Speaker 1: I want you to close your eyes for a second.
Assuming you weren't driving, of course.
Speaker 2: Right, yeah, please keep him open if you're behind the wheel.
Speaker 1: Exactly, but if you're somewhere safe. Just imagine you are
standing in this pitch black observatory. You're high up on
a mountain, miles away from any city lights, just peering
through the eyepiece of one of the most powerful telescopes
on the planet.
Speaker 2: The kind of quiet that almost rings in your ears.
Speaker 1: You know, yes, exactly that. And you're looking out into
the cold, silent void of our solar system, searching for
the usual suspects.
Speaker 2: Like drifting asteroids, standard comets, right.
Speaker 1: Ancient comets made of ice and dust, just the standard
rubble of the cosmos. But then this shadow crosses your
field of vision and it's moving fast, incredibly fast, So
you adjust the focus. You pull the telemetry data onto
your monitors, and you realize this isn't just a chunk
of random space debris.
Speaker 2: No, it is massive.
Speaker 1: We are talking about an object the size of an
entire terrestrial city, just hurtling through the vacuum.
Speaker 2: Which is terrifying on its own.
Speaker 1: It is. But then the spectrometer data comes in and
your blood runs completely.
Speaker 2: Cold because of the chemistry.
Speaker 1: Exactly because this city sized monolith isn't just a lifeless rock.
It is practically overflowing with an unimaginably massive concentration of
nuclear fuel. Wow, I mean, it is a cosmic powder
keg just drifting right through our celestial backyard.
Speaker 2: It's the exact kind of scenario that sounds like the
opening ten minutes of a massive Hollywood blockbuster.
Speaker 1: Hey, totally like the Michael Bay movie where the scientist
takes off their glasses, right.
Speaker 2: They rub their eyes and immediately pick up a red
emergency phone to call the Pentagon.
Speaker 1: Yes, but what we're talking about today isn't science fiction,
not at all. It is a very real, very puzzling
anomaly that has some of the absolute brightest minds in
astrophysics scratching their heads.
Speaker 2: And frankly rethinking what is actually out there in the dark.
Speaker 1: And that is exactly why I am so incredibly excited
to welcome you to Thrilling Threads.
Speaker 2: It's going to be a wild and today.
Speaker 1: It really is. This is our space where we take
the most mind bending, paradigm shifting pieces of information, unspool
the thread and see exactly where it leads.
Speaker 2: Us, and today we have a massive thread to pull
we do.
Speaker 1: We aren't talking about hypotheticals today. We are unpacking an
incredibly thought provoking interview that recently aired on the News
Nation YouTube channel.
Speaker 2: Right. The broadcast titled three IAT lists Signs of Nuclear
Fuel Intrigues av Velobe.
Speaker 1: Yeah, from NewsNation Prime, featuring Harvard Professor of Science au Vlobe.
And we are going to take this interview, pull apart
the actual physical data and figure out what it all
means for humanity.
Speaker 2: We really have quite a journey mapped out for this discussion.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, here's a quick roadmap of where we are heading. First,
we are going to dive deep into the bizarre chemical
anomalies of this interstellar visitor, because.
Speaker 2: We need to understand the mechanics of Wyatt's chemistry has
completely shattered our models, right.
Speaker 1: And then we'll explore how this discovery echoes one of
the most terrifying moments in the history of human.
Speaker 2: Science, the Manhattan Project.
Speaker 1: Exactly After that, we're gonna look at the physical behavior
of this object, specifically these perfectly symmetrical jets that define
natural explanation.
Speaker 2: And how we tragically missed our chance to intercept it.
Speaker 1: Don't even get me started on that yet.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but yeah.
Speaker 1: From there, we are pivoting back down to Earth to
examine the United States government's sudden shift in transparency.
Speaker 2: Including their new web domains and upgraded sensor technologies.
Speaker 1: And finally, we will wrap up with a profound philosophical
theory from Professor Loebe on how a single undeniable discovery
could instantly unite a fractured human race. So buckle up, seriously,
grab a notebook. It is a massive spectrum of topics,
but they all hinge on this one central, inescapable physical object.
Speaker 2: So let's start right there. The selectial object of the
hour is known to astronomers as three.
Speaker 1: Iyeatlsts okay, three iatlists.
Speaker 2: Now that I in the designation is crucial.
Speaker 1: It stands for intellar, right, meaning it's not from around
here exactly.
Speaker 2: This isn't something that formed in our own solar system,
orbiting our Sun for the last four and a half
billion years. It's a wanderer, a rogue object from deep
space that just happened to pass through our neighborhood.
Speaker 1: But as the News Nation broadcast highlights, its origin is
really only the second most interesting thing about it?
Speaker 2: Oh, absolutely, the most interesting thing is it's chemistry.
Speaker 1: Okay, let's unpack this because the chemistry is where this
story goes from a neat little astronomical curiosity to a genuine,
jaw dropping mystery.
Speaker 2: It really does.
Speaker 1: In the interview, Professor Lobe points out that scientists observed
an astonishing anomaly on three iolists. They detected an absolutely
massive abundance of something called deuterium to tium. Yeah, now,
I know, we hear that word thrown around in sci
fi movies, usually right before the warp core breaches or whatever.
Speaker 2: Right, it's always the duterium manifold that's failing.
Speaker 1: Exactly, But what exactly are we looking at here? Physically?
What is it? Well?
Speaker 2: To understand why this is so bizarre, we have to
look the mechanics of atomic physics. Deuterium is basically a
heavy isotope of hydrogen.
Speaker 1: Okay, heavy hydrogen right now.
Speaker 2: Normal hydrogen, which is the most abundant element in the universe,
has just one proton in its nucleus and one electron
orbiting in it.
