Speaker 1: Welcome to thrilling Threads. We're jumping straight in today right
into well, what might be the ultimate cosmic mystery.
Speaker 2: It's a story that really does have everything. It starts
with just pure celestial mechanics, but it ends with, of
all things, the Central Intelligence Agency.
Speaker 1: And this isn't some you know, abstract thought experiment. We're
talking about a real object, a visitor to our solar
system that is behaving in ways that well, they just
defy everything we thought we knew about natural objects exactly.
Speaker 2: We're focusing today on three eyeat lists, that's three eye
out lists, which is only the second confirmed interstellar object
we've ever seen. And look, if this were just a
normal rock or comet, we'd chart its path and you know,
file it away. It's really not. Three Ialyss has shown
these bizarre, anomalous acceleration characteristics. Basically, it's moving in a
way that gravity alone just can't explain, and that is
kicked off a cascade of new research.
Speaker 1: It's raising huge questions right above extraterrestrial technology. And as
you said, it's even caught the attention of intelligence agencies.
It's arguably the most fascinating thing in the sky right now.
It is okay, So let's get into it. The material
you share gives us this incredible breakdown, especially from discussions
with Harvard astronomer Ave Lobe. He's been on Fox thirty
two Chicago and elsewhere really framing this thing not as
a comet, but as potential technology. He has, yes, So
our mission for this deep dive is to really set
through all of that. We're going to look at the
hard science, the data, these unbelievable geometric coincidences in its
flight path, and then explore what it all means. I mean,
we're actually talking about a trojan horse.
Speaker 3: Hypothesis, the idea that this thing could be a carrier
some kind of delivery system for say, undetected technology, maybe
even a swarm of nanobots just waiting.
Speaker 2: To be deployed.
Speaker 1: Mind bending stuff.
Speaker 2: It's the perfect intersection.
Speaker 1: Really.
Speaker 2: You have quantum optics, you have celestial mechanics, and then
you have this layer of geopolitical awareness, all focused on
one single mysterious object.
Speaker 1: So where do we even begin?
Speaker 2: We begin with part of one hundred times bigger than
normal dust, and we end with why the CIA can't
deny that they have a file on it.
Speaker 1: All right, let's start at the beginning. Then the first
big piece of this puzzle is just an incredible stroke
of observational luck, an event that happened on January twenty second.
Speaker 2: It really was a gift from the cosmos, you could say.
Speaker 1: So it created this perfect viewing window. Why was that
date so important? It sounds like we were just handed
the perfect moment to study this thing.
Speaker 2: That's a great way to put it. On January twenty second,
Earth moved into a position almost exactly between three I
at lists and the Sun.
Speaker 1: Okay, and this.
Speaker 2: Configuration it has a name. It's called opposition. It means
the object is directly opposite the Sun in our night sky.
The precision here was just staggering. It was aligned to
within zero point sixty nine degrees.
Speaker 1: Zero point six nine degrees. Help us visualize that, I mean,
the full moon is about half a degree across. So
are we talking about an almost perfect straight line sun Earth.
Speaker 2: At lists almost perfect less than one degree off. I mean,
that's astronomically precise. And an alignment like that isn't just
for a nice photo op It's critical because it generates
something at Stronomer's called the opposition surge, an opposition surge right,
and this surge gives us two distinct and very powerful benefits.
It leads to this massive increase in how bright the
object appears and the quality of the signal we can
get from it.
Speaker 1: So let's break that down. Why does this specific arrangement
where we're essentially looking at the sun's reflection head on
give us such a good view?
Speaker 2: Well, the first benefit is the easy one. It's purely geometric.
When you're looking at the object at night, the sun
is directly behind you, so you see the entire face
of the object and all the particles around it completely
lit up.
Speaker 1: Like looking at a full moon versus a crescent moon exactly.
Speaker 2: You get no shadows. It maximizes the surface area that's
reflecting sunlight right back at you, right back to our telephone.
Speaker 1: Okay, that makes sense, But you said there were two benefits.
