Abs ac
Is li e ex ao dina y? I no ques ioned, his assump ion is no scien-
i ic. Indeed, i appea s i has become a ci cula a gumen in eligious
de ence o he es ablished p inciples. Genuine science mus ques ion he
es ablished in o de o p og ess. Pe iod. He e, I ques ion wha needs
o be ques ioned - in his con ex , abou peculia come s. Hypo heses
a e p esen ed o he in ol emen o ex a e es ial in elligence in some
come s, and e en some ha ha e exploded in Ea h’s a mosphe e.
Keywo ds: ex a e es ials, in e s ella , come s, 3I/ATLAS, ’Oumua-
mua, Tunguska, Chelyabinsk
1
The case o ex a e es ial in ol emen in
peculia come s
M. Ljubičić (Amenoum)
108. b igade ZNG 43, 35252 Sibinj, C oa ia
(comple e ela i i y.o g) [email p o ec ed]
Oc obe 7, 2025
1 In oduc ion
Humans ha e jus s a ed obse ing in e s ella objec s and 2 ou o 3 con i med
such objec s u ned ou o be e y unusual, while he emaining one looked like
a ypical Sola Sys em come .
The SPHEREx obse a ions o 3I/ATLAS sugges no only ha i is unusual,
bu ha i is a la ge objec as well. Wi h he la es da a and he assumed albedo
( e lec i i y) o 5% i should be abou 46 km wide[1]. Based on his da a, e en
wi h an albedo o 100% (mi o ), i should s ill be la ge, abou 10 km in size.
Besides he unusual size, his objec has an unusually high CO2/H2O a io[2].
Bu he e is one objec in he Sola Sys em ha has a simila CO2/H2O
a io (e en a bi highe ). Tha is he C/2016 R2 come [2]. In e es ingly, his
come , wi h a diame e o ∼38 km, may be also simila in size o 3I/ATLAS.
I s o bi al eccen ici y is e y high, he aphelion is a a dis ance o o e 1000
AU, and o bi al inclina ion is 58◦. I s chemis y is exo ic compa ed o o he
come s, no jus due o en ichmen in ca bon gases, bu also due o unusually
high ni ogen concen a ion. Being an chemical ou lie , could C/2016 R2 be a
cap u ed in e s ella objec ?
Ce ainly, possibili y o such o igin has been al eady sugges ed by McKay
e al. in 2019[3]. Bu he mains eam is conside ing ha possibili y unlikely,
as, e en hough i is unusual, i s composi ion, size and o bi , can be explained
h ough local o ma ion. The e o e, since i can be local i is assumed o be
local, and as he assump ion is es ablished i ends o be aken as ac , so no
o he possibili ies a e u he explo ed - as usually is he case wi h mains eam.
Howe e , i s a i y ( he e a e only ew simila come s disco e ed so a in he
Sola Sys em) and simila i y o 3I/ATLAS does sugges hey may ha e o med
in simila condi ions (e en i no in he same loca ion in space).
Now, humans can’ send a p obe o s udy 3I/ATLAS (i ’s oo la e). Wi h
cu en human echnology e en sending a p obe o s udy C/2016 R2 is no
2
easible - gi en i s high aphelion and he ac ha i is now on i s ou bound
oyage. Bu one could send a p obe ha would wai (a a Lag ange poin in
space) o simila isi o s, in e cep hem, and hen possibly e en con i m o
e u e he p oposed o ma ion o igins o such bodies. E en i he in e cep ed
come is bound o Sola Sys em, gi en he simila i y, humans migh e en lea n
some hing abou in e s ella isi o s such as 3I/ATLAS.
The ESA ac ually has a "Come In e cep o " mission planned o 2029.
Sadly, human missions o such bodies a e s ill no designed o look o
li e o echnological signa u es. The ESA in e cep o p obes won’ e en
land on he in e cep ed come . E en so, hings could ge in e es ing.
