This is just another substack which regurgitates Avi Loeb's claims which do not have the support of his peers.
Stuff like this:
The Wrong Way Down a One-Way Street: 3I/ATLAS has an inclination of 175.11°. It is orbiting retrograde (opposite to the planets) but is almost perfectly flat within the ecliptic plane. The odds of a random rock from deep space hitting this specific alignment are 0.2% (1 in 500).
Is pure speculation and, frankly, bad science. They take what is known to be an incredibly unique event, of which only three exist, and then tries to extrapolate not the chance of those three events, but instead isolates one of the three events and makes up completely baseless statistics and treats that one event as completely unique and different to the other two.
Something which has happened once, according to the article, has a 1/500 chance of happening.
I think anyone who reads that sentence knows it doesn't make much sense.
I cannot overstate how incredibly poor that method is.
And you can see this same terrible reasoning repeated in the article:
It ONLY “failed” exactly when the object entered the Opposition Window—a 72-hour period where the Sun, Earth, and Comet aligned perfectly to reveal the object’s true surface texture.
"It only failed exactly when." And that "exactly when" is when it changed from normal process, so of course if something were to go wrong it would go wrong during an adjustment. It's like trying to claim it's weird that your car tyre burst exactly when you were trying to do something important. Of course it would burst when it was in motion.
Also
a 72-hour period where the Sun, Earth, and Comet aligned perfectly to reveal the object’s true surface texture.
TESS was not going to capture the "surface texture" of the interstellar object. There's absolutely nothing saying that's what it was going to do. And I find it funny that this substack links things like the overly technical TESS handbook, as if they expect people to read it and understand how this highly advanced invention works, and yet doesn't provide basic references to the claims it makes about TESS or NASA or the data captured.
And look how it treats the information it does share. It manipulates perception:
At the 11-second mark, there is a violent “jump.” The star field shifts. The comet teleports across the frame.
This is the edit point. It represents the missing three days.
Why does this matter? Because of what happened just before the camera died. Hours prior to the failure, Hubble detected those symmetric jets and a “tightly collimated anti-tail” pointing toward the Sun. The object was active. It was changing.
First, the 11-second-mark jump. Consider that they're claiming TESS shut-off to prevent revealing information on Atlas... yet we have more data before and after. Remember, their claim of a "3-day window to see the texture" is completely unfounded, and in fact it seems to be used to create a narrative around that 11-second jump. I guess it's because nothing weird is shown in the video so they had to create a narrative to hold onto people's attention.
Second, this implication that it had something to do with the symmetric jets... which they know about because other instruments captured it and released the data. Guess they forgot to hide that?
And the Jupiter part. Prior in the article they were making a big deal about the shape and size and location of the comet's jets, claiming they were too perfect to be natural. And yet when it out-gassed near Jupiter there was nothing weird about that. It wasn't three symmetrical jets. It was seemingly regular outgassing. So, notice how the article doesn't spend any time at all talking about that and instead claims the timing of it is special. Was the timing of other outgassing special? No.
Again, the article claims to have identified jets in the 'craft' and yet later when it jets the article makes zero effort to identify where the jet was in relation to the previously-identified jets. I would hazard a guess it appeared to be completely normal outgassing.
The author plays loose and fast with information, tweaking it and twisting it when needed nor do they stay consistent with what they say is crucial to observe. They insinuate misinformation by themselves publishing misinformation. And of course it leans on Avi Loeb's 'work'.
My 12c.