November 20, 2025 • 11 mins
NASA's November 20th briefing on interstellar object 3I/ATLAS delivered fuzzy images scientists already had while avoiding 12 documented anomalies including mass discrepancies, trajectory alignment questions, and unexplained collimated jets, according to Harvard Professor Avi Loeb and multiple researchers who say amateur astronomers captured better data than the space agency's billion-dollar telescopes.
To see the VIDEO of this episode, click or copy link - https://youtu.be/N3TusFbgOP0
Visit my website with International UFO News, Articles, Videos, and Podcast direct links -www.ufonews.co
00:00 - NASA's Fuzzy 3I/ATLAS Image Problem
01:57 - Calling Out NASA about 3I/ATLAS
03:19 - The Mass Anomaly Question
04:33 - Unusual Trajectory of 3I/ATLAS
05:07 - The Collimated Jets Mystery
07:00 - What NASA Didn't Address about 3I/ATLAS
08:24 - Scientists Disagree on 3I/ATLAS Data
09:20 - The Transparency Issue
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/strange-and-unexplained--5235662/support.
To see the VIDEO of this episode, click or copy link - https://youtu.be/N3TusFbgOP0
Visit my website with International UFO News, Articles, Videos, and Podcast direct links -www.ufonews.co
00:00 - NASA's Fuzzy 3I/ATLAS Image Problem
01:57 - Calling Out NASA about 3I/ATLAS
03:19 - The Mass Anomaly Question
04:33 - Unusual Trajectory of 3I/ATLAS
05:07 - The Collimated Jets Mystery
07:00 - What NASA Didn't Address about 3I/ATLAS
08:24 - Scientists Disagree on 3I/ATLAS Data
09:20 - The Transparency Issue
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/strange-and-unexplained--5235662/support.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
NASA held a briefing on three I Atlas after weeks
of silence. Everyone was waiting for new data and images
from the Mars Reconnaissance orbiter. Instead we got fuzzy images
and statements that avoided every major question. Harvard professor Avi
Loebe called it an hour before it happened, and it
was right. Here's what actually went down.
Speaker 2 (00:21):
As always, I'm.
Speaker 1 (00:22):
Here to report the information without bias, and you can
decide what to believe. You can find the sources in
my detailed articles at ufonews dot com, along with in
the description box below. Hey you followed yours. I'm Christina Gomez,
and welcome to this episode of UFO News Updates.
Speaker 2 (00:35):
An hour before the event, I was asked by a
reporter what do I expect, and I said, I don't
expect big news, and NASA will repeat the official mantra
that three I Atlas is a natural comet and that
they were unable to process the data until now because
of the government shutdown. I expect the high rise image
to show a fuzzy ball of light like the Hubble
(00:58):
image did, but I hope to be surprised, and I
must say that I was not surprised.
Speaker 1 (01:04):
NASA employee Amit opened by addressing what he called rumors,
and I guess he was hinting at Anylobe. He stated,
this object is a comment, looks and behaves like a comment,
and all evidence points at to being a comment. And
then Administrator Nikki Fox emphasize how excited she was that
people were speculating during the shutdown, with NASA being on
(01:26):
the journey with them. How sweet. Then, after killing time
on sharing the background of three I Atlas sharing really
no new information, they finally showed the images. Mars Reconnaissance
orbiter captured it from nineteen million miles away. Hubble had
seen it in July. The James Webb Space Telescope detected
carbon dioxide and water ice. Psych Lucy Marvin, and Parker
(01:49):
Solar Probe all contributed data as well. It sounded super
impressive until the images were shown. Doctor Lobe summarized what
NASA actually delivered.
Speaker 2 (02:00):
There were a number of images obtained by various emissions
and NASA missions, and the collection of images presented, as
well as some spectroscopic data, include fuzzy images that do
not add much insight to the properties of fear.
