The Uncomfortable Convergence: Solar System Mysteries and the 3I/Atlas Enigma
- John Adams
- Dec 18, 2025
- 16 min read
In less than a decade, the Solar System has gone from zero confirmed interstellar objects inside it to what we might call a small menagerie of wanderers. First there was Oumuamua, followed by 2I/Borisov, interstellar meteor candidates IM1 and IM2, and now 3I/Atlas, which have formed a small but diverse dataset. If we add the curious case of 2015 Bz509, or Kaʻepaokaʻawela, which may be a long-term captured visitor, then suddenly the Solar System seem less like isolated space and more like a busy crossroads.
A Strange Season of Interstellar Visitors
This is not a simple case of mere perception. Science has now logged a historically high number of comets and candidates clustering inside the Inner Solar System. Some are bright and photogenic, others are fragmenting or chemically odd. Together they form a mosaic that have sky observers wondering if this is a statistical result of better instrumentation or a first hint of something stranger.
The Curious Cluster
I decided to create a list of objects within our nearby field - the Inner Solar System - and highlight some of the more interesting objects. If you look closely at the “blue” and bottom‑listed objects in recent catalogs a pattern emerges. They share features that set them apart from the textbook comets of old:
Hyperbolic or nearly hyperbolic paths: 3I/ATLAS, C/2025 V1 (Borisov), and C/2022 R6 (PANSTARRS) each push the boundary between bound and unbound motion.
Retrograde or highly inclined orbits: 333P/LINEAR’s retrograde trajectory and C/2025 A6 (Lemmon)’s steep tilt stand out against the usual direction of movement.
Unusual spectra and color changes: 96P/Machholz’s carbon/cyanogen depletion, C/2025 K1’s green‑to‑gold transition, and 3I/ATLAS’s nickel‑rich composition and recent green-to-gold transition hint at exotic chemistry.
Non‑standard activity levels: 29P’s relentless outbursts, 73P’s catastrophic fragmentation, and 209P’s near‑extinction all defy the “average” cometary script.
Taken together, this cluster feels less random and more a convergence of anomalies — a set of bodies that don’t quite behave the way we expect.
Blue points → Interstellar or hyperbolic candidates ('Oumuamua, Borisov, IM1/IM2, 31/ATLAS, C/2025 V1, C/2022 R6, 2015 BZ509 (Ka'epaoka'awela).
Red points → Unusual Jupiter-family comets (29P outbursts, 73P fragmentation, 96P sungrazer, 333P retrograde, 313P main-belt).
Gray points → Conventional JFCs (e.g., 19P Borrelly, 81P Wild 2, 10P Tempel 2).
Annotations mark major events: fragmentation (73P), outbursts (29P), spacecraft flybys (Deep Space 1 at 19P, Stardust at 81P)
Speculative Interpretations: Probes in Disguise?
Scientists, namely Avi Loeb, have famously speculated that ʻOumuamua" and 3I/Atlas could be artificial objects, perhaps vessels with probes disguised as comets, using outgassing as camouflage, or debris fields deliberately seeded, with fragmentation patterns that mimic natural breakup.
Other than scout-type missions, these possibilities could also come to mind:
Rendezvous points, waiting stations, orbiting encampments, defensive placements, bunkers, and offensive maneuvers. Some or all of these could go undetected, particularly if the technology involved were superior to our own understanding.
Another possibility includes that of neutral involvement, passive observation, sampling missions and harmless information gathering.
Out of curiosity, we turn our lens to the topic using Remote Viewing, however the caveat being that the project was simply meant to understand the significance and meaning of activity, and what it might mean in terms of a potential Planet X or Binary Star discovery (perhaps there was no real significance). In other words, there were no real built-in assumptions.
The Significance of 3I Atlas
3I Atlas is a remarkable first because it is an interstellar object, meaning it originated outside our solar system. Its discovery was a milestone, as it provided a rare opportunity to study material from another star system. What makes 3I Atlas particularly interesting is its anomalous activity and apparent composition.
