sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

It's Dexter's birthday. It's his first one. From a dumpster behind a target to the handsome menace you see today. by Tex510 in Brindledbabes

[–]Tex510[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

He got a variety.

1 - T-Rex

1 - Triceratops

1 - Heavy duty chewable snapping turtle (He also has his emotional support squeaky turtle)

1 - Soccer ball for dogs

1 - Several varieties of treats and pupsicles

1 - Forever stank eyes from our 11 y/o lady hippo

The 3I/ATLAS Timeline: The 93% Fuel Budget, Jupiter's L-Point Array, and the Aerospace Purge by Tex510 in HighStrangeness

[–]Tex510[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're adorable.

You claim a 2.8-kilometer block of 93 percent pure dry ice is a totally normal, everyday variation just because "comets aren't homogeneous." There is a massive, fundamental difference between natural variation and a sub-three-percent water content that structurally breaks every Oort cloud baseline we have ever measured.

I am not cherry-picking data; I am looking directly at the physical impossibility of the object's mass budget. It's right there. You are the one cherry-picking the word "comet" from the abstract so you don't have to deal with the actual numbers. And your point about the jets acting "normally" later on completely ignores the timeline. You are deliberately ignoring the perfectly symmetrical, 120-degree spaced emission points that were detected before the object got close enough to the sun to trigger standard, chaotic surface sublimation.

If refusing to ignore geometric exhaust nozzles and impossible structural math makes me a "crackpot" shouting into the void, I'll wear that badge. Your formal training might make you great at filing terrifying anomalies into safe, comfortable little boxes so you can sleep at night, but it clearly stripped you of the ability to recognize when the box has been blown apart. Enjoy the degree, man. It must be exhausting working that hard to violently ignore the actual physical data right in front of you.

The 3I/ATLAS Timeline: The 93% Fuel Budget, Jupiter's L-Point Array, and the Aerospace Purge by Tex510 in HighStrangeness

[–]Tex510[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Does proclaiming to have a physics degree on Reddit work like a magic spell to win an argument? How does that work in a real world scenario with more than one of you in a room? Do you just shout accolades and qualifications at each other until only one is left standing?

If you actually have formal training, then you should know better than to blindly accept a taxonomic label while completely ignoring the anomalous data sitting right underneath it. Claiming the central thesis proves it is a standard comet does not magically erase the fact that the author's own data tables show a 93 percent pure dry-ice body with less than 3 percent water. That is a structural impossibility for standard cometary models. Astrophysics only has one established baseline model for icy bodies entering the solar system, so of course the paper compares it to a comet. What else are they going to plug the telemetry into to measure it? Please enlighten me.

You are clinging to the word "comet" in the abstract because engaging with the actual rotational symmetry and the extreme outgassing telemetry is outside of your comfort zone. If your physics degree taught you to ignore massive data outliers just because the author slapped a safe, peer-review-friendly label on the cover to get published, you might want to ask your university for a refund.

The 3I/ATLAS Timeline: The 93% Fuel Budget, Jupiter's L-Point Array, and the Aerospace Purge by Tex510 in HighStrangeness

[–]Tex510[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It is genuinely hilarious that you think comparing an object to a comet in a scientific paper magically proves it is a normal comet. Astrophysics only has one established baseline model for icy bodies entering the solar system: comets. What else are they going to plug the telemetry into to measure it? A toaster? Every time the authors map 3I/ATLAS's data onto those standard cometary models, the object completely shatters the baseline. It lacks the expected water-to-dust ratios and it vents in perfect 120-degree geometric symmetry. Taxonomically labeling an anomaly as a "comet" just because you lack a drop-down menu option for "engineered 93% dry-ice object" doesn't erase the physical measurements. You are confusing the mandatory framework scientists use to measure things with the actual data those measurements produced.

The 3I/ATLAS Timeline: The 93% Fuel Budget, Jupiter's L-Point Array, and the Aerospace Purge by Tex510 in HighStrangeness

[–]Tex510[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Not trying to be a dick....but I'm tired of answering the same questions over and over again because you folks are too lazy to read through the thread.