2 Discussion, hypo heses
Gi en he la ge sizes and unusual chemis y o hese bodies I’d say he e’s also
a good chance hey hos some mic obiology ha may e en be ac i a ed du ing
close Sun app oaches.
In any case, i should be clea by now ha 3I/ATLAS is a come , albei an
a ypical one.
Howe e , i s unusual ajec o y and size also sugges ha i may no be jus
a come .
Ad anced ci iliza ions ha wan o explo e he uni e se wi hou being de-
ec ed a e likely o use he ou e laye s o la ge bodies like 3I/ATLAS and
C/2016 R2 as p obe camou lage. The p obes migh be designed o slow down
and u n o he engines when hey en e a plane a y sys em in o de no o
look suspicious. No e ha he high speed o 3I/ATLAS is unusual e en o an
in e s ella objec - i may ha e slowed down jus enough no o be suspicious
and hen i may slowly accele a e away once ou o sigh o once he onboa d
in elligence igu es i should be ou o each o he local in elligence (no e ha
’Oumuamua - which could ac ually be en i ely a i icial, has accele a ed away
om he Sun).
Thus, i C/2016 R2 is a cap u ed in e s ella body, i oo migh be some hing
mo e han jus a la ge piece o ock/dus /ice. So pe haps humans should keep
hei eyes on i - maybe i won’ emain cap u ed. In any case, i i s a s
speeding up a ou he e, some hing’s ishy.
I he e a e p obes, he e could be spaceships as well. A 40 km wide
ock could e en hos a spaceship, no jus a p obe. Bu i he e a e
spaceships, hey a e p obably no camou laged, hey a e mo e likely o
be simply pa ked in he ou e egions o he sys em, deciding whe he o
en e o no based on wha he p obes eco d.
3
I he p obes a e in en ionally camou laged hey a e also p obably com-
ple ely au onomous and no designed o communica e any in o ma ion
wi h he mo he ship while in ansi . They could be e en lacking p opul-
sion and may be jus picked up a some poin (space- a ing ci iliza ions
a e p obably unlikely o be in a hu y).
The p obes a e also likely o be implan ed in o ocks in si u. This no
only elimina es he need o d ag big ocks wi h spaceships bu i makes
he p obe ca ying ocks less suspicious i hey a e le in bound o bi s.
Ins ead o changing ajec o ies o he ocks, hey could be e en choosing
ocks wi h sui able ajec o ies o make hings e en easie . Howe e , o
such isi o s a change o ajec o y o ocky/icy bodies i need be p ob-
ably isn’ a p oblem (e en humans ha e done i on smalle scale, albei
no in a pa icula ly sophis ica ed way). The simila i y o 3I/ATLAS o
an come (C/2016 R2) om he ou e Sola Sys em combined wi h i s
peculia ajec o y goes in a ou o his hypo hesis. And wha abou
he unusual o bi s o o he bodies in he ou e Sola Sys em? Pe haps
he Plane 9 is an spaceship, o bo h, a spaceship pa ked on (o inside)
a plane .
In any case, i makes pe ec sense o ad anced in elligence o hide - a
leas he sensi i e and ulne able s u , om less ad anced and po en-
ially hos ile in elligence. And humans a e a hos ile species. Howe e ,
while hey may be camou laging hese p obes, he UAP’s sugges ha
some o hem a e isi ing us wi h less con incing camou lage (al hough
some o us s ill buy i ). Unde s andably, hese oo a e unwilling o di-
ec ly communica e wi h us.
