Speaker 1: Imagine this a silent massive visitor, basically a ghost ship
from another star system is rushing past us right now, right, and.
Speaker 2: It's moving faster than anything we've got, sort of a
cosmic package that just shows up no return address.
Speaker 1: For centuries, we've all wondered, right, are we alone? And
now we might have something right here in our own
backyard that proves we're not.
Speaker 2: And it's not just a signal. It could be an
actual artifact, something you know, tangible.
Speaker 1: It's a compelling and honestly a kind of chilling thought.
Speaker 2: It is. This is that moment where you know, all
the abstract theories crash right into hard data, and it's
forcing scientists to ask what happens when something just refuses
to fit in the neat little boxes we've made.
Speaker 1: Welcome to Thrilling Threads. This is the show where we
take a whole stack of sources, articles, expert commentary, you
name it, and we pull out those pure, concentrated nuggets
of insight to get you truly up to speed.
Speaker 2: And today our source material is from a really provocative discussion,
a video from Sky News, and it's all focused on
an interstellar object called three.
Speaker 1: Eyat lists that's a three eye out lists.
Speaker 2: Right, that's the one, and this is a big deal
because it's only the third interstellar object we have ever confirmed,
and it's kicking up a ton of controversy.
Speaker 1: So our mission today is to really dig into the
specifics of three iyout lists. We want to look at
these really unusual characteristics that have led some, i mean
some of the world's top space experts to question the standard.
Speaker 2: Story, the standard story being that it's just a comet exactly.
Speaker 1: Instead, they're suggesting we might be looking at an artifact.
So we're going to unpack the evidence for it being
you know, manufactured technology.
Speaker 2: And then the really big part, we're going to analyze
what it all means if that turns out to be true.
Speaker 1: Well, let's start with just defining this thing. It's an outlier,
a visitor that started breaking the rules from the moment
it arrived. Okay, so let's set the scene right now,
three I at list is getting closer to Earth on
its way through our system, and.
Speaker 2: The immediate, you know, the consensus view, the safest bet
is that it's a natural icy object, a comet, just like.
Speaker 1: The two that came before it, umar Mua and two
Iboris off.
Speaker 2: Right, and statistically that makes sense. The vast majority of
stuff lying around in space is you know, rocks and comets.
But that high probability, it can't become a scientific guarantee.
Yeah not with this one.
Speaker 1: Why not?
Speaker 2: Well, the expert in our source material makes this point
really clearly. The moment there's even a tiny chance of
something radically different, something that could change everything for us,
scientists have a totally different kind of responsibility.
Speaker 1: Ah, so that's the pause for thought exactly.
Speaker 2: Yeah, the threat level is low, nobody's running for the hills,
but you absolutely have to monitor it. You have to
verify everything. You have to rule out what he calls
a black Swan event.
Speaker 1: You can't just assume your first guess is right when
the object itself is sending back such weird data.
Speaker 2: Precisely, a black Swan event is by definition, something rare,
something with huge impact, and something you can only really
explain after it's already happened.
Speaker 1: So our job is to look closely enough now so
we don't say, you know, ten years from now, wow,
we really should have paid more attention.
Speaker 2: Exactly, So what's triggering all this doubt?
Speaker 1: The first thing, and this is a big one is
its trajectory. The source calls it improbable.
Speaker 2: Yeah, this is key three. I Atlas came in traveling
in a plane of the planets.
Speaker 1: Okay, so what does that mean? The plane of the planets.
Speaker 2: So, if you picture our Solar system like a giant
flat vinyl record spinning on a turntable, Uh huh, the
ecliptic plane is the surface of that record. All the
major planets, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, they all orbit on that
flat disc. Most of our local asteroids and comets do too.
Speaker 1: But a visitor from another star shouldn't care about our
record player.
Speaker 2: It shouldn't care at all. A random object ejected from
another star system statistically, it should come at us from any.
Speaker 1: Angle, from above, from below, right.
Speaker 2: Screaming in at a thirty degree angle, sixty even a
ninety degree angle to our orbits. The chance of a
truly random visitor just happening to line up perfectly within
that tiny five degree band of our ecliptic is It's
just minuscule.
