Speaker 1: What if an object visiting our Solar System is defying well,
basically every known law of physics we associate with its class,
not just bending the rules, but kind of shattering them entirely.
Speaker 2: Uh huh.
Speaker 1: And what if at the very moment we were meant
to capture its clearest, you know, high resolution images, the
doors to our global observatory suddenly closed, leaving us with
this cosmic mystery wrapped in let's say, political inconvenience.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's a pretty good way to frame it. A
huge puzzle, right when we need in clarity most.
Speaker 1: Okay, so let's unpack this. We've been given a truly
fascinating stack of reports and data concerning the third known
interstellar visitor to pass through our Solar System. It's a
celestial body designated three I Atlas.
Speaker 2: And it's important to stress this isn't just you know,
another space rock wandering in from deep space.
Speaker 1: Right, this object has become a real lightning rod for
scientific frustration and frankly, some pretty extraordinary speculation, because the
data we do have paints a portrait of something that well,
it just shouldn't exist according to our models. So our
mission today is to sift through the facts, the strange
observational data, and some truly wild theories surrounding this massive object.
We need to figure out in as much detail as
we can why three iat lists earned this highly anomalous
reputation and why it's a rival.
Speaker 2: Has the scientific community really debating physics versus well versus intention?
Speaker 1: Exactly intention that really keeps popping up, and.
Speaker 2: That reputation, as you said, is profoundly well earned. When
we observe an object coming in from outside our solar system,
we try to categorize its behavior based on what we
know about comments about asteroids.
Speaker 1: Sure, the usual suspect, right.
Speaker 2: But three iatlists it basically forced astrophysicist Avi Lobe, who's
a key voice in this whole discussion of non terrestrial phenomena,
to place it on a very specific scale.
Speaker 1: He developed, Ohkait, tell us about that scale? How do
we quantify an anomaly like this?
Speaker 2: So Avi Loba set up this categorization scale. It runs
from zero to ten. Zero is basically a completely normal
typical commet behaves exactly as predicted by Newtonian physics, you know,
textbook stuff, gravity, sublimation.
Speaker 1: The whole package, right, bloring predictable predictable.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and ten on the absolute far extreme that would
be classified as undeniable alien technology, no question.
Speaker 1: Okay, so where did three IAT lists lamp?
Speaker 2: It was assigned a category four rating.
Speaker 1: Four huh, so not a zero, but not a ten either.
H sitting well outside the realm of typical though, what
does that signify? A four?
Speaker 2: It places three i AT lists squarely in the realm
of high level unusual behavior. It signals that we have
multiple distinct observational puzzles things our current commentary models just
cannot explain without resorting to well mechanisms we can't yet
define or even detect. It means we have to start
considering possibilities that are statistically really improbable, maybe even physically
impossible for a purely natural object.
Speaker 1: In these puzzles, these anomalies, that's what makes this whole
story so compelling, so weirdly thrilling, almost absolutely so. To
set the stage for you listening, we've identified seven core
anomalies that really define three ialysts and set it fundamentally
apart even from our other interstellar visitors, you know, Umola
and boor us off.
Speaker 2: Okay, so the first couple are sort of physical observations. First,
there's its sheer unusual size. Estimates put the nucleus maybe
around a kilometer in diameter, maybe more, but its behavior
doesn't seem to match its mass. That's the first flag.
Speaker 1: Okay, big but acting weird for its size. Got it.
Speaker 2: Then right after that we hit the really bizarre sunward
jet plume. This is a total reversal of what we expect.
Speaker 1: Wait, sunward, the jet, the coma. It's extending towards the Sun.
Speaker 2: Exactly defying the solar wind. It's just wrong.
Speaker 1: Just hold that image for a second. The tail or
whatever it is, is pushing against the Sun. That alone
breaks the mold of everything we know about how commets
interact with stellar energy. Wow, okay, what else did they find?
Speaker 2: Well? Next up is its unusual chemical composition and how
it's scatters light. It exhibits extreme negative polarization. Basically, the
way it reflects and scatters sunlight is just strange, highly
inconsistent with a typical dusty, icy object.
Speaker 1: So it doesn't look right in terms of light physics either.
Speaker 2: Not really No. And then adding to the strangeness, it
shows this peculiar ecliptic plane alignment, meaning its path through
our Solar system is unnervingly aligned with the plane where
all the planets orbit the Sun, almost like it's following
a I don't know, a navigational chart rather than just
a random entry vector from interstellar space.
Speaker 1: That feels deliberate, almost too neat.
Speaker 2: It feels efficient. Yeah, and the final two points they
kind of move us from pure physics anomalies more into
these narrative anomalies, things that suggest a story. Okay, we
have what are being called optimized planetary flybys. Its trajectory
seems to maximize gravitational assists from planets like Mars. It
suggests a path that's almost too efficient, too planned, rather
than a haphazard journey through the.
Speaker 1: System, like it knew where it was going and the
best way to get there using gravity.