Speaker 1: Super simple, very simple, It's.
Speaker 2: Light, it's everywhere. But deuterium has a proton and a
neutron in its nucleus.
Speaker 1: Oh, okay, so it has an extra part.
Speaker 2: Exactly, that single extra neutron fundamentally changes its properties. I
mean it makes it heavier, obviously, which is why water
made with it is called heavy water.
Speaker 1: Right, I've heard of heavy water.
Speaker 2: But more importantly, that structural change makes it incredibly useful
for nuclear fusion.
Speaker 1: Reactions because it's easier to smash together.
Speaker 2: Precisely, in nuclear fusion, you are trying to overcome the
electrostatic repulsion between positively charged nuclei, like.
Speaker 1: Trying to push two positive magnets together.
Speaker 2: Exactly like that, you have to get them close enough
for the strong nuclear force to them together, which releases
massive amounts of energy.
Speaker 1: Okay, I follow.
Speaker 2: So deuterium has a much a larger cross section for
fusion than regular hydrogen. It reacts at lower temperatures.
Speaker 1: And pressures, making it the ideal fuel exactly.
Speaker 2: When we talk about human attempts to build fusion reactors
down here on Earth, you know, the holy grail of
clean energy, or when we talk about thermonuclear weapons, deuterium
is the star of the show.
Speaker 1: It's the fuel that powers the literal stars. It is
and here is the shocking metric that Lobe drops in
the interview, And I really want to emphasize this data
point because it is the absolute lynchpin of the whole mystery.
Speaker 2: It's a crazy number.
Speaker 1: The deuterium levels on three I eight loves are one
thousand times larger than the average cosmic value one thousand times.
Speaker 2: It is an absurd concentration.
Speaker 1: I mean, how does that even happen.
Speaker 2: Well, to put that in perspective, we need to understand
where deuterium comes from in the first place. It isn't
made in stars, really.
Speaker 1: I thought stars made all the heavy stuff.
Speaker 2: They make heavier elements, yes, but stars actually destroyed deuterium.
Speaker 1: Oh wow.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Almost all of the deduitium in the universe was
created during the Big Bang, in this very brief window
of time about three to twenty minutes after the universe began,
just a.
Speaker 1: Twenty minute window of billions of years ago exactly.
Speaker 2: And as stars form and ignite, they consume that primordial
duetium very quickly before moving on to fuse regular hydrogen.
Speaker 1: So they eat it up fast, right.
Speaker 2: So the baseline chemical makeup of the universe has a
very specific, very low ratio of deuterium to regular hydrogen.
Speaker 1: Okay, so it should be super rare everywhere.
Speaker 2: Yes, finding an object with one thousand times the normal
background level of this specific nuclear fuel is mathematically staggering.
Speaker 1: It breaks the scale.
Speaker 2: We have literally never seen anything like this in any
comet or asteroid native to our solar system.
Speaker 1: But hold on, let me play Devil's advocate for a second.
Speaker 2: Here, go for it.
Speaker 1: I want to make sure we are really testing the
bounds of natural astrophysics here. Space is infinitely massive and
infinitely complex, right, Could this just be a natural, albeit
extremely rare occurrence, like maybe three I at lass formed
in some super cold, bizarrely isolated part of deep space
where deuterium just naturally clumps together.
Speaker 2: Like a natural deep freeze sorting mechanism.
Speaker 1: Yeah, maybe a heavy water eye just aggregates differently in
a specific type of nebula.
Speaker 2: Is a totally logical cousion, And honestly, it's exactly the
kind of alternative hypothesis that astrophysicists have to try and
rule out before jumping to wild conclusions.
Speaker 1: Right, you got to check the obvious stuff first.
Speaker 2: But Professor Loebs systematically shoots down that cold environment theory.
In the interview, oh so, his reasoning is deeply rooted
in the mechanics of cosmic history and thermodynamics. He explains
that if you look back at ancient stars, the environments
where a rogue object like this might have theoretically originated
billions of years ago, the thermal conditions simply weren't right
for that kind of massive ice aggregation.
Speaker 1: Why not. I mean space is freezing, isn't it.
Speaker 2: Space is freezing now, but it wasn't always.
Speaker 1: Wait, what do you mean.
Speaker 2: We have to look at the cosmic microwave background, or the.
Speaker 1: CMB, right, the leftover heat from the.
Speaker 2: Big Bang exactly Today, the CMB is about two point
seven kelvin, which is just barely above absolute zero, super cold.
But billions of years ago, when the first stars and
planetary systems were forming, the universe was fundamentally a warmer place.
The ambient temperature of space itself was much higher.
Speaker 1: Oh, I never really thought about that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so a super cold ancient deep freeze environment just
didn't exist in the way it would need to for
this natural clumping theory to work on a massive scale.
Speaker 1: So the oven was literally still too warm for the
ice to form.
Speaker 2: That way exactly, But the argument actually goes even deeper
than just temperature. Low points out a critical issue of
mass and scale in those early star systems. Metallicity, which
is what astronomers use to describe any element heavier than helium,
is incredibly low.
Speaker 1: So mostly just basic gas right there.
Speaker 2: Simply wasn't enough heavy material, enough raw mass to account
for the creation of a massive population of objects like
three I atlas. And we really have to remember the
sheer size of what we are dealing with here.
Speaker 1: Right Lobe specifically states this object is the size of
a city.
Speaker 2: It's massive.
Speaker 1: Let's just pause on that for a second because I
want you the listener to really conceptualize the sheer scale
of what we're talking about here.
Speaker 2: It's hard to wrap your head around it is.
Speaker 1: Think about the city you live in, or the closest
major metropolitan area to you. Imagine carving that entire sprawling landscape,
the downtown core, the skyscrapers, the suburbs, the highway systems.