Is, howe e , 3I/ATLAS as big as sugges ed by SPHEREx? Obse a ions
done by Hubble sugges a smalle nucleus, 5.6 km in diame e a mos . Since
Hubble’s esolu ion is bigge , i seems he smalle es ima e o he nucleus size
should be mo e accu a e. Howe e , since he wo obse e bodies in di e en
wa eleng hs, his is no necessa ily he case. Hubble obse es bodies in he
isible/UV pa o he spec um, while SPHEREx (like JWST) obse es in
he in a ed ( he mal) pa . So he ue size depends on whe he he in a ed
emissions a e coming om he eleased dus /gas o he nucleus. A. Loeb a gues
ha he in a ed emissions a e mo e likely e lec ions om he come ’s su ace,
while he mains eam has basically accep ed he es ima e om Hubble as ac ,
igno ing he size es ima es based on SPHEREx da a[4]. This seems o be a
e y biased in e p e a ion. Obse a ions in he isible spec um a e s ongly
dependen on he albedo (su ace e lec i i y) so i he objec seems o ha e
a signi ican ly la ge size in in a ed i is ce ainly possible o i o ha e a
lowe albedo and, hus, a la ge size han wha can be in e ed om he isible
spec um. Howe e , Loeb’s claim is ce ainly ques ionable and a lowe size is
mo e likely when he dus /gas elease is compa ed o ha o he Sola Sys em
come s. On he o he hand, his is ob iously no a ypical come , so i could
4
be la ge han assumed e en i ha seems unlikely. I should be no ed ha
he mains eam is also igno ing he highly unusual ajec o y o 3I/ATLAS, as
well as he ex emely unusual (pe he es ablished assump ions on come a y
o ma ion) high Ni/Fe a io (al hough no unique o his come ). This does
no imply ha A. Loeb is co ec o unbiased, bu he seems o be a leas less
biased. F om an unbiased iew, he obse ed ajec o y and nickel en ichmen
coupled wi h i on de iciency a e mo e easily explained wi h a i icial al e a ion.
As o he size o 3I/ATLAS, om he same iew, i is a supe posi ion o 46 km
and 0.32 km (minimum based on Hubble), so abou 23±23 km.
2025.09.27
The la es analysis shows ha he mass o 3I/ATLAS mus be
&3.3 ×1016 g[5], so i s diame e is likely &5 km. I could be smalle bu
no much as ha would imply a ypical come a y densi y. The a e age
densi y o come s is 0.6 g/cm3, which o he ob ained mass minimum,
gi es a minimum diame e o 4.7 km o 3I/ATLAS. Once could a gue
ha he modelling in his s udy is no e y de ailed, howe e , ha
doesn’ imply he esul s a e inco ec , hey p obably a e a leas
oughly co ec . I sugges o anyone who disag ees wi h he esul o
do a comp ehensi e s udy, howe e , i seems ha mains eam is no
in e es ed in ha [6].
Some a gue ha bo h, he unusual ajec o y and size o 3I/ATLAS,
a e a consequence o de ec ion bias, claiming ha su eys usually con-
cen a e on he eclip ic plane and a e op imized o sea ch o b igh e ,
la ge (kilome e -scale) objec s[7]. Su e, i is possible we ha e missed a
lo o smalle /da ke objec s be o e he de ec ion o 3I/ATLAS, bu one
mus also conside he ime- ame. De ec ing a &5 km objec in 10 yea s
since he s a o disco e ies o in e s ella objec s is s ill unexpec ed.
And does he de ec ion bias a gumen eally s and, conside ing ha he
i s wo objec s we e a om being aligned wi h he eclip ic and we e
bo h much smalle (<0.5 km). The i s objec disco e ed (’Oumuamua)
was no only e y small (i was p obably a disc ∼100 m in diame e ) bu
e y da k - wi h no ail o coma.
One could a gue now ha he eason we disco e ed ’Oumuamua is be-
cause i passed close o Ea h, bu one mus now ask - how come we ha e
de ec ed his small da k objec bu ha en’ de ec ed any o he b igh e
in e s ella objec s close o Ea h o aligned wi h he eclip ic in hese
10 yea s - i we a e mo e likely o de ec b igh e objec s and objec s
aligned wi h he eclip ic?
