Controversy Surrounds Harvard Astronomer’s Search for Alien Technology in Pacific Seafloor Debris
Last summer, Harvard astronomer Avi Loeb embarked on a two-week expedition to the Pacific seafloor in search of debris from a meteor that had exploded in a fireball on January 8, 2014. Loeb’s motivation for the expedition was not just to study a random rock from space but to investigate the possibility that the meteor could be evidence of alien technology. Loeb suspected that the object, based on its astonishing speed, originated from beyond our solar system.
During the expedition, Loeb and his team retrieved hundreds of tiny blobs of molten material called “spherules” off the coast of Papua New Guinea. Some of these spherules had such unfamiliar chemistry that Loeb believed they “may reflect an extraterrestrial technological origin.” However, a recent reanalysis of seismic data by seismologist Benjamin Fernando of Johns Hopkins University suggests that Loeb may have been searching for the meteor remnants in the wrong place.
Fernando’s analysis contends that the sound waves cited by Loeb as evidence of the meteor exploding in the atmosphere were most likely caused by a truck driving near the seismometer. According to Fernando, similar signals were recorded before and after the supposed meteor impact, indicating a human-produced noise. This finding challenges Loeb’s claim that the seismic data was crucial in determining the search coordinates.
This controversy is not the first time Loeb has faced skepticism from the scientific community. In 2017, after an object named ‘Oumuamua passed through our solar system, Loeb published a paper suggesting it could have an artificial origin and be engineered by an alien civilization. Many scientists dismissed this interpretation as a fringe theory and favored a natural explanation for ‘Oumuamua’s presence.
Undeterred by criticism, Loeb founded the Galileo Project with the aim of bringing the search for extraterrestrial technology into the mainstream of scientific research. His search for the meteor debris last summer was part of this project. Despite the recent skepticism surrounding his findings, Loeb maintains that the chemical composition of some of the spherules found is unlike anything known in our solar system. He suggests that they could have originated from a planet with an iron core outside our solar system or from more exotic sources.
However, mainstream scientists remain cautious and adhere to the principle that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The idea of aliens and extraterrestrial technology is a tough sell among scientists, even though it has gained attention in congressional hearings and popular culture. The recent release of a Department of Defense report stating that there is no evidence of aliens visiting Earth further adds to the skepticism.
Fernando’s findings will be presented at a planetary scientific conference in Houston next week. His analysis, although not yet peer-reviewed or published, concludes that the material recovered from the seafloor is “almost certainly unrelated” to the meteor. Loeb, on the other hand, stands his ground and dismisses Fernando’s research, claiming that his team based their search coordinates primarily on satellite data from the United States military.
Despite the controversy, Loeb remains determined to continue his search. He plans to return to the Pacific in search of larger pieces of whatever splashed into the sea when he secures sufficient funding. Whether or not Loeb’s findings will ultimately prove to be evidence of alien technology remains uncertain, but his unwavering commitment to exploring this possibility pushes the boundaries of scientific inquiry and keeps us wondering about what lies beyond our solar system.