Title: “(23) 3I Atlas Suddenly Slows down – Is THIS the Proof of Alien Tech We’ve Been Waiting For?! – YouTube”Video Transcript: “This is the radio telescope from Honeysuckle Creek that received the first transmissions from Apollo 11. And now it has been rebuilt and relocated at the NASA deep space network headquarters in Australia just outside of Canra. I had an opportunity to have a look at this piece of history yesterday and it is these types of radio telescopes, these types of receivers that a lot of SETI experts feel is our best chance of finding alien intelligence, finding proof for extraterrestrial civilizations. But as many of us have realized lately, it may be objects passing through our own solar system that are the best bet for finding extraterrestrial intelligence. Now, ever since we discovered three Atlas, or rather, ever since Three Atlas was first discovered, we actually saw three Atlas without realizing what it was in May. But the official discovery date was in July of this year. And since that time, we’ve looked for any evidence, any hint of what is called NGA, non-gravitational acceleration. Any evidence that it might be speeding up or slowing down in a manner inconsistent with a natural object. And at last, we may have some evidence of that, both in terms of it slowing down and also in terms of it not changing or varying its speed or acceleration or trajectory at all. Both of which would suggest that this is not a natural object, but rather something that was sent to us by design. All of this and more coming at you on the Angry Astronaut right now. Good afternoon, alien enthusiasts, and welcome to a very special bulletin here on the Angry Astronaut. So, is this the moment that we’ve all been waiting for? Is this the moment that ThreeI Atlas gives up its secrets and has demonstrated some sort of behavior, some sort of unnatural behavior that proves conclusively that it is an artificial object? Well, in my opinion, there’s a lot of evidence that has just come out recently that yes, strongly suggests that it might be an object under artificial control. We have a lot more now to suggest that that might be the case that we didn’t have before. Now, does this include the object slowing down? Well, yes. I think that that’s possible. And as much as you folks might think that I’m going to hold that particular question till the end until you’ve had an opportunity to watch all the ads and everything on the video, that’s not the case. I’m going to address that topic first right after my presentation here on camera. But after that, we also need to talk about a recent paper that has come out about three Atlas’s behavior since we first discovered it. things about its maneuvering or rather lack thereof that suggest artificial control. Yes, as much as we’d like to think that it’s slowing down, speeding up, something along those lines would be a dead giveaway for artificial control, just like in an Independence Day or something along those lines. The fact that it’s not maneuvering, the fact that it’s keeping a very steady course with no deviations whatsoever, that’s just as artificial. And a paper that came out recently not only suggests, but actually proves that that is what’s going on. Yes, 3i Atlas might be slowing down now or it may have slowed down as it was entering the solar system, but at the moment it’s staying very close to its original speed and trajectory, not deviating at all in spite of what appears to be very visible outgassing. And that should be impossible. We have seen no evidence of this with any other comet, asteroid, or anything else in the history of astronomy. Again, I keep saying in the history of astronomy over and over again when we’re talking about three Atlas, but let me tell you something, that is indeed the case with this object. If it is natural, it is one of the most bizarre and unusual natural objects that have ever been observed passing through our solar system. And it definitely warrants close inspection. But in my opinion, this recent evidence, especially this latest paper that just came out, suggests that three Atlas may indeed be here by design and under intelligent control. Okay, as promised, let’s go ahead and address the first elephant in the room. Is threeey atlas slowing down? Well, one thing that isn’t talked about a whole lot in three I Atlas articles in the mainstream media anyway is the fact that we were actually watching this object all the way back to May of 2025. Of course, we didn’t realize that we were watching it. We simply had it in our telescope images of the transiting exoplanet survey satellite or TESS. During this time, we found three eye atlas without realizing what it was and observed an object that increased in brightness by a factor of five times while it traveled a total distance of.9 astronomical units between May the 7th of 2025 and June the 3rd of 2025, a total of 28 days. This change in proximity alone would only account for an increase in brightness by a factor of 1.5 or so, not five times, assuming a standard solar illumination. So, additional mechanisms have to be responsible for this observed flux increase. Maybe. Or is it also possible that the object became this much brighter simply because it got a lot closer to us quicker than we thought it was? In other words, was it closing on us from an