Speaker 1 (02:19):
At Last, the problem wasn't that NASA showed images. The
problem was that the scientific community already had this information,
and the NASA panel was talking to their audience like
we were in a fifth grade science class. The Hubble
data from July showing the nucleus was already published. The
James Web spectroscopy showing carbon dioxide was already known. Even
(02:40):
were some of NASA's images had quality issues that they
openly admitted. The high rise image from the Mars reconnistance
orbiter showed only a fuzzy ball of light, and if
you look at it, the quality is just as bad
from the image from July, if not worse. How does
that make any sense? Meanwhile, amateur astronomers were capturing detailed
(03:03):
images showing seven distinct jets, ionic tails, anti tails, and
doss particle structures. NASA did not feature these amateur observations,
even though they contained more detail than most of what
the space agency presented. Now, Lobe has documented twelve specific
anomalies about three I atlas, and NASA addressed none of them.
(03:25):
The first concerns mass, based on NASA's own sized estimates
a velocity of a couple of thousand feet to couple
of miles in diameter, which is already very vague. This
creates a statistical problem that NASA did not discuss. If
objects this large exist in interstellar space and can reach
our Solar system, why have we not seen a million
(03:49):
smaller Amula mua sized objects? First, the probability seems kind
of backwards. Take a listen to what he said on
Fox News.
Speaker 2 (03:57):
The mass being olders of Magnudlah than the previous two
interstellar objects. Based on the size estimate we have, the
diametery is so much larger that the mass is a
million times smaller than the first interstellar object to Muhama
and a thousand times more than the second two iborisov
And given the limited the reservoir of material in interstellar space,
(04:21):
why have we not seen a millionas or a thousand
barisovs before seeing three iye atlass. That's an important question
that they don't even mention.
Speaker 1 (04:33):
There's more of this will stay with me. The second
major anomaly involves the path three eye Atlases taken. It's
traveling in a remarkable alignment with the plane where our
planets orbit. NASA acknowledged this made it easy for their
missions to observe What they didn't discuss is how statistically
unusual that alignment is for an object supposedly entering randomly
(04:56):
from interstellar space. When the question from the media and
public were finally being addressed, many of them are very
softball questions, but there was one addressing the jets. Amateur
observations show multiple tightly focused jets emitting from the object,
one extending a million kilometers from the nucleus. About seven
(05:16):
were visible in some images. And now what makes them
unusual is that they remain focused despite the object rotating
every sixteen hours in standard comet models. According to AVI,
lobe rotation should make jets appear wiggily or smeared as
active region spin and point in different directions, these jets
stay culminated like beams. NASA mentioned seeing jets and activity
(05:40):
around Perry Hellion when the object pass closely to the Sun.
They categorize this as a typical comet behavior, but they
did not explain the tight culmination. Low broke down why
the jet behavior raises questions, but.
Speaker 2 (05:55):
The understanding of the anti tailed towards the Sun. The
fact that the jets I mean there was one amateur
astronomer that noticed I mean image did and you could
see it going a million kilometers away from the object.
And so there are these jets, and there were seven
of them in one of the images. And what is
(06:16):
strange about the jets is that they are tightly collimated
and the object is supposed to rotate every sixteen hours.
So then the question is, why isn't that rotation smearing
the jets. You would expect the jet to be sort
of wiggly where it points in different directions at different
times because of the rotation of the object. We don't
(06:39):
see that. Again, a puzzle needs to be explained. I'm
not saying that necessarily demonstrated. We're dealing with thrusters that
are technological or anything like that. I'm just saying that
aspects of this object that are puzzling.
Speaker 1 (06:54):
In another interview with News Nation, Lope listed what NASA
should have addressed but didn't.
Speaker 2 (07:00):
Take a listen, the NASA officials did not address the
basic puzzles about this object. The mass of the object
is a thousand times more than the previous one, a
million times more than the first one. Why are we
so lucky to receive such a huge package. Why is
it flying in the plane of the planets. Why is
(07:21):
there much more nickel than iron in what it sheds?
There are lots of puzzles that were not even mentioned,
and you know, as Sherlock Horns noted, there is nothing
more deceptive than an obvious fact. They basically say that
it's a familiar comment, but are not willing to address
(07:41):
those anomalies. They didn't mention any of them, and there
are no solutions as of yet.