Unlike most comets that show predictable patterns of outgassing and tail formation as they approach the Sun, 3I/Atlas exhibits a potential alloy construction, brightness fluctuations and unexpected jet activity, a forward directional tail and non-gravitational acceleration. The anomalies suggest differences in composition or structure, possibly reflecting the environment of its home system or perhaps design.
The loss of communication with the Maven Mars orbiter after 3I/Atlas passed by and it came back from behind Mars is interesting. It was easy to wonder if something like this might occur. We had already looked into the Phobos II mission, which lost communication not once, but twice including Phobos I.
What It Means
We could be looking at a mystery far greater than 3I/Atlas. This project produced converging anomalous data worthy of your consideration. Instead of data points around a Planet X body, or Binary Star (a la the Nemesis Theory) a sort of reminder appears to us that we may not really be alone, even in the dark reaches of cold space.
THE UNCOMFORTABLE CONVERGENCE
What Five Remote Viewers Actually Perceived About the Cause of Cometary Clustering—And Why It Matters
For a preview of Remote Viewing Sketches, watch below:
A Historic Anomaly
Against this backdrop of activity, we conducted a blind remote viewing study in October 2025 to investigate the cause of increased cometary clustering in the inner solar system. Five experienced remote viewers, operating independently under strict blind protocols, produced session data that converged on themes far different—and far more unsettling—than we anticipated.
This presents what they actually perceived, without editorial filtering or narrative shaping to fit comfortable explanations. All quotes are taken from session transcripts.
Methodology: Blind Protocols and Viewer Qualifications
Parameter | Details |
Target Designation | 6636-2583 |
Target Description | "The cause of increased cometary clustering happening around the inner solar system" |
Viewers | 5 independent practitioners (Becca Nielsen, Patricia A., John Dixon, David Powell, John Maillard) |
Protocol | Target reference number-only blind targeting; no contextual information provided |
Timeframe | October 2025 |
Documentation | All sessions handwritten with timestamps |
All viewers have 2-5+ years experience with structured remote viewing methodologies (primarily CRV-derived protocols). None had prior knowledge of the target content, the comet clustering, or anomalies. Sessions were conducted independently with no inter-viewer communication.
Note: Analysis is based on exact transcriptions of what viewers wrote and sketched, with minimal interpretation. We distinguish clearly between direct perceptions and analytical inference.
Convergence Analysis: What Actually Aligned
Artificial/Technological
5/5 (100%)
Intelligence/Awareness
5/5 (100%)
Negative/Malevolent Intent
5/5 (100%)
Deception/Concealment
5/5 (100%)
Biological/Hybrid Nature
4/5 (80%)
Circular/Spherical Forms
3/5 (60%)
Disclosure/Gov Response
2/5 (40%)
What The Viewers Actually Perceived
Rather than summarizing or interpreting, we present key excerpts from each session in the viewers' own words, organized by emergent themes.
Theme 1: Artificial/Technological Nature
Convergence: 5/5 viewers (100%)
Becca Nielsen: "Binary codes," "electrical sparkle," "circuit board patterns," "technology, black op, secretive, tangible, math, science," "craft, aerospace, aeronautical," "military"
Patricia A.: "Most important gestalt of the target: man-made, industrial, new, very technical, specialized," "Some kind of technical thing/machinery that influences mind and health," "Technological, electromagnetic, grid, invisible, inaudible"
John Dixon: "Manmade structure," "Engineered design," "GMO-birds! (laugh)" - biological and chemical modifications, "Particle collider? Has energy to really mess something up," "More capable processing speed," "Data collecting object or structure. Has an offensive capability"
David Powell (Session 1): "High tech," "metallic clanking sounds," "Pressurized, sealed suits," "Rocket taking off - privatized space travel," "UFO with two beams," "Space probe, reconnaissance," "Technological orb," "Sphere network" around planet Earth
David Powell (Session 2): "Space based weaponry," "Space based programming," "Monitoring station in space. Taking pictures," "Assets in space. Like we have our own people out there already"
John Maillard: "Man-made," "metallic," "AI" (repeated multiple times), "Tall tower" (technological structure)
Assessment: Every single viewer independently perceived technological, artificial, or manufactured elements. This is the strongest convergence in the dataset.