Speaker 2: Yes, and the second one is frankly much more crucial
for figuring out the microscopic structure of this thing. And
this is where the physics gets really fascinating.
Speaker 1: You mentioned the quantum mechanical effect. That sounds like something
you don't hear about in everyday astronomy.
Speaker 2: You don't. It's subtle but it's incredibly powerful. So when
sunlight hits a bunch of particles, especially small, densely packed ones,
and reflects directly back towards the source, which.
Speaker 1: Is us our telescopes on Earth right.
Speaker 2: A phenomenon occurs called constructive interference, and this is a
quantum mechanical effect that basically enhances the light that's scattered back.
Speaker 1: Constructive interference, so the light waves bouncing off are all
stacking up on each other perfectly instead of canceling each
other out.
Speaker 2: That is the perfect way to describe it. Imagine two
waves hitting a wall, but when they reflect back, their
peaks and troughs are perfectly aligned. They add up, They
constructively interfere, and that doubles their amplitude, which.
Speaker 1: We see as a huge jump in brightness.
Speaker 2: A dramatic nonlinear surge and brightness exactly. So for the
scientific teams using the big sensitive telescope, this opposition surge
was just a gold mine of high precision data.
Speaker 1: And with that data, what were they trying to figure out?
What specifically did they want to know about the material?
Three eye out lists is shedding two main things.
Speaker 2: First, just to define the structure of the dust and gas,
are the particles small and fluffy or are they these
unusually large dense particles we suspected. And the second thing,
the second thing is the real heart of the anomaly.
We need a definitive data on the nature and the
origin of the and this is key the unprecedented negative
and extreme polarization of the light that we'd already detected
from it.
Speaker 1: Okay, polarization, that word screams anomaly. Here we kind of
know what it is from sunglasses. But what does extreme
negative polarization tell us about what this thing is made of?
Speaker 2: Right? Let's contextualize that the light from the sun is unpolarized.
Its waves are vibrating in all directions. When it reflects
off a flat surface like a road, the reflected light
gets partially polarized. The wave mostly line up in one
direction horizontally.
Speaker 1: In our sunglasses block that horizontal light to cut the
glare exactly.
Speaker 2: That's standard or positive polarization. What we found with three
iatlis was the complete opposite. The light scattered from it
had negative and extreme polarization negatives.
Speaker 1: So the light waves are moving perpendicular to the surface.
Speaker 2: Essentially, yes, it means the light is oscillating perpendicular to
the plane of reflection. Or it suggests this really chaotic,
complex scattering is happening at very small angles. Just bizarre.
Speaker 1: And what does that imply about the particles themselves? If
smooth dust gives us positive polarization, what kind of dust
gives you this extreme negative signal?
Speaker 2: It implies highly unusual scattering properties, things we rarely, if
ever see in natural comets. The model suggests one of
two things. First, the particles might be incredibly dark, absorbing
almost all light and only scattering a tiny bit in
a chaotic way core Or and this seems more likely,
the particles must have an incredibly complex, non spherical and
highly porous structure.
Speaker 1: Porous like a sponge or.
Speaker 2: Something exactly like a sponge, but on a microscopic scale.
Think of it like tiny fractal popcorn. A particle like
that would trap light, making it bounce around inside multiple
times before it.
Speaker 1: Escapes, and all those internal reflections would randomize it.
Speaker 2: They'd randomize it and cause it to emerge with that
perpendicular or negative orientation. And the extreme part means the
effect is maybe three to five times more pronounced than
the weirdest comets we've ever seen before.
Speaker 1: So it's not just different, it's way off the charts,
way off.
Speaker 2: It strongly suggests the scattering is caused by something unique,
a composition or an internal structure that just fundamentally challenges
the idea that three Iatlis is just a simple, dirty
snowball from deep space.
Speaker 1: So that one perfect alignment on January twenty second was
the key. It gave us the data to confirm that
the very material this thing is made of is abnormal.
Speaker 2: Which leads us right into the next big anomaly. The
most prominent physical feature of three iatlists this massive jet
of material that's pointed directly towards the sun, the anti tail.
