Hacker News Reader

Comment by tsimionescu | Hacker News Reader

That's an example of ambiguous or misunderstood phenomena explained by a professor who decided that there's more money in UFO BS than in his previous career (or sincerely lost his grip on reality, who knows).

View on HN

I don't know, he seems to be really smart. Maybe it's a good UFO theory for a change.

It was an interesting thoery, but IMO his habit of making similar claims every time an interstellar object is discovered cast doubt on that original theory.

I'm not aware of any similar claims. I thought the other two interstellar objects were not anomalous.

You can read a summary on his Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avi_Loeb#Claims_about_alien_li...

I note that article seems quite biased against Loeb. For example, they cite USA Today strongly criticizing him, which is not a reputable source in this debate. Wikipedia also doesn't mention that many other astrophysicists think that his 'Oumuamua theory is unlikely but not crazy. They only cite very negative criticism, but not the many more neutral responses. They also don't mention that he is far from the only one believing that 'Oumuamua appears to have a highly unusual shape. Wikipedia tries to paint him in the worst light possible.

I've got no horse in this race, but the great thing about Wikipedia is that you can edit the article[0] to fix anything that you feel is incorrect and/or not adhering to the encyclopedia's policies. You could also bring up your concerns on the talk page[1].

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Avi_Loeb&action=e...

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Avi_Loeb

My edit would be reverted, and my talk page complaints would take a large amount of effort that likely ultimately goes nowhere when it's up against established editors. Instead I was telling you here that Wikipedia is not automatically unbiased just because it could theoretically be edited by anyone.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com