Speaker 2: That's the implications some are drawing. Yeah, and maybe the
most scientifically arresting point on that list, the one that
gives it real narrative weight, is its alignment with the
source location of the nineteen seventy seven WOW.
Speaker 1: Signal, the WIW signal.
Speaker 2: Seriously, it's arriving from a direction roughly nine degrees off
the Sagittarius constellation, which is the exact area of the
sky where we receive that one singular, profound narrow band
radio transmission all those decades ago, that signal that's never
been repeated and never explained.
Speaker 1: Okay, hold on. You connect a singular, powerful, unexplained radio
beacon from the seventies with a physical object arriving from
the same patch of sky today, you're basically connecting two
of the greatest unexplained mysteries in modern astronomy.
Speaker 2: Pretty much.
Speaker 1: That just frames the entire event completely differently. It shifts
it from a chance encounter to a potential cosmic rendezvous.
Speaker 2: It certainly fuels that kind of speculation. Yes, but look,
before we get too deep into the let's say, more
exotic possibilities, we really have to address the most frustrating
part of the three I atlist story and perhaps the
most suspicious part for many people, which is the convenient
absence of critical observational data.
Speaker 1: Right this is where the hard science beats well messy
politics and where the scientific counities collective headache really began.
We're talking about this highly anomalous object, a Category four visitor,
just begging for detailed, high res observation, and its trajectory
was calculated to offer this rare, spectacular opportunity for us
to really see what it was made of.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that critical moment was predicted for around October third.
Alice's path brought it quite close to Mars, relatively speaking,
out close within about twenty nine million kilometers of Mars.
That proximity positioned it perfectly from maximum observation by a
whole range of global space assets. We're talking instruments like
the Hubble Space Telescope, specialized cameras on Mars orbiters, the works.
Speaker 1: Twenty nine million kilometers near Mars. That's close enough for
incredibly detailed pictures, right that kind.
Speaker 2: We needed absolutely a proximity like that for an interstellar visitor.
It's incredibly rare. So all the big guns, all the cameras,
all the telescopes Hubble definitely included, were theoretically poised to
capture this. As you said, one in a lifetime opportunity,
you'd expect a flood of data images, flash, flash, flash,
get those pictures, but then nothing, silence detail. The frustrating
reports here, no high resolution images were released, not from NASA,
not from Hubble. We're still waiting for the critical data
from that optimal viewing window and the.
Speaker 1: Official explanation provided for this, this great data silence, it
stems from something pretty mundane though definitely disruptive terrestrial politics,
specifically a US government budget failure UH shut down right,
resulting in what's known as a lock shut down or halt.
The official position is that NASA, including the team's need
for Hubble and other key instruments, was operating on absolute
bare minimum staff. Critical personnel were furloughed.
Speaker 2: We need to understand the context here of what a
government shut down actually means for these highly specialized operations
like Hubble. It's not like just flipping off a light switch, right,
not at all. These telescopes require immense lead time incredibly
specialized staff to manage observation schedules, data processing calibration. Hubble time,
for instance, is fiercely competitive. It's allocated weeks, sometimes months
in advance. You can't just decide to point it somewhere.
Speaker 1: On a whim, so when a shutdown happens.
Speaker 2: When a shutdown occurs, employees including the specialized engineers, the
data processors, the folks who handle the data release pipelines.
Replaces like the Jet Propulsion Lab and other key NASA
facilities they're put onto furlough, they're sent home. So the
official line is, the official position is that the necessary
personnel were simply not available to manage the demanding process collecting, processing, calibrating,
and then releasing these complex, multi layered high resolution images.
It couldn't happen during that exact critical window.
Speaker 1: It's the difference between like me taking a snapshot on
my phone and a complex government instrument generating actual scientific
grade data that needs careful handling precisely.
Speaker 2: And we know the last comparable shutdown was that really
long one thirty five days back in twenty eighteen, So
it's not unprecedented, but the timing.
Speaker 1: Okay, let's analyze the public reaction to this, because the
skepticism was immediate and pretty profound, wasn't it across both
the scientific community and the general public.
Speaker 2: Oh, the skepticism is completely understandable. Look, you have an
object that's been flagged as a Category four anomaly, potentially
something completely unprecedented in recorded history, and the only reason
we supposedly miss the critical image capture is a bureaucratic failure,
a budget dispute.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it stretches credulity, as.
Speaker 2: They say, it really does. It raises that important question,
when you're facing a scientific opportunity that might literally never
happen again in human history, would dedicate career researchers just shrug,
follow protocol and stay home.
Speaker 1: It seems highly improbable, doesn't it. You've got researchers who
dedicate their entire lives to finding something exactly like this.
The perception, right or wrongly, is that these highly dedicated
scientists wouldn't just work for free. They might risk breaking protocol,
climb over the fence metaphorically speaking, just to tap the
keys and secure that absolutely crucial data.