The anti tail, it's completely counterintuitive. It's fighting against the constant,
massive force of the solar wind and radiation pressure.
Speaker 1: Right every picture of a comet you've ever seen, the
tail is blown away from the sun like smoke in
the winds. This is like the smoke is blowing into
the wind. How big is this jet? What does it
take to sustain something like that?
Speaker 2: The scale is what really breaks the imagination. This jet,
it propagates for about four hundred thousand kilometer.
Speaker 1: Wait, four hundred thousand to put that in perspective's that's
about the distance from the Earth to the Moon.
Speaker 2: It's a comparable distance. Yes, a plume of material as
long as the Earth Moon gap pushing against the Sun.
Speaker 1: That's just staggering, and.
Speaker 2: It's very long and narrow. It's about ten times longer
than it is. Why so you have this colossal plume
of ejected material that is actively fighting the Sun's forces,
Which leads to the next obvious question.
Speaker 1: Which is why isn't there a normal tail?
Speaker 2: Exactly? Why don't we see a visible tail going away
from this? That should be the default for any comet.
Speaker 1: The absence of that tail is as big a clue
as the presence of the anti tail. If the solar
wind isn't pushing the material away, that material must be
incredibly resistant to it.
Speaker 2: The logic is inescapable. The only way for particles to
resist that pressure is to have a very large mass
relative to their surface area. So the bottom line is
the particles have to be huge.
Speaker 1: So it's not shedding dust, it's shedding chunks. Yeah, how
much bigger are we talking compared to normal comet dust.
Speaker 2: Typical cometary dust is sub micrometer It's incredibly fine. The
particles from three I alas have to be in the
range of ten to one hundred micrometers.
Speaker 1: One hundred times larger.
Speaker 2: About one hundred times larger than usual.
Speaker 1: Yes, let's get a feel for that. If typical comet
dust is like the finest powder imaginable, what's one hundred micrometers?
Is that like a grain of sand.
Speaker 2: It's about the size of a very fine grain of sand,
or maybe a grain of flour. You could definitely see
a clump of it, and that size difference completely changes
the physics.
Speaker 1: It's the difference between the wind pushing a piece of
paper versus a rock.
Speaker 2: An excellent analogy. You try to push a giant sheet
of tissue paper with a gust of wind, It flies
away instantly. You try to push a dense marble. It
barely moves. Its mass is just too great for its
surface area.
Speaker 1: Which makes this anti tail a huge puzzle, because how
does a natural object produce and eject such large particles
and sustain that jet against the sun.
Speaker 2: That's the unresolved question. The competing theories are either that
it's fragments of ice that slowly evaporate over that four
hundred thousand kilometer distance, or it's these large dense dust
particles being ejected with a lot of force. But either way,
ice or dust, the material is highly unusual and very dense.
Speaker 1: And that density in the ejection velocity you need to
maintain that anti tail that connects perfectly to the next
major finding, right, the object's rotation.
Speaker 2: Yes, this is where we bring in the Hubble space telescope.
Scientists analyze seventeen images that Hubble took between late November
and late to c and they noticed something a distinct
rhythmic pattern in that jet structure.
Speaker 1: You're talking about the wobble.
Speaker 2: The wobble exactly, the jets, especially that big anti tail,
they seem to wobble around the rotation axis of the
main body. The best analogy really is a ratating lighthouse beam.
Speaker 1: So the object is spinning and the jets aren't coming
from the poles, they're coming from somewhere off center, so
they sweep around as it turns.
Speaker 2: That's it, precisely, and by tracking that sweep across the
different Hubble images, astronomers could measure the rotation period with
very high precision.
Speaker 1: And what do they find?
Speaker 2: What was the period they landed on a very precise
period of either seven point two or seven point one hours.
And what makes this finding so solid is how it
was confirmed.
Speaker 1: It wasn't just a Hubble data.
Speaker 2: No, that seven point one Aggar period was confirmed by
two completely independent sources.
Speaker 1: That was a second source.
Speaker 2: The first was analyzing the physical wabble of the jet
in the Hubble images. The second came from ground based
telescopes that were just monitoring the object's overall brightness after
it passed its closest point to the sun.