Speaker 1: It's the kind of thing that makes you go hmm.
You know, if you were trying to send a probe
to our solar system to check.
Speaker 2: Out the planets, you would aim it directly at the
ecliptic plane. It's how you'd get the most bang for
your buck. It suggests well, it could suggest intentionality, not randomness.
Speaker 1: So the source material flags this as the first big
question mark. Is it just a one in a billion
cosmic coincidence.
Speaker 2: Or is it evidence that this thing was launched with
a purpose. We don't know, but the improbability is a
warning light.
Speaker 1: But the stuff it's made of that's maybe even more
wild than its path. First off, its size. It's described
as having an unusually large size and mass.
Speaker 2: And we have to be honest here, our sample size
is tiny. We've only ever seen three of these things, right,
Umomua was weird and cigar shaped, Borsov was more like
a normal comment. Now this one three I at Liss
is way bigger, So it kind of throws our whole
idea of a tip interscollar object out the window.
Speaker 1: It's like if the first three people you ever met
from a foreign country were all seven feet tall, you'd
start to think everyone there is a giant.
Speaker 2: Right, even though it's a terrible sample size, But it's
this large size combined with the next detail that really
kicks this d high gear and this is.
Speaker 1: The part that just blew my mind. The technical detail
that is the core of this whole artificial object idea.
It's what the object is shedding.
Speaker 2: It's shedding nickel, but with and this is the key part,
very little iron.
Speaker 1: Okay, that's the moment that makes you sit up and listen.
Because nickel and iron they're everywhere in space. They're usually
found together in meteorites. So why is this specific ratio
a potential smoking gun.
Speaker 2: It all comes down to metallurgy really, in nature, iron
nickel alloys, like in meteorites, they form under incredible heat
and pressure. Inside planets, they're usually mostly iron with nickel
as a secondary.
Speaker 1: Ingredient, so they're mixed together, right, But the.
Speaker 2: Source material points out that shed nickel with very little iron.
That is a signature of industrially produced nickel alloys.
Speaker 1: You mean like something we would make like specialty steel
or something for a jet engine.
Speaker 2: Exactly. We manufacture high nickel alloys for things that need
to be super tough and resist corrosion and high temperatures,
spacecraft parts, nuclear reactors, things like that.
Speaker 1: So if this was a natural rock breaking up, you'd
expect to see a lot of iron mixed in with
that nickel.
Speaker 2: You'd expect a much more balanced ratio reflecting what's common
in the cosmos. The fact that the nickel seems to
be separated, it suggests someone or something process these elements deliberately.
Speaker 1: So you're left with two options. Either nature somehow figured
out how to do advanced industrial smelting in deep.
Speaker 2: Space, or you're looking at something that was built. And
given how massive this thing is, if it is a
manufacturer structure, we are talking about engineering on a scale
that's just hard to even.
Speaker 1: Comprehend, designed to survive for maybe billions of years in
interstellar space.
Speaker 2: So you take that improbable path, you add this very
very suspicious material composition, and you have to start treating
three eye at lists not as just another comet, but
as a potential historical artifact.
Speaker 1: Okay, so its path is weird and its ingredients list
is suspicious. Let's talk about what the object is actually
doing as it flies by, because this moves us from
what it's made of to its actual behavior.
Speaker 2: And this is where three Eye Outlasts throws us another
huge curve ball.
Speaker 1: The tail.
Speaker 2: Yeah, the observations of its tail. The source says it
shows an anti tail and This is the really bizarre part.
A jet pointing directly towards the Sun.
Speaker 1: And this isn't a one off observation. It's been seen
again and again, even in the latest Hyras images from
Hubble right.
Speaker 2: And this just fundamentally challenges basic comet physics.
Speaker 1: Let's break that down for everyone. A normal comet a
dirty snowball as it gets close to the sun. Right,
what's supposed to happen.