Theme 2: Intelligence/Consciousness/Awareness
Convergence: 5/5 viewers (100%)
Becca Nielsen: "Circular shapes... felt porous at some points and then act like an eye watching and moving," "Feeling like it was crying out for help," "Ancient understandings," "Codes for this"
Patricia A. - Critical Perception:
"Change your mind, influence, you can not fight against it!"
"Invisible, inaudible, magnetic, electromagnetic, change electromagnetic field"
"Impacts health, transmute, transform, moves one thought to another one"
"Technological, weak, taking advantage"
"Hypnotizing beings to do, and having impact on health - hard to fight against it!"
Her conclusion: "Some kind of technical thing/machinery that influences mind and health, like hypnotizing beings"
Defense offered: "The only way is to keep focus, and on top of that keeping being aware! Aware of who you are!"
John Dixon: "Fast in thought/calculation. Has more capable processing speed," "Has a vision capability that was adopted from web-less spiders - hunters if you will," "Intel - micro-mining of desired physical landscapes"
David Powell: "Handler attributed to this site," "Communication, array," "Cycling a transmission here," "Ultra-terrestrial species," "Hive mind experience," "Terrestrial informant"
John Maillard: "Intelligent," "On a mission," "Is aware of us/me" (repeated multiple times), "Aware of us," "Does not care," "Is not answerable," Intent rating: 100 out of 100
Theme 3: Negative/Malevolent Intent
Convergence: 5/5 viewers (100%)
John Maillard's Spider Chart Assessment
Good:0/100
Trust:0/100
Fitness:80/100
Reliable:50/100
Health:100/100
Wealth:0/100
Psychopath:100/100
Intent:100/100
John Maillard's Full Assessment:
"Evil, dark, suspicious, angry, selfish, bent with an anger, horror movie, is greedy, unpleasant, like Dracula, waiting for the moment, does not care, is not answerable, bad feeling, evil intent, don't trust this person, I am quite angry and will get revenge, I hate you all and want you gone, big lie, shapeshifter, appears a savior, posing as benign religious leader, the new Messiah, makes my skin crawl, must be stopped, is a psychopath"
Other Viewers:
Becca: "Aggression," "baring teeth," "grief," "fake grin with aggression behind it," "evil, bad habits, addiction, lies, coverups"
Patricia: "You can not fight against it!," "taking advantage," "impacts health," "hard to fight against it!"
Dixon: "Has energy to really mess something up," "offensive capability"
Powell: "Scared," "traumatic, feels forced," "distress call," "tragedy," "hazardous to human inhalation," "radiation burns, flesh burn"
Theme 4: Deception/Concealment/Shapeshifting
Convergence: 5/5 viewers (100%)
Key Perceptions:
Becca: "Fake grin with aggression behind it," "lies, coverups"
Patricia: "Invisible, inaudible," "change your mind" [manipulation], "hypnotizing beings"
Dixon: "Whitish, tan colored/Desert/tan-like camouflage covering," "concealed data collecting object"
Powell: "Cover up," "'doctored'," "meeting around the right time to tell the public," "propaganda campaign"
Maillard: "Pandora's box of lies," "big lie," "shapeshifter not to be trusted," "fooling," "it is a ploy to lure you into a false sense of security," "appears a savior" [but isn't], "posing as benign religious leader," "the new Messiah makes my skin crawl"
Theme 5: Biological/Organic/Hybrid Nature
Convergence: 4/5 viewers (80%)
Becca Nielsen: "Organic, mobile, agile," "fleshy, organic, ball-like," "skin-like: stretched, dehydrated, pulled tight, cracked, petrified, aged," "more youthful skin covering a ball like muscle, organic, mobile and agile," "anti-aging technology that might be rediscovered from ancient understandings," "visual movement of eye, alien-like, prehistoric, reptile, AOL alligator"
John Dixon: "Biological and chemical modifications using inspiration from planet's evolved species," "Species that have survived the longest," "Reinforced GMO-birds!," "Vision capability adopted from web-less spiders - hunters," "Cryptochrome attributes. Birds, sea turtles share this"
Theme 6: A "Luminosity event", or significant future point in time (late 2026)
One viewer (Powell) employing generic timeline by request in advance (second session)
The Most Disturbing Convergences
Three aspects of the data demand special attention due to their specificity, intensity, and potential implications.
