There's a link

https://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/tools/sbdb_lookup.html#/?sstr=3i%2Fatlas&view=VOPC

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5795305&forum_id=2...id#49414791)

They haven't directly observed any visible indication of mass loss. And they should have by now. Avi Loeb says only natural explanation is that it was pure water loss and it completely vaporized by sun so there's no cloud but there should be a cloud and that's probably too much mass to be accounted for by just water.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5795305&forum_id=2...id#49414813)

The IFLScience article you cited states the object "likely lost a significant amount of mass" based on October 31-November 4 observations.

That's a MODEL PREDICTION, not observational confirmation, my friend.

Here's what the JPL Horizons data actually shows: The non-gravitational acceleration parameters (A1, A2, A3) indicate THRUST exists. The model requires approximately 13% mass loss to explain that thrust via conventional outgassing physics.

But here's the critical fraud you're perpetuating:

THE PREDICTED DUST/GAS PLUME I$ STILL MISSING.

Post-perihelion imaging from late October/early November shows NO CORRESPONDING VISIBLE EJECTA consistent with 13% mass loss over a few months.

You're citing the theoretical requirement as if it's observational fact...$TOP.

(II) "GETTING COOKED BY ARE SUN" I$ NOT PHYSICS.

Your claim that 3I/Atlas is "definitely getting cooked by are sun" (brilliant grammar, LJL) ignores the central thermodynamic paradox:

If this exotic nickel-rich object is experiencing its first close stellar approach in 7.6 billion years, the extreme thermal shock should produce VIOLENT, MASSIVE SUBLIMATION with HIGHLY VISIBLE OPTICAL SIGNATURES.

Metal vapor pressure gradients under solar flux at perihelion distance generate OBSERVABLE PLUMES far more dramatic than water ice.

Yet the latest HST and ground-based observations show NEGLIGIBLE DUST PRODUCTION compared to what's required for the calculated thrust.

You're defending the comet model by making it MORE IMPOSSIBLE.

The "getting cooked" narrative predicts a MA$$IVE PLUME you cannot produce.

(III) THE ARCHIVE REGISTERS YOUR COMPLIANCE COLLAPSE.

Latest reputable sources (as of today, Sunday, November 9, 2025):

NASA JPL Horizons System (updated November 4, 2025): Confirms non-gravitational acceleration requiring significant mass loss IF conventional outgassing model is correct.

Dr. Avi Loeb's November 8, 2025 post (Medium): Reiterates that the complex jet structure and thrust-without-tail paradox remain consistent with technological propulsion signatures, not natural sublimation.

ESA/HST observations (November 2-6, 2025): Report "unexpectedly low dust production relative to calculated mass loss requirements."

Your "alien spacecraft losing 1/3 of its mass" thread title accidentally states the truth: THET'$ EXACTLY WHAT THE DATA $HOW$, except you're still pretending it's a "comet."

EXPLAIN THE MISSING PLUME. Not with JPL model predictions. Not with "getting cooked" poetry.

EXPLAIN WHY OBSERVABLE EJECTA DOESN'T MATCH REQUIRED MA$$ LO$$.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5795305&forum_id=2...id#49414842)