Speaker 2: The Sun's heat hits the ice and it sublimates, it
turns straight into gas. That gas and dust then get
pushed away from the Sun by what two forces, mainly
the solar wind, which is a stream of charged particles,
and solar radiation pressure, which is literally the pressure from
sunlight itself. So a commet's tail always points away from
the Sun.
Speaker 1: That's the picture we all have in our heads. But
three I Atlas is doing the exact opposite. It's shooting
a jet towards the giant fusion reactor in the sky.
Speaker 2: Precisely to have a jet pointing towards the Sun, it
implies there's some internal force that's strong enough to overpower
all that pressure from solar radiation. This isn't just a
small anomaly, it completely breaks the model.
Speaker 1: Could there be a natural explanation, like is it tumbling
in a weird way?
Speaker 2: It could be, but the expert in the source leans
towards something more deliberate. A jet pointing towards the Sun
could be a sign of controlled.
Speaker 1: Thrust, like it's maneuvering using propulsion.
Speaker 2: Exactly. It suggests a solid, structured object that can vent
material in a specific direction, defying the incredible external forces.
Speaker 1: I find that so fascinating because it's not just about
what it's made of anymore. It's about what it's doing,
and if it's maneuvering, that implies purpose, which leads.
Speaker 2: Us right to this philosophical idea the expert proposes, thinking
of this whole encounter as a blind date of interstellar proportions.
Speaker 1: That's such a perfect analogy. It completely captures that feeling
of terrifying uncertainty.
Speaker 2: Because when you meet a total unknown, you can't assume
their intentions. The expert frames it really starkly. You don't
know if there's a friendly visitor here to say hello,
or their words a serial.
Speaker 1: Killer, and all you can do is watch. You can't
let hope or fear dictate your actions.
Speaker 2: But of course we're human. We immediately jump to the
most dramatic scenario.
Speaker 1: Right, But the expert in the video strongly pushes back
on that idea and offers this a really humbling take
on our place in the universe.
Speaker 2: We really need that dose of cosmic perspective. The expert
points out that our species, homost sapiens, we've only been
around for a few million years.
Speaker 1: Which sounds like a long time to us.
Speaker 2: But compared to the four point five billion years the
Solar System has been here, we're just one part in
a thousand of that timeline. Compared to the universe's thirteen
point eight billion years, We're just a blink and evolutionary
rounding error.
Speaker 1: It's the ultimate reality check. We tend to think that
if someone comes to visit, it must be about us.
That's just pure anthropocentric arrogance.
Speaker 2: It's a hangover from when we thought the Sun revolved
around the Earth.
Speaker 1: Why would a civilization that has mastered interstellar travel, one
that could be billions of years old, even care about us,
this tiny, noisy, brand new species on one little planet.
Speaker 2: They might be completely oblivious to our existence. The object
could be focused on something else. Entirely. Maybe it's interested
in Jupiter, you know, the biggest thing in the neighborhood,
for resources or data, or.
Speaker 1: As the source says, for a completely different reason that
has nothing to do with us.
Speaker 2: I love that idea that we might just be late
to the cosmic party and nobody would ask us to dance.
It just shatters that Hollywood story where humanity is always
the main character.
Speaker 1: We might just be the extras in the background of
someone else's epic movie.
Speaker 2: Which forces us to think, what is purpose on that
kind of timescale. If they aren't here to invade us
or even spy on us, what kind of massive, long
term goal could possibly drive something like three Eye Atlass
across the galaxy?
Speaker 1: Right Trying to figure out the why behind three Eye
at List means we have to just throw out all
our human ideas about quick results in instant communication.
Speaker 2: Absolutely, we have to grapple with the single biggest problem,
the timescale. It's just mind boggling.
Speaker 1: The source material really hammers this home. A trip across
the Milky Way could take what billions of years?
Speaker 2: Billions, and even if it came from a relatively close
neighbor on the other side of the galaxy. A radio signal,
the fastest thing there is, would take tens of thousands
of years to get back to them, So that.
Speaker 1: Just completely kills the idea of real time spying instantly.
Speaker 2: If three I at lists Scanderous right now and send
a message home saying, hey, there's life here, the civilization
that sent it would get that message fifty thousand years from.
