So now the laws of physics have changed to allow ash to clump together into a sphere travel a moderate diistance fall down as rain, then remain as a sphere while submerged in water for several years. I call that magic... And a cool inspiration for d&d spell from the plane of ash. Thumbs up. Can I have some of whatever the scientists were drinking or smoking?
The one rule of debunking you must follow -you can't use dishonest arguments and call it evidence that somebody else is dishonest.
Isn't this supposed to be the point of Science?! Mockery & humiliation are so cheap - but when you actually look closely at the results, they really are just as fascinating as what they hoped to prove. And The Noisy Truck being recorded by the seismograph reminds me of the recordings made by that observatory, who thought they were picking up intergalactic pulses which turned out to be emissions from an old microwave in the staff room... - I bet there are loads of results out there like this, which are very useful and really teach some very important lessons, perhaps not the intended or hoped-for lessons, but important none the less: - proper SCIENCE!
@@foxinsocks7531 you'd normally think that, right? but i suspect avi has some contacts that makes him confident this is well worth pursuing.
why are there no other truck signals? Did only one truck ever drive on that road?
Angry astronaut podcast had a interesting take on this. The NY times report on this was pretty shoty.
Was NOT just a TRUCK. That theory was already disproven. Check for the real reporting by Avi Loeb and his peer approved scientific research paper on this subject.
That's an M. Night Shyamalan twist right there. We were the aliens the whole time!
Take me to your leader! (Biden pokes his head in) Ehhhh.... never mind.
@@Alondro77 What's wrong, Jack? Don't you want some ice cream, man?
well, we were built and designed by enki and enlil
I feel bad for Abi Loeb. He’s a very intelligent and driven guy with a lot of enthusiasm. The work and organisation he put into his expedition is well beyond anything most of us will achieve, so we have to respect him for that even if he is wrong.
This was explained by another channel. Anton, do more research on this one, sir. That wasn't the only data used, AND only 1 seismic station isn't enough to triangulate...as mentioned by Avi Loeb. Cmon, if you think avi would get that much funding based on 1 reading.
I've been following Loeb's initiative for a while. At no point has it held any water whatsoever besides your point. Do not attribute his ability to grift the curious as an actual search for data.
@null2470 I think avi is doing a good job. He's at least trying to find exotic objects. What's the grift? I film uap, so I know its real.
You find such spherules from all sorts of burning and metal smelting. I've formed rather large ones from melting copper wires, up to the size of grapes with aluminum.
Surface tension and static tend to make things round when the conditions are right.
with the rather high number of shipping containers lost in the ocean every year, Occam says any sphere is probably a ball bearing
At the sizes they are finding them, to find a ball bearing that size would be stronger evidence of alien tech than he is ACTUALLY claiming.
And who makes ball bearings out of beryllium, lanthanum, and uranium?
When I was a kid I threw a big handful of bb's I found in my backpack off the Catalina Island ferry on the California side of the Mariana Trench.
If this is my fault I apologize. 🙏🏽
@@ThisHandleIsNotAvailable.😂😂😂 Appreciate the honesty
I heard Richard C. Hoagland on Coast to Coast AM last night accusing Avi Loeb of plagiarism, and that Richard was the first to publish a lot of Avi's ideas. Think about that. Send your kids to Harvard😂
The fact that there was significant atmospheric nuclear weapons testing in the South Pacific , Indian Ocean , and Central Australia , must raise doubts about any exotic materials found in the area.
Not to mention it could be extra terrestrial in nature but what of it a lot of the mass of the earth is. Just because dust from another system lands here it doesn't predicate it being sent by intelligence
good point i didnt even consider that lol
@@leonmusk1040 leon i think with billions of years of cosmic dust landing on us from other galaxys, going outside and just picking up some sand would have about the same chance as finding dust in the ocean. probably a better chance due to ocean currents grinding that dust to powder. lol
Actually there is a lot of manganese that makes waxy balls that preferentially pick up other metals and forms nodules these are what they're trying to mine it separates itself so when mined it is extremely ore rich making it much less expensive to process when landed.