Speaker 2: And that perceived improbability, combined with the incredibly convenient timing
of the shutdown hitting just as Atlas was in that
optimal viewing position, well, it's fueled immense speculation.
Speaker 1: Speculation like what like the.
Speaker 2: Government might be actively hiding what they found, or maybe
they did get the images and they're processing them trying
to figure out what they mean before releasing anything. Perhaps
because the data seriously contradicted the simple comet narrative, they might.
Speaker 1: Prefer, so a potential cover up or at least the
managed release.
Speaker 2: That's what the skeptics are saying. However, we weren't completely
block during this period, and this contrast is critical. Okay,
the European Space Agency ESA, they weren't affected by the
US mudget issues obviously, right, different government, different budget, and
they did successfully capture footage of three i at lists
using the xmr's camera on one of their Mars orbiters. Now,
this ESA data, while maybe not the super high resolution
stuff we craved from Hubble, it quickly became the subject
of intense global scrutiny.
Speaker 1: So we did get something.
Speaker 2: We did, and it provided us with our first real
look at its truly strange physical appearance and really opened
the door to our next set of anomalies, the visible ones.
So this ESA footage, combined with some earlier lower resolution
data from Hubble back in July, it gave us the
first clear visual contradiction regarding three i at lists. When
you think comment, what do you picture?
Speaker 1: Oh, you know the classic image big bright head and
this massive, beautiful tale of dust and gas streaming away
from the sun like Haley's or Hailbop, the famous cosmic streaker.
Speaker 2: Exactly textbook solar wind interaction. But three eye at lists,
it just doesn't fit that mold at all. Early observations
described it more like a ball of light with maybe
a slight extension or sometimes just a haze.
Speaker 1: Huh, So, noting the distinct lack of a prominent tail,
the kind you'd expect from an objected size moving that
fast near the.
Speaker 2: Sun precisely, even Avi Loeb himself stated quite clearly three
iat list does not look like a typical comment where
you see a beautiful tail of dust stretching away.
Speaker 1: Okay, to really appreciate how unusual that lack of a
tail is, we need a comparison point. You mentioned C.
Twenty twenty three A three earlier.
Speaker 2: Yes. C. Twenty twenty three A three. That's a much
more typical solar system commet. Now get this, Even though
A three was actually much closer to Earth at the
time of some key observations about thirty six million miles
compared to Atlas' one hundred and thirty million miles, A
three exhibited a massive, bright, absolutely textbook dust tail, huge thing.
Speaker 1: Okay, So A three was closer and had a big tail,
makes sense.
Speaker 2: But three I at Lists, which was way further out,
like ninety four million miles further away at that point,
had barely anything visually significant in terms of a tail,
just that fuzzy ball.
Speaker 1: Wow. So what does that suggest?
Speaker 2: It suggests that whatever process is happening on three I
at lists, it's either somehow suppressing the release of its material,
maybe holding itself together better than expected, or perhaps it's
actively protecting itself from the Sun's ablation effect. It's not
shedding material in the expected way.
Speaker 1: Okay, So this lack of a tail, combined with the
fact that it's apparently not breaking apart despite the solar heating,
that leads us directly to maybe the most baffling physical observation, right,
the anti cometary trait that sunworred jet plut Me mentioned.
Speaker 2: That's the real physics defying part in normal comments. Okay,
solar heating causes isis to supplement turned to gas. Fine,
then the solar wind and the pressure from sunlight itself
physically pushed that resulting tail away from the Sun. Always
think of the Sun like a massive cosmic fan blowing
the tail outwards.
Speaker 1: It makes sense. Push implies direction.
Speaker 2: Away ai atlass the material, the coma, the stuff around
the nucleus was observed extending or kind of jetting towards
the Sun, almost as if it were actively defying that
solar wind push pointing into the fan, so to speak.
Speaker 1: That is, that's shocking from a physicist perspective. If the
solar wind is pushing one way in the Jett's point
of the other way, how does scientists even begin to
reconcile that what mechanical process could possibly violate the known
physics of solar radiation pressure like that?
Speaker 2: That is the core mystery. We don't have a good
conventional explanation.
Speaker 1: It really suggests some mechanism that's either resisting the pressure,
nullifying it somehow, or maybe even intentionally manipulating the forces
being exerted by the sun. It's out active.
Speaker 2: It certainly invites those kinds of thoughts, doesn't it. And
this brings us neatly to the viral zoomed in footage
the stuff derived from that ESA data. Once this footage
started circulating globally, people began reporting seeing well distinct white
dots almost resembling LEDs or little orbs lying around the
main body of the.
Speaker 1: Object, LEDs like lights on a comet.
Speaker 2: That was a description catching on online, and as you
can imagine, this intensified the speculation that the object wasn't
natural that it was artificial. Seeing little points of light
moving around it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that doesn't sound like dust. So this must have
sent the scientific community scrambling for a conventional explanation for
this sparkling as this led effects. Right, what were the
counter theories? How do they try to rationalize that dotted appearance?