Speaker 1 (07:46):
But not every scientist thinks that the anomalies matter. Kevin
Gaily from the University of Iowa explained that interstellar comments
should look different from Solar system comments. They have been
bombarded by cosmic rays for billions of years, which changed
their outer layers. The reddish color and the high carbon
dioxide composition makes sense for an object that has been
(08:08):
traveling through the galaxy for a very long time. Can
emphasize the science works by checking natural explanations first before
considering unlikely scenarios. But he also said all questions should
be asked and all possibilities should be explored. The criticism
of NASA is not that they concluded it's a comment.
The criticism is how they presented that conclusion while avoiding
(08:31):
discussions of the documented puzzles, Lobe said, by December nineteenth,
there should be a substantial amount of data that will
help determine whether everything about three I at LIS can
be explained by natural processes, or whether there are aspects
that current models cannot account for. Love and mor Hatim.
Lobe said something that is worth highlighting. Do you think
(08:54):
NASA is open minded or do you think NASA's just
decided it's a comment and we're going with that.
Speaker 2 (09:00):
Well, bureaucrats or unimaginative scientists want us to believe in
the expected, but the rest of us know that the
best is yet to come. You know, life is worth
living if we allow for the unexpected to surprise us.
And you know, the science is a learning experience. All
I'm suggesting is let's collect more data to figure it
out for sure.
Speaker 1 (09:21):
This briefing revealed how science agencies handle uncertainty. NASA chose
to present a definitive conclusion. This is a comment. It
behaves like a comment. All evidence points out to being
a comment. But when scientists immediately pointed out the briefing
avoided documented anomalies, it created skepticism instead of confidence. And
(09:42):
now with everything being online, it seems that the public
has less faith in NASA compared to during the Space
Race during the late nineteen fifties. If anything, people are
pleased that their twenty billion dollar budget being paid through
taxes is being slashed by two twenty four percent in
twenty twenty six. Here's the question that I have for you.
(10:05):
When agencies present a conclusion when avoiding the question scientists
are actually asking, does that make you trust them more
or less? And what would it actually take to prove
something isn't natural? Drop your thoughts in the comments. On
a positive note, at least NASA broke its silence on
three i AT lists, even if they were reluctant to
(10:26):
do so. Regardless, more data is coming. Whether we get
transparent analysis of that data or not is the real question.
And Christina Gomez and then I said for today, I
will see you again tomorrow at ten am PST for
another UFO news update. Be safe and remember keep your
eyes on the skies. If you enjoy today's show, hit
(11:13):
that like pardon And if you're not subscribed, what are
you waiting for? Hit notification bell as I do daily
UFO news and updates, thrash awaiting stories Government disclosures and
brick and developments land here every single day.
NASA held a briefing on three I Atlas after weeks
of silence. Everyone was waiting for new data and images
from the Mars Reconnaissance orbiter. Instead we got fuzzy images
and statements that avoided every major question. Harvard professor Avi
Loebe called it an hour before it happened, and it
was right. Here's what actually went down.
Speaker 2 (00:21):
As always, I'm.
Speaker 1 (00:22):
Here to report the information without bias, and you can
decide what to believe. You can find the sources in
my detailed articles at ufonews dot com, along with in
the description box below. Hey you followed yours. I'm Christina Gomez,
and welcome to this episode of UFO News Updates.
Speaker 2 (00:35):
An hour before the event, I was asked by a
reporter what do I expect, and I said, I don't
expect big news, and NASA will repeat the official mantra
that three I Atlas is a natural comet and that
they were unable to process the data until now because
of the government shutdown. I expect the high rise image
to show a fuzzy ball of light like the Hubble
(00:58):
image did, but I hope to be surprised, and I
must say that I was not surprised.
Speaker 1 (01:04):
NASA employee Amit opened by addressing what he called rumors,
and I guess he was hinting at Anylobe. He stated,
this object is a comment, looks and behaves like a comment,
and all evidence points at to being a comment. And
then Administrator Nikki Fox emphasize how excited she was that
people were speculating during the shutdown, with NASA being on
(01:26):
the journey with them. How sweet. Then, after killing time
on sharing the background of three I Atlas sharing really
no new information, they finally showed the images. Mars Reconnaissance
orbiter captured it from nineteen million miles away. Hubble had
seen it in July. The James Webb Space Telescope detected
carbon dioxide and water ice. Psych Lucy Marvin, and Parker
(01:49):
Solar Probe all contributed data as well. It sounded super
impressive until the images were shown. Doctor Lobe summarized what
NASA actually delivered.