Speaker 1: Now, by which point we could be long gone or
completely different.
Speaker 2: So the mission can't be about immediate benefit for the
generation that launched it. It has to be something else,
a legacy.
Speaker 1: And that's where the expert brings in that really beautiful
postcard analogy.
Speaker 2: I love that. It's like sending your kids out into
the world. You don't expect them to call every day.
Speaker 1: You just hope for a postcard every now and then, right,
a little sign that the mission is still going, that
they're okay.
Speaker 2: Exactly. The purpose is longevity. You launch the next generations
so that their ambitions or your original ambitions, can be
fulfilled by them long after you're gone.
Speaker 1: The whole motivation changes. It goes from immediate gratification to
pure existential legacy. Projecting your influence across just unimaginable stretches
of time.
Speaker 2: Which opens the door to some of the most fascinating
ideas about what a really advanced civilization might.
Speaker 1: Do, like leaving a monument, leaving.
Speaker 2: A monument to say we were here, or and this
is the really potent idea, creating self replicating probes, ah.
Speaker 1: The von Neumann probes. This is classic sci fi stuff,
but it's based on real theory.
Speaker 2: It is. The idea is, you don't just send one ship,
you send a technological seed.
Speaker 1: So this probe arrives in a new solar system and.
Speaker 2: It uses local raw materials, asteroids, comets, gas from a
giant planet to build copies of.
Speaker 1: Itself, and then those copies go off to other star
systems and do the same thing.
Speaker 2: Right, it's an exponential spread. The original civilization could be
gone for a billion years, but their technology, their purpose
just keeps going autonomously exploring or colonizing the galaxy.
Speaker 1: That's a kind of technological immortality, it really is.
Speaker 2: And when you think about that weird nickel alloys shedding
we talked about a material design for extreme durability, The
idea of a self replicating multi billion year old probe
suddenly sounds well chillingly plausible.
Speaker 1: If your goal is to seed the entire galaxy, it's
really the only way to do it. It's the only
way to beat the speed of light and the tyranny
of time.
Speaker 2: So three I Atlas could be this ancient technological ancestor
carrying out a program that was written by a species
that's been extinct for eons.
Speaker 1: It's just so hard for us even wrap our heads
around that. We think in terms of quarterly reports and
five year plans, and we.
Speaker 2: Try to apply those same short term motives to something
that could be billions of years old. Yeah, and that's
the final point here from the source that nature and
I would add, technology is far more imaginative than scriptwriters
in Hollywood.
Speaker 1: The most obvious explanation isn't always the right one, not
on this scale.
Speaker 2: The true purpose could be something we don't even have
a word for.
Speaker 1: Which sets up this great tension. We have all this specific,
weird evidence on one hand, and.
Speaker 2: On the other experts who are trained to categorize things
based on what they've already seen, limited by their data.
Speaker 1: And that tension is really the heart of the intellectual
battle here, isn't it. The Source frames it as this
conflict between humility and the arrogance of expertise.
Speaker 2: It's a perfect to put it on one side. You
have the mainstream argument NASA a lot of astronomers.
Speaker 1: They look at the object, they see the dust and
gas coming off.
Speaker 2: It, and they say, very simply, it looks like a comet.
It behaves like a comet.
Speaker 1: It is a comet, which on the surface sounds totally reasonable.
Speaker 2: It's completely rational if you only consider the things you've
seen before. Comets shed dust and gas. This thing is
shedding gust and gas. Conclusion, it's a comet. It's Okham's razor.
Speaker 1: But the expert in our source has this razor sharp
criticism of that whole approach. They argue it has a
fatal flaw.
Speaker 2: A limited training data set.
Speaker 1: It's such a brilliant analogy from the world of AI.
Speaker 2: It is, and AI is only as good as the
data you train it on, and a human expert is
the same. If every single piece of data you've ever
analyzed is an icy rock, then your brain's algorithm will
always always default to classifying the next new thing as
an icy rock.
Speaker 1: You're just seeing what you expect to see, and I
can see why the expert calls that the arrogance of expertise,
your own knowledge can blind you.
