https://x.com/Truthpolex/status/1973667... 3I/Atlas leak by a PHD Researcher
https://x.com/InTheNous/status/19737623... *Anonymous** 09/30/25(Tue)20:47:23 No.41199241 ?>>41199256 >>41199267
File: 3WATLAS_spectra_comparison.png (2.1 MB, 2400x1600)
> >
> > 41199230
Look, I'm going to lay this out one more time because clearly nobody is actually READING the data.
The silicate emission feature at 9.7?m? It's inverted. INVERTED. In every natural circumstellar disk we've observed - every single one - thermal emission from silicate dust produces an absorption feature because you're looking at warm dust against a hotter background. Basic radiative transfer. But 3WATLAS shows EMISSION at that wavelength. The only way you get that is if there's an external heating source maintaining the dust at a higher temperature than equilibrium would allow.
And before anyone says "well maybe it's just being heated by the star" - no. The blackbody curve doesn't match. We ran the numbers. At 43.31 AU, solar radiation gives you an equilibrium temp of ~54K. The dust signature we're seeing requires sustained temps of 180-200K. That's a 3.5x energy surplus with no identified internal heat source.
Here's what really gets me: the orbital inclination is 0.09°. POINT ZERO NINE DEGREES. For context, every major body in our solar system has inclinations between 0.3° and 7°. The statistical probability of a captured object naturally settling into an orbit that flat is effectively zero. It would require a dissipative mechanism - atmospheric drag, tidal interactions, something. But there's nothing out there to provide that damping.
And the albedo measurements from the photometric data? They're wavelength-dependent in a way that screams manufactured material. Natural regolith has a relatively flat albedo curve across the visible spectrum. This thing has distinct peaks at 420nm and 680nm. Those are almost exactly where you'd expect reflectivity peaks if you were designing a solar collection surface optimized for silicon-based photovoltaics.
The ESA knows this. They KNOW this. That's why the observation request got flagged for "further review" which is bureaucrat-speak for "we're going to sit on this until everyone forgets." Three different proposals for follow-up spectroscopy with JWST have been rejected. Not deferred. REJECTED. The stated reason? "Insufficient scientific merit." Meanwhile they're approving proposals to look at the 47th quasi-stellar object this month.
You want the real kicker? Check the arxiv for papers mentioning 3WATLAS. There's exactly ONE, from September 2025, by the discovery team. It got 43 citations in the first week. Then... nothing. Radio silence. I've reached out to five of those citing authors. Three didn't respond. One said "I'm not working on that anymore." One told me, and I quote, "there are career considerations."