Speaker 2: Well, scientists offered three main explanations, all basically focusing on
dust scattering effects and potential observational errors. Nothing involving actual lights, okay,
theory one. The primary theory revolved around sublimation and exceptionally
fine dust grains. The idea is, okay, the intense solar
heating causes ices on the nucleus to sublimate turned directly
into gas, standard comet stuff. But this process, this out gassing,
It drags microscopic dust grains off the surface at extremely
high speeds, really tiny particles.
Speaker 1: And when this two per fine material, it's the sunlight.
Speaker 2: What happens when these tiny high velocity particles scatter the
sunlight unevenly, especially when you're taking long exposure images like
the ones from EXOMRS, they can produce that kind of
sparkling or dotted appearance. They can momentarily flash brightly mimicking
individual lights rather than just contributing to a smooth, continuous glow.
They're just tiny bright reflectors caught in the moment.
Speaker 1: Okay, so little dust motes casting the light in a
weird way because of the camera settings. Was this a
second theory that address the chemistry exactly?
Speaker 2: The second theory emphasized the potentially unusual chemical composition of
the material being shed. We know that coma has this
reddish color and it contains these high velocity particles. Now,
the sources suggest these include particles possibly as large as
quote one hundred units.
Speaker 1: One hundred units of what That sounds vague.
Speaker 2: It is a bit vague in the source, but in
astronomical context for cometary dust, that likely means one hundred microns,
which is actually quite large for grains being ejected at
high velocity.
Speaker 1: Okay, so relatively large grains for this process.
Speaker 2: Yes. And mixed in with these larger grains are complex
organic molecules known as tholins. Think reddish tar like complex organics.
And then there are also mentions of the smallest particles
being quote one radius, which again is likely shorthand for
particles around one micron and radius typical fine dust size.
Speaker 1: So a mix of unusually large grains, tiny grains, and
weird organic stuff, all moving fast and catching light differently.
Speaker 2: That's the idea. This unique complex mix of particle sizes
and compositions, especially the larger, faster grains, contributes heavily to
that unusual visual scattering effect, making it look potentially dotty.
Speaker 1: All right, And the third theory that brings us back
to the camera itself, right, Yeah, limitations of observation, that's.
Speaker 2: Right, good old imaging artifacts. Telescopes like the one on
XMRS capture images through multiple color filters, typically red, green,
and blue, over a period of time, not instantaneously, okay.
Because the object three II is moving relative to the spacecraft,
its movement causes it to effectively streak across the different
filter frames during the exposure sequence.
Speaker 1: Ah, so it's in a slightly different place when the
red filter is on compared to the blue.
Speaker 2: Filter precisely, and when you combine these slightly offset color
filtered images, the motion can sometimes cause point sources like
bright spots on the object or even background cosmic rays
hitting the detector to blend into these isolated, maybe multicolored dots.
It can look like distinct points of light that aren't
really there as persistent lights, so.
Speaker 1: Basically glitches in the matrix caused by movement in camera mechanics.
Speaker 2: That's the technical explanation, and scientists analyzing the data stress
that the observations overall are consistent with passive reflection of
sunlight and dust scattering. They firmly rolled out any evidence
of an internal active glow or any kind of artificial
light source for the object as a whole. The dots
were likely just dust or artifacts.
Speaker 1: Okay. Now, speaking of composition and appearance, you mentioned the color.
The object apparently changed its look quite dramatically as it
got closer to the sun, shifting from that reddish hue
you mentioned earlier to green. That kind of color change
must be a huge clue about what it's actually made.
Speaker 2: Of, right, Oh, absolutely, it's a direct chemical signature. This
specific color change from reddish often indicating complex organics or silkits,
to a distinct green as it heats up is attributed
quite specifically to the objects shredding nickel and iron at
an exceptional rate.
Speaker 1: Nickel and iron metals in large quantities.
Speaker 2: Yes, as these metallic elements vaporize in the intense heat
near the sun. The gaseous nickel and iron atoms fluoresce
when hit by sunlight, emitting light specifically in the green
part of the spectrum. Diatomic carbon C two also glows
green in comets, but the reports emphasize nickel and iron here.
Speaker 1: So seeing that green glow tells us not only that
it's getting really hot, but also that it has an
incredibly high concentration of these metals, much higher than a
typical icy comet maybe, and it's releasing them far fast
than usual.
Speaker 2: That's the interpretation. The rate and intensity of that green
glow suggests both high heat and an unusual abundance of
metals being liberated from the nucleus. It adds another layer
to its chemical peculiarity.
Speaker 1: Okay, so we have an object that visually defies the
expected norms, no real tail, an anti sun plume, strange
dots explained as dust, heart effacts, and a weird color
change indicating lots of metal. But if the physical appearance
just defied visual expectation, the next piece of data we
need to talk about seems to fundamentally break the laws
of motion we associate with these objects, right.
Speaker 2: We need to focus now on a really crucial concept,
non gravitational acceleration, usually shortened.