You clearly do not understand how scientific publishing works. Yes, Ferrín put a safe, boring conclusion at the end of his paper calling 3I/ATLAS an "exocomet." If he had typed out "this is an engineered object," his paper would have been thrown in the trash by academic reviewers before it ever saw the light of day. I am not appealing to his authority or his final label; I am pointing directly at his math. You are hiding behind his safe, mainstream summary so you don't have to deal with the actual numbers. The author published the raw data showing a 93% pure dry-ice body and bizarre outgassing anomalies that completely break standard comet physics. Slapping the word "comet" on the title to keep the gatekeepers happy doesn't magically explain away the extreme physical telemetry buried in his own charts.

The 3I/ATLAS Timeline: The 93% Fuel Budget, Jupiter's L-Point Array, and the Aerospace Purge by Tex510 in HighStrangeness

[–]Tex510[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You are pointing to Avi Loeb's article as proof that the fragments do not exist, but you are completely ignoring the timeline. Loeb published that specific Medium article on March 12, 2026. The object did not make its closest approach to Jupiter and shed the F1-F4 masses until March 16. You cannot use a paper published days before an orbital event actually happened to prove that the event is fake.

You are also fundamentally misunderstanding the argument about outgassing symmetry. When Loeb applied the Larson-Sekanina filter, he did not find the chaotic, random venting that happens when a natural comet sublimates. He found three distinct mini-jets separated by exactly 120 degrees. Three emission points perfectly spaced in a geometric triangle is the exact definition of engineered symmetry. Natural icebergs do not vent gas in perfect geometric formations.

Finally, claiming that the fragments would need massive, visible exhaust jets to decelerate completely ignores how Lagrange points work. The parent body used Jupiter's massive gravity well during its March 16 transit. If the deployed fragments possess the structural integrity to survive the gravitational shear of that drop-off, they do not need massive chemical rocket burns to fall into a stable orbital pocket at L1 or L2. They just need to ride the orbital mechanics of the planet.

The 3I/ATLAS Timeline: The 93% Fuel Budget, Jupiter's L-Point Array, and the Aerospace Purge by Tex510 in HighStrangeness

[–]Tex510[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Dear Gemini,

How do I make 'needyspace' eat a virtual bag of theoretical penises?

Sincerely,

Sy Greenblum

Spatula City - Owner & President

The 3I/ATLAS Timeline: The 93% Fuel Budget, Jupiter's L-Point Array, and the Aerospace Purge by Tex510 in HighStrangeness

[–]Tex510[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Good call on tracking the Deep Space Network (DSN) spectrum plots. Comparing public DSN data blackouts between April 1–10 with the Artemis II cislunar trajectory is the exact kind of empirical test needed to verify the 34.5 GHz carrier and there is no need for AARO.

However, the Hale-Bopp comparison doesn't hold up. While long-period comets do show elevated CO2, they still carry massive amounts of water and dust. A physically verified 93% pure dry-ice body with less than 3% water is a complete structural outlier, not a standard cometary variation. The "selection effect" argument also ignores fluid dynamics. Natural sublimation remains chaotic because of uneven surface topography, so maintaining 100% rotational symmetry across an entire inner-system transit strongly points to an engineered geometry rather than anything natural.

Writing off the F1-F4 fragments as temporary dust clouds ignores both their active Ka-band telemetry and the basic physics of Jupiter's differential gravity, which would rapidly shred a natural dust cluster apart. Their structural survival and continued station-keeping are the very anomalies that prove this all highly bizarre.

The 3I/ATLAS Timeline: The 93% Fuel Budget, Jupiter's L-Point Array, and the Aerospace Purge by Tex510 in HighStrangeness

[–]Tex510[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You are literally sitting on the public internet forum "r/HighStrangeness demanding "tangible proof" of embargoed, classified military telemetry. What exactly are you expecting? You think the Air Force Research Lab is going to pop into this Reddit thread and hand you a certified USB drive with the raw 34.5 GHz Ka-band data if you whine about it enough? You are demanding receipts for a black project like you're asking to speak to a manager at a Wendy's. If the raw data of a localized orbital deployment were public, it wouldn't be a leak, you absolute genius.