Speaker 2 (02:00):
There were a number of images obtained by various emissions
and NASA missions, and the collection of images presented, as
well as some spectroscopic data, include fuzzy images that do
not add much insight to the properties of fear.
Speaker 1 (02:19):
At Last, the problem wasn't that NASA showed images. The
problem was that the scientific community already had this information,
and the NASA panel was talking to their audience like
we were in a fifth grade science class. The Hubble
data from July showing the nucleus was already published. The
James Web spectroscopy showing carbon dioxide was already known. Even
(02:40):
were some of NASA's images had quality issues that they
openly admitted. The high rise image from the Mars reconnistance
orbiter showed only a fuzzy ball of light, and if
you look at it, the quality is just as bad
from the image from July, if not worse. How does
that make any sense? Meanwhile, amateur astronomers were capturing detailed
(03:03):
images showing seven distinct jets, ionic tails, anti tails, and
doss particle structures. NASA did not feature these amateur observations,
even though they contained more detail than most of what
the space agency presented. Now, Lobe has documented twelve specific
anomalies about three I atlas, and NASA addressed none of them.
(03:25):
The first concerns mass, based on NASA's own sized estimates
a velocity of a couple of thousand feet to couple
of miles in diameter, which is already very vague. This
creates a statistical problem that NASA did not discuss. If
objects this large exist in interstellar space and can reach
our Solar system, why have we not seen a million
(03:49):
smaller Amula mua sized objects? First, the probability seems kind
of backwards. Take a listen to what he said on
Fox News.
Speaker 2 (03:57):
The mass being olders of Magnudlah than the previous two
interstellar objects. Based on the size estimate we have, the
diametery is so much larger that the mass is a
million times smaller than the first interstellar object to Muhama
and a thousand times more than the second two iborisov
And given the limited the reservoir of material in interstellar space,
(04:21):
why have we not seen a millionas or a thousand
barisovs before seeing three iye atlass. That's an important question
that they don't even mention.
Speaker 1 (04:33):
There's more of this will stay with me. The second
major anomaly involves the path three eye Atlases taken. It's
traveling in a remarkable alignment with the plane where our
planets orbit. NASA acknowledged this made it easy for their
missions to observe What they didn't discuss is how statistically
unusual that alignment is for an object supposedly entering randomly
(04:56):
from interstellar space. When the question from the media and
public were finally being addressed, many of them are very
softball questions, but there was one addressing the jets. Amateur
observations show multiple tightly focused jets emitting from the object,
one extending a million kilometers from the nucleus. About seven
(05:16):
were visible in some images. And now what makes them
unusual is that they remain focused despite the object rotating
every sixteen hours in standard comet models. According to AVI,
lobe rotation should make jets appear wiggily or smeared as
active region spin and point in different directions, these jets
stay culminated like beams. NASA mentioned seeing jets and activity
(05:40):
around Perry Hellion when the object pass closely to the Sun.
They categorize this as a typical comet behavior, but they
did not explain the tight culmination. Low broke down why
the jet behavior raises questions, but.
Speaker 2 (05:55):
The understanding of the anti tailed towards the Sun. The
fact that the jets I mean there was one amateur
astronomer that noticed I mean image did and you could
see it going a million kilometers away from the object.
And so there are these jets, and there were seven
of them in one of the images. And what is
(06:16):
strange about the jets is that they are tightly collimated
and the object is supposed to rotate every sixteen hours.
So then the question is, why isn't that rotation smearing
the jets. You would expect the jet to be sort
of wiggly where it points in different directions at different
times because of the rotation of the object. We don't
(06:39):
see that. Again, a puzzle needs to be explained. I'm
not saying that necessarily demonstrated. We're dealing with thrusters that
are technological or anything like that. I'm just saying that
aspects of this object that are puzzling.