Speaker 1: To NGA NGA.
Speaker 2: NGA is absolutely key to understanding why three I atlas
is considered such an extreme outlier. So, as we discussed,
when a comet heats up near the Sun, the volatile
ices on its surface, things like water, ice, carbon dioxide, ice,
maybe methane ice. They don't melt, they sublimate, They turn
directly into.
Speaker 1: Gas, okay, straight from solid to gas exactly.
Speaker 2: And these gases are often ejected from specific spots on
the nucleus, creating these powerful asymmetrical jets we see them now.
These jets act like small, continuous but importantly uncontrolled thrusters
on the comet.
Speaker 1: Like little rocket engines firing off randomly.
Speaker 2: Prey much, and they constantly push the comet slightly off
the precise gravitational course that Newton's laws would predict based
just on the pull of the Sun and planet.
Speaker 1: Ah. Okay, So if you imagine like a boat floating
on a perfectly smooth lake, the boat should follow the
calculated path based on gravity, maybe the wind. But if
the boat has a tiny, unpredictable leak on the side,
that's constantly squirting water out. Yeah, the boat is going
to wobble and veer off that perfect course. It won't
go exactly where you calculate it should.
Speaker 2: That's a perfect analogy, that wobbling, that veering. That is
the non gravitational acceleration the NGA, And for natural comments,
especially active ones, that effect is significant, measurable, and usually
highly inconsistent and unpredictable because the jets sputter and change.
Speaker 1: Okay, so if three I outlists is active, shedding nickel
and iron, generating that weird sunward plume, it should be
experiencing significant NGA, right, it should be wabbling all over
the place.
Speaker 2: It absolutely should be. It should be highly inconsistent dynamically speaking.
But the source material, the tracking data. It shows that
since its discovery way back in early May, three I
at list has maintained an extreme stability in its trajectory.
This is what some are calling the steady hand phenomenon
extreme stability.
Speaker 1: The numbers here are what really make your jaw drop,
aren't they? Yeah? How steady are we actually talking?
Speaker 2: On a daily basis? The tracking data shows its velocity
and trajectory have only fluctuated by about one point five
kilometers due to NGA. That's its average deviation from a
purely gravitational path per day.
Speaker 1: One point five kilometers per day. Yep.
Speaker 2: When we calculate its course, it's almost perfectly following the
gravitational pull of the Sun and the planets, almost as
if those jets, the ones causing the plume and the
color change, aren't even firing, or as if something is
counteracting them perfectly.
Speaker 1: One and a half kilometers per day. Okay, on its
own that number, maybe it sounds like a lot. Maybe not.
But we have to compare it to its peers, to
other comets and interstellar objects to realize just how statistically
bizarre this stability actually is.
Speaker 2: Exactly we're talking about orders of magnitude difference here, not
just some minor statistical variation. This isn't just a slightly
unusual reading. This appears to be a complete rejection of
expected cometary dynamics.
Speaker 1: Okay, flay out the comparisons. How does one point five
kilometer a stack up. Let's start with the other interstellar visitors.
Speaker 2: Okay, let's use the specific comparative examples found in the reports.
Take two, Borisov, the second interstellar object we detected before Atlas.
Borisov was much more commet like visually, but its NGA
was measured to be fluctuating over one hundred kilometers per day.
Speaker 1: Whoa wait, over one hundred kilometers per day for Borisov
versus one point five kilometers per day for Atlas.
Speaker 2: That's right. That means three I Atlas is roughly what
seventy to one hundred times more stable in its path
than its interstellar predecessor boresof.
Speaker 1: One hundred times more stable. Okay, that puts a one
point five kilometer figure into painful perspective for astronomers trying
to classify this thing. Is just a weird comet, it
really does.
Speaker 2: Now, let's look at a large solar system comet, something
we know is natural but big and active, like comet Hailbop,
which was huge, probably at least as large intrinsically as
three I Atlas is estimated to be.
Speaker 1: Okay, Hailbop, big comet. How much did it wobble?
Speaker 2: Even Hailbop, despite its large mass, which should add some stability,
it was still being pushed around by its jets, fluctuating
by an average of over ten kilometers of NGA.
Speaker 1: Per day, So ten kilometers for Hailbob still roughly ten
times more fluctuation than Atlas exhibits. A massive object like
Hailbop should have massive, detectable and highly variable jets causing
significant NGA.
Speaker 2: Correct and Atlas, apparently similar in size, is just cruising
along smoothly. Now for the gold standard of interstellar instability.
The object that first alerted us to the whole possibilit
of non cometary interstellar behavior Umoma.
Speaker 1: The first one, Umua.
Speaker 2: At certain points in its trajectory, especially near the sun,
Umuama showed NGA suggesting it was changing direction, or rather
deviating from gravity by over one thousand kilometers.
Speaker 1: Per day one thousand kilometers per day.