1. Patricia's Mind Control/Influence Perceptions
Patricia's Stage 4 perceptions are explicit and detailed, describing what appears to be technological mind control:
"Change your mind, influence, you can not fight against it!, invisible, inaudible, magnetic, electromagnetic, change electromagnetic field, impacts health, transmute, transform, moves one thought to another one, technological, weak, taking advantage."
She concludes:
"Seems to have some kind of technical thing/machinery that influences mind and health, like hypnotizing beings to do, and having impact on health - hard to fight against it!"
And offers only one defense:
"The only way is to keep focus, and on top of that keeping being aware! Aware of who you are!"
This describes technological mind control—invisible, electromagnetic, and difficult to resist. She specifically warns about losing awareness of self.
2. David Powell's Direct 3I/ATLAS Reference
In Session 2, Powell explicitly writes:
"Threat assessment. 3I/Atlas."
This is extraordinary because:
Target was coordinate-only (6636-2583)
No mention of 3I/ATLAS in targeting
Powell connects "cometary clustering cause" directly to the interstellar visitor
Describes it as a "threat assessment" scenario
References "ultra-terrestrial species" in same session
Describes governmental "disclosure" planning around the event
Additional perceptions from same session: "Ultra-terrestrial species," "judiciary committee of oversight," "propaganda campaign," "presidential decree," "perjury, document, permissible, 'doctored', cover up," "meeting around the right time to tell the public," "forming a committee. Majestic 12," "space based weaponry," "disclosure event," "disclosure agreement," "planetary probation"
Integration with Current Astronomical Data
How do these perceptions align with observable reality?
3I/ATLAS Anomalies (Ongoing)
October 29, 2025
Survived perihelion intact - Unusual for interstellar object at close solar approach
November 2025
Non-gravitational acceleration observed - Suggests either unusual outgassing OR propulsion
December 2025
Now within Jupiter's Hill sphere (gravitational influence zone) - Continues producing anomalous observations every few days
3I/ATLAS - RV Session Alignment
RV Perception | Astronomical Reality | Status |
Artificial/technological nature | Non-gravitational acceleration; unusual composition | ✓ Aligns |
Intelligence/purposeful behavior | Trajectory changes; survival of perihelion | ✓ Aligns |
Governmental concealment | HiRISE data unreleased; inadequate press conference | ✓ Aligns |
Threat assessment context | NASA silence; controlled information flow | ✓ Aligns |
Direct naming | "Threat assessment. 3I/Atlas." | ✓ Documented |
V1/Borisov (C/2025 V1) - Discovered November 2, 2025
Key Characteristics:
Nearly hyperbolic orbit (eccentricity >1)
Initially suspected interstellar origin
Highly inclined orbit (~112 degrees)
Muted/hard-to-see tail (similar to 3I/ATLAS)
As of early December: Appears to be disintegrating - "ghost-like object without a core"
Questions Raised:
Why another near-hyperbolic orbit comet?
Why similar appearance to 3I/ATLAS (muted tail)?
Is disintegration genuine or concealment behavior?
Same discoverer (Gennadiy Borisov) as 2I/Borisov (2019) - coincidence?
