Steefen:
Abraham Loeb is the Frank B. Baird Jr. Professor of Science at Harvard University. He chaired the Department of Astronomy from 2011 to 2020, and founded the Black Hole Initiative in 2016.
So, bottom line, based on that interview, Avi Loeb still does not think 3I/ATLAS is alien technology. Last I heard he said there was a 30%-40% chance that it was not completely natural, a much higher estimate than any put forward by his peers. Has he subsequently raised his estimate?
Delay of photos due to beauracratic issues related to the government shutdown.
3I ATLAS
AND
SWAN (larger than 3I ATLAS)
SWAN is the name given to a recent comet, officially designated C/2025 R2 (SWAN), which was discovered in September 2025. It is a long-period comet named after the SWAN instrument on the SOHO spacecraft, which captured the first images of it. While the name SWAN is associated with the SOHO instrument, there is also a constellation named Cygnus, which means “swan”.
Steefen:
WHERE IS JESUS? Early Christianity said this, that, and another thing.
WHERE IS GOD? Ancient Judaism, Early Christianity, and Islam said this, that, and another thing. Word of God for the People of God. Thanks be to God.
Of course, one should also welcome peer criticism of well credentialed experts. See, for example, this excerpt from the Wikipedia entry on Avi Loeb:
Astrophysicist Steve Desch, at Arizona State University, commented “[Loeb’s claims are] polluting good science—conflating the good science we do with this ridiculous sensationalism and sucking all the oxygen out of the room”, and said several of his colleagues are consequently refusing to engage with Loeb in the peer review process.[12] Monica Grady from the Open University argued that the evidence for Loeb’s claims is “rather shaky” and pointed more plausibly to terrestrial pollution.[79] Patricio A. Gallardo in an American Astronomical Society paper similarly concluded the samples were consistent with coal ash contamination.[82] Loeb and collaborators subsequently published two papers saying chemical analysis ruled out coal ash contamination and indicated extrasolar origins.[83][84] Loeb and Morgan MacLeod proposed a tidal disruption mechanism that could cause meteors to be ejected into trajectories leading to the described observations.[85] In 2024 planetary seismologist Benjamin Fernando led a team that analyzed the seismic signals that led Loeb to search that specific region of the ocean, and they concluded that the seismic signals from one of the sensors used was in fact caused not by a meteor, but by a truck driving near the sensor, so that, “Not only did they use the wrong signal, they were looking in the wrong place.”[86]
Summary
- C/2025 R2 (SWAN) is a long-period comet from the Oort Cloud.
- It is bound to the Sun, on a trajectory that will bring it through the inner Solar System once, then carry it back toward the distant Oort Cloud.
- Its discovery by the SWAN instrument allowed early detection of the hydrogen-rich coma before it became bright enough for amateur telescopes.
The idea that SWAN is 100 times larger than 3I/ATLAS is a misconception driven by its bright tail, not its nucleus size.
A comet with a bright tail can appear gigantic even if its nucleus is small, and that’s the case with SWAN.
And, yes, C/2025 R2 (SWAN) and 3I/ATLAS are overlapping as they pass through the inner Solar System.
Conclusion: When the video says these two objects are in our solar system at the same time, the video is accurate scientifically. There is no violation of rules on this point.
So, the tail of C/2025 R2 (SWAN) is larger than the tail of 3I/ATLAS is not important, nor the size of the nuclei. What’s important and what has been confirmed is that both are here in the inner solar system. Get the context of 3I/ATLAS. The timing of these two objects are noted.
You’re not saying “3I/ATLAS is definitely engineered.”
You’re saying there are two live hypotheses:
- 3I/ATLAS formed naturally — but under conditions not familiar within our Solar System
(so it looks unnatural to us because we’re provincial observers) - 3I/ATLAS was engineered by a civilization more advanced than ours
(consistent with Avi Loeb’s stated position that we likely have advanced siblings in the galaxy)
Both of those are legitimate hypotheses — neither is logically impossible — but they sit at very different evidence thresholds.
Let’s lay this out correctly and rigorously:
Avi Loeb’s Actual Scientific Position
Avi Loeb (Harvard / Galileo Project) argues:
- We should treat interstellar objects as data, not assume natural explanations.
- Some anomalies in objects like
1I/’Oumuamua and possibly3I/ATLAS warrant engineering as a live hypothesis, not dismissed.
- Because the Milky Way is billions of years older than humanity, older civilizations almost certainly exist (statistically).
- Any civilization even a few thousand years ahead could engineer propulsion, materials, or navigational systems that look “unnatural” to us.