@@cardmansales9376
in their paper they had a control pass nearby which didn't have these spherules.
your hypothesis is technically still possible, albeit unlikely.
I like Angry Astronaut’s take on this story. The NY Times was incredibly dismissive, perpetuating the stigma.
if loeb gave a damn about SETI-related topics, he would stop constantly producing fodder for derisive skeptics to easily pick apart.
He’s just more open to the possibility, therefore he’s attacked. Did the coal ash guy and this truck guy have direct access to Loeb and his team’s materials and research? Did they analyze the materials themselves? No, they’re speculating too.
@@dunnagan5 no, he isn’t attacked for being open to the idea. a lot of people and organizations with far more credibility than loeb are open to the idea. he’s attacked for being stubborn, unscientific, defensive, and ironically, entirely close-minded to anyone that stands in opposition to his THEORIES (which is literally the foundation of science).
Well other scientists need to do actual peer review instead of dismissing it outright and guessing.
@@dunnagan5 you’re severely uninformed if you think loeb’s “work” (speculations) aren’t peer reviewed. the thing is, most of his “work” isn’t adequate for peer review, it’s just idle speculation.
So, they have a sensor set up for many years, and during THIS instance only they realize the location near a road is a huge problem?
Well, apparently there were multiple explosions and, if you look at the Figure 7. from the cited study, Loeb's location is still on the meteor trajectory and directly at one location reported by CNEOS (which could be the location of one explosion) , so it's still possible that the spherules collected did come from the 2014 meteor. It's easy to mock others for their bias or beliefs, and, in my opinion Avi is biased (which does NOT imply he's wrong), but Anton here is pretty much biased himself. Even if it turns out to be coal ash it could be alien coal ash. A thorough and non-biased study should be done to determine what kinds of coal ash are produced terrestrially and what kind of isotopes they contain. This could be relatively confidently ruled out or confirmed as alien if someone would do a SERIOUS study, but if no one takes the guy seriously and is only trying to find ways to mock him, no one will do a serious study. That, in my opinion, is pathetic, not Avi Loeb.
The guys actually doing good science and pushing the boundaries always get an entire crowd of people fighting them tooth and nail. "100 authors prove Einstein wrong" "if they were right, it would only take one."
I wanna see the SEM analysis on these. The establishment has been sending people barking up empty trees since string theory.
Furthermore, if people like Anton would care for truth they would check out the response of A. Loeb. In it, he says that US DoD in its response to NASA confirmed with 99.999% confidence that this is an interstellar object (and he provides evidence for this). Loeb also says that the location was not determined using seismic data analyzed in this study (which, btw, has not been peer-reviewed yet) and has pointed out the flaws in it. I recommend checking out the A. Loeb response, it can be found on his website on medium.
"A lot of" Astrophobics in the world.
Great episode Anton! Well written and presented!
How do you triangulate a position from just one station and think that's enough to launch an expedition
He didn't. There were multiple military satellites with a visual on that impactor. Scientists working independently of Loeb triangulated its position and confirmed that it had to come from outside the solar system. Seismic data never came into the equation. Fernando is attacking Loeb on this because it's the only thing he has to attack him on.
I thought at first it was a different spheroid that is often found scattered on the ocean floor but these ones are a bit bigger than those Avi found and are usually made of iron and some rarer metals. I haven't seen anyone definitively come to a conclusion how they are form but apparently there's so many that there are companies considering harvesting them so idk
It feels like it should be "straightforward" (for people with the skills and gadgets) to establish whether or not the same spherules appear "all over the place" (including not on the bottom of the ocean). If they don't, it feels like there is more going on here than a funny headline (albeit I would hesitate to go right to little green men lol).
It is, and Loeb did all that work in his original study. Did you notice coal ash wasn't mentioned in this video like it was in the last one? You might be seeing the articles, but not the retractions. Loeb refuted this entire video before Anton sat down to shoot it.
Loeb’s research involved searching another nearby area as a control and they found no spherules in the control area
"It's ALWAYS aliens....until it's......extremely unlikely"
Hey Anton, Been following you for years now. You my friend are a wonderful person as well! I really appreciate your unbiased and informative videos. I can trust that you will give me the facts and allow me to draw my own conclusions. I appreciate that. You're doing great man!