Speaker 1 (06:54):
In another interview with News Nation, Lope listed what NASA
should have addressed but didn't.
Speaker 2 (07:00):
Take a listen, the NASA officials did not address the
basic puzzles about this object. The mass of the object
is a thousand times more than the previous one, a
million times more than the first one. Why are we
so lucky to receive such a huge package. Why is
it flying in the plane of the planets. Why is
(07:21):
there much more nickel than iron in what it sheds?
There are lots of puzzles that were not even mentioned,
and you know, as Sherlock Horns noted, there is nothing
more deceptive than an obvious fact. They basically say that
it's a familiar comment, but are not willing to address
(07:41):
those anomalies. They didn't mention any of them, and there
are no solutions as of yet.
Speaker 1 (07:46):
But not every scientist thinks that the anomalies matter. Kevin
Gaily from the University of Iowa explained that interstellar comments
should look different from Solar system comments. They have been
bombarded by cosmic rays for billions of years, which changed
their outer layers. The reddish color and the high carbon
dioxide composition makes sense for an object that has been
(08:08):
traveling through the galaxy for a very long time. Can
emphasize the science works by checking natural explanations first before
considering unlikely scenarios. But he also said all questions should
be asked and all possibilities should be explored. The criticism
of NASA is not that they concluded it's a comment.
The criticism is how they presented that conclusion while avoiding
(08:31):
discussions of the documented puzzles, Lobe said, by December nineteenth,
there should be a substantial amount of data that will
help determine whether everything about three I at LIS can
be explained by natural processes, or whether there are aspects
that current models cannot account for. Love and mor Hatim.
Lobe said something that is worth highlighting. Do you think
(08:54):
NASA is open minded or do you think NASA's just
decided it's a comment and we're going with that.
Speaker 2 (09:00):
Well, bureaucrats or unimaginative scientists want us to believe in
the expected, but the rest of us know that the
best is yet to come. You know, life is worth
living if we allow for the unexpected to surprise us.
And you know, the science is a learning experience. All
I'm suggesting is let's collect more data to figure it
out for sure.
Speaker 1 (09:21):
This briefing revealed how science agencies handle uncertainty. NASA chose
to present a definitive conclusion. This is a comment. It
behaves like a comment. All evidence points out to being
a comment. But when scientists immediately pointed out the briefing
avoided documented anomalies, it created skepticism instead of confidence. And
(09:42):
now with everything being online, it seems that the public
has less faith in NASA compared to during the Space
Race during the late nineteen fifties. If anything, people are
pleased that their twenty billion dollar budget being paid through
taxes is being slashed by two twenty four percent in
twenty twenty six. Here's the question that I have for you.
(10:05):
When agencies present a conclusion when avoiding the question scientists
are actually asking, does that make you trust them more
or less? And what would it actually take to prove
something isn't natural? Drop your thoughts in the comments. On
a positive note, at least NASA broke its silence on
three i AT lists, even if they were reluctant to
(10:26):
do so. Regardless, more data is coming. Whether we get
transparent analysis of that data or not is the real question.
And Christina Gomez and then I said for today, I
will see you again tomorrow at ten am PST for
another UFO news update. Be safe and remember keep your
eyes on the skies. If you enjoy today's show, hit
(11:13):
that like pardon And if you're not subscribed, what are
you waiting for? Hit notification bell as I do daily
UFO news and updates, thrash awaiting stories Government disclosures and
brick and developments land here every single day.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Are You A Charlotte?
In 1997, actress Kristin Davis’ life was forever changed when she took on the role of Charlotte York in Sex and the City. As we watched Carrie, Samantha, Miranda and Charlotte navigate relationships in NYC, the show helped push once unacceptable conversation topics out of the shadows and altered the narrative around women and sex. We all saw ourselves in them as they searched for fulfillment in life, sex and friendships. Now, Kristin Davis wants to connect with you, the fans, and share untold stories and all the behind the scenes. Together, with Kristin and special guests, what will begin with Sex and the City will evolve into talks about themes that are still so relevant today. "Are you a Charlotte?" is much more than just rewatching this beloved show, it brings the past and the present together as we talk with heart, humor and of course some optimism.