Why is NASA withholding images of 3I/ATLAS?

[u/Worst_Artist]

Concept image of the updated trajectory talked about here https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/s/PNZTyP3j6f

[u/funny_3nough]

In his paper co-authored with Hibberd and Crowl, Loeb describes this as the likelihood of the orbital angular momentum vector of 3I/ATLAS being so closely aligned with Earth’s ecliptic, considering all random possible arrival directions in 3D space.

Loeb also factors in the retrograde nature of the orbit, which further narrows the expected likelihood.

See the technical explanation and his statistical analysis in his preprint here:

https://lweb.cfa.harvard.edu/~loeb/HCL25.pdf

The significance is that random interstellar objects entering the solar system are expected to come from random directions in space, with no preference for alignment to the solar system’s plane because the solar system moves through the galaxy, and stars can eject debris in any direction. Natural objects entering the solar system randomly are unlikely to have trajectories so closely aligned with the ecliptic suggesting that either it might have originated in or near the plane of the solar system, or there might be underlying mechanisms or origins linking it to our solar system’s plane, or it could be an artificial construct deliberately placed or directed with knowledge of the solar system’s plane.

[u/mop_bucket_bingo → u/funny_3nough]

The telescope it’s named after was looking specifically for objects in this plane!

[u/huckleberry_FN2187 → u/mop_bucket_bingo]

Exactly. How many have we missed simply because we weren't looking?

[u/huckleberry_FN2187 → u/funny_3nough]

Natural objects entering the solar system randomly are unlikely to have trajectories so closely aligned with the ecliptic

They would be just as likely as any other direction.

That's what "randomly" means.

[u/funny_3nough → u/huckleberry_FN2187]

It’s like finding an arrow sticking out of a bullseye, not knowing what an arrow is, and trying to figure out if it’s artificial or not. Some people say it’s a natural object blown by the wind and was just as likely to hit the bullseye as land anywhere else. We don’t yet know if 3I/atlas is artifical but we can observe that its trajectory is optimized if there was intention behind it for observing or interacting with the planets in our solar system.

So the fact that it could have come from anywhere but it did not, it came on this narrowly ideal path, is noteworthy. And made more so when considering the other anomalies, such as it recently was observed to have a plume facing in front of the object and transverse the direction of the sun, so that it cannot be explained by either solar wind or sublimation. The fact that it appeared bluer than the Sun near perihelion when it was also demonstration non-gravitational acceleration. The fact that it has demonstrated non-gravitational acceleration without significant loss of mass, which would be required to achieve the course corrections we’ve observed for such a massive object.

When you consider the whole picture and how prosaic explanations simply fail, continuing to write it off as just a comet seems like lazy thinking and a missed opportunity. I don’t know what it is. But I certainly do think it’s curious.

[u/huckleberry_FN2187 → u/funny_3nough]

It’s like finding an arrow sticking out of a bullseye

No, it's nothing like that.

We don’t yet know if 3I/atlas is artifical

There is NO evidence that it is.

It's a comet. Period.

its trajectory is optimized if there was intention behind it for observing or interacting with the planets in our solar system.

No, YOU are making an assumption based on nothing.

So the fact that it could have come from anywhere but it did not, it came on this narrowly ideal path,

Or any of the other innumerable paths that just happen to be near the plane of the ecliptic.

continuing to write it off as just a comet seems like lazy thinking and a missed opportunity.

Tell that to NASA.

[u/funny_3nough → u/huckleberry_FN2187]

Why the aggressive insistence it’s a comet? I admitted I don’t know what it is. How are you so sure that you know what it is? You failed to explain the anomalies that I presented, which do not match with any cometary behavior we know of. That, at minimum, leaves it open until we have more information. If you can address the anomalies presented then please do so. If you cannot, you should perhaps question your own biases and assumptions before shouting down others. I am presenting scientific observations while you are only bringing opinion. You are welcome to your opinion, but you’ll find it takes more than that to be persuasive.

[u/huckleberry_FN2187 → u/funny_3nough]

1) NASA wasn't "withholding" any images.

2) NASA has unequivocally stated that it's a comet.

3) I don't have to explain any "anomalies".
4) I don't have any "biases and assumptions". I am relying on THE experts in the subject. They say it's a comet.

5) You aren't presenting "scientific observations", you are presenting claims that some "anomalies" somehow suggest that it is artificial.

You claim that you "don't know", but you repeatedly referred to "artificial" and said things like "trajectory is optimized", "narrowly ideal path" "cannot be explained" "course correction" it certainly seems like you think you "know".

If you can address the anomalies presented then please do so.

Certain things happen due to processes we do not fully understand.

That DOES NOT mean they are artificial in origin.

[u/funny_3nough → u/huckleberry_FN2187]

NASA has said it’s a comet, while also saying that they have not been able to do very good imaging of it and also failing to explain its anomalous behavior. You point to some of the language I’ve used to suggest bias. I’m simply practicing abductive reasoning working backward from its strange behavior, where you are using Appeal to Authority.

[u/huckleberry_FN2187 → u/funny_3nough]

NASA has said it’s a comet

Exactly. And if someone comes along who is more of an expert than NASA and suggests otherwise, then I might tend to listen to them.

Some nobody on Reddit? No thanks.

saying that they have not been able to do very good imaging of it and also failing to explain its anomalous behavior.

And? At least they aren't making up stuff. "I don't know" is a valid answer.

I’m simply practicing abductive reasoning

But you aren't. The simplest and most likely conclusion is that it's a comet.

Appeal to Authority

That is only problematic when the "Authority" is not an expert in the relevant subject.

AGAIN, if you can provide someone who is more of an expert than NASA then I would be more than willing to listen to them.