Speaker 2: Yes, so when you put these numbers side by side,
Atlas at one point five kilometer day, Hailbop at ten
kilometer day, boris off at one hundred kilometer day, and
Umumua at one thousand kilometer day. Three I at LISS
isn't just an outlier. It's in a completely different category
of dynamical behavior.
Speaker 1: It's like comparing a laser beam's path to a spattering firework.
Speaker 2: That's a good way to put it. And this extreme
stability has profound implications because if scientists use the measured
NGA to estimate how much Voldel material is being released
and thus infer the commets composition and mass loss, ATLAS
is a near zero NGA throws off every standard mathematical
assumption used to calculate its internal structure and activity level.
It doesn't compute.
Speaker 1: So the implication of this extreme stability. If the sublimation
jets are firing, and we have visual evidence they are
because of the plume the green color, but the object
remains on this incredibly steady course, what does that mean.
Speaker 2: It means it's somehow resisting that movement. It's compensating.
Speaker 1: It's like it must be turning a steering wheel back
in the other direction to perfectly correct the thrust. Every
single time a jet fires off axis, holding a course
so steady that it appears well the words you used
earlier intentional, intentional.
Speaker 2: Guided, The term used directly in the source material is
that its path appears guided through the Solar system. Now,
if three Eye OUTLAS is some kind of craft being
actively steered, then logically it could not only hold a
precise course, but theoretically change course whenever its operators chose.
Speaker 1: To which leads to where's it go now?
Speaker 2: Well, right now, The purely gravitational predictions based on its
current stable path state that Atlas will pass around the Sun,
but on the opposite side from Earth. We won't get
another close look according to those calculations.
Speaker 1: But the very discussion around this object, the category four rating,
this stability, it allows for speculation that's usually just reserved
for science fiction movies.
Speaker 2: Absolutely, the highly speculative possibility exists, and it's being discussed
because of the data. If it has the capability to
intentionally slow itself down or adjust its vector later on something,
its uncanny trajectory stability almost seems to hint at, then maybe,
just maybe it.
Speaker 1: Might be waiting for us on the other side. That's
actually in the reports.
Speaker 2: That exact phrasing is mentioned as a speculative possibility raised
by its behavior. The fact that this kind of idea
is even included in serious discussions even as speculation, just
shows the profound level of intrigue and anomaly this object
has generated. It forces questions we normally dismiss.
Speaker 1: Okay, So the confluence of everything we've talked about, the
data gaps coinciding with the best viewing time, the physics
defying movement the c are physical anomalies. It seems to
have created the perfect storm, the perfect environment for a
truly spectacular suite of highly speculated theories to emerge.
Speaker 2: The vacuum of concrete data gets filled with other ideas.
Speaker 1: Exactly so we need to delve into these now, these
extraordinary claims found in our source material. And just to
be absolutely clear for everyone listening, we need to maintain
a clear critical distance here. We're reporting these theories impartially
as they appear in the sources, not endorsing them.
Speaker 2: Agreed, it's important to separate observed anomaly from unverified explanation.
Let's start with hypothesis one. That's floated solar energy absorption.
Speaker 1: Solar energy absorption. Okay, what's the.
Speaker 2: Thinking here, Well, this theory attempts to offer an explanation
for two things, how the object maintains its integrity under
intense solar radiation, and perhaps even explain that bizarre anti
sunword jet plume. The core idea is that three i
atlists might be actively drawing energy from the Sun.
Speaker 1: Like powering itself using the.
Speaker 2: Sun, sort of The analogy does like Superman, drawing power
from Earth's yellow Sun to recharge his batteries, maintain his
strength resist external forces. The idea is Atlas might be
doing something similar technologically.
Speaker 1: Okay, but wait, if an object, especially one that big,
we're drawing significant energy directly from the Sun, wouldn't that
process itself require some kind of observable signature massive heat radiation,
maybe some kind of electrical or magnetic field effect that
should be detectable even from one hundred and thirty million
miles away.
Speaker 2: Logically, yes, you'd think so. That's the major question mark
over this theory. How does it do this without obvious signs.
The theory attempts to sidestep this lack of direct evidence
by referencing a historical precedent, or at least a previously
unexplained observation, which is the source. Specifically mentions the reported
twenty twelve siding, which was confirmed by images from NASA's
Solar Dynamics Observatory SDO of a huge, dark, roughly spherical
object described as a UFO, larger than Jupiter's hovering near
the Sun. It appeared connected by a filament and seemed
to be there for about twenty four hours straight allegedly
absorbing plasma.
Speaker 1: Wow. Okay, I vaguely remember hearing about that SDEO event.
Scientists were baffled.
Speaker 2: Right, completely baffled by the physics of how that object
could withstand the chromal heat in what it was doing.
But the anecdote is used in these sources purely as context.
It establishes the possibility, however remote, of large objects interacting
with the Sun in unexpected, perhaps energy harvesting ways.