Speaker 1: Hold on, how does its brightness tell you how fast
it's spinning.
Speaker 2: Well, think about the shape of the object as it rotates.
The amount of reflective material pointed towards us changes, the
angle of the jets changes, the surface of the nucleus changes.
Speaker 1: So it gets brighter and dimmer in a regular.
Speaker 2: Cycle, a measurable fluctuation in brightness. Yes, And the critical
finding was that the timing of that brightness fluctuation perfectly
matched the timing of the physical wobble from the Hubble data.
Both pointed to that seven point one hour period. It's
the first confirmed report on its.
Speaker 1: Rotation, and having two independent confirmations like that is huge.
It really locks it in.
Speaker 2: Is very compelling.
Speaker 1: So now we have an object shedding giant dust grains
with weird light polarization, rotating like clockwork every seven hours.
That regularity, it starts to feel less like a chaotic
natural object and more like a machine.
Speaker 2: That machine like routine is the perfect segue to the
next critical day on this thing's calendar. March sixteenth. This
is when three I at List makes its approach to Jupiter.
And this is where the technological discussion really ramps up.
Speaker 1: So why Jupiter, it's not the closest it gets to
the Sun or to Earth. Why is this particular planetary
fly by a potential black Swan event.
Speaker 2: It's all about the very specific physics of the encounter.
On March sixteenth, three Atlas will pass within a very
specific distance of Jupiter, a boundary known as its hill radius.
Speaker 1: Okay, let's slow down and unpack the hill radius, because
it sounds like that's the absolute key to this whole
deployment theory.
Speaker 2: It is the hill radius. You can also call it
the roach sphere. It's the boundary that defines a planet's
gravitational sphere of influence. It's the line where Jupiter's gravity
it becomes stronger than the Sun's gravity.
Speaker 1: So if you cross that line, you're more likely to
fall into Jupiter's gravitational well than to keep orbiting the Sun.
Speaker 2: That's it exactly. You become gravitationally bound to Jupiter. And
for an interstellar object which should just be on a
simple slingshot path out of the system to hit that
exact boundary, it's very specific.
Speaker 1: And when you combine that with all its other weird behaviors,
it starts.
Speaker 2: To look less like a coincidence and more like a
pre programmed destination.
Speaker 1: Right, And speaking of coincidences, this gets us to that
whole argument. The source material says that any single one
of these could be random chance, but when you add
them all up, the total picture is very unlikely to
be an accident.
Speaker 2: That's the core statistical argument against it being a natural object.
There are just too many specific alignments. Let's list them.
There are three main geometric coincidences that were flagged in
the analysis.
Speaker 1: Okay, what's the first one?
Speaker 2: The orbital plane, Yes, three, I Atlas is orbiting within
five degrees of the ecliptic plane. That's the flat pancake
like disc where all the planets orbit the Sun.
Speaker 1: And why is that weird for something from interseellar space.
Speaker 2: Because an object coming from type space should arrive on
a completely random trajectory. It could come from any angle.
Most of them should be highly inclined, you know, cutting
through the Solar System at forty five or even ninety degrees.
Speaker 1: This one is flying right down the planetary.
Speaker 2: Highway within five degrees of it, Yes, which is statistically
pretty improbable for a random visitor.
Speaker 1: Coincidence number two is about its close passes.
Speaker 2: Correct Its path brings it very close to both Mars
and Jupiter. Again, a random object should just swing through
empty space for the most part. Making close passes to
two major planets is another tick in the unlikely column.
Speaker 1: And the third one connects back to that seven point
one hour rotation we were just talking about.
Speaker 2: This one is maybe the most specific. It's axis of rotation,
the line it's spinning around every seven point one hours.
That axis is aligned with the direction of the Sun
to within ten or twenty degrees at least when it's
far away.
Speaker 1: Okay, but I have to push back a little here.
I mean, in the universe this big, wildly improbable things
have to happen sometimes, right, Why are these three things together,
the plane, the proximity, the axis, so suggestive of design
instead of just being one of those one in a
billion lucky shots.
