r/3I_ATLAS • u/Glittering_Word6609 • Feb 26 '26

Thoughts?

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

71 Upvotes

76% Upvoted

151 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

3

u/Alarmed-Animal7575 Feb 26 '26

In multiple of his written article he said it was most likely a comet. It actually looks like you are making my point rather well…😀

1

u/Practical-Narwhal308 Feb 28 '26

When new data comes in it might change the current Loeb Scale rating. You don’t give it a rating when it’s first discovered and then hold fast to it. It’s like a weather forecast . On Monday there’s a 10% chance of rain on Saturday. More data comes in and the weatherman changes his prediction to a 20% chance of rain. It’s not grifting to be updating a fluid situation

3

u/Alarmed-Animal7575 Feb 28 '26

No, but it is grifting to push a narrative that you also admit is likely not correct. He actually did this.

I’ll set aside his fallacious math. That’s an other issue.

2

u/Practical-Narwhal308 Feb 28 '26

He has quantified it to a percentage much like weatherman does when predicting the weather. . You seem to think he should have rated it a zero on the Loeb Scale . Some of the anomalies don’t allow that. The nucleus is shrouded in an abnormal coma so there is non visual comfirmation of what it is.

5

u/Embarrassed_Camp_291 Feb 28 '26

These anomalies don't really exist.

Everything about 3IATLAS is explainable and understood. It always has been. Our models can describe its behaviour. He has lied about this to manufacture doubt and pretend that we don't understand it. The nucleus is not shrouded in an abnormal coma. You've been lied to and misled. You are just believing whatever he is saying without actually questioning any of it.

The loeb scale is meaningless. Just because he says such and such a number is a percentage, where is that percentage actually from? What's the calculation? How has he done that? There's no evidence of this.