Speaker 1: So the theory suggests ATLICS is doing the same thing,
just maybe on a smaller, more subtle scale, using absorbed
solar energy to power its systems, maintain its structure, maybe
even power that weird check.
Speaker 2: That's the essence of the hypothesis. Yes, it's an attempt
to find an energy source for its anomaloust behavior.
Speaker 1: Okay, then we move to hypothesis too, magnetic shielding. This
one offers more of a structural explanation for why it's
not breaking apart like a normal comment and why it
lacks that big tail.
Speaker 2: Right. This theory posits that the object isn't fragmenting under
solar p pressure and heat because it has some kind
of advanced protective field like you know shields up in
Star Trek the force field seriously Well, the concept proposed
is slightly more physics based, though still highly speculative. The
idea is that this shield is actually generated by the
coma itself, specifically a coma composed of plasma and perhaps
CO two gas, which then generates a powerful magnetic field
surrounding the nucleus.
Speaker 1: Okay, so the gas cloud creates the shield. What would
be the function of such a shield? The energy requirements
must be immense.
Speaker 2: The proposed function is that it acts much like Earth's magnetosphere,
our own natural magnetic shield. It would shield the object's
nucleus from the really intense abrasive effects of the solar
wind from high energy cosmic rays X rays, maybe even
deflect small media rites that would normally chip away at
and fragment a typical comet nucleus over time, so it
preserves the core exactly. And interestingly, the source claims that
observations are referenced, which suggests this magnetic field or something
like it is even capable of visibly bending the local
solar wind around the object.
Speaker 1: Bending the solar wind that would be directly observable evidence,
wouldn't it has it been confirmed.
Speaker 2: That claim about bending solar wind is in the speculative reports,
but whether it's based on rigorously analyzed, confirmed data versus
interpretation of ambiguous plasma interactions is unclear. It's part of
the shield hypothesis narrative and.
Speaker 1: The power source for this massive magnetic shield.
Speaker 2: The level of power required to maintain a shield strong
enough to withstand the Sun's full fury at close range
would be absolutely staggering. The theory, as reported suggests the
object must possess the equivalent energy output of ten atomic
power plants inside.
Speaker 1: Ten nuclear reactors inside a comet.
Speaker 2: That's the scale of energy proposed by the theory to
make the shield plausible, and this powerful protection would explain
why it maintains its structural integrity and doesn't develop that large,
dusty textbook tail like its more fragile, unstable neighbors. The
material just isn't getting sam blasted off in the same way.
Speaker 1: Okay, solar absorption, magnetic shields, these are already pretty far
out there, but this brings us to the most extraordinary claims,
where the speculation shifts entirely away from physics and into
well intelligence and communication. We need to handle hypothesis three
now the one involving remote viewing and unbelievably the CERN
particle collider. And again we have to approach this with
extreme care, presenting it solely as information contained in the
source material which seems to be derived from intelligence community
reports or claims.
Speaker 2: Absolutely, this is where the narrative moves into the deepest,
most unconventional, and frankly unverified territory. These specific claims appear
to stem from reports concerning remote viewers.
Speaker 1: Define remote viewing for US quickly.
Speaker 2: Remote viewers are individuals who claim they can use psychic
or extra sensory abilities to gather information about distant or
hidden targets, locations, or events just using their minds. It's
a controversial practice associated with past government psychic espionage programs
like Stargate.
Speaker 1: Okay, so these remote viewers were apparently tasked.
Speaker 2: According to these reports, Yes, they were tasked by individuals
identified only as intelligence people could be government, could be
private to specifically examine three I atlas psychically and what.
Speaker 1: Did these remote viewers supposedly conclude about the object's nature
and its occupants.
Speaker 2: The reports state that these remote viewers, apparently working independently,
came to a unanimous conclusion. It was not a comment.
They perceived it as a manufactured vessel, specifically describing it
as a mothership.
Speaker 1: A mother ship. And occupants.
Speaker 2: Yes, they also claimed to perceive occupants on board, describing
them specifically using the term draco reptilian occupants.
Speaker 1: Draco reptilian. Okay, wow, that's quite a specific and loaded description.
Speaker 2: Extremely specific. Yes, and this information, regardless of its actual
validity or source, forms a key piece of the highly
sensational theories now circulating around three I atlas, linking it
directly to non human intelligence, and the source.
Speaker 1: Material apparently escalates this connection even further somehow, managing to
involve CERN, one of the most sophisticated mainstream science institutions
on Earth, known for the large Hadron Collider. How does
CERN get dragged into this?
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's a surprising link. The source recounts an account
allegedly shared by someone described as both a consultant and
an astrophysicist who claimed to have worked at CERN, the
European Organization for Nuclear Research, the place that smashes particles
together at near light speed.
Speaker 1: How did this account surface?
Speaker 2: This individual was apparently introduced indirectly through someone connected to
the intelligence community, and they allegedly shared what they claimed
to have experienced or witnessed at CERN related to.
Speaker 1: This okay detail, the core claim here, what's the alleged
link between CERN and three I Atlas.
