what is happening to 3I Atlas?

[Ronald Zeeman]

I guess Terrance Tao is a psudeumathmatician.

 

[Ronald Zeeman]

43 Days now NASA has withheld releasing high resolution images of 3I Atlas

My understanding pics to be released today around noon. So much lying hard to tell the truth from fiction.

 

[Cyber]

44 days should be enough time to photoshop the images

 

[Cyber]

As I suspected, NASA's released image just shows a fuzzy ball. No exeqtra informaeqtion can be gauged (ignore NASA's claims it's 100% a comet

 

[Judge]

Now would be a good time for the media to find a Cairn Terrier to pull back the curtain of the man behind it we aren't supposed to notice.

Otherwise at this point it seems to be a public relations disaster for NASA.

MSN

 

[Hypnalis]

Otherwise at this point it seems to be a public relations disaster for NASA.

Only if it turns out to be a spaceship
So far there is no evidence of that.

There is evidence of grifters monetizing the idea that it could be a spaceship, but there's a near-universal human rule that applies here: if it's possible to make money from a good story, some grifter will charge for telling it

 

[Judge]

There is evidence of grifters monetizing the idea that it could be a spaceship, but there's a near-universal human rule that applies here: if it's possible to make money from a good story, some grifter will charge for telling it

LOL....yeah, typical YouTube nonsense. But I do find it all rather hilarious, particularly given who is in charge.

 

[Ronald Zeeman]

Getting hard not to be sceptical of Nasa, waiting until Christmas not impressed so far think a lot of lying is going on
Seen enough of this over the years Lived through all the lies during the 60's. A lot of lying happened with covid. Saw through that.

 

[Judge]

Getting hard not to be sceptical of Nasa, waiting until Christmas not impressed so far think a lot of lying is going on
Seen enough of this over the years Lived through all the lies during the 60's. A lot of lying happened with covid. Saw through that.

A dynamic that IMO reaches far beyond merely NASA.

 

[Ronald Zeeman]

Either way, my whole career never once lied about data, no fiddling with numbers . cherry picking Even at FORD plant, my cookbook was not cooked. My covid data is dead on accurate not one number changed or adjusted to fit narrative, Just expect this from the so called experts, now feel this is not happening.

 

[Cyber]

Not wishing to be rude to NASA but the images look like a fuzzy ball. According to astronomers (like Loeb) the new images only "marginally add new data' and don't resolve the original anomalies observed since July. Like waiting for the launch of new book that purports to "tell all" only to reveal a couple of minor details and we are back to square one.

After this NASA flop the next two milestones are:

Friday, Dec. 19. 2025 - MRO will observe 3I/ATLAS from 19 million miles (30 million kilometers) away, with one of the closest views that any NASA spacecraft or Earth-based telescopes are expected to get.

March 14, 2026 - 3I/ATLAS and the Juno spacecraft are expected to be closest to each other in mid-March 2026, with the closest approach occurring on March 14, 2026. At this time, 3I/ATLAS will be making its closest approach to Jupiter, and Juno is being maneuvered to intercept its path.

Meanwhile amateur astronomer channels are providing more interesting observations > NASA

[youtube]

 

[Hypnalis]

Entertaining, but the "best" images are all processed.

The newest image(s) from NASA are almost certainly unprocessed (or minimally processed) so they are sure there are no "image processing artifacts" in the image.

Look at the background stars in the processed images and sequences shared in the video.
The original pixels of the images of stars are processed to nearly-square shapes, which can be used to approximate the pixel size and pixel count of the image of the comet. He's working with an actual image (including the "coma" surrounding it) that's comparable in pixel count to the user thumbnails AF shows beside each post.
And most of those are the coma.

BTW the background stars can be used to get a "clock", because they're effectively stationary relative to the earth, which spins at a well-known rate. Not that I care - sooner or later we'll get reliable information about the comet.
But I did notice some interesting "skipping" and retrograde motion in the background.

His images are way better than nothing of course, but IMO he didn't even demonstrate conclusively that the object is spinning.
(Wikipedia says the current estimate, made by professionals using much larger telescopes, is that it rotates about once every 16 hours).

 

[Cyber]

His images are way better than nothing of course, but IMO he didn't even demonstrate conclusively that the object is spinning.
(Wikipedia says the current estimate, made by professionals using much larger telescopes, is that it rotates about once every 16 hours).

Probably not, but as with other reported anomalies they are worth a second look from more experienced astronomers. So far billions of dollars of probes, cameras and telescopes that can see blips trillions of light years away are unable to get a single high resolution of an object possibly 6km wide (according to NASA) literally in our own backyard.