Speaker 2: That's the right question to ask. And if it were
just one of them, say the ecliptic alignment, we can
maybe dismiss it as a fluke. But you have to
treat them as dependent probabilities. They have to multiply the
You multiply them, so if the chance of each one
is say five percent, and it's probably lower, you multiply
point zero five by point zero five, by point zero five.
The overall probability becomes vanishing only small. It moves beyond
statistical fluke and starts to discuss there's a reason for it,
a cause, or in this context, that the path was engineered.
Speaker 1: So if we entertain that possibility that's not a coincidence,
then the whole hypothesis shifts. The approach to Jupiter's hill
radius on March sixteenth is planned.
Speaker 2: And that's the Trojan horse idea. The object isn't just
flying by Jupiter. The hypothesis is that it might be
designed to deploy some devices when it gets there, maybe
small probes, maybe that nanobot swarm that would then become
stable satellites of Jupiter, and.
Speaker 1: The physics of that capture is the hard part for
nature to explain. For a natural chunk to break off
and get caught by Jupiter, it's almost impossible.
Speaker 2: Right, It's nearly impossible naturally, And this is probably the
strongest piece of circumstantial evidence for technology. Three Ieatlyas is
moving incredibly fast, it's escaping the Sun's gravity. For a
piece of it to break off and then slow down
just the right amount to get captured by Jupiter's weaker gravity, it.
Speaker 1: Would have to fire some kind of reverse thruster, an
active breaking system.
Speaker 2: It would need an intentional deceleration. Yes, nature doesn't really
do precision breaking maneuvers like that by accident. The fragment
would have to shed a huge amount of kinetic energy.
So if we see new unexpected satellites pop up around
Jupiter after March.
Speaker 1: Sixteenth, satellites that weren't there before, then.
Speaker 2: The Trojan Horse suspicion goes way up. It would strongly
suggest a technological payload was deployed.
Speaker 1: And the amazing thing is we're not flying blind here.
We have eyes on Jupiter already.
Speaker 2: We do. We have the Juno spacecraft in orbit right
now sending back constant hires data. And we have two
more big missions on the way esay's Juice Explorer and
NASA's europe Clipper. They're all perfectly positioned to detect any
new anomalous objects that suddenly appear. If something is deployed,
we should see.
Speaker 1: It, which takes this whole conversation out of the realm
of just speculative astronomy and puts it squarely in the
geopolitical arena. You're talking about advanced program devices potentially being
delivered right into our backyard, and that explains why the
intelligence community might be paying attention.
Speaker 2: And that brings us right to that intelligence perspective, because
the interest in THREEI out list isn't just astronomers arguing
in journals. We got a hint of that when a
Freedom of Information Act FOIA request was filed.
Speaker 1: Right someone asked the CIA for any records they had
related to three I.
Speaker 2: Out lists exactly, And the fact that request was even
made tells you that serious people think this object could
be a national security issue.
Speaker 1: So what was the CIA's response.
Speaker 2: This is the really fascinating part. They didn't just deny
having records, which would be the easy answer. They gave
the standard intelligence non answer for things they're actively looking
at can't talk about.
Speaker 1: They said they can neither confirm nor deny the existence
of such records.
Speaker 2: The classic Glomar response, and what that implies to analysts
is that internal discussions or monitoring has almost certainly occurred
if they had nothing.
Speaker 1: They just say they have nothing, So they're basically saying,
we can't tell you if we have a file, because
telling you that would itself be revealing.
Speaker 2: That's the interpretation. Intelligence agencies are all about analyzing low probability,
high impact events black Swan events, and three I atlas
is the textbook definition. The chance of it being alien
tech might be tiny, but the impact would be world changing, so.
Speaker 1: They likely ran the numbers, decided it wasn't an immediate threat,
and filed the analysis away to avoid causing a panic.
Speaker 2: That would be the logical course of action.
Speaker 1: Yes, you know, this whole situation really makes our normal
search for extraterrestrial intelligence SETI seem well kind of quaint,
almost painfully naive.