Science refutes any connections to 3I/Atlas
Increased Cometary Phenomenon (41 Comets)
Possible Explanations:
Natural perturbation (Oort Cloud disturbance) - BUT no massive body detected yet
Detection improvements - BUT spatial distribution suggests real clustering
Artificial activity - Aligns with RV perceptions of technological/intelligent cause
Combination - Natural window + artificial utilization (gravitational corridor hypothesis)
Alternative Interpretations
Scientific honesty requires considering multiple explanations for the remote viewing data:
Interpretation 1:Archetypal Patterns
Hypothesis: Viewers accessed collective unconscious archetypes rather than specific information.
Strengths:
Explains convergence on dramatic themes
Consistent with Jungian psychology
No anomalous information transfer needed
Weaknesses:
Doesn't explain 3I/ATLAS naming
Doesn't explain technological specifics
Archetypes usually more vague
Interpretation 2:Genuine Perception
Hypothesis: Viewers accurately perceived artificial entities causing or utilizing the clustering.
Strengths:
Explains specific technological details
Aligns with 3I/ATLAS anomalies
Explains David Powell's naming
Consistent with previous 3I/ATLAS RV studies
Weaknesses:
Extraordinary claim
No definitive confirmation yet
Could misinterpret natural phenomena
Interpretation 3:Mixed Signal
Hypothesis: Viewers accessed different aspects of a complex target.
Strengths:
Explains variation in focus
Accounts for both natural and artificial elements
Allows partial accuracy
Weaknesses:
Assumes RV works but is imprecise
Doesn't explain why artificial themes dominate
Monitoring the Anomalies
Based on what viewers actually perceived, here are some areas to highlight in the time frame ahead.
Short-Term (1-6 months)
1: 3I/ATLAS Continued Anomalies
Further non-gravitational acceleration
Unexpected trajectory changes
Possible structural changes or behavior inconsistent with natural comet
Test: Monitor ongoing observations through December 2025 - March 2026 Jupiter flyby
2: Additional Near-Hyperbolic Comets
Discovery of comets with similar characteristics to 3I/ATLAS and V1/Borisov
Muted tails or unusual appearance
Possible interstellar or near-interstellar orbits
Test: Track new comet discoveries January-June 2026
3: Disclosure Developments
Controlled information release about 3I/ATLAS
Congressional/committee hearings on anomalous phenomena
Gradual acknowledgment of unusual characteristics
Test: Monitor governmental statements and hearings through Q1-Q2 2026
4: V1/Borisov Anomalies
"Disintegration" reveals unexpected behavior
Fragments behave anomalously
Core re-emerges after apparent breakup
Test: Continue tracking through January-February 2026
Medium-Term (6-18 months)
5: 3I/ATLAS Jupiter Encounter
March 2026 flyby produces definitive data
Trajectory changes inconsistent with natural comet
Spectroscopic confirmation of unusual or artificial materials
Test: Jupiter flyby observations March 2026
6: Continued Clustering
Additional interstellar or unusual comets detected
Clustering continues or accelerates
Objects show technological characteristics
Test: Monitor comet discoveries through 2026
Long-Term (1-3 years)
7: Technological Influence Studies
Public acknowledgment of electromagnetic influence technologies
Health impact studies emerge
Patricia's warnings about mind control prove prescient
One year timeline for "luminosity" or significant event
Test: Monitor scientific literature and disclosures 2026-2028
8: "False Savior" Narrative
Beings or technology presented as beneficial
Maillard's shapeshifter/deception warnings become relevant
Public awareness of manipulative presentation
Test: Monitor narrative development around contact/disclosure 2026-2028
• • •
The Uncomfortable Questions
If we take the remote viewing data seriously—even provisionally—several questions arise:
Q1: Why would artificial intelligence cause cometary clustering?
Possible answers:
Concealment among natural objects
Resource extraction from comets
Monitoring solar activity during perihelion approaches
Testing human response to unusual phenomena
Using gravitational dynamics for propulsion/navigation
Maneuvers: could include technology or natural objects
Q2: Why the consistent perception of negative intent?