Speaker 2: Everything, just miles and miles of it.
Speaker 1: Right, Imagine carving all of that out of solid rock
and ice. Okay, Now, imagine injecting that massive floating mountain
with a concentration of nuclear fusion fuel that is a
thousand times higher than anything we've ever.
Speaker 2: Seen in nature, just pumping it full of deuteria.
Speaker 1: Oh exactly, and then imagine that city size payload just
silently drifting past our planets in the dark.
Speaker 2: It gives you chills.
Speaker 1: It's terrifying, it is awe inspiring, and it completely defies
all known natural astrophysics recipes for how space rocks are
supposed to bake.
Speaker 2: It's an incredible visual And when you have an object
that breaks the rules so violently, I mean both in
its chemical composition and the required thermodynamic conditions for its formation,
you were eventually forced to look at the anomaly and
admit that our current understanding is insufficient.
Speaker 1: We just don't have the math for it right.
Speaker 2: The natural mechanisms we know of simply cannot build this object.
Speaker 1: And this mind boggling concentration of nuclear fuel is so shocking,
so utterly out of place, that it actually reminds Professor
Lobe of a very specific and frankly terrifying moment in
human scientific history.
Speaker 2: It does, it really does, because to truly grasp the
gravity of finding that much deuterium concentrated in one single place.
We have to look back at how humanity first interacted
with this isotope on a large scale.
Speaker 1: We have to look at the physics of the atomic
bomb exactly the Manhattan Project. Yes, and this is a
historical anecdote directly from the News Nation's source material that
I found absolutely riveting.
Speaker 2: It's wild that this actually happened.
Speaker 1: It is so. During the Manhattan Project in the nineteen forties,
when the world's most brilliant physicists were racing to build
the first atomic weapon, there was a period of genuine
existential anxiety among the top scientists.
Speaker 2: They were playing with fire and they knew it.
Speaker 1: Literally. They were preparing to detonate the Trinity Test, the
very first nuclear explosion in human.
Speaker 2: History, in the desert.
Speaker 1: Right. But before they pushed the button, Edward Teller, one
of the lead physicists, Ransom calculations, and he realized something
terrifying about the Earth's.
Speaker 2: Oceans, which is that seawater contains trace amounts of.
Speaker 1: Deuterium naturally occurring, just.
Speaker 2: Tiny, tiny fractions, like about one in every six four
hundred hydrogen atoms in normal seawater is a deuterium atom.
Speaker 1: Right, A fraction of a fraction, but Teller thought it
might be enough.
Speaker 2: Yeah, his math was scary.
Speaker 1: These scientists were legitimately terrified that the immense heat and
pressure from exploding a fission bomb might act as a match,
a very big match. Yeah. They feared it could ignite
the trace amounts of deuterium in the oceans, or even
the nitrogen in the atmosphere, and spark a runaway global
nuclear fusion chain reaction.
Speaker 2: They literally thought they might set the sky on fire.
Speaker 1: They were worried they were going to instantly incinerate the
entire planet and everyone on it just push a button,
a boom. Earth is a star.
Speaker 2: It was a very real concern at Los Alamos, I
mean Hams Baith, another brilliant physicist, had to be brought
in to rigorously check Teller's.
Speaker 1: Math, because you don't just guess on something like that exactly.
Speaker 2: Betha had to calculate the exact cross sections for nuclear reactions.
He had to prove mathematically that the energy loss to radiation,
the heat escaping into the atmosphere and out into space,
would be faster than the energy generated by fusing those
rare deuterium atoms in the water.
Speaker 1: Yeah, to prove it would fizzle out.
Speaker 2: Right, He essentially had to prove that the ocean couldn't
catch fire. But the fact that the fear existed at all,
that the math even had to be done in the
first place, speaks volumes about the sheer potential energy locked
inside this isotope.
Speaker 1: And here's where it gets really interesting to me. I
want to relate this historical psychological fear back to our
current mystery with three eyelists.
Speaker 2: It connects perfectly.
Speaker 1: It does. If the brightest minds of the twentieth century
were sweating bullets, terrified that the minuscule microscopic amounts of
buterium naturally sloshing around in our oceans, literally one out
of every six four hundred atoms, could accidentally destroy the world.
What does it mean when we suddenly find a giant,
city sized rogue object from outside our solar system that
is practically dripping with the stuff. It's staggering to think
about a thousand times the normal cosmic limit. If tiny
traces are a global hazard, what is this city sized reservoir?
Speaker 2: Well, what's fascinating here is how Professor Loeb is leveraging
this piece of history to make a point about statistical probability. Okay,
clarify that for us, we need to be very clear.
Lobe is not suggesting that three Iachless is a literal
interstellar bomb that was going toplode and destroy Earth.
Speaker 1: Right. He isn't saying it's the death Star pulling up
to fire a laser at us.
Speaker 2: Exactly no lasers. It's not a floating minefield waiting for
ustal bump into it either.
Speaker 1: So what is he saying?
Speaker 2: He is bringing up the Manhattan Project memory to illustrate
the sheer potency and the incredible rarity of this specific isotope.
Deuterium is really hard to make, it's highly combustible infusion scenarios,
and it is highly sought after by US right now
for advanced energy production in tokemacx instellar rators.
Speaker 1: So it's valuable, incredibly valuable.
Speaker 2: By highlighting how much respect and fear early nuclear scientists
had for even trace amounts of it, Lobe is emphasizing
that finding a massive concentrated payload of it on a
rogue asteroid is a massive red flag.
Speaker 1: It doesn't look like an accident, no, it.
Speaker 2: Acts as an indicator that this object has an origin story. Fundamentally,
different from anything we've ever studied. It strongly suggests a
process of refinement.