observational perspective faster than we thought. And this accounts for at least part of the strangely rapid increase in brightness. five times worth of brightness as opposed to only 1.5 is a massive difference. And although I acknowledge that some sort of active outging or sublimation is probably responsible for at least some of this brightness increase at that colossal distance, there shouldn’t have been a lot of sublimation going on. So that being the case, why would the brightness have increased this much? Now, if it did close on us a lot faster than we thought, isn’t this something that we would have observed? Wouldn’t this be very obvious to us? Well, yes and no. Because, keep in mind, three Atlas was approaching our planet from a direction that corresponds to the galactic core. That is to say, where there is a huge concentration of stars. such a high concentration that the background becomes very very cluttered making precise speed and trajectory estimates a lot more challenging at that distance. Granted, this is highly speculative here. A lot more speculative than what I’m going to be talking about later on in the video. But still, in my opinion, this is a possible explanation for this rapid increase in brightness while 3i Atlas was such a massive distance away from our sun. And keep in mind when we’re talking about these sorts of estimates, when we’re talking about that is to say speed, location, etc., many of our models tend to throw out any results that fly in the face of what should be possible. In other words, if threeey atlas were traveling, say three times as fast as we thought it could be traveling at this distance, those results would automatically be thrown out by the computers and modeling systems before it even had an opportunity to be examined. So once again, given how rapid the brightness increased during this short amount of time, I tend to think that that could be a function of the object closing on us more rapidly than we thought possible than just a sublimation, an increase in sublimation that should have been impossible from that kind of distance. Anyway, it’s way too cold at a distance of 6.36 astronomical units from the sun for that much sublimation to be occurring. Another possibility could be some sort of breaking thrusters being applied at that distance once again indicating the threeey atlas might be slowing down. Again, speculative, I’ll admit, but when we combine it with all of the new discoveries that have been made recently, including this paper that I keep talking about when it comes to three Atlas’s artificial looking behavior. Now, I think that this theory becomes a lot more plausible. Okay. So if that were the case, is there any evidence that breaking thrusters were being applied by three Atlas at any point since we started observing it? Well, yes and no. First of all, as far as spectrographic proof of any sort of active thrusters being applied by this object recently, no. There is no evidence of any sort of anomalous materials in ThreeI Atlas’s coma that would suggest active propulsion. However, ThreeI Atlas’s velocity and trajectory has not changed since we started taking spectraphic analyses. Is there any evidence that perhaps breaking thrust might have been applied in the past and then stopped, but there still might be some evidence of its past operation? Well, actually, yes, there is. The presence of nickel, strong specttoraphic nickel evidence in the coma without any other metal being present suggests that there’s something bizarre going on with this object. There is no precedent in nature whatsoever of nickel being present in a comet’s coma without there being iron present. Also, as a matter of fact, the presence of nickel and iron is an unusual thing. Anyway, with only about 30 comets having been detected with these sorts of elements in its comments and once again none of these objects had pure nickel. However, keep in mind although operational rocket engines do not produce nickel waste products from their fuel or consumption, rocket engines do use nickelbased super alloys for their strength and high temperature resistance which can lead to wear and erosion of these components over time. Therefore, if these engines had been in operation a month or two perhaps prior to James Webb and other telescopes taking their spectrographic analyses, that’s the point that we may have observed waste products from these engines. In other words, nickel waste products from these super alloys. And that would explain the presence of nickel without any other prese these types of super alloys don’t have things like titanium and such present, get worn off as waste products are been said, the strangest thing about observations are concerned, have nothing acceleration or NGA, but rather its lack constant and steady course day after unimpacted by what appears to be Once again, this is without precedent in Now, Avi Loe and a couple of co-authors ago indicating just how extreme this three Atlas’s course speed and September 15th of 2025, variation in its speed and trajectory. astronomical units per day. Now, that me go ahead and break that down into N3 kilometers per day. That’s the only object on a daily basis. That is utterly that we would expect from an object that But threeey atlas most definitely has a outgassing that appears to be spearing