Possible answers:
Viewers detecting genuine threat
Archetypal fear response to "unknown"
Misinterpretation of non-human consciousness
Accurate perception of incompatible values/goals
Q3: Why hasn't NASA released all the data?
Possible answers:
Standard bureaucratic delay (mundane explanation)
Data shows nothing unusual (anticlimactic)
Data shows something unusual requiring assessment (moderate concern)
Data confirms artificial nature (extraordinary scenario matching "threat assessment")
Q4: Why so many objects now?
Possible answers:
Natural gravitational perturbation (still seeking source)
Detection bias (improved capabilities)
Artificial activity (RV hypothesis)
Combination: natural window + artificial utilization (gravitational corridor model)
• • •
Recommendations
For the Public
Maintain discernment:
RV data is not proof
Multiple interpretations remain valid
Verification through conventional means essential
Stay informed:
Monitor 3I/ATLAS developments
Watch for new data releases and observations from numerous telescopes now tracking
Track new discoveries
Consider the possibility:
That something genuinely unusual is occurring
That any institutional response may be complex
That truth may be uncomfortable
RV can sometimes skew more negative or positive
Consider the RV Advice:
"Keep focus"
"Keep being aware"
Stay "aware of who you are"
The future may involve a "Paradigm Shift"
If there are negative visitors there most certainly are positive ones, too.
• • •
Conclusion: Following the Data
Artificial/technological intelligence
Malevolent intent toward humans
Deception and shapeshifting capabilities
Mind control/influence technology
Governmental awareness and controlled disclosure planning
Direct connection to 3I/ATLAS
These findings align disturbingly well with:
3I/ATLAS's continued anomalous behavior
NASA's unexplained data silence
The unprecedented cometary clustering
V1/Borisov's mysterious disintegration
Global skepticism about institutional transparency
Until verification, we document what was perceived with honesty, acknowledging both the extraordinary nature of the claims and the extraordinary consistency with which they emerged across independent sessions.
The data says what it says. Whether that reflects reality or reveals limitations of remote viewing methodology, transparent reporting serves the advancement of both fields.
The universe, it seems, is more strange than we thought.
For reference, the list in table form I created:
🌌 Cometary Catalog (objects ≤ 7 AU, Dec 2025–2026)
Comet | Type | Orbit (P, q) | Discovery | Observables / Unique Notes |
3I/ATLAS | Interstellar | N/A, q≈1.36 AU | 2025 – ATLAS | Third interstellar visitor; hyperbolic; rare extrasolar material/high in nickel vs. lead, brightness fluctuations, non-gravitational acceleration, recently turned gold from green (like C/2025 K1 ATLAS. |
C/2025 V1 (Borisov) | Long‑period | N/A, q≈0.46 AU | 2025 – Borisov | Nearly hyperbolic; perihelion Nov 2025; possible interstellar candidate. Unusual trajectory and lack of a visible tail, speculation about its origin and potential non-gravitational propulsion. Nearly perpendicular orbit to that of the interstellar comet 3I/ATLAS raised questions possible connection. Faint appearance and absence of a tail sparked discussions about composition and nature of its origin. |