Speaker 1: It's like walking through a pristine, untouched forest.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 1: You're hiking and suddenly you find a massive, perfectly refined
barrel of high octane aviation fuel just sitting under a
pine tree, just out in the middle of nowhere. Exactly.
You wouldn't look at that and say, Wow, I wonder
what weird natural biological process secreted this jet fuel.
Speaker 2: No, of course not.
Speaker 1: You would immediately say, someone put this here, This was manufactured,
this was refined.
Speaker 2: That is a highly accurate analogy. The presence of the
fuel in that specific concentration strongly implies a process of
deliberate concentration, or at the very least, an environment we
simply haven't accounted for in standard astrophysics. That perfectly mimics
artificial refinement.
Speaker 1: Which is wild either way.
Speaker 2: It is, but as strange as the chemical ingredients of
three IATLA, the way it physically behaves in the vacuum
of space is even stranger.
Speaker 1: Oh man, the behavior.
Speaker 2: Yeah, And this is where the physical observational evidence really
starts to pile up and challenge the mainstream narrative.
Speaker 1: Okay, lay it on us. What is the object actually
doing physically? That is so weird because up until now
we've just been talking about it's chemical makeup.
Speaker 2: Right, we need to talk about the jets. The jets.
According to the interview, when scientists observe three il as
passing through, they didn't just see a silent inert rock
drifting by. Is active, very active. Yeah, those are three
distinct jets of material emanating from.
Speaker 1: The object, like gas shooting off it.
Speaker 2: Exactly Now, outgassing or jets on a comet are not
inherently unusual. That happens all the time. But the massive
anomaly here is the geometry.
Speaker 1: The geometry of the jet.
Speaker 2: Yes, Lobe points out that these three jets are symmetrically
oriented on the nucleus of the object.
Speaker 1: Symmetrical. Okay, I'm going to push back on this again
because I want to make sure we are rigorous analyzing
the standard models here.
Speaker 2: Let's do it.
Speaker 1: Growing up learning about astronomy, I was always taught the
standard model. A normal comet is basically just a dirty.
Speaker 2: Snowball, right fed Whipple's model.
Speaker 1: Yeah, It's an irregular, lumpy potato made of rock dust
and random pockets of amorphous.
Speaker 2: Ice, keyword being random.
Speaker 1: Exactly when that lunky potato gets close to the sun,
the solar radiation heats it up. The heat causes those
random pockets of ice to sublimate, meaning they turned directly
from solid ice into gas without becoming liquid first.
Speaker 2: Yep, the vacuuine space makes it sublimate, and that.
Speaker 1: Gas shoots off randomly, creating the comet's tail. It's totally chaotic.
It's like a leaky balloon spinning around.
Speaker 2: That's a great visual.
Speaker 1: So why is symmetry such a smoking gun here? Couldn't
the ice pockets just happen to be spaced out evenly
by sheer coincidence. Couldn't a spinning rock naturally carve out
symmetrical grooves over billions of years of solar wind.
Speaker 2: You've just perfectly described the standard model of cometary outgassing.
But let's look at the actual mechanics of that dirty snowball. Okay,
you hit the nail on the head with the word chaotic.
Natural random pockets of melting ice on it tumbling irregularly
shaped rock simply do not create perfectly symmetrical thruster like jets.
Speaker 1: They just don't balance out.
Speaker 2: No, think about a ruptured aerosol can.
Speaker 1: Okay, like a can of hairspray.
Speaker 2: Right. If an aerosol can gets punctured randomly on its side,
the gas escapes violently in one direction.
Speaker 1: And it flies all over the room exactly.
Speaker 2: It causes the can to spin wildly, chaotically and unpredictably.
Nature loves chaos in these scenarios. A tumbling dirty snowball
will vent gas sporadically off center, causing it to change
trajectory in unpredictable, jerky ways.
Speaker 1: Right, wouldn't be a smooth.
Speaker 2: Ride, not at all. But now imagine that same aerosol can,
but instead of a random puncture, it has perfectly machined
nozzles placed at equidistant intervals around its center of mass.
Speaker 1: Oh wow.
Speaker 2: When the gas releases from those, the object doesn't tumble wildly.
It's stabilized.
Speaker 1: It's like a drone or a satellite adjusting its pitch exactly.
Speaker 2: Symmetry in nature, especially on a barren ancient space rock
subjected to billions of years of random collisions and degradation,
strongly implies design.
Speaker 1: It implies structure because nature favors entropy.
Speaker 2: Right, always, if you have three jets spaced perfectly around
a center of mass that looks less like a melting
snowball and a lot more like a stabilized propulsion system.
It looks like thrusters designed to maintain a specific.
Speaker 1: Orientation that is wild to picture.
Speaker 2: And as for your point about solar wind carving it perfectly,
the statistical probability of chaotic weathering producing geometric symmetry on
three separate axis is functionally zero.
Speaker 1: Wow machine nozzles. That completely changes the mental image of
what we're looking at.
Speaker 2: It's hard to unsee it once you look at the data.
Speaker 1: And load doesn't just stop at the chemistry and the
symmetrical jets, does He He has a whole list, he does.
Speaker 2: In fact, he points out that in his broader writings
impure reviewed research, he is actually listed twenty two distinct
anomalies regarding this specific object. Twenty two twenty two different
measurable data points where three I outlasts deviates completely from
what a natural comet or asteroid should be doing.
Speaker 1: What are some of the other major ones, just to
give us a sense of the scale of the weirdness.
Speaker 2: Well, one of the most glaring is its non gravitational.
Speaker 1: Acceleration, meaning it sped up on its own.
Speaker 2: Yes, it moved away from the Sun. It accelerated in
a way that couldn't be explained by the gravitational pull
of the Sun or the planets.