Speaker 2: The methods are heavily criticized on the source material as
being very presumptuous. It specifically calls out the Breakthrough Listen project.
In response to all the hype, they pointed their telescopes
at three I at list to listen for radio signals
for a total of five hours.
Speaker 1: Five hours for an object that's been eight thousand years
just getting here from the outer Solar System. It feels
like a toke gesture, doesn't It as if an alien
intelligence would just happen to be broadcasting at us during
that exact five hour window.
Speaker 2: It shows a real fundamental misunderstanding of what interstellar communication
would probably look like. Light takes thirty thousand years to
cross our galaxy. A continuous real time chat is pointless.
An advanced traveler wouldn't waste the energy.
Speaker 1: It'd send a data packet, a compressed file, a postcard,
not a phone call, a.
Speaker 2: Postcard or a tweet, exactly a single powerful braste of
information once it arrived at its destination, like Jupiter's hill radius.
The assumption that a species that has mastered interstellar travel
would still use primitive radio and broadcast continuously in a
way we could easily pick up. It's just scientific arrogance, and.
Speaker 1: It highlights this need for humility in the search. Yeah,
we have to admit that we might not even recognize
the signal or the object itself. It was right in
front of us, which bring up that other philosophical point,
aiming high versus aiming low.
Speaker 2: Right, the critique is that the global astronomy community is
planning to spend over ten billion dollars in the coming
years to search for microbial life on Mars on Europa,
and that's considered aiming low.
Speaker 1: Because if you're looking for a role model, a civilization
that has solved the big problems of survival, you need
to look for intelligence.
Speaker 2: You can't have a deep conversation with a MicroB Finding
simple life is incredibly important, of course, but if the
goal is to learn from a superior civilization to figure
out how to survive on a galactic time scale, you
have to shift your focus to finding intelligence or its artifacts.
Speaker 1: But that's the hard part, isn't it Recognizing the artifact,
recognizing technology that's far beyond our own.
Speaker 2: We might not be able to We're limited by our
training data. It's like an AI. We can only recognize
things that fit our existing models of what comets look like,
what gravity does. Everything else gets classified as an anomaly
or just noise.
Speaker 1: The analogy in the source is great. The cave dweller
who finds a.
Speaker 2: Cell phone exactly, the cave dweller picks it up, it's smooth,
it's hard. He throws it in the fire, doesn't burn,
so he concludes it's just a weird kind of rock.
He can't even conceive of semiconductors or radio waves or electricity.
Speaker 1: He doesn't have the training data to classify it as technology.
Speaker 2: And we might be that cave dweller right now. We
could be surrounded by advanced technologies that we misidentify as
natural phenomena because they don't use radio waves and they
don't fit our models. We insist three i at lists
must be a comet, because our training data only has
comets and asteroids in it.
Speaker 1: So we have to start looking for the unknown unknowns,
the things that don't fit any category we have.
Speaker 2: We have to adopt a strategy that explicitly searches for
things that break our models.
Speaker 1: And that imperative to search for artifacts that defy our definitions.
It brings us right back home to our own cosmic backyard,
the Moon and Mars.
Speaker 2: Exactly. If you're going to search for artifacts, the most
logical places start is right here, and the Artemis program
gives us the perfect platform. Artemists two schedule for twenty
twenty six, it'll fly.
Speaker 1: Around the Moon, the first step towards a permanent lunar
base by twenty thirty right.
Speaker 2: And while that's driven by geopolitics, the scientific justification for
being on the Moon is immense, so beyond.
Speaker 1: Just human exploration. What makes the Moon so valuable as
a scientific platform?
Speaker 2: It has three huge advantages over Earth. First, no atmosphere,
no turbulence on Earth, stars, twinkle scintillation, and astronomers call
it from the Moon, the view is perfectly clear and.
Speaker 1: Steady, and no leg pollution.
Speaker 2: No light pollution, so you can see the faintest possible signals.
But the third advantage is maybe the most profound. It's
about detecting gravity waves.
Speaker 1: Like the LEGO observatories on Earth, putting one of those
on the Moon.