C/2025 A6 (Lemmon) | Long‑period | N/A, q≈0.9 AU | 2025 – Lemmon | Non-periodic naked‑eye comet late 2025. Tilted 143.7°, same as Mars but opposite. Closest approach was 21 October 2025. A once in a life-time event. |
C/2025 R2 (SWAN) | Long‑period | N/A, q≈0.6 AU | 2025 – SOHO/SWAN | Bright binocular comet; perihelion Oct 2025; notable for appearing unexpectedly bright and possessing a long gas tail visible in images. Making once-in-many-millennia appearance. |
C/2023 A3 (Tsuchinshan–ATLAS) | Long‑period | N/A, q≈0.7 AU | 2023 – PMO/ATLAS | “Great comet” of 2024; brightest comet since Hale Bopp in 1997; rare 80k year visitor; spectacular dust tail; third object to travel through galaxy from outside, outbound but still observable. |
C/2022 R6 (PANSTARRS) | Long‑period | N/A, q≈4.6 AU | 2022 – Pan‑STARRS | Hyperbolic comet located in the constellation Hydra, not commonly associated with comets. Perihelion 8/2025. |
C/2024 E1 (Wierzchos) | Long‑period | N/A, q≈1.9 AU | 2024 – Wierzchos | Inbound; perihelion Jan 2026; CO2 driven (rare), expected to be ejected from the solar system due to hyperbolic orbit. |
C/2023 X2 (Lemmon) | Long‑period | N/A, q≈5.1 AU | 2023 – Lemmon | Unpredictable brightness and unique ion tail. High mixing ratio of water to carbon monoxide, contains significant amounts of hydrocarbons like ethane and methane. |
C/2025 L1 (ATLAS) | Long‑period | N/A, q≈1.7 AU | 2025 – ATLAS | New inbound near-parabolic comet (highly inclined), perihelion 2026, Naked eye object. |
C/2025 T1 (ATLAS) | Long‑period | N/A, q≈1.1 AU | 2025 – ATLAS | Bright perihelion late 2025. Experienced a rapid increase in brightness from its discovery to around magnitude 10. |
C/2025 K1 (ATLAS) | Long‑period | N/A, q≈2.8 AU | 2025 – ATLAS | Carbon‑depleted; observed fragmented November 11-12; was green and then turned a rare gold post-perihelion (like 3I/Atlas). |
C/2025 L2 (MAPS) | Long‑period | N/A, q≈2.8 AU | 2025 – MAPS | New faint comet; perihelion Dec 20 2025. |
C/2025 R3 (PANSTARRS) | Long‑period | N/A, q≈0.5 AU | 2025 – Pan‑STARRS | Inbound; perihelion Apr 2026; potentially bright; long period, making April 2026 a potentially unique viewing opportunity. |
C/2025 V2 (Rankin) | Long‑period | N/A, q≈1.95 AU | 2025 – Rankin | New comet inbound; nearly isotropic orbit; perihelion Mar 2027; activity begins 2026. |
96P/Machholz | JFC (sungrazer) | P≈5.3 yr, q≈0.12 AU | 1986 – Machholz | Extremely close perihelion; highly eccentric orbit; unusual carbon/cyanogen depletion; possible interstellar object. |
7P/Pons–Winnecke | JFC | P≈6.3 yr, q≈1.26 AU | 1819 – Pons | June Bootids parent; close Earth approaches. |
8P/Tuttle | JFC | P≈13.6 yr, q≈1.03 AU | 1790 – Méchain / 1858 – Tuttle | Contact‑binary nucleus; Ursid meteor parent. |
10P/Tempel 2 | JFC | P≈5.3 yr, q≈1.41 AU | 1873 – Tempel | Large (~10 km); spacecraft target candidate. |
19P/Borrelly | JFC | P≈6.8 yr, q≈1.36 AU | 1904 – Borrelly | Deep Space 1 flyby (2001); “chicken leg” nucleus. |
24P/Schaumasse | JFC | P≈8.2 yr, q≈1.2 AU | 1911 – Schaumasse | Bright periodic comet; perihelion Jan 2026. |
29P/Schwassmann–Wachmann | Centaur/JFC | P≈14.8 yr, q≈5.76 AU | 1927 – Schwassmann/Wachmann | Giant (~60 km); prolific outbursts. |
32P/Comas Solà | JFC | P≈8.8 yr, q≈2.0 AU | 1926 – Comas Solà | Moderate‑sized; ordinary but reliable JFC. |