Speaker 1: But wait, don't regular comets do that when they vent gas?
Speaker 2: They do. Yes, that's the rocket effect of the ice sublimating.
But the amount of outgassing required to produce the specific
acceleration we saw in three alass would have stripped the
object of its mass at a rate we simply didn't observe.
Speaker 1: Ah, So it was moving faster than its fuel consumption allowed.
Speaker 2: The math just doesn't balance, YEA. Then there is its
albedo or its reflectivity.
Speaker 1: How shiny it was?
Speaker 2: Right, it was unusually shiny, reflecting light in a way
that suggests a metallic or highly polished surface, not a dull, dusty.
Speaker 1: Rock like a mirror or a hull exactly.
Speaker 2: And its shape, based on the way light reflected off
it as it tumbled, it was either pancake shaped or
cigar shaped, with a length to with ratio vastly exceeding
any asteroid we've ever documented. It's just too weird when
you stack twenty two of these structural and behavioral anomalies
on top of each other. The dirty snowball theory doesn't
just buckle, it breaks. It shatters completely under the weight
of the evidence.
Speaker 1: It's like the universe is handing us an intricately wrapped present,
complete with a bow and a glowing neon tag, and
the mainstream scientific community is just shrugging and saying, must
be a weirdly shaped rock. Let's not look too.
Speaker 2: Closely, which is incredibly frustrating.
Speaker 1: It is, and that actually brings me to a point
in the interview that filled me with such profound, tragic frustration.
And you can tell Lobe feels it too when he speaks.
Speaker 2: The missed interception opportunity.
Speaker 1: Yes, the absolute tragedy of it. It kills me.
Speaker 2: It is a sore subject for many in the astrophysical.
Speaker 1: Community because, according to the interview, three I A. Lists
didn't just zip by in the dark corners of the
outer Solar System where we couldn't reach it. It came
right along the plane of the planet white down Main
Street exactly. It was in our neighborhood, traveling on the
exact same ecliptic plane that Earth and Mars and Jupiter
orbit on. It was accessible, and we didn't just see
it for a fleeting weekend. The broadcast explicitly notes it
was observable for almost a year, a whole.
Speaker 2: Year, three hundred and sixty five days.
Speaker 1: And yet humanity failed to send a probe to get
a close up look. We just sat on our hands,
looked through our telescopes and watched this impossible, city sized,
nuclear fueled symmetrically jetting anomaly fly right past us and
back into the infinite dark.
Speaker 2: It is deeply frustrating, especially when you look at the mechanics.
Speaker 1: Of spaceflight right because we can do this.
Speaker 2: We can't. From a purely scientific perspective, when you have
an object that represents it's a potential paradigm shift in
human knowledge, the absolute imperative should be to gather proximity.
Speaker 1: Data get close to it.
Speaker 2: We had the technology to do this. We have sent
probes to comets before, like the Rosetta mission to Commet
sixty seven P. We've even landed on them.
Speaker 1: So why didn't we? Was it just moving too fast?
I know interstellar objects have a lot of velocity.
Speaker 2: Velocity is a factor. Yes, an intercept mission requires a
massive amount of delta V change in velocity. To catch
up to an object moving on a hyperbolic trajectory.
Speaker 1: You need a big rocket and a lot of fuel.
Speaker 2: But it wasn't a physics limitation. It was an institutional
limitation bureaucracy. We didn't have a craft ready. The coordination,
the funding, the bureaucratic approval processes, and perhaps the sheer
audacity required to launch a rapid response intercept mission simply
wasn't there.
Speaker 1: It takes them years to plan a launch exactly.
Speaker 2: Space agencies are programmed to plan missions a decade in advance.
They aren't built to scramble a rocket in six months.
Because something weird flew into the neighborhood, it.
Speaker 1: Makes you we want to pull your hair out. We
had a year. We could have sent a camera. We
could have sent spectrometer right through those symmetrical jets to
sample the deterium directly to see if it was artificially refined.
Could have had definitive proof, but we just let it
go because the paperwork was too complicated.
Speaker 2: It is a harsh lesson in scientific readiness, and Professor
Lobe makes it very clear, we cannot afford to miss
the next one.
Speaker 1: We have to be ready.
Speaker 2: He is actively advocating for system to be put in place,
probes on standby, ready to launch at a moment's notice,
the instant another interstellar anomaly is detected.
Speaker 1: Like a cosmic fire truck.
Speaker 2: Exactly because, as he notes, these objects must be extremely rare.
We don't know when the next three IAH list will
come along, and if we are caught flat footed again,
it's scientific negligence.
Speaker 1: Now, the fact that global academia missed this object isn't
just a scientific shame, it's actually a massive national security
blind spot.
Speaker 2: That's a very good point, and.
Speaker 1: That realization that we are fundamentally blind to what is
operating in our own neighborhood is exactly what smoothly transitions
us to a major recent shift happening right now down
here on Earth.
Speaker 2: The conversation takes a turn here.
Speaker 1: It does because while we miss the boat on three
IL in deep space, it seems the government is finally
starting to wake up to the fact that we need
to be paying much closer attention to our skuys.
Speaker 2: The discussion of the News Nation interview takes a fascinating
and necessary pivot here.
Speaker 1: Yeah, from deep space to right here at home.
Speaker 2: Exactly. It shifts from analyzing the physical telemetry of an
object out in deep space to examining the human governmental
reaction to the unknown happening right here in our own atmosphere.
Speaker 1: Right and this is where the interview touches on something
that has been making massive waves recently. The host of
the broadcast brings up the launch of a new official
United States government web domain entirely focused on unidentified anomalist
phenomena or.
Speaker 2: UAPs aliens dot gov domain yes.