The de ec ion bias a gumen doesn’ seem o hold.
A e all, one could pose he ques ion di e en ly - how come he only
in e s ella objec ha passed close o Ea h was so da k and so unusual?
5
How come he only objec we de ec ed ha is aligned wi h he eclip ic
is passing close o Ma s, Venus and Jupi e (o , Jupi e moons)? We
ce ainly a en’ likely o de ec objec s wi h such ajec o ies mo e han
o he ones.
Wi h ha said, howe e , e en i 3I/ATLAS is much bigge han wha Hub-
ble sugges s, he simila i y o o ma ion condi ions wi h C/2016 R2 should be
ques ionable. O e all, he 3I/ATLAS may be mo e simila o 103P/Ha ley (a
sho - ange come ) han i is o he long- ange C/2016 R2.
In any case, in ol emen o ex a e es ial in elligence should no be dis-
missed jus because he objec ’s cha ac e is ics and beha iou can be comple ely
na u al. A holis ic app oach is equi ed o quan i y he p obabili y o one o he
o he possibili y. Mains eam gene ally lacks holism, so i egula ly abuses he
Occam’s azo , which has by now become u e ly comical. In o de o disco e
ex a e es ial li e one mus i s allow i o be possible and hen in es iga e
ha possibili y, a he han inco ec ly assume (o conclude) he abio ic expla-
na ion (no ma e how emo e) ules i ou .
3 Taken oge he
Ou o 3 con i med in e s ella isi o s, only 1 (2I/Bo iso ) looked and beha ed
like a "no mal" come . Maybe i is no mal o in e s ella objec s o look and
beha e like 1I/’Oumuamua o 3I/ATLAS, bu such ajec o ies shouldn’ be
no mal. Less han 10 yea s ha e passed be ween ’Oumuamua and 3I/ATLAS.
’Oumuamua passed close o Ea h and a om Ma s and Venus, while 3I/AT-
LAS is going o pass close o Ma s and Venus and a om Ea h. Thus, hei
ajec o ies a e complemen a y, which is highly desi able i one aims o explo e
he en i e habi able zone o he Sola Sys em and wan s o do so using p obes
implan ed in o come s.
The 3I/ATLAS should also pass close o Jupi e . Conside ing ha gas
gian s can also ha e habi able zones abou hem, his may no be a
coincidence ei he .
This sugges s ha 1I/’Oumuamua and 3I/ATLAS may no be in e s ella
objec s, a he objec s whose [p e iously bound] o bi has been al e ed by some
in elligence. T ue in e s ella objec s may be as no mal as 2I/Bo iso hen. No e
ha he close app oaches a e a e y simila dis ances - ’Oumuamua passed
wi hin 24 million miles o he Sun and i s close app oach o Ea h was a 15
million miles (24 million km). 3I/ATLAS’ close app oach o Ma s will be a 18
million miles (28 million km). 3I/ATLAS will also pass by Venus, bu a abou
5 imes la ge dis ance. F om his, assuming hese a e all come a y p obes, one
6
can in e ha he a ge ed dis ance o close app oaches is 20-30 million km
(p obably close enough o he p obes o ga he quali y da a and a enough
no o be de ec ed as a i icial). Mos likely, each p obe a ge s a single body
(’Oumuamua => Ea h, 3I/ATLAS => Ma s). I ha ’s he case, humans may
ha e missed a p obe a ge ing Venus, o pe haps such p obe will ollow in he
nea u u e.
Thus, aken oge he , he ajec o ies a e e en mo e suspicious. The objec s
may be mos ly na u al, bu hei ajec o ies sc eam in elligence.
Humans ha e jus s a ed looking o in e s ella objec s and [a leas ] 2
ou o 3 a e come a y p obes al eady? Is ha coincidence, o li e is a om
being ex ao dina y? One explana ion o his is ha his is ongoing su eil-
lance. Someone ou he e may be cons an ly launching p obes o moni o he
de elopmen s in he inne Sola Sys em.