And yes — Loeb has said in public interviews:
“We do have cosmic siblings — some are likely more advanced than we are.”
So you are not misrepresenting him.
The Scientific Fork in the Road
Hypothesis A — Natural but unfamiliar
3I/ATLAS could come from:
- A system with different irradiation history
- A star-forming region with higher heavy-element enrichment
- A place where cometary chemistry is not like ours
This would produce a stranger crust, albedo, density, and outgassing behavior
→ No engineering required.
Hypothesis B — Engineered
This requires:
- A civilization with interstellar travel ability
- Intentional guidance or construction
- A motive (exploration, probes, data seeding, resource distribution, signaling)
This gives control or partial control over:
- Trajectory corrections (→ appears like anomaly #10)
- Surface composition (→ possible low albedo anomalies)
- Rotation / tumbling states (→ observed in ’Oumuamua)
Where 3I/ATLAS Fits
3I/ATLAS exhibits multiple anomalies, not just #10:
| Anomaly | Possible Natural Explanation | Possible Engineering Explanation |
|---|---|---|
| Weak or asymmetric outgassing | Very dense or crusted surface | Controlled thrust or surface modulation |
| Slight non-gravitational acceleration | Symmetric jets | Propulsion / stabilization |
| Unusual spectral signature | Different stellar nursery origin | Engineered materials or coatings |
| Stable thermal balance | Large thermal inertia | Designed insulation or reflective layering |
I’ve been dealing with fiction and fact with my analysis of the Bible.
So, a video that has the same mixture does not bother me.
The facts will be there. The fluff of assertions that are less than facts provide theoretical context to the narrative about the facts. You can’t deal with that? Apparently not. 2 + 2 = 4. What? 2 people + 2 people = 4 people. 2 people who are male + 2 people who are female could be a family of 4 THEREFORE the house could use 3 bathrooms instead of two or 3 bedrooms instead of two, depending of the ages of the four people.
Signing off. I have other things to do.
angrymeercat840 said
I’ve been dealing with fiction and fact …
So, a video that has the same mixture does not bother me.
The facts will be there. The fluff of assertions that are less than facts provide theoretical context to the narrative about the facts. You can’t deal with that? …
Of course I can deal with videos that are non-factual and which provide non-factual context and narrative. Didn’t you see? I dealt with it by asking you not to violate the rules of the forum:
Forum Rules:
5. Ensure that any YouTube videos you post are from credible sources. Sensational or misleading content or pseudo-science may be moved or deleted at the discretion of the moderators.
Astrophysicist Steve Desch, at Arizona State University, commented “[Loeb’s claims are] polluting good science—conflating the good science we do with this ridiculous sensationalism and sucking all the oxygen out of the room”
As someone who has been interested in space exploration and astronomy since I was a kid, this is precisely what makes angry about all this.
An utterly astounding natural phenomenon, capable of revealing secrets about the early formation of the universe, being obscured by all this rubbish.
I hope Loeb enjoys the notoriety. Hope it’s worth pissing away his scientific reputation.
Steefen, if ATLAS 3I turns out to be an interstellar craft I’ll be delighted to admit I was wrong. Will you admit you’re wrong when this comet keeps hurtling into space? Or can’t you be wrong?
-Stephen
Loeb still thinks 1I/ʻOumuamua may have been alien technology.
I actually respect old-school academics that stand by their valid arguments for the sake of argument in principle when an issue has not yet been resolved, but don’t expect anyone else not to choose a more reasonable middle ground. There is indeed some value in defending a position until it is untenable, even if it is probably not the more reasonable position.
That said, Loeb is indeed feeding the whack-jobs.
Cosmic Discoveries
Comment 178
agleyzer:
Loeb still thinks 1I/ʻOumuamua may have been alien technology.
Steefen:
What? Because the ONLY engineers in the WHOLE Milky Way are humans?
Because the ONLY Nature in the WHOLE Milky Way is nature RELATIVE to stars like the Sun?
Everyone, EVERYONE knows there are a variety of stars in the Milky Way.
Solar Systems have a variety of Natures. Planets have a variety of Natures.
Nature in different Solar Systems can engineer different natural objects.
Nature in different Solar Systems likely have different periodic tables.
Different planets have different countries with different presidents. Just because Trump removed the director of NASA doesn’t mean every country on every planet that has intelligent life has a president like Trump–let alone different levels of scientific and industrial development. Micro-example: China is not the United States.
The Science Studio
OR
QUANTUM INTELLIGENCE (Mondad/God) ENGINEERED 3I Atlas to do what it did.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)