I'd like to share my condolences on the hardships you have faced. Even though we don't actually know each other, your face and calm nature help ease my day and mind, and I get to learn something interesting!
You are a beacon of light in a lone and desolate world. You help me keep my faith in humanity. Keep up the great work!
If you ever find yourself in Detroit Michigan, please give me the honor of buying you a beer.
Plot twist: it's aliens and this truck thing is a cover story :)
Angry astronaut has a good video explaining the missing pieces in the reporting.
New location for Loeb expedition then. This is why science is great
It’s even more important for Loeb to not force connections to extra terrestrials because he’s looking for it. That’s the difference with science, it’s not a belief system it’s evidence based. Let the evidence lead.
Trust the science. Amen.
@@stephensmith7995 Religion is dogmatic -- questions are not allowed, as the material is considered sacrosanct, the words of an infallible deity who is never to be questioned, only obeyed.
Science is corrective -- mistakes are anticipated, since we know that we don't know or understand everything. So it is allowed -- and expected -- to change and evolve as more questions are asked, more data is received, and a better understanding is developed.
@@olencone4005 How one dimensional of you.
Thanks for diligence in testing theories. ❤
Aviv Loeb is one of a handful of scientists within the mainstream who actually aren't afraid to dlo & practice real science can't fault him for that
What use is "real science" if you jump to the wrong conclusion?
He won't take damn control samples that mean anything.
@@Dooguk Science is proven wrong all the time since it's conception trial & error failures &:triumphs Einstein Ignaz Ludwig Boltzmann & many others scientists too once thought to be quacks & gawked at disregarded
@@Dooguk Science is proven wrong all the time it's those who risk thinking outside the box going against the mainstream narrative science is trial &: error failure & Triumph, many great Scientist were gawked at and disregarded since its conception scientists such as Einstein Boltzmann Semmelweis Zweig who went against the mainstream narrative of the times, Galilei was persecuted
I thought just the same, the practice of the study is something wrong but the conclusion is astonishing. Who would think the polution would accrete there? This is a very very important issue. We are changing the nature, alterimg its natural course and we have no idea what’s happening due to those interventions.
A summary of Anton: What is new isn't true. And what is true isn't new.
Isn't that like the complete opposite of this video? 🤔
Agreed - for the video. I meant the spherules.
The people claiming coal ash have had zero access to the data on the spherules. Their claims are opinions not scientific! Us space force tracked the object entering the atmosphere on radar. That's where the original location date came from. Shame on you Anton! Do some research!
@@danij5055 no he's stating that if someone keeps seeking the truth from people who choose make-believe, then the actual truth will never be found?
Go ask an Egyptologist how and why the pyramids were built and they will give you a straight faced answer; but do you believe them? I sure as hell don't no matter how much of an expert they think they are? They are just spruking their theoretical BS to keep their names embedded into the history books. Anybody who dares to challenge their theories are almost treated like they are the devil that should be burnt at the stake? But all that does is prove to the rest of the sane world, that these people who think they are experts and merely lunatics not worthy of an ear to listen to!
I hope that goes on his next shirt.
Not so. Loeb proved chemistry did not match coal ash. Also Loeb did comparative samples that showed the spherules were localized. I have studied micrometeoroids - even collected them from the atmosphere. It is easy to tell the difference between them and furnace products.
Refreshing & interesting perspective on Avi Loeb's work! ✌️
At least you understand principles supporting scientific discovery & retaining a skeptical but open mind.
My time was better spent watching this video than reading anything the New York Times puts out...
I’d love to see an update with Avi Loebs response
I don't know much about this guy, but I find it odd that he and his team wouldn't have attempted to use all data sources to come up with their proposed expedition location.
They did, as their paper suggests, verify the target location from military satellite data, CNEOS data, and AU.MANU data. The error ellipsis determined by the public infrared data is much larger than what they found and the relevance of AU.MANU data appears to only be ancillary in nature.
"Ive not seen this before" ..... ALIENS!!