Speaker 1: Referred to in the broadcast as aliens dot gov, which
ties into the All Domain Anomaly Resolution Office AAR AAR.
It is a central public facing hub for the government
to collect and theoretically shared data of regarding these mysteries,
and the overarching sentiment in the interview is that many
people now believe a major message or disclosure might be
coming soon regarding extraterrestrial life.
Speaker 2: The creation of a dedicated public facing government domain for
this topic represents a seismic shift in policy.
Speaker 1: It's unprecedented, it really is.
Speaker 2: For the better part of seventy years, the official stance
of most governments, particularly the United States, regarding UFOs or
UAPs was to dismiss ridicule or outright ignore.
Speaker 1: The subject Project Bluebook stuff.
Speaker 2: Exactly. The stigma was immense. Pilots who reported things were
grounded or sent for psychological evaluations.
Speaker 1: Their careers were ruined.
Speaker 2: To go from that historical posture of absolute denial to
launching an official dot gov website soliciting data and promising
transparency is a total one hundred and eighty degree turn.
Speaker 1: What fascinates me here there isn't the politics of it,
because honestly, regardless of where anyone stands on the political spectrum,
Low points out something incredible the bipartisan aspect. Yes, you
have both former President Barack Obama and President Donald Trump
looking at the exact same classified telemetry, looking at the
exact same military reports, and arriving at the exact same
public conclusion.
Speaker 2: They both acknowledge it.
Speaker 1: Both of them have gone on records stating that there
are objects in our skies that maneuver in ways we
cannot explain, and that we fundamentally do not understand.
Speaker 2: It's pretty rare to see that kind of agreement.
Speaker 1: Exactly, when you have two leaders from diametrically opposed political
realities agreeing that the mystery is real, it strips away
the partisan noise and leaves us with an objective physical reality, and.
Speaker 2: That bipartisan acknowledgment is crucial. It underscores that this is
not a fringe political issue or a media distraction. It
is a profound matter of objective reality that spans across administrations.
Speaker 1: It's just a fact we have to deal with.
Speaker 2: But this raises an important question, and its one Lobe
addresses directly in the interview.
Speaker 1: Why now right, why twenty twenty four or whenever this
is all coming out?
Speaker 2: Why after decades of silence and denial, are we suddenly
seeing official domains, congressional hearings, and presidential statements about UAPs.
Is there suddenly an invasion happening?
Speaker 1: Did the aliens just suddenly update their cosmic GPS and
find us right?
Speaker 2: Are there more objects in the sky today than there
were in the nineteen nineties?
Speaker 1: So what's the answer?
Speaker 2: According to the Lobe, the answer is far more grounded
in human technological progress. He explains that it's not necessarily
that there is more extraterrestrial activity in our skies right now, okay, Rather,
it is because the United States government's censors the radar systems,
the infrared cameras, the satellite tracking networks are vastly superior
today compared to a decade ago.
Speaker 1: I want to really dig into the mechanics of that,
because if I just get a new iPhone, my pictures
are a bit sharper. But I'm not suddenly photographing.
Speaker 2: Ghosts, right, you just have a better camera.
Speaker 1: So what is fundamentally different about the technology or military
is using now? What changed?
Speaker 2: It comes down to crossing a critical threshold in signal
to noise ratio. In the past, radar work purely by
bouncing radio waves off an.
Speaker 1: Object, like echolocation exactly.
Speaker 2: If an object had a shape that deflected those waves,
or if it absorbed them like our stealth bombers do,
it was invisible.
Speaker 1: The radar screen was just blank.
Speaker 2: But today military jets are equipped with advanced systems like FLR,
which stands for forward Looking Infrared FLR.
Speaker 1: I've heard of that.
Speaker 2: FR doesn't look for radar cross sections, it looks for
thermal signatures. It detects heat. Oh wow, And the laws
of thermodynamics dictate that if an object is moving through
our atmosphere at supersonic speeds, it is generating friction and
therefore it is generating massive amounts of heat.
Speaker 1: So even if they can hide from the radar bounce,
they can't hide their body heat from the flir exactly.
Speaker 2: You cannot easily mask the thermal signature of propulsion or atmospheric.
Speaker 1: Friction nless you break the laws of physics right.
Speaker 2: Add to that phased array radar systems that can track
thousands of objects simultaneously with pinpoint accuracy, and network sensors
where ships, satellites, and jets are all sharing data in
real time.
Speaker 1: It's a dragnet.
Speaker 2: We upgraded our technological glasses and suddenly we can see
what has likely been swimming in our oceans and flying
in our atmosphere all along.
Speaker 1: They were always there.
Speaker 2: The phenomena didn't necessarily increase our ability to measure. It
simply crossed a threshold where we eliminated the false positives.
Speaker 1: The data is just undeniable.
Speaker 2: Now, when you have high definition, multi sensor data tracking
an object dropping from eighty thousand feet to sea level
in seconds without a sonic boom, you can't blame it
on a smudge on the lens or a flock of
birds anymore.
Speaker 1: The blur is no longer a blur that makes total sense.
It's like we've been sitting in a dark room for decades,
claiming it's empty, and then someone finally turns on a
black light and we realize the walls are absolutely covered
in fingerprints.
Speaker 2: That's a great way to put it, and this leads
directly to Professor Loebe's central plea in the.
Speaker 1: Interview, the call to action.
Speaker 2: Yes, yeah, because we now have this high fidelity data,
because we have military personnel encountering these things on a
regular basis. Lob argues that it is pastime for the
mainstream scientific community to engage.
Speaker 1: They need to get off the sidelines.
Speaker 2: He makes a very clear distinction between military threat assessment
and open source scientific curiosity.