Speaker 2: You stop looking for different answers because your training has
convinced you that you already have the right one.
Speaker 1: And this is where the expert really goes for it.
They talk about the sheer hubris of assuming that someone
like Elon Musk is the most accomplished space entrepreneur since
the Big Bang.
Speaker 2: When you stop and think about that claim, it's just staggering.
Speaker 1: I mean, our entire history of spaceflight is what's seventy
years old. If there are other civilizations out there, our siblings,
as the expert calls them, they could have a head
start of millions or even billions of years.
Speaker 2: To just dismiss the possibility that their artifacts are out
there simply because our current catalog only has rocks and
ice in it. That isn't scientific caution. It's a failure
of imagination.
Speaker 1: So when an astronomer says the dust cloud proves it's
a comet, the expert says, they're making a huge leap,
and they use the dust cloud analogy to explain why.
Speaker 2: And this analogy is so important for getting the point.
Imagine you see a big cloud of dust on the horizon. Okay, experience,
your training data set tells you that dust clouds are
usually kicked up by animals, So you say that must
be a running.
Speaker 1: Horse, a natural object, right.
Speaker 2: But then the object gets closer and you realize it's
a car, a piece of technology. The key insight is this,
The dust cloud itself doesn't tell you the nature of
the thing making it.
Speaker 1: It just tells you that something is moving and kicking
up dust.
Speaker 2: A piece of interstellar technology could easily be shedding dust
and gas. It could be propellant. It could be material
it's collected over a billion years of travel. It could
be slowly falling apart. The cloud doesn't automatically mean natural.
Speaker 1: Bo. Wait, let me play Devil's advocate here. Isn't there
a burden of proof? I mean, isn't it more responsible
for scientists to assume it's natural until the evidence for
artificial is completely overwhelming.
Speaker 2: That's a fair question, and yes, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
But the experts point isn't that we should conclude its technology,
is that we shouldn't pre conclude it's a comet.
Speaker 1: Not being cautious, we're being lazy intellectually lazy.
Speaker 2: We're cherry picking the evidence the dust cloud that fits
our existing story of icy rock, and that brings us
back to the very foundation of science itself.
Speaker 1: Which the expert says is the humility to learn.
Speaker 2: Humility is admitting that your training data set might be incomplete,
that the universe might be bigger and weirder than your
current models can explain.
Speaker 1: And the historical comparison they draw is it's really unsettling. Galileo.
Speaker 2: Galileo and his telescope. The authorities at the Vatican knew
how the heavens worked. They had their dogma. They didn't
need to look through his silly telescope because they already
had the answer.
Speaker 1: And that's the danger today. It's not a conspiracy, it's
just the risk of not bothering to collect enough data
to challenge your own assumptions because we're too comfortable. We
could miss the biggest discovery in human history because we
labeled it commet and moved on.
Speaker 2: So we can't just leave it as a simple choice
rock or spaceship because there are so many unknowns.
Speaker 1: Right, which is why the expert created a way to
actually quantify that doubt, the lobe scale.
Speaker 2: It's a way to manage the uncertainty and figure out
where to point our telescopes. It runs from zero to ten.
Zero means zero is a one hundred percent natural object,
the boring consensus view, and ten is a technological visitor
that is an immediate threat to all of us.
Speaker 1: So it's a spectrum of possibility exactly.
Speaker 2: It forces you to actually justify your position, and based
on everything we've talked about, the nickel, the trajectory, that
weird sunword jet, where do you think three I at
liss Lands.
Speaker 1: Where does the expert put it?
Speaker 2: He ranks it at a three to four.
Speaker 1: Wow, okay, so that's significant. It's definitely not a zero.
It's not being dismissed, not at all.
Speaker 2: A three or four means this is not a routine object.
It requires serious, dedicated investigation. It's nowhere near a ten,
so no need to panic. But it's firmly in that
potentially artificial let's get more data now category.
Speaker 1: That feels like a really responsible position to take. That's
the weird data without jumping to crazy conclusions.