Speaker 2: The core claim, as reported in these sources is absolutely extraordinary.
It's alleged that CERNE, using its immense collider technology, didn't
just discover particles, but somehow managed to open or perhaps
access a stable portal.
Speaker 1: A portal like a dimensional gateway.
Speaker 2: That's the implication. This portal was described bizarrely as already
being in existence, almost maintained routinely within a boardroom setting
at CERN, and through this technological portal, they were allegedly
able to establish direct communication with extraterrestrial beings.
Speaker 1: Okay wow, And the direct connection to our object three
I out lists.
Speaker 2: The direct connection is the most specific and astounding detail
in this account. These beings communicating via the SERN portal
allegedly confirmed that they were the occupants of three EYE
at Lists.
Speaker 1: They said they were the ones inside the object were tracking.
Speaker 2: That is the explicit claim reported in the source. Now,
according to this account, they didn't show up physically in
the boardroom. Instead, they appeared as tall holographic projections holograms. Yes,
and they supposedly communicated telepathically simultaneously with every single scientists
present in the room, delivering a consistent, unified message about
their purpose and.
Speaker 1: The message the message these alleged holographic occupants of three
Ietlists conveyed through the stern portal was.
Speaker 2: The message they reportedly delivered was that they were coming
in peace, and their stated mission was to gather all
the star seeds of this planet.
Speaker 1: Gather the star seeds. Okay, that is undeniably cryptic, deeply esoteric,
and highly extraordinary.
Speaker 2: Absolutely, it's a message laden with meaning that's open to
vast interpretation. But within the context of these particular sensational sources,
it frames the entire arrival of three Ietlists not as
a random, natural cosmic event, but as an intentional, pre announced,
potentially interventionist rendezvous.
Speaker 1: Cern opening portals and boardrooms, chatting telepathically with holographic reptilian
aliens from a giant mothership disguised as a comet. It
sounds almost too far fetched to even discuss in a
serious context.
Speaker 2: And yet, and yet, these are the kinds of theories
now circulating apparently fueled or at least given oxygen by
the extreme unexplained scientific anomalies of the object itself. When
the known physics seems to fail so spectacularly, perhaps it's
inevitable that the imagination and sometimes conspiratorial thinking rushes in
to fill the void. Hashtag tag outro. So if we
try to synthesize as truly extraordinary narrative, we've just walked
through you, the listener. You now hold this really complex picture.
You have an object officially classified as highly anomalists based
on scientific observation.
Speaker 1: The category four rating.
Speaker 2: You have significant data gaps right at the most crucial time,
gaps that immediately fueled skepticism about observational transparency and maybe
even cover ups. You have movement, the trajectory that seems
to fundamentally defy our current understanding of cometary physics, looking almost.
Speaker 1: Guided from kaya.
Speaker 2: And all of this observed weirdness is then overlaid with
this suite of really extraordinary speculative theories, ranging from somewhat
plausible physics extensions like solar energy absorption or magnetic shields,
all the.
Speaker 1: Way to alleged intentional cosmic rendezvous involving remote viewers, certain
portals and messages about star seeds exactly.
Speaker 2: It's a phenomenal amount of information, spanning hard data, political context,
and extreme speculation, and it leaves us scientifically speaking, in
a state of profound uncertainty about this visitor currently passing
through our solar system.
Speaker 1: It really does. We know it's weird, but we don't
know how weird or why.
Speaker 2: But if we connect this back to the bigger picture
kind of the so what takeaway here, it's this regardless
of whether three I Atlas eventually turns out to be
just a really really unusual natural phenomenon that forces us
to rewrite comment textbooks, or if it's something else entirely,
maybe technological, maybe something we can't even categorize yet, the
process of analyzing its anomalies is incredibly valuable. It forces
us as scientists and as curious humans to fundamentally question
our current understanding, our understanding of commentary mechanics, of solar
system formation, maybe even the limits of technology, both ours
and potentially others.
Speaker 1: It proves that old saying right, what we don't know
about the universe still far outweighs what we do now.
Speaker 2: Absolutely, we are compelled by objects like this to re
examine the rules, the classifications, the assumptions we've built. It
pushes the boundaries of science.
Speaker 1: Which I think rais is a really important final question,
something for you listening to really consider long after this
deep dive ends. Given the extreme orders of magnitude difference
in that trajectory stability between three I at lists fluctuating
only one point five kilometers per day from non gravitational
forces and previous interstellar visitors like Borisov and Umuwa, which
fluctuated wildly by one hundreds or even a thousand kilometers
per day. What observational criteria, What specific piece of evidence
would you personally require to move this object's classification in
your own mind, to shift it from just an unusual
comet to something deliberately steered?
Speaker 2: Yeah? Where is that line?
Speaker 1: When does a scientific anomaly transition from being highly unus
usual or category four weird to being undeniably intentional? What's
the tipping point for you? That's the ultimate question. I
think that three atlas leaves us with