Speaker 1: Yes, he sounded almost exasperated in the clip. He said,
I would love to help the government figure things out.
I think it's about time for the scientific community to
get engaged.
Speaker 2: Because for too long this topic has been relegated to
the realm of science fiction, conspiracy theorists and tabloid journalism.
Speaker 1: The giggle factor, right, the giggle factor.
Speaker 2: Serious academics wouldn't touch it because it meant risking their reputations,
their tenure, and their funding.
Speaker 1: It was career suicide.
Speaker 2: But Lobe is pointing out that we are past that
point at the very least, As he states, it is
an active matter of national security and the physical safety
of military and commercial pilots.
Speaker 1: We have near misses happening.
Speaker 2: We have solid objects flying in restricted airspace acting with impunity,
and we don't know what they are.
Speaker 1: But the military isn't built for science right now exactly.
Speaker 2: The military's job is simply to determine if an object
is a threat. If it isn't Russian or Chinese, they
often just categorize it as unknown and move on. They
don't have the mandate to write a peer reviewed paper
on its propulsion system.
Speaker 1: So that's where academia comes in.
Speaker 2: Lobe is saying that science's job is to figure out
what the unknown actually is. That demands rigorous, transparent, open
source scientific investigation, completely separate from the classified military silos.
Speaker 1: It's the ultimate call to action for science. I mean,
science is supposed to be the pursuit of the unknown.
Speaker 2: That the whole point of it, And right now.
Speaker 1: The biggest unknown is literally buzzing our aircraft and leaving
symmetrical jets in our solar systems knocking on the door.
It is so while pilot's safety and national security are
the immediate practical, day to day concerns for the Pentagon,
Lobe actually takes the conversations somewhere much deeper.
Speaker 2: He really broadens the scope.
Speaker 1: Because the philosophical implications for the average person, for you
listening to this right now, are what could fundamentally alter
the course of human history.
Speaker 2: Which brings us to the final and perhaps the most
profound segment of our discussion today, we have to look
at the sociological.
Speaker 1: Impact the neighbor at the door.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: In the interview, Professor Loebe makes a statement that literally
gave me goosebumps. He says that confirming extraterrestrial life could
be the most important discovery humanity ever makes, and that
it will hopefully bring us to a better future.
Speaker 2: It's a very optimistic future.
Speaker 1: And he uses this incredibly vivid, relatable analogy that I
just want to dissect completely here.
Speaker 2: It's a brilliant way to frame a concept that is
almost too massive for the human brain to process.
Speaker 1: He compares humanity, all eight billion of us, to a
family living inside a house, and this family is incredibly dysfunctional.
Speaker 2: We're constantly at each other's throats.
Speaker 1: We are loudly arguing. We are fighting over who gets
which room, who controls the thermostat, who has the most
money in the.
Speaker 2: Piggybank, Fighting over resources.
Speaker 1: We are squabbling over borders, resources, ideologies. The noise in
the house is deafening.
Speaker 2: We can't even hear ourselves think.
Speaker 1: But then there is a sudden, loud knock on the
front door, a knock from the outside, exactly a knock
from a neighbor we didn't even know existed. Lobe says
that in that specific situation, the internal family arguments would
instantly stop.
Speaker 2: Everyone would just freeze.
Speaker 1: The fighting wouldn't be as loud. I want you to
visualize this. Think about the most bitter rivalries on earth
right now, the wars, the political divides, the absolute vitriol
we hurl at each other on a daily basis. Silverwhelming
Sometimes could the undeniable, verified presence of an outside, vastly
superior intelligence force a fractured humanity to quiet down.
Speaker 2: To realize how small our arguments are, to.
Speaker 1: Look at each other and realize that we are all
trapped in the same house.
Speaker 2: If we connect this to the bigger picture, what Lobe
is really talking about is a forced instantaneous shift in
global perspective. How so well. Sociologists and evolutionary psychologists talk
about the concept of the in group and.
Speaker 1: The outgroup, us versus them.
Speaker 2: Exactly Right now, humans define their in groups by nationality, religion,
political party, or race, and everyone else is the outgroup,
the competitor, or the enemy.
Speaker 1: It's how we evolve to survive.
Speaker 2: This is hardwired into our tribal ancestry. But the moment
we confirm that an advanced extraterrestrial species exists, whether they
are sending probes like three Alaid Lists or flying craft
in our atmosphere, the definition of the outgroup instantly changes
on a planetary scale.
Speaker 1: Right Suddenly, the outgroup isn't the country across the ocean.
The outgroup is the intelligence from across the galaxy.
Speaker 2: Exactly, and by default, the entire human race is forced
to become a single in group.
Speaker 1: We become Team Earth.
Speaker 2: A discovery of this magnitude would shatter our geopolitical paradigms.
It's essentially what Frank White called the overview effect.
Speaker 1: Oh, remind me how that works. I know we've touched
on it before.
Speaker 2: The overview effect is a cognitive shift in awareness reported
by some astronauts during spaceflight, often while viewing the Earth
from orbit or from the lunar.
Speaker 1: Surface, when they look out the window.
Speaker 2: When Apollo eight took the famous earth Rise photo, astronauts
described looking at our planet and seeing a fragile, tiny
ball of life hanging in the void, completely devoid of
the borders and boundaries we fight over.
Speaker 1: You don't see the lines on the map from.
Speaker 2: Up there, No, you don't. The realization is that we
are all on this tiny lifeboat together. Lobiz suggesting that
confirming alien life would trigger a planetary overview.
Speaker 1: Effect, but without us having to go to space exactly.
Speaker 2: It brings the overview effect to us, instead of squabbling
over imaginary lines drawn on one tiny rock, humanity might
finally preceede. It is a single, unified species. We would
be forced to face the infinite cosmos and whatever neighbors
reside within it together.