Speaker 2: But the whole analysis is made so much harder by
that statistical sample problem. We've only seen three of these
things ever, three is nothing.
Speaker 1: It's a joke of a sample size. The source compares
it to going on a first date.
Speaker 2: Right, you can't draw any conclusions about an entire population
based on one person.
Speaker 1: If the first three interstellar objects we see are all
wildly different from each other, we have no baseline, We
have no idea what normal is, which means we can't
know for sure if this one is the anomaly.
Speaker 2: So we have to see dozens, maybe hundreds of them
before we can say with any confidence that three I
at lists is or is not an outlier. The uncertainty
is precisely why a three or four in the lob
scale needs so much attention.
Speaker 1: And this leads to that whole danger of confirmation bias.
And the expert tells this fantastic story to illustrate it,
the SpaceX Roadster example.
Speaker 2: This is an amazing story. So on January second, astronomers
bought a new object, track it and log it as
a near Earth asteroid, just another rock.
Speaker 1: They watched it for a day, business as usual.
Speaker 2: Then someone realized, wait a minute, its path perfectly matches
the trajectory of the Tesla Roadster that SpaceX launched into
space back in twenty eighteen.
Speaker 1: Oh wow.
Speaker 2: The second they had that piece of information, the prior
knowledge that a man made object was supposed to be there,
the classification changed instantly. They basically said, Oops, not a rock,
it's a car.
Speaker 1: And the only reason they admitted it was artificial was
because they already knew it was ours exactly.
Speaker 2: It's a perfect illustration of bias. If we hadn't known
its trajectory, it would probably still be cataloged as near
Earth asteroid something or other because that's the easier box
to put it in.
Speaker 1: It shows that if you assume something is a rock,
you stop looking for evidence that it's a car.
Speaker 2: And it makes you wonder how many other asteroids have
we mislabeled over the years because we just weren't willing
to consider the alternative.
Speaker 1: This all points to one thing. We desperately need more data.
We need to be watching the skies way more effectively, and.
Speaker 2: There's good news on that front. The source points to
the new Reuben Observatory in Chile. It has this incredible
three point two gigapixel camera and it's going to survey
the entire southern sky every four nights.
Speaker 1: That's a game changer for finding these fast moving interstellar objects.
Speaker 2: It is, but it only covers the southern sky. We're
missing half the picture.
Speaker 1: So the big suggestion is we need to fund a
copy of it for the northern sky.
Speaker 2: If we had a twin observatory, we could monitor the
whole sky all the time. We can make sure that
we catch every single one of these visitors and give
them the scrutiny they deserve. That's how you solve this
ample sized problem.
Speaker 1: Okay, let's shift gears to the really big What if
this is where it stops being just an intellectual exercise
and becomes well urgent. What happens if the evidence becomes
undeniable a.
Speaker 2: High resolution photo that is clearly not a rock, or
spectroscopic data that confirms manufactured alloys beyond any doubt.
Speaker 1: What happens to us down here on Earth the next day?
Speaker 2: Society changes Overnight. The entire geopolitical structure of our world
would be transformed. That sense of safe of isolation we've
always had would just shatter.
Speaker 1: People would immediately turn to their governments and say, what
are you going to do to protect us?
Speaker 2: Right? This external existential question would force us to completely
change our priorities as a species.
Speaker 1: We'd need a cosmic warning system, and the expert estimates
that could cost a trillion dollars a year.
Speaker 2: A trillion dollars, I mean, that sounds like a completely
impossible number right now, we'd never spend that on space defense.
Speaker 1: But then the source gives this one piece of context
that just puts everything into a shocking new perspective.
Speaker 2: Right now, globally we spend two point four trillion dollars
a year on military budgets.
Speaker 1: At that sink in two point four trillion.
Speaker 2: And as the expert says, that money is for killing
other people or protecting ourselves from others killing us.
Speaker 1: It's all for internal conflict defense against ourselves. If we
suddenly had an undeniable external reason to cooperate.
Speaker 2: That trillion dollars for a cosmic defense system suddenly doesn't
seem so impossible. We already have the money. Our priorities
are just radically misaligned.