 

[Hypnalis]

NASA can't provide a high-rez visual image because (AFAIK) it can't be done.
All the "realistic" images are "artists impressions" - i.e. man-made. Naturally there are some imaginary images that look like spacecraft.

IMO amateur astronomy is a 100% valid hobby/interest even if they were using hand-ground lenses. With the kind of commercially available gear the guy in your last linked video has they can do a lot. Including finding things the professionals haven't observed yet, (though probably not with 3I/Atlas).

The issue with 1I/ to 3I/ is the grifters trying to get income (clicks, views, an audience for future books) from them.

It's fun to speculate of course - I'm in favor of that.
But not of people like Loeb deliberately creating false scenarios and adding to the conspiracy theories.

 

[Cyber]

Ok fair enough, on another different forum the discussion was locked because I mentioned Avi Loeb and Beatrice Villoreal. Both are labelled by the forum administrator as pseudoscientists but I pointed out their research is published in Nature so how can they be pseudoscientists?. we live in strange times where open discussion of science is encouraged but the exchange of "some" ideas can be considered taboo.

 

[Hypnalis]

Loeb is the real thing of course - it isn't fair to call him a "pseudoscientist".
The fact that he's written books speculating about the possibility of visits by aliens isn't intrinsically harmful either.

But IMO he's "crossed the line" into grifting.

He's smart enough that he probably isn't actually lying. But he's also smart enough to know that some people will take his speculations as proof of something in the real world.
It will make him more money from his 3I/Atlas book (when it's written) OFC, but it's still morally questionable.

Beatrice Viloreal didn't come up when I searched. Do you have a link?

 

[Cyber]

Loeb is the real thing of course - it isn't fair to call him a "pseudoscientist".
The fact that he's written books speculating about the possibility of visits by aliens isn't intrinsically harmful either.

But IMO he's "crossed the line" into grifting.

He's smart enough that he probably isn't actually lying. But he's also smart enough to know that some people will take his speculations as proof of something in the real world.
It will make him more money from his 3I/Atlas book (when it's written) OFC, but it's still morally questionable.

Beatrice Viloreal didn't come up when I searched. Do you have a link?

Transients in the Palomar Observatory Sky Survey (POSS-I) may be associated with nuclear testing and reports of unidentified anomalous phenomena - Scientific Reports
Unexpected patterns in historical astronomical observations - Stockholm University

 

[Hypnalis]

Thanks for the links.

Wikipedia says the reception has been "cautious" I'm skeptical of course, but I always am /lol.
It's a bit strange that Bruehl is a Clinical Psychologist. I'm looking forward to learning how that research team got together.

IMO the work is interesting enough that I hope more work is done.

Wikipedia says they were looking at digitized versions of the old plates, which means the digital analysis can be done automatically. Any anomalies can then be checked against the original plates to see if they are replication errors.
If not, someone will have to come up with some good "non-UFO" alternative hypothesis to test.

 

[Judge]

Ok fair enough, on another different forum the discussion was locked because I mentioned Avi Loeb and Beatrice Villoreal. Both are labelled by the forum administrator as pseudoscientists but I pointed out their research is published in Nature so how can they be pseudoscientists?. we live in strange times where open discussion of science is encouraged but the exchange of "some" ideas can be considered taboo.

I've often wondered what the intent or context is when such terms are used. Either to professionally disparage such persons, or to recognize them as being serious and dedicated persons to an area of science that has not been validated yet.

And that more often than not, it's difficult to determine such intent when such terms are applied.

Reminding me of up until 1903 how the scientific community viewed two bicycle mechanics who were determined to prove manned flight. Or even before that how personalities much earlier like Otto Lilienthal worked very hard to be taken seriously over the same concept.

Were they pseudoscientists, or simply visionaries of what was to come?

 

[Cyber]

Wikipedia says they were looking at digitized versions of the old plates, which means the digital analysis can be done automatically. Any anomalies can then be checked against the original plates to see if they are replication errors.
If not, someone will have to come up with some good "non-UFO" alternative hypothesis to test.

Yes I think there are only a few lines of dispute with Bruhl and Villoreal's evidence . the flashes detected indicate objects that are a) stationary (a meteor, asteroid or comet would leave a streak). Second the flashes reflect flat metallic objects and since the plates capture the earth's orbit 1949-1952 we know no man made objects (or junk) existed outside of the earth. that leaves only one line of objection which are the plates contain artifacts or flaws. this is a somewhat lazy line to go down as replication of this technique in modern times very accurately detects orbiting satellites (creating similar flashes).