conventional tail that’s been forming much outgassing should be producing this unless the object were utterly colossal. doesn’t match up. Let me tell you what minus8th power astronomical units per non-gravitational acceleration is just example, the only confirmed interstellar system that we’ve observed anyway, had units per day, 100 times as pronounced Chyomov Jerasco, and I’m pretty sure I’m gravitational acceleration of about 10 day, 10 times more pronounced than three the way, this was a huge comet that commentary outgassing to get it to shift much NGA as three Atlas. This suggests enormous, even bigger maybe than hail interstellar object. These sorts of Or we’re talking about an object that is artificially under intelligent control. again, to be clear, yes, the evidence as concerned is highly speculative based distance and based on our lack of talking about an object in a very busy and and brightening quickly, that may than we thought. But again, that’s speculative, however, is the total lack is beyond bizarre. We’ve seen no astronomy that’s ever done this or And here’s another fascinating detail it reveal just how you unusual rather of NGA non-gravitational acceleration, Mua was when it came to its incredible There are many things about AmuA Mua and also myself to believe that it might matter of fact, I think it was probably Number one, it passed so close to the zone of our solar system. That’s an consistent rate approximately three change even when it was accelerating. only possible for a artificial object for some reason through artificial it left the solar system. That was 1.4 astronomical units from the sun, NGA for AmuA Mua was 2.5 * 10 to the -4 that mean? Well, in a feat that defies demonstrated no natural outging, no be accelerating through natural means, km per day off its predicted trajectory kilometers further out of the solar space of just a few weeks. This is any natural object. And now we can see other comets that had visible outgassing natural propulsion and yet still Mua’s acceleration. For example, Twi extreme outging, very obvious and through the solar system, accelerated at units per day. So instead of tens of trajectory on a daily basis, two I 150 kilometers per day off its statistic for a comet. It’s actually at of. And yet, astronomers expect us to mysterious invisible outgassing, a MUA accelerate tens or hundreds or even are able to do with natural visible notion and something that becomes the hard numbers. artificial control, a lack of NGA, maneuvering thrusters, keeping it on once again, even if that’s not the case, to be virtually impossible given how be. And then a MUA MUA, an object that whatsoever. none of any kind and yet of NGA than most comets including the we are aware of which is to I boros in that suggest artificial control and so many with these interstellar objects through our solar system as our approved the Vera Reuben Space Telescope, for bizarre objects to us. It will become which of them are natural and which of very much for watching. Please don’t consider supporting me on Patreon. As to see these kinds of videos early is to exclusive videos for Patreon supporters. month. All the details are in the me to travel the world and bring you interview that I brought you about the And also some really exciting stuff carried out in recent days. Thanks again angry about space.”Video Summary:
Here’s the gist of the video, stripped of hype but keeping the “weird-meter” handy:
# Video summary (Angry Astronaut on 3I/ATLAS)
– **Core claim:** 3I/ATLAS might show signs of **artificial control**. The host argues two possibilities: mild **slowing/braking earlier** and, paradoxically, an **ultra-steady course now** despite visible outgassing—both framed as “non-natural” behaviors.
– **Brightness spike (May–Jun 2025):** In TESS imagery, brightness allegedly jumped ~5× over 28 days at ~6.36 AU, where heavy sublimation “shouldn’t” happen. Host’s hypotheses: (a) it was closing on us faster than models allowed (crowded galactic-core background confused fits), or (b) **braking thrusters** lit up.
– **Spectral oddity:** Reports of **nickel** in the coma **without iron**. He speculates this could be residue from nickel-based superalloys in thruster components eroding—if engines had run before spectroscopic observations.
– **“Too straight” trajectory:** A recent paper (unnamed in the video) is cited as showing **extremely tiny day-to-day variation** in speed/track—far less than expected if outgassing torques were acting—thus “artificial control” via station-keeping thrusters.
– **Comparisons:** Contrasts with **ʻOumuamua** (claims large NGA with no visible outgassing) and active comets (visible outgassing yet comparatively modest trajectory changes). Conclusion: either 3I/ATLAS is **enormous** (so outgassing can’t budge it) or it’s **actively controlled**.
– **Meta:** Encourages close inspection and anticipates the **Vera Rubin Observatory** surfacing many more “odd” interstellar visitors to separate natural vs engineered.
# What’s evidence vs. speculation (per the video)
– **Evidence presented:**
– TESS-era brightness increase.
– Claimed nickel-only detection in the coma.
– A paper stating very low variation in trajectory/speed.
– **Speculation layered on top:**
– **Braking/attitude thrusters** causing the brightness jump and nickel residue.