"I dont know what this is" ..... ALIENS!!
"I only put my keys here a minute ago and now i cant find them" .... ALIENS!!
Thank you for sanity Anton, stay wonderful!
I'll download Avi's paper myself and read it.
I did. Its not very good.
Whats your expert peer-review?
and if you buy his delusional rambling, please change your name to andymccrackpot.
andymccrackpot
@@personzorz That sums up every paper he's written for about the last 10 years.
Omoa' was just something unique to our understanding. One day we'll see something that will really blow our minds 🤪
Bit disappointed in this video, I know that Avi has been extremely critical of this study and it would have been fair to include what he has said in response. I've been watching this channel for years and I'm now a little concerned regarding what else has been omitted in other videos.
He's generally pretty fair with cutting-edge stuff as its generally undisputed (yet). Just be wary of anything controversial he seems to be attempting to assuage you about.
"Science is not a democracy"
@@Shadare I'm pretty much immune to being assuaged of anything as I'm quite long in the tooth, I just like to be presented with the full range of the facts and opinions. Science is not my field but in the humanities it's pretty standard academic practice to include any rebuttal the original author has offered in response to criticism, which is missing from this piece.
@@Sulurianxx I'm not trying to totally trash the dude but his degree is in teaching. The fact that he communicates as much nuance as he does is a plus for me. Most educators just quote abstracts.
I've seen coal slag dust under a scope that resembles the spherules shown in your video.
You said the truck readings "Led researchers to look for a meteor in the completely wrong location" yet their "completely wrong location" was only 106 miles off? That sounds wrong. That means a random truck vibration happened to pinpoint a meteor landing within 106 miles accuracy?!
The site was not actually located from the seismic data but from military satellites. This is why some people think this debunking is rather rubbish. Not to say that Loeb is right but this does not seem to prove him wrong either.
On first glance I thought that said "Major Update About Avril Lavigne"!!
Put your glasses on LOL
Or advances in the fusion of Avril Lavigne and Lisa Loeb.
Avril sure does have nice spherules ♥️
@@petejandrell4512 There are glasses for dyslexia?
At most Loebs holiday cruise was a coverup for a Navy operation
more likely looking for new sources of manganese spherules but trying to find a non commercial guise to get first orbit funding. I mean he was jumping up and down about the stupid interstellar rock being a solar sail ffs when the radio imagery could quite plainly see it was a regular rock long yes but rock also and its mass changing from the deep dark to a slingshot around the sun is hardly a surprise anything lose would have found its own exit path and anything cryo's gunna melt creating a thrust force pretty sure he'd see a photo of a hubcap and yell aliens for more money pmsl.
Rather recently there was a cool discovery. Someone took the debris out of rain gutters from appropriate (large, clean) roofs and sorted it under the microscope, sorting out anything that is known to originate from our planet. Aaaand yep, he found tiny spherical meteorites of all varieties. It turns out you can basically find them everywhere, but its much easier when you look in places where they accumulate.
Your explanation with the coal soot or mining debris seems less likely, and unnecessary to me. Micrometeorites or small pieces of larger meteorites just melt into spheres, which when they are small enough can slow down and cool quickly and fall down peacefully the rest of the way. Tiny spherical objects from space are not rare and not special.
If you can show that your tiny sphere is not from earth but also not a meteorite but somehow technological, may i suggest that the same processes should happen also to re-entering space debris? I found a great video about it: "Tiny meteorites are everywhere. Here’s how to find them."
Right. And Ommuamua was just an ice ball correct? No one ever accused you of having too much imagination. I await Avi’s response.
not only an "ice ball" but a never-before-seen and never-seen-since hydrogen ice ball apparently. yeah sure.
@@nandersoulif something appears every thousand years, considering how recent technology has gotten to a point we can detect things like that, it will appear to be, "never before seen," to us, but in time relative to the universe, this will be an overwhelmedly common phenomenon. Bottom line, the universe is ENORMOUS and old compared to us tiny, very short living humans
There could be a crashed ufo on the bottem of a ocean and never be found if you consider most of the deep oceans are unknown
This is worse than swamp gas...