4 How a does i go?
While he su eillance may go a in o his o y, he usage o come a y p obes o
he pu pose may be a ecen phenomenon, a esponse o human echnological
p og ess. Indeed, a ecen s udy has ound unexplained ansien s nea Ea h
obse ed p io o 1957[8] - he yea when i s human sa elli e was launched
(Spu nik 1).
These ansien s could ep esen a i icial sa elli es ha we e used o ob-
se e Ea h be o e humans de eloped he capabili y o launch sa elli es/p obes
hemsel es, a which poin he obse e s swi ched o come a y p obes o a oid
de ec ion. I ha is he case, someone seems e y in e es ed in he de elopmen s
on Ea h and he inne Sola Sys em, and a he same ime e y ca e ul no o
e eal i sel .
No e, howe e , ha i he swi ch indeed occu ed and he come a y p obes
we e "launched" a na u al come a y eloci ies om he ou e Sola Sys em he
swi ch mus ha e been planned in ad ance. This implies he human de elopmen
(e olu ion) is highly p edic able (some hing I ha e hypo hesized elsewhe e, and
p o ided e idence o [9]). The obse e s hemsel es may ha e e ol ed om
human-like species.
Al e na i e explana ions, howe e , exis . Pe haps he e was no swi ch, wo
me hods o obse a ion may ha e been used concu en ly all he ime, un il he
usage o local sa elli es was abandoned.
5 Po en ial in he Tunguska-Chelyabinsk co e-
la ion
E en he mo e ad anced ci iliza ions p obably canno p edic he beha iou o
come s a in o he u u e. Collisions a e always possible. Suppose now ha he
o bi / ajec o y o a come a y p obe is al e ed and i inds i sel on a collision
cou se wi h a plane such as Ea h. I he come has a la ge ocky co e, some
7
o i could su i e he passage h ough he a mosphe e and impac he g ound.
Ob iously, his is no desi able o someone who wan s o a oid de ec ion. To
accoun o such cases, in o de o minimize he chances o de ec ion, he im-
plan ed p obe would ha e o be designed o explode i collision wi h a plane
becomes imminen .
Howe e , he collision could be planned as well. Take NASA p obes s udy-
ing ou e plane s and hei moons, such as Juno and Cassini. A he end o
se ice, he Cassini p obe was in en ionally sen o di e owa ds he Sa u n’s
su ace and disin eg a e in he p ocess. Why? This is done no only o dis-
pose he spacec a (p e en con amina ion o moons) bu aluable da a can be
ga he ed du ing he plunge h ough he a mosphe e. Thus, come a y p obes as
well could be in en ionally sen on a collision cou se wi h Ea h in o de o do
close-up obse a ions (and/o p e en con amina ion and/o dispose e idence
o obse a ion).
The consensus is ha he Tunguska e en was caused by a body wi h a ocky
co e (50-60 m wide), which exploded in he oposphe e.
In e es ingly, he epicen e o he ai bu s occu ed jus o se om he
c a e cen e o a lowe T iassic Kuliko ksy paleo- olcanic complex ha
is pa o he Sibe ian igneous p o ince associa ed wi h he Pe mian-
T iassic ex inc ion e en [10].
Now, i is no uncommon o me eo oids o explode in he a mosphe e, and
i one conside s Tunguska alone, he e is no eason o specula e in ol emen o
ex a e es ial in elligence.
Howe e , i appea s ha he Tunguska me eo oid came om he same
di ec ion as he Chelyabinsk me eo oid[11], bo h exploded o e Russia, and
Chelyabinsk is he la ges impac o since Tunguska.
Wha a e he odds o such co ela ion be ween he wo la ges me eo oids
o impac Ea h’s a mosphe e in ecen imes?