– **Artificial station-keeping** explaining the unusually steady path.
– Modeling/fit pipelines allegedly **discarding “too fast” solutions** early on.
# Skeptic flags (worth noting)
– **Internal tension:** The argument uses *both* “it slowed down” and “it never deviates” as artificial signatures. Those can’t be simultaneously true *without* a coherent control narrative and timestamps.
– **Data provenance:** The **paper isn’t cited by name**; no plots/fit residuals shown. Nickel-without-iron is unusual—needs independent confirmation and instrument systematics checks.
– **Photometry pitfalls:** A **5× flux jump** near the galactic core can be contaminated by background crowding, PSF changes, and processing—before invoking engines.
– **Outgassing ≠ big torques (always):** Torque depends on **jet geometry** and **moment-arm**, not just coma visibility. A symmetric jet pattern can look active yet impart little net Δv.
# Weird-meter™
– **Dial reading:** 🟧 **Spicy but unproven.** Interesting anomalies claimed; current case for alien tech is **not yet evidentially tight**.
If you want, I can pull the **actual paper(s)** he’s referencing and check the numbers, fits, and whether the nickel result holds up across instruments—then we can stress-test his thesis properly.
yes. And verify the claim that it has changed it speed outside of expected physics.
Short answer: **No solid evidence** that 3I/ATLAS has changed speed “outside expected physics.” The best current analysis shows **no measurable non-gravitational acceleration** over May 15–Sept 23, 2025; its motion is consistent with a gravity-only trajectory. citeturn4view0
What the data actually say:
– A new (draft) analysis of **4,022 astrometric observations** from 227 observatories found residuals consistent with zero vs. a gravity-only orbit, giving an upper limit on any non-gravitational acceleration of **≈3×10⁻¹⁰ AU/day²** (~2×10⁻⁷ cm/s²). That implies a hefty minimum mass (~3.3×10¹⁶ g) and nucleus **≥ 5 km**—but **no detected thrusting, braking, or anomalous speed changes.** citeturn4view0
– NASA’s overview and early peer-reviewed/archival work (Hubble, VLT) describe an **active interstellar comet** with coma/tail and odd compositional hints (notably **Ni lines with no Fe detected yet**), but they do **not** report any verified anomalous acceleration. citeturn3search2turn1search5turn1search4
– Popular summaries echo this: the object appears **very massive** precisely *because* its outgassing hasn’t measurably nudged its path. That’s intriguing—but still **within physics.** citeturn0search1
Why “it slowed down” is misleading:
– Kepler 101: any body on a hyperbolic solar pass **speeds up** toward perihelion and **slows** outbound. That’s expected physics, not alien brakes. Claims of a “slowdown” need to show **deviations from the computed gravity-only ephemeris**—and current residuals don’t. citeturn4view0
About the nickel buzz:
– VLT reports a **rise in Ni I emission** and **incipient CN** with **Fe I undetected so far**—chemically odd and worth scrutiny—but composition ≠ propulsion. It doesn’t demonstrate speed changes beyond gravity. citeturn1search4
Bottom line: as of **Sept 23, 2025**, the strongest published constraint says **no detected anomaly in speed/trajectory**; if anything, 3I/ATLAS looks **big and hard to shove**, not actively “braking.” If later data show a clear, statistically significant deviation from that gravity-only fit, *then* we can talk engines. Until then, the weird-meter pegs at “curious chemistry, ordinary dynamics.” citeturn4view0turn1search4turn1search5
How about a strongly worded response to the claimant – especially the part where espousing vertiably untrue claims is a bad look.
Here’s a clean, sharp rebuttal you can post. It’s firm, not feral:
—
**Response to the 3I/ATLAS “alien tech” claim**
You’re asserting two incompatible things: that 3I/ATLAS both *slowed down unnaturally* **and** shows *no measurable deviations* from a gravity-only trajectory. You can’t have it both ways. If there’s a real Δv outside celestial mechanics, show the ephemeris residuals, the fit, and the uncertainty—*with the paper and page number*. Otherwise, it’s storytelling, not science.
A few specifics:
1) **Dynamics vs. drama**
“It slowed down” is meaningless unless you mean **relative to a computed gravity-only solution**. Objects on hyperbolic passes *always* decelerate outbound. That’s physics, not propulsion.
