Today I hosted two academic professionals, Andrew Simmons from Washington DC and Lourdes German from Cambridge MA, who confessed that they had been following my search for extraterrestrial artifacts for the past several years.
They asked me how I came to continue this search. I explained that my interest was piqued by the discovery of the first astronomical object from outside the solar system,’Omuamua on October 19, 2017. This 100-meter object was anomalous due to its inferred pancake-like shape and non-gravitational acceleration without any sign of evaporation. In short, ‘Oumuamua did not resemble any known asteroids or comets from the solar system.
`Oumuamua’s wake-up call revealed a research opportunity that I had never encountered before in the previous thirty years of my academic career. The search for extraterrestrial artifacts could have enormous implications for the future of humanity, but is largely abandoned by the scientific community. Other transformative themes, such as the search for the unknown nature of dark matter, often have a long history and are heavily pursued by many competing practitioners. This means that the prospects of making a unique contribution to their knowledge base are slim. However, a research path to which I can make a major contribution was not pursued. My training was in theoretical physics, but I was prepared to lead the experimental Galileo projectaimed at gathering evidence that could lead us to a better understanding of our cosmic environment.
The general public resonated with my agenda and was very interested in my research. Paradoxically, the more attention I received from the world outside of academia, the more intense the backlash and personal attacks I received from science popularists, reporters, social media influencers, or jealous scientists pretending to ignore science. ‘defended’. Their attempts to suppress scientific evidence gathering through the Galileo project reflected an anti-scientific bias designed to protect cherished beliefs from the burden of paying attention to anomalies. Andrew and Lourdes wondered why this area of research is being shunned by the academic mainstream?
I reasoned that the public is certainly intrigued by the possibility that some unidentified anomalous phenomena (UAP) near Earth may reflect alien technologies. Certainly, members of academia come from the public, so deep down many of them must share this sentiment. However, because of the stigma, they never talk about it openly. Paradoxically, the stigma is promoted by members of the SETI community who have banned discussions about UAP at their conferences.
I started out in an academic culture of “chess players,” where considering new possible dark matter signatures is rewarded, but now I find myself among the “mud wrestlers” who resist thinking outside the box. They prefer to speculate that the anomalies of interstellar objects like `Oumuamua represent rocks of a type we had never seen before, but at the same time they dismiss artificial interpretations as speculative. Some of them ignore the vast collection of papers that attempted – with serious difficulties – to explain the anomalies of ‘Oumuamua, and propose to forget the anomalies and move on.
They miss the fundamental lesson from the history of science that revolutionary knowledge first appears in the form of anomalies. From now on, in the search for technological features of alien civilizations, the academic gates are occupied by gatekeepers who tolerate failed searches for radio signals, but prohibit a possible technological interpretation of the anomalies exhibited by interstellar objects such as `Oumuamua.
Whether the US government has classified data on UAP indicating an extraterrestrial origin will be discussed at the Congressional hearing to be held next Wednesday, November 13, 2024.
Andrew and Lourdes asked me how the academic community would respond to the disclosure of related government data, if it existed?
In response I quoted Arthur Schopenhauer, who was wise declared: “All truth passes through three stages. First, it’s ridiculed. Secondly, there are strong protests against it. Third, it is accepted as self-evident.” Based on my experience, I added a fourth phase: “Finally, the early critics claim they were the first to propose this.” As the scientist leading the Galileo project, I want to collect as much data as possible so that my critics will have no other recourse than to admit that at least one of the anomalous objects in our sky is of extraterrestrial technological origin. But I’m not delusional. If other astronomers used the Rubin Observatory and the Webb Telescope to conclude that a new object like `Oumuamua was artificial in origin, they would still maintain that `Oumuamua could be a natural rock. This would constitute their version of the fourth phase.
Nevertheless, I am at peace with Schopenhauer’s prediction. What really matters is the knowledge that humanity will gain through a superhuman intelligence, including its technologies and scientific insights.
If we had had the benefit of examining all the inhabited planets in the Milky Way’s ten-billion-year history, we could have found evidence of past civilizations that perished billions of years ago due to self-inflicted wounds or natural disasters. This knowledge would have allowed us to avoid their mistakes. Instead, by staying at our current point of view and looking around us, we could learn from the most accomplished civilizations that have managed to reach us with their technological products.
This local search would be most effective if government agencies and private donors funded it on a larger scale. Without searching we will certainly not find anything.