No e ha Tunguska explosion is he la ges known such e en a leas in
he las ∼3600 yea s, bu possibly mo e han ha as he s udy p o iding
he e idence o he ai bu s e en nea Tall el-Hammam ∼3600 yea s
ago[12] was e ac ed (which does no imply he e was no ai bu s , i
jus implies he e idence is inconclusi e and al e na i e explana ions a e
possible). Wi hou coun ing Tall el-Hammam, he mos ecen simila
e en (bu e en s onge ) is he Abu Hu ey a e en in Sy ia ha occu ed
∼12800 yea s ago, which is conside ed o be esponsible o he Younge
D yas bounda y[13].
Bu he co ela ion doesn’ e en end he e. The Tunguska e en occu ed
8
igh abou he ime when a mosphe ic CO2le els eached 300 ppm, while he
Chelyabinsk e en occu ed igh abou he ime when 400 ppm was eached. Is
his a coincidence? I guess humans could ind ha ou o su e when he a mo-
sphe ic CO2 eaches 500 ppm (abou he yea 2040/2041). In my o he wo k,
I ha e a gued o he co ela ion o impac s wi h CO2le els[9] ha does no
in ol e ex a e es ial in elligence, bu he al e na i e in e p e a ion is possible
(and bo h a e no mu ually exclusi e).
E en hough Chelyabinsk impac was no able, i was s ill signi ican ly
smalle han Tunguska, hypo hesized Tall el-Hammam was somewha
la ge han Tunguska, and he olde Abu Hu ey a was much la ge han
Tunguska. I is possible hen ha he me eo oid impac s a e dec easing
in s eng h as he human impac is inc easing (o , as he human popu-
la ion is ising?). Based on disco e ies in my o he wo ks, I wouldn’ be
su p ised by such coupling, bu his is unce ain, and olde impac s may
no be highly co ela ed wi h he ecen ones.
I someone is sending us come a y p obes wi h e e y 100 ppm o CO2in-
c ease, is i o ell us some hing, o is i all o pu ely scien i ic/moni o ing
causes?
In e es ingly, d awing a line a ound he globe ha passes h ough he Tun-
guska si e and he Chelyabinsk si e passes e y close o he Tall el-Hammam and
he Abu Hu ey a si es, as well. The des uc ion laye deb is a Tall el-Hammam
e en has a consis en SW- o-NE o ien a ion[14] - hus, along he line, owa ds
Chelyabinsk and Tunguska.
Also in e es ing is ha he line passes mos ly h ough la gely uninhabi ed
a eas (such as Sibe ia), oceans and dese s (such as Saha a). I passes igh
be ween he sou he n ip o Sou h Ame ica and An a c ica, wi hou ouching
hese con inen s. Seems like s ongly popula ed a eas may be a oided, bu will
he nex explosion be along his line as well? And will i be an a mosphe ic
impac (ai bu s ) o a g ound impac his ime?
All o his is, o cou se, specula ion. I could be jus a bunch o coincidences.
Time will ell. Bu i he CO2co ela ion is alid, humans migh no going o
ha e o wai o long. I he non-popula ed a eas a e a ge ed, i is possible ha
impac s occu mo e o en - possibly wi h e e y 50 ppm inc ease, humans may
ha e jus missed he impac a 350 ppm. Ce ainly possible i i occu ed o e
he ocean. The unusually la ge sunami ( o he associa ed ea hquake) ha
occu ed in Nica agua on he Sep embe 1s , 1992 may be co ela ed wi h an
impac . The Ea h should each 450 ppm abou he yea 2030, so an impac in
yea 2029, o example, would signi ican ly inc ease con idence in he hypo hesis,
i no , an impac in o abou he yea 2040/2041 should - o whene e 500 ppm
is eached.
In e es ingly, yea 2041 can be ex apola ed om he co ela ion o popu-
la ion size wi h pas impac s, no only om he CO2, as shown in Table 1.
9