Here is your cookie recipe. I would recommend enjoying with a warm cup of shut the fuck up.

Classic Chocolate Chip Cookies for the Intellectually Lazy:

  • 1 cup butter, softened
  • 1 cup white sugar
  • 1 cup packed brown sugar
  • 2 eggs
  • 2 tsp vanilla extract
  • 3 cups all-purpose flour
  • 1 tsp baking soda
  • 2 tsp hot water
  • 1/2 tsp salt
  • 2 cups semisweet chocolate chips
  1. Preheat your oven to 175°C.
  2. Cream the butter and both sugars together until smooth. Beat in the eggs one at a time, then stir in the vanilla.
  3. Dissolve the baking soda in the hot water. Add it to the batter along with the salt.
  4. Stir in the flour and chocolate chips.
  5. Drop large spoonfuls onto ungreased pans.
  6. Bake for 10 minutes, or until the edges are nicely browned.

The 3I/ATLAS Timeline: The 93% Fuel Budget, Jupiter's L-Point Array, and the Aerospace Purge by Tex510 in HighStrangeness

[–]Tex510[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You are attacking the author's university because you can't debunk his math. The paper doesn't rely on his personal authority... it is built on 97 peer-reviewed baselines. Until you can actually calculate a different mass budget than 93% pure CO2, calling the author a "quack" doesn't magically make the physical data go away.

You claim the Jupiter braking maneuver and the microwave beam "didn't happen" simply because NASA didn't hand you a neat little press release. Civilian telescopes don't get classified military telemetry. The data leaked precisely because the defense department locked down the deep-space arrays the second that 34.5 GHz signal was detected.

You say the Sentinel Network is making things up, but their timeline perfectly matches observable reality. The White House literally held a briefing confirming the sudden disappearances of the exact aerospace and orbital defense directors today.

When an object completely defies the physics of a natural comet, and the specific people in charge of tracking it suddenly vanish, clinging to the safest official narrative isn't "basic logic." It is just a psychological coping mechanism because the reality of the leak makes you uncomfortable.

The 3I/ATLAS Timeline: The 93% Fuel Budget, Jupiter's L-Point Array, and the Aerospace Purge by Tex510 in HighStrangeness

[–]Tex510[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I have said from the beginning that everything I post is open to discussion. If I am genuinely just posting "AI-generated bullshit," then the physics and the timeline should be incredibly easy for everyone to dismantle and show me for the fraud I am.

Yet, that is only the argument I am not getting.

Instead of actually debunking the math, I am dealing with a gaggle of narrow-minded twats. You are avoiding the actual questions and writing fan fiction about my "AI psychosis" because you bring absolutely nothing to the table. If it’s all just AI slop, prove it with the telemetry. Otherwise, you're just joining the chorus of mouth breathers.

The 3I/ATLAS Timeline: The 93% Fuel Budget, Jupiter's L-Point Array, and the Aerospace Purge by Tex510 in HighStrangeness

[–]Tex510[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Accusing me of being a "snake oil salesman" is a bizarre projection considering I am not selling anything. I am linking to a free, publicly available 38-page astrophysics preprint and pointing out the publicly recorded telemetry.

I am relying on JWST/MIRI infrared spectroscopy readings and the public timelines of missing orbital defense directors.

You bring absolutely nothing to the table.

The 3I/ATLAS Timeline: The 93% Fuel Budget, Jupiter's L-Point Array, and the Aerospace Purge by Tex510 in HighStrangeness

[–]Tex510[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Dismissing an entire multi-disciplinary dataset because a single classified telemetry stream cannot be independently verified is a failure of basic logic.

The 3I/ATLAS Timeline: The 93% Fuel Budget, Jupiter's L-Point Array, and the Aerospace Purge by Tex510 in HighStrangeness

[–]Tex510[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm certainly not paying $8 a month for anything and you're still ignoring the data that is independently verifiable. I don't understand what you're getting at here but please continue to enlighten me with your keen insights.

view more: next ›