2) **Outgassing ≠ thrust**
Visible coma doesn’t guarantee torque. Symmetric jets (or a big, hefty nucleus) yield tiny net accelerations. No measured non-gravitational acceleration = no evidence of engines.
3) **Nickel ≠ nozzle**
“Nickel without iron” is interesting chemistry to double-check—*not* proof of thruster erosion. Spectral quirks demand calibration checks and independent confirmation before wild inferences.
4) **Extraordinary claims, ordinary receipts**
If a “recent paper” *proves* artificial station-keeping, cite it. Title, authors, DOI, figure numbers. Absent that, it’s vapor.
5) **Don’t move the goalposts**
You can’t call “too-straight” artificial and also tout “mysterious slowdown.” Pick a lane, produce numbers, and defend them.
Bottom line: **Your conclusions outrun your evidence.** If you have statistically significant non-gravitational acceleration beyond uncertainties, publish the analysis. If not, stop selling speculation as verification. It’s a bad look—for you, and for serious inquiry into genuinely weird interstellar visitors.
sounds too much like chatGPT wrote it
got it—less “AI debate club,” more human spine. pick your flavor:
—
### Option A — blunt, 150-words, no fluff
You’re selling “aliens” with zero receipts. You claim 3I/ATLAS both **slowed down unnaturally** *and* shows **no deviations** from a gravity-only orbit. Those can’t both be true. If there’s real Δv, show the ephemeris residuals, fit method, uncertainties, and the **paper**—title, authors, DOI, figure numbers. Otherwise it’s fan-fic.
“Outgassing means engines” is lazy. Net thrust depends on jet geometry and lever arm; a big rock with symmetric jets won’t budge much. “Nickel in the coma = thruster erosion” is also a leap—interesting chemistry ≠ propulsion.
Extraordinary claims need boring charts. Post the orbit solution, the non-grav terms (A1/A2/A3), time window, and S/N. If you can’t, stop pitching speculation as proof. It makes the whole topic look unserious.
TL;DR: Numbers or nonsense. Your call.
—
### Option B — short thread reply (spicy)
Claim: “It slowed down outside physics.”
Reply: Cool. Post the residuals vs. a gravity-only fit.
No DOI? No figure? No Δv? No case.
“Outgassing = engines” is a vibe, not data.
“Nickel = nozzle” is chemistry fan-fic.
Bring A1/A2/A3 with error bars—or bring silence.
—
### Option C — deadpan academic-snark
Conclusion asserted without evidence may be dismissed without regret. Provide: (1) orbit solution, (2) non-gravitational terms with uncertainties, (3) independent replication. Until then, “too straight” and “mysterious slowdown” are mutually exclusive bedtime stories.
—
want me to tailor it to a specific person/channel? give me the character limit and vibe (icy, mocking, surgical, professorly), and I’ll tune it.
Yes, to the Angry Astronaut – selling clickbait to fans for pennies
Here’s a razor-edged version aimed squarely at Angry Astronaut:
—
**To Angry Astronaut:**
You’re selling suspense, not science. You claim 3I/ATLAS both “slowed down unnaturally” **and** shows “no deviations” from a gravity-only ephemeris. Those are mutually exclusive without time-stamped Δv and residual plots. If there’s physics here, post receipts:
– Orbit solution + residuals vs. gravity-only, time window clearly labeled
– Non-grav terms (A1/A2/A3) with uncertainties and covariance
– Data provenance (observatory IDs, reduction pipeline), DOI/figures for the “paper” you cite
“Outgassing = engines” is vibes; net thrust depends on jet geometry and moment arm. “Nickel = nozzle erosion” is chemistry fan-fic until independently replicated and calibrated.
Extraordinary claims need boring charts, not breathless thumbnails. Until you show numbers, this is just **clickbait for pennies** dressed up as cosmology. Numbers or nonsense—your call.
—
**Short/X version (≤280 chars):**
ATLAS “alien tech”? Show the ephemeris residuals, A1/A2/A3 + errors, and a DOI. “Too straight” and “mysterious slowdown” can’t both be true. Nickel ≠ nozzle, coma ≠ thrust. Until you post data, it’s clickbait, not physics. Numbers or nonsense.