33P/Daniel | JFC | P≈8.3 yr, q≈2.24 AU | 1909 – Daniel | Ordinary JFC; long observational arc. |
41P/Tuttle–Giacobini–Kresák | JFC | P≈5.4 yr, q≈1.0 AU | 1858 – Tuttle; 1907 – Giacobini; 1951 – Kresák | Known for dramatic outbursts; perihelion near Earth’s orbit. |
47P/Ashbrook–Jackson | JFC | P≈8.3 yr, q≈2.81 AU | 1948 – Ashbrook/Jackson | Mid‑sized JFC. |
65P/Gunn | JFC | P≈7.6 yr, q≈2.93 AU | 1970 – Gunn | Large nucleus (~10 km); WISE IR tail. |
73P/Schwassmann–Wachmann 3 | JFC | P≈5.4 yr, q≈0.94 AU | 1930 – Schwassmann/Wachmann | Catastrophic fragmentation (1995 onward); multiple fragments tracked. |
81P/Wild 2 | JFC | P≈6.4 yr, q≈1.6 AU | 1978 – Wild | Target of NASA’s Stardust mission; samples returned to Earth. |
104P/Kowal | JFC | P≈6.4 yr, q≈4.33 AU | 1979 – Kowal | Small (~2 km); near‑Earth approaches. |
198P/ODAS | JFC | P≈6.8 yr, q≈2.0 AU | 1998 – ODAS | Ordinary JFC. |
209P/LINEAR | JFC | P≈5.0 yr, q≈1.0 AU | 2004 – LINEAR | Extremely low activity; Camelopardalid meteor shower (2014). |
210P/Christensen | JFC | P≈7.7 yr, q≈1.0 AU | 2003 – Christensen | Small; perihelion ~0.5 AU. |
235P/LINEAR | JFC | P≈6.4 yr, q≈1.98 AU | 2002 – LINEAR | Faint, little‑studied JFC. |
240P/NEAT | JFC | P≈7.6 yr, q≈2.12 AU | 2003 – NEAT | Fragmented into A & B. |
261P/Larson | JFC | P≈6.5 yr, q≈2.01 AU | 2008 – Larson | Typical JFC. |
313P/Gibbs | Main‑belt | P≈5.6 yr, q≈2.42 AU | 2014 – Gibbs | Rare main‑belt comet; sublimation in asteroid‑like orbit. |
333P/LINEAR | JFC | P≈8.6 yr, q≈1.11 AU | 2007 – LINEAR | Retrograde orbit (~132° inclination). |
469P/PANSTARRS | JFC | P≈9.1 yr, q≈3.01 AU | 2017 – Pan‑STARRS | Ordinary faint JFC. |
489P/Denning | JFC | P≈9.3 yr, q≈1.56 AU | 1894 – Denning | Historical; recovered later. |
Other objects of note:
A/2019 S3 (PANSTARRS): A non-cometary object on a hyperbolic path that was briefly considered a candidate before further observations suggested it was more likely a Solar System body perturbed by the planets.
CNEOS 2014-01-08 (IM1): A presumed meteor (which we already viewed here) that entered Earth's atmosphere over Papua New Guinea in 2014. In 2022, U.S. Space Command confirmed its velocity was consistent with an interstellar origin. While some scientists remain skeptical due to the classified nature of the data, it is widely cited as the first known interstellar meteor.
CNEOS 2017-03-09 (IM2): Another meteor candidate identified in the Center for Near-Earth Object Studies (CNEOS) database with high-velocity characteristics suggestive of an origin outside our solar system.
Potential Captured Objects
2015 BZ509: A co-orbital asteroid of Jupiter that orbits in a retrograde direction. Research published in 2018 suggested it may be a captured interstellar asteroid that has been in our solar system for billions of years. ‘Kaʻepaokaʻāwela’ is the first example of an asteroid in a 1:–1 resonance with any of the planets. This type of resonance had only been studied slightly before the object's discovery.
Project sketches:
Project sessions: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1bif0fl1Ae_KwydXxvIK-TRqU1-ZO6jMz?usp=sharing
See these related projects and others:
Report by: John Adams
Date: December 2025
Be sure to follow along for new updates and projects
Comments