Lens flare
One day SETI will find an undeniable radio signal and skeptics will run head first into a wall trying to figure out how it could be possible. They just cant wrap their heads around the possibilities.
Whether something comes from earth or not, can be easily verified: Any decent mass spectromter is enough to determine isotope ratios of the composing elements. By this mean, ancient Egyptian metorite-knifes could by investigated.
I thought everything on earth was fundamentally created from interstellar material ?
@@RuneRelic Not exactly. Our whole solar system comes from a supernova and all heavier elements have been created by a quite fierce and messy process termed nucleosynthesis. Therefore not all isotopic ratios are equal within the solar system and we can check, whether something originates from earth, Oort's cloud or another planet (e.g. Mars).
@@debrainwasher Ok. But how do you atcually differentiate one source of stellar nucleosynthesis from another ?
Decay is a universal process right ?
Science is about seeking discoveries. All of the studies involved in this meet this criterium nicely.
They didn't use the seismic data to locate where the meteor fell. Shame on you, Anton! Read the paper. Look at the composition of the spherules and tell us where they came from.
Yes. They did.
@@personzorzno they didnt. They just data from Nasa and dept. Of defense for the exact location.
@@personzorzno, they didn't.
@@personzorzpretty sure they used US government satellite data.
There have been several papers that tried to dispute his findings. The people writing these papers had zero access to his data. They are basing their papers on theories well he is basing his on evidence.
If Avi went to the wrong location.. go to the right location and retrieve the right spherules.
They did pick up a truck but you are wrong about the location, they have published the other seismometer data and the US military helped them pinpoint the location using satelite data..... this has largely been glossed over as the news only covered the truck story and neglected to mention the other seismometers in use all over the world and other tracking methods. I would hope that you did more research on something before just coming to a conclusion being such a smart person.
Whether it is a sign of alien life is a different story but the location was as good as it gets with our current technology.
Loeb is an idiot. All he ever looks for is aliens so naturally, that is all he sees. That is not the work of a scientist but that of a charlatan
Why did you use the term “technically” at 3:18?
Idk, just the first thing I thought
I think this was a wonderful take on the event. Cheers for showing a positive way to look at things.
Can't figure out a location from one sensor....only a single azmith/direction.
This has already been covered, and these new debunkers have already been debunked.
It's understandable how they came to their wrong conclusions though, so no egg on their face this time.
Cheers from the Pacific West Coast of Canada.
At this point Avi Loeb is right up there with that Ancient Aliens guy that likes to dress up like a Centauri from Babylon 5.
I think you have a misinterpretation of Avi Loeb
Randall Carlson has some vids explaining that micro spherules can be an impact proxy. Apparently the Tunguska sky-burst impact event in the early 1900s, has a layer of these micro spherules imbedded in the trees and soil correlated with that time. He explains that the process of rapidly superheating this matter, then cooling it rapidly creates this effect, while it rains back down on the surface. I am excited to hear about this subject and would love to hear more!
Is he the same guy that thinks some super advanced ancient civilization ruled the Earth before the Ice Age? Or am I confusing the name with someone else?
@@MetastaticMaladies No, you're correct. Anyone who describes themselves as the "Renegade Scholar" should be ignored.
@@realpoopypants Tell us more about how you'd scoff at Ignaz Semmelweis.
@@A.T.-89 I didn’t realize he described himself as a renegade scholar. But, he was a physician and scientist, so how does he correlate to what is being discussed?
@@MetastaticMaladiesAre you just pretending that you don't know what point is being made here, or are you really incapable of connecting two dots with a line? Ignaz Semmelweis is an example of someone who fits the description of a "renegade scholar", as someone who was shunned and ridiculed by the scientific community of his time, fought against its establishment and was proven correct in the end. It doesn't matter what he called himself, for all we know he could've used that moniker in private, or something even more cheesy, but that's beside the point. The point is that the author of the comment I was replying to deals in absolutes, saying that ANYONE who describes themselves as a "renegade scholar" should be ignored. This obviously implies that the author is going to ignore scientists who have the courage to go against the grain and challenge established views, regardless of the substance of their arguments, based on some completely irrelevant quirk that they have, e.g. the habit of using a cheesy nickname. The specificity of the quirk, nickname, doesn't matter at all.