Speaker 1: It is such a beautiful, hopeful vision, the idea that
the very thing that terrifies us, the unknown, the alien,
might actually be the exact catalyst we need to save
us from destroying ourselves.
Speaker 2: It is hopeful, but we also have to view it
through a lens of caution.
Speaker 1: Oh, here we go, bring me back down to Earth.
Speaker 2: Well, there are counter theories in academia. For instance, the
dark Forest theory proposed by science fiction author Lewis Sixon,
which many astrophysicists take seriously as a thought experiment.
Speaker 1: The dark Forest. This sounds ominous, it is.
Speaker 2: The dark forest theory suggests that the universe is full
of life, but it is silent because every civilization is
a hunter hiding in the trees. Oh, if you reveal
your position, you are destroyed by a superior predator. So
if the family in the house, here's a knock on
the door, do they unite to open it or do
they unite to barricade it?
Speaker 1: Oh? Wow, that is a chilling counterpoint. If we open
the door, we might not like who is standing.
Speaker 2: On the porch exactly. We have no guarantee the neighbor
is friendly. But regardless of whether the neighbor is friendly
or hostile, Lobe's core point remains. The internal arguing in
the house becomes entirely irrelevant the moment the knock happens.
Speaker 1: Because suddenly we have much bigger things to worry about.
Speaker 2: Precisely, so, what does.
Speaker 1: This all mean? Let's take a breath and synthesize the
wild journey we've just been on.
Speaker 2: It's been a lot of ground to cover.
Speaker 1: We started by looking through a telescope at three I atlas,
an interstellar object the size of a city that defies
all models of natural.
Speaker 2: Formation, a literal anomaly.
Speaker 1: It's bizarrely packed with one thousand times the normal cosmic
amount of deuterium, the very nuclear fusion fuel that terrified
the scientists of the Manhattan Project.
Speaker 2: We explored the mechanics of how this object defies the
layers of commentary outgassing.
Speaker 1: Sporting perfectly symmetrical jets that look terrifyingly like engineered thrusters
rather than chaotic melting snowballs.
Speaker 2: And we shared the collective frustration that institutional inertia caused
humanity to simply watch this anomaly drift by for a
year without launching an intercept mission.
Speaker 1: Still mad about that, then we grounded ourselves back on Earth,
looking at how vastly improved sensors like flire have eliminated
false positives and forced governments to abandon decades of stigma.
Speaker 2: We look at transparency initiatives like the aliens dot.
Speaker 1: Gov domain and the bipartisan acknowledgment that the unknown is
operating in our skies. And finally, we explored Avi Lobe's
beautiful hope that an undeniable knock on our cosmic front
door might trigger a planetary overview effect, quieting the arguments
inside our global house and uniting humanity as a single
in group.
Speaker 2: It is a remarkable progression of ideas from the hard
mechanics of atomic physics to global sociology.
Speaker 1: It really is.
Speaker 2: But before we go, I want to leave you with
a new angle to ponder, a thought that builds on
everything we've discussed today.
Speaker 1: I love a good final thought.
Speaker 2: We talked heavily about the tragic missed opportunity of three iadlas.
We watched it for a year, and we did nothing.
Speaker 1: We just let it drift by and waved goodbye to it.
Speaker 2: Now, if we accept Professor Lob's premise for a moment,
if we entertained the idea that this object was an
artificial probe sent by an advanced intelligence to survey our
solar system, what must that neighbor at the door think
of us?
Speaker 1: Oh, that's a heavy thought.
Speaker 2: They sent a massive, highly visible, nuclear fueled object right
past our habitable zone. A cosmic test, perhaps to see
if anyone is home and if anyone is technologically advanced
and curious enough to come out and say hello.
Speaker 1: And we failed the test.
Speaker 2: We didn't even try to intercept it. We didn't reach out.
We just stayed inside our house, arguing with each other
over our piggy banks and our borders, while the neighbor
walked right past the window. Wow, it makes you wonder,
does our lack of curiosity, our sheer inability to look
past our own terrestrial squabbles to engage with the cosmos
send a message of its.
Speaker 1: Own that we aren't worth talking to yet?
Speaker 2: Are we even ready to answer the door if they
knock louder next time?
Speaker 1: That is a chilling and incredibly vital perspective. Are we
the noisy house that the neighbors actively avoid because we're
too busy throwing plates at each other to notice the
universe outside?
Speaker 2: It's entirely possible.
Speaker 1: And that brings me to my final question. And I'm
directing this straight to you, the listener. What do you
think we want to hear from you? Let's say the
government's new UAP domains actually work. Let's say that tomorrow
the President of the United States alongside the UN holds
a press conference and fully, undeniably confirms that we are
not alone.
Speaker 2: They drop all the data.
Speaker 1: They show the high definition FLI our footage, They show
the phase to array radar data. They prove that a
non human intelligence is here. Would it actually unite humanity?
Speaker 2: Like Professor Lobo popes, would we get that overview effects.
Speaker 1: Would we drop our weapons, erase our borders, and come
together as a single species to face the cosmos? Or
are we so deeply entrenched in our tribalism and our
evolutionary in groups that we would just keep arguing, maybe
even weaponizing the discovery against each other to build a
better barricade.
Speaker 2: It's the ultimate test of human nature.
Speaker 1: What's your stand? Do you share Professor Loebe's optimism for
our species or do you think that arguing in the
house is permanent? I really want to know where you
fall on this. Please leave a comment below with your answer.
Dive into the debate with us.
Speaker 2: It's a debate we need to be having right now.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much for joining us on this incredible
journey today and for getting thoroughly entangled in this discussion
on thrilling threads keep looking up, keep asking questions, and
we will see you next time.