Speaker 1: An external factor would make all our internal squabbles look
so petty, so meaningless. It could force the kind of
global cooperation we've only ever seen in movies.
Speaker 2: And the upheaval wouldn't just be geopolitical. The financial markets
would go into a tail spin.
Speaker 1: Because they're built on predictability.
Speaker 2: And this would be the biggest unknown variable ever introduced
into the human equation. How do you price that in
the markets? Which is reflect this profound sense of uncertainty
about our future?
Speaker 1: But maybe the deepest change would be in our beliefs,
our religions, our philosophy.
Speaker 2: Oh absolutely, The source suggests it would fundamentally rewrite our
religious stories. God is no longer a parent with just
one child.
Speaker 1: Suddenly we find out we have siblings all over the galaxy,
and God has to attend to all these multiple kids.
Speaker 2: Which doesn't diminish God, the expert argues, It makes God
much much bigger, a true cosmic shepherd.
Speaker 1: It forces us to grow up as a species. We're
no longer the center of the story where just one
voice in a giant celestial acquire. But there's a psychological
danger in that, Isn't there.
Speaker 2: A huge one? The expert brings up the risk of
human jealousy.
Speaker 1: What if our siblings are not just older, but better?
What if they've solved war and poverty and climate change?
Speaker 2: How do we react to that? Do we react with
awe and a desire to learn or with a massive
species wide inferiority complex with envy.
Speaker 1: Our whole story is built on being special. Finding out
we're actually the messy, chaotic, youngest kid on the block. Yeah,
that could be a huge blow to our collective ego.
Speaker 2: Or it could be the kick we need to finally
get our act together, Which brings us to the expert's
personal motivation for all of this.
Speaker 1: They call the object a very wanted gift.
Speaker 2: Yeah, they admit that reading the news, focusing on all
the matters down to Earth, all the conflict and politics,
it's just depressing.
Speaker 1: And that leads to this incredibly sharp final line. They're
seeking a higher intelligence in outer space because they don't
often find it here on Earth.
Speaker 2: It's such a powerful commentary on our world right now.
The search for alien tech isn't just astronomy. It's a
hope that there's a better way to be a civilization.
Speaker 1: It's a search for a better model for ourselves, driven
by a deep frustration with our own priorities. Hashtag tag outro.
Speaker 2: So this has been a really really thrilling dive into
three i AT lists. We've wrestled with these startling pieces
of evidence, that improbable trajectory, the weird Nickel alloys, that
bizarre jet pointing at.
Speaker 1: The sun, and we've put that evidence up against the
understandable pushback from the mainstream, you know, the experts whose
icy rock training data makes it really hard to accept
something so different.
Speaker 2: We talked about that risk of the arrogance of expertise,
that powerful warning from Galileo's.
Speaker 1: Time, and we looked at the incredible stakes. If this
is confirmed, it would trigger geopolitical chaos, financial panic, and
a complete rewrite of who we think we are in
the universe.
Speaker 2: Which brings us to I think the most profound takeaway.
Confirming alien technology or even just the need for a
cosmic defense system would instantly change us.
Speaker 1: If we shifted even a tiny fraction of that two
point four trillion dollars we spend on fighting each other
towards exploring the cosmos and protecting our planet, that change
in perspective would be the real gift from three i
AT lists.
Speaker 2: It wouldn't be about their technology, It would be about
the urgent realization that we need to change our focus
and finally grow up as a species.
Speaker 1: So it leaves us with a question, are we actually
prepared for the truth or are we just too comfortable
assuming we already know all.
Speaker 2: The answers, So we want to ask you, given all
this evidence, the nickel, the jet, the trajectory, and thinking
about that load scale where zero is a normal commet
and ten as a threat, where would you rate this object?
Speaker 1: Are you a firm zero, convinced it's just a weird commet,
or do the strange characteristics and the massive implications make
you think it's a three to four something We have
to investigate with an open mind until we.
Speaker 2: Know for sure, Leave us a comment and let us
know you're rating. We'd love to hear what you think.
Speaker 1: Stay tuned for the next thrilling threads