Now, the fact that you fired up, took it literally and went "nooo Semmelweis didn't call himself renegade scholar!!!" is kind of hilarious, really. I bet when you hear a sentence like "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times", you probably cry "hey make up your mind!", do you?
What about the strange chemistry of the metallic balls? They contain unusual elements that are non-terrestrial in origin? How did those balls travel into the depths of the oceans and not dissolve already? Especially considering their already small size? This explanation doesn't consider any of that? Yes I agree with this truck interference but that shouldn't dismiss the chemical composition of the discovered metallic balls?
This should highlight that we are maybe looking at something used back in ancient times, possibly ball-bearings from sophisticated machinery?
stop asking dumb questions. The question is...Peterbilt or Mack...man made OR made my man??
@@vivisects-and-regicide omfg dude this is the most hilarious comment I've read in a long while!
Oh and such a controversial argument to propose!
Heck all I can say is I like supercharged 2 strokes. I'm not waving any flag unless it's white
It's easier to jump on the Bash Avi Loeb wagon than to really discuss anything of merit.
@@ledarbyromeo9667 I thought a little more of Anton to get tired up in all this though?
But I suppose I thought I higher of Kayley big boobs to do the exact same thing, but she did
Mr. Loeb may not be correct to often but he sure is thinking outside the box.
There is no box, if you think there’s a box then you’re still in it
A person who thinks peanut butter cures cancer, also, 'thinks outside the box'. It's just a thought terminating cliché, devoid of meaning. Like 'woke'.
He is openly acting to the detriment of science for own profits. It's not thinking outside the box, tho I assume it was a joke.
@@kennethc2466 I wish peanut butter cured cancer, I’m dying of cancer so that would be great 😀
@@MichaelBrown-me3bh I wish for you and all the other people too. Love you brother sister, take care and don't be a stranger.
Thank you! This channel is fascinating. Every day, sometimes twice, there are new uploads and brain snacks for us. Great way to spend time learning.
This paper has already been debunked.
This paper is shoddy, wait for Avi's response before deciding anything.
What? Why would they wait for his response, it's not needed. Those spherules need to be released to other labs, nobody should care what he says otherwise.
My understanding is that that is exactly what is happening.@@KnightspaceORG
@@TheBackyardVerticalGardener Where? I didn't see any reports yet
It’s easy to criticise those who try to do something different, all you have to do is join the crowd.
Note something new: the bots with lurid profile images, all joined TH-cam with the last hour and made a single comment ever. I wonder what is the point of this campaign.
I can’t believe I used to like and follow this channel. 😂
Please for the love of God look at Avi's response to this. He didn't use the seismic data to pinpoint the location he used NASA provided, extremely accurate, light flash data when the meteor entered the atmosphere and again when it broke up lower in our atmosphere. This article is a poor attempt at a hit piece and you're doing a disservice to science by circulating it.
The NYT article was less than helpful, it all seems to have created a huge chilling effect, just when research was starting to get going, emerging from the "crackpot" closet, it's getting shoved back inside. Of course, many people won't look at the data, most of it is straight to comments stuff.
On the contrary, it's presenting a viable alternative to a claim that could be described as dodgy.
Avi loeb has the alien guy label now because of Oumuamua. You should read his paper addressing those theories. Wait until he has a chance to speak for himself. He is the cream of the crop period.
There's always so much derision about the subject of aliens that it almost seems counter productive.
Although Avi has kinda spiraled off into Art Bell land now, and a few tiny balls of metal from the ocean floor doesn't prove anything at all.
at this point, discussion about aliens has become relatively accepted. that general derision on the topic of aliens that you speak of is largely a result of loeb himself.
The search area was based on the satellite data, and the seismic data was used only to increase accuracy. Besides, they did not find interesting spherules in the control areas. It's kinda funny that people who think Loeb is "controversial" always seem to cherry pick their data or arguments to make him look bad.