>Avi Loeb

>not peer reviewed

> the paper posits that this is likely more a problem with the sensors recording this data than science’s current understanding of physics

Why are you posting this misleading crap?

>in order to analyze these UFOs, Kirkpatrick and Loeb determined that the recent UAP observations do defy the laws of physics, stating that “the friction of UAP with the surrounding air or water is expected to generate a bright optical fireball, ionization shell and tail—implying radio signatures.” However, many of the UAPs studied show no signs of these signatures

Which "recent UFO observations"? The ones the Pentagon determined they have insufficient data to actually attribute? Or the ones that were identified as observer misconception, sensor malfuctions etc.? The videos that were debunked to hell and back (and which later turned out to be exactely that - observer msiconception, sensor malfunctions etc.)?

Going over the paper they don't actually cite any sources for the UFOs they want to attribute these "properties" to. Avi (or rather the article being linked to) simply claims that because extraterrestrial craft would have to move at such speeds and the fact that we don't observe any indication that they actually do means that they must defy the laws of physics.

Instead of, you know, them not being alien probes made of magic.

The paper itself is simply Avi being Avi and pushing his "but what if Oumuamua was an alien probe" and "what if if space was full of alien probes and civilization which are for some reason invisible" spiel. About half of the citiations in the "paper" is Avi quoting his own works.