Speaker 2: The proposal has been around for a decade. LEGO on
Earth is amazing, but it's fundamentally limited by Earth's seismic noise, earthquakes,
ocean waves, even trucks on the highway.
Speaker 1: The ground is always vibrating.
Speaker 2: It's always vibrating, and that noise floor prevents LEGO from
detecting very low frequency gravitational waves. But the Moon is
seismically quiet. A lunar detector could hear things Earth is
deaf to. What kind of things lower frequencies are produced
by bigger events further back in time, the mergers of
supermassive black holes at the dawn of the universe, maybe
even gravitational waves from the Big Bang itself. A detector
on the Moon could see black holes merging right at
the edge of the observable universe.
Speaker 1: But it's not just a platform for looking out. The
Moon itself and Mars are presented as museums, untapped archives
of history.
Speaker 2: That's the most captivating part of this. I think the
Moon is a perfect time capsule. For four and a
half billion years, it's had no atmosphere. Now why does
that matter.
Speaker 1: Because Earth's atmosphere acts like a shield. It burns up
anything smaller than a car, It burns.
Speaker 2: Up objects smaller than a meter. Yeah, so we've lost
that entire history of small impacts. The Moon, though it
collects everything. It's a treasure of impacts just sitting on
the surface, and.
Speaker 1: That treasure could include more than just rocks.
Speaker 2: Potentially, Yes, it could include technological artifacts, small probes, fragments
from something like a nanobot swarm, discarded alien tech that
crashed into the Moon millions of years ago and is
now just sitting there under a layer of dust waiting.
Speaker 1: To be found. And Mars is a similar kind of museum,
but for the history of life.
Speaker 2: A different kind of history. Yes, Mars lost its atmosphere
about two and a half billion years ago, but we
know it had liquid water on its surface long before that,
which raises the very real possibility that we could find
evidence of life on Mars that existed even before life
on Earth really got going.
Speaker 1: So these local accessible museums are best bet for finding
proof of past life or past technology.
Speaker 2: There are a much better bet than just listening for
radio signals and hoping for the best.
Speaker 1: This has been an incredible synthesis. We started with the
hard science of three iautlis, the giant dust, the weird
light polarization that clockworks seven point one hour rotation.
Speaker 2: Then we layered on the orbital coincidences, this statistically impossible
flight path, the precision approach to Jupiter's hill radius, and
the Trojan horse hypothesis that it's here to deploy.
Speaker 1: Something, and we wrapped it all in this bigger context,
the CIA's non denial, which suggests they're taking this black
Swan event seriously, and the philosophical critique that we're aiming
low in our search, possibly missing artifacts right on our
doorstep because they don't fit our training data.
Speaker 2: The tension is that the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence is
a question that's completely independent of whether we choose to
look for it or not. The truth is out there,
as they say, regardless of our own hubris.
Speaker 1: I mean, if an advanced civilization did send three iautlis,
they're operating on a level of physics. We can't even
comprehend the communication barriers, the biological differences. It's thrilling and
frankly a little terrifying.
Speaker 2: That Analogyjje of taking a one way trip on a
UFO that lands in your yard. It captures that feeling perfectly.
The sheer scope of the unknown, and.
Speaker 1: The data from three i at list is pushing us
away from the simple commet model and towards something far
more complex, something that feels thrillingly technological. We're on the
edge of something new, but only if we're willing to
accept that sometimes a rock isn't just a rock.
Speaker 2: The anomalies are crying out for a technological explanation, even
if we can't prove what that technology is just yet.
The evidence is pointing us right back here to our
own solar system to find the proof.
Speaker 4: So we want to leave you with a question that
bridges all of this. If the intelligence community is already
analyzing potential black swant events like three i AT lists,
do you think our approach to finding non radio based
advanced technological artifacts right here in our own solar system.
Speaker 1: Needs to change?
Speaker 4: Should we rely less on our current training data set
and get more aggressive about exploring these local museums the
moon in Mars. Tell us what you think about the
Trojan Horse prospect. We'll see you on the next thrilling
threads