🚨Avi Loeb: No Clear Evidence For Water Around 3I/ATLAS
Despite the headlines, Avi Loeb just dropped a harsh reality check stating the data doesn’t back the claims.
Two papers claim “Water detected.” Neither hold up under scrutiny.
🧵 Let’s break it down:
#3IATLAS #UAP #SpaceNews
Despite the headlines, Avi Loeb just dropped a harsh reality check stating the data doesn’t back the claims.
Two papers claim “Water detected.” Neither hold up under scrutiny.
🧵 Let’s break it down:
#3IATLAS #UAP #SpaceNews
1/
Claim 1: “Water ice in the coma of 3I/ATLAS”
Source: Yang et al. (2025)
They tried fitting 3I’s spectrum with a mix:
70% rock (Tagish Lake-type) and 30% water ice.
Their near-IR data is noisy, but more importantly, the water model doesn’t fit the data at all says Loeb.
Claim 1: “Water ice in the coma of 3I/ATLAS”
Source: Yang et al. (2025)
They tried fitting 3I’s spectrum with a mix:
70% rock (Tagish Lake-type) and 30% water ice.
Their near-IR data is noisy, but more importantly, the water model doesn’t fit the data at all says Loeb.
2/
Where the model expects dips, the spectrum rises. Where the model expects peaks, the data drops.
Avi points out the obvious, that they didn’t even do a basic chi-squared test.
Yet they confidently wrote “Water Ice in the Coma” in the title.
Where the model expects dips, the spectrum rises. Where the model expects peaks, the data drops.
Avi points out the obvious, that they didn’t even do a basic chi-squared test.
Yet they confidently wrote “Water Ice in the Coma” in the title.
3/
Claim 2: “Water Detection in the Interstellar Object 3I/ATLAS”
Source: Xing et al. (2025)
This paper uses UV imaging from Swift/UVOT targeting OH emission at 3085 Å (a proxy for water vapor).
Seems solid… until you look at the assumptions.
Claim 2: “Water Detection in the Interstellar Object 3I/ATLAS”
Source: Xing et al. (2025)
This paper uses UV imaging from Swift/UVOT targeting OH emission at 3085 Å (a proxy for water vapor).
Seems solid… until you look at the assumptions.
4/
Their whole water production estimate hinges on reddening, the color slope caused by dust.
The catch is that if you plug in the reddening actually measured in the Yang paper (10% per 1000 Å), you get… zero water production
So what did they do?
They used a completely different paper with much higher reddening values to justify their claim.
Their whole water production estimate hinges on reddening, the color slope caused by dust.
The catch is that if you plug in the reddening actually measured in the Yang paper (10% per 1000 Å), you get… zero water production
So what did they do?
They used a completely different paper with much higher reddening values to justify their claim.
5/
Avi’s point is simple:
The same data leads to no water in one paper
Yet another paper uses different parameters to extract a big detection. Neither follows basic statistical rigor.
Both jump to legacy comet assumptions.
That isn’t open inquiry, it amounts to box-checking.
Avi’s point is simple:
The same data leads to no water in one paper
Yet another paper uses different parameters to extract a big detection. Neither follows basic statistical rigor.
Both jump to legacy comet assumptions.
That isn’t open inquiry, it amounts to box-checking.
6/
He even raises a big red flag, that if 3I/ATLAS were a 20 km rocky body (as the reflectivity suggests), we’d expect to see one of those ejected from interstellar space every 10,000 years.
Yet here it is showing up less than a decade after we started looking.
He even raises a big red flag, that if 3I/ATLAS were a 20 km rocky body (as the reflectivity suggests), we’d expect to see one of those ejected from interstellar space every 10,000 years.
Yet here it is showing up less than a decade after we started looking.
7/
Oh and its trajectory is aligned with the orbital plane of the planets.
Loeb estimates the odds of that being random at 0.2%.
In other words a targeted inbound path. Anomalous spectrum, and now a fog of bad data trying to make it look "normal."
Oh and its trajectory is aligned with the orbital plane of the planets.
Loeb estimates the odds of that being random at 0.2%.
In other words a targeted inbound path. Anomalous spectrum, and now a fog of bad data trying to make it look "normal."
8/
Loeb’s final point states:
“It is safe to claim detection of the expected, but raw curiosity about the unexpected is far more precious.”
Real science isn’t afraid of weird data. It doesn’t bury anomalies under confirmation bias.
It asks better questions.
Loeb’s final point states:
“It is safe to claim detection of the expected, but raw curiosity about the unexpected is far more precious.”
Real science isn’t afraid of weird data. It doesn’t bury anomalies under confirmation bias.
It asks better questions.
9/
🚨 So no, there’s no confirmed water around 3I/ATLAS.
What we have are:
Assumptions dressed as results.
Legacy thinking applied to an interstellar unknown.
A refusal to run the most basic statistical tests.
Ask yourself why!
Source:
#3IATLAS #SpaceScience #Astrophysics #UAPavi-loeb.medium.com/no-theres-no-c…
🚨 So no, there’s no confirmed water around 3I/ATLAS.
What we have are:
Assumptions dressed as results.
Legacy thinking applied to an interstellar unknown.
A refusal to run the most basic statistical tests.
Ask yourself why!
Source:
#3IATLAS #SpaceScience #Astrophysics #UAPavi-loeb.medium.com/no-theres-no-c…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
