Are We Alone? The Loeb Scale and Interstellar Mysteries

Chukwuka

Welcome to The New Sentinel, everybody. I’m Chukwuka, joined by Major Graves, Olga Ivanova, and Duke Johnson. Today, we’re stepping all the way out there—beyond the headlines, beyond Earth—into the wild frontier of interstellar visitors. And by that, I mean literal objects flying in from outside our solar system. I remember back in 2017, sitting in my old VFW in Houston, folks reading the news about 'Oumuamua—nobody could pronounce it right, including me. Suddenly, everyone’s arguing—aliens, asteroid, or just another rock? It was rowdier than Super Bowl Sunday.

Major Ethan “Sentinel” Graves

That debate... it never really died, did it? Once you start imagining that something weird sailed through our backyard from deep space, it changes the way you think about our place in the universe. Now, just to recap: since 2017, we've had three of these rare interstellar guests. First was 'Oumuamua—looked like a lump of space cigar, acted like, well, not much else we've ever seen. Then we had 2I/Borisov, which turned out to be more like your standard-issue comet—carbon monoxide galore, classic icy tail, you get it. Finally, there's the new kid in town: 3I/ATLAS. And every time one of these shows up, the science comms just explode.

Olga Ivanova - Female, Progressive

Absolutely, Ethan. And the scientific intrigue about these objects isn't really fading, partly because of Avi Loeb’s arguments. He keeps returning to the details—like with 'Oumuamua. He points to odd behaviors: that sudden acceleration, the dramatic shape, unusual brightness changes. No visible outgassing, but it sped up anyway. If you ask Loeb, maybe this wasn't a comet or asteroid—we have to consider it could be artificial. It’s the same with ATLAS recently, especially with the new James Webb data showing sustained nickel emission, strange jets, tail flips... Meanwhile, Borisov—well, that one matched all the natural models. Nobody argues about Borisov at the conferences now. But 'Oumuamua and ATLAS... that's where the questions grow.

Duke Johnson

Yeah, and you know, I gotta throw in—on every deployment you're always dreaming about "what if something shows up nobody trained for?" These objects, like ATLAS, they're not just weird, they're outliers. 'Oumuamua—3.0 on this new Loeb scale, right? ATLAS is up over five, now that's no small thing. But Borisov was boring—just a comet, so barely a blip. When something’s doing donuts outside Saturn and it doesn’t match what’s in the handbook, that’s when you start listening up. Or you should, anyway.

Chukwuka

You know, Duke, that’s what I’m talking about. These stories set off as much debate in the bar as they do among scientists! And now, with new data—ATLAS getting that bump in score after JWST’s perihelion observations—suddenly, everyone’s back to arguing. It’s like, are we seeing a new natural phenomenon, or is this actually something made by someone—or something—else? All right, so, we’ve got three objects, only one basically closed as natural. The other two, still in the zone of wild debate. But how do you even measure if it's alien tech or just a rock acting funny? That's where this Loeb Scale comes in. Ethan, break it down for us, would you?

Major Ethan “Sentinel” Graves

Right, so the Loeb Scale—it’s like, well, a probability scoreboard cooked up by Avi Loeb at Harvard. Zero means no way it’s artificial. Ten, you’re calling the president with a landing party on speed dial. But the action really happens between two and six. You get up to three, you’ve got one major anomaly, maybe worth booking telescope time. Go beyond five, and in Loeb’s own words, you’re looking at “artificial and natural equally plausible.” If you cross six, that’s planetary defense territory.

Duke Johnson

Yeah, but it ain’t just a number you pull outta a hat. There’s this eight-point checklist—each odd trait, like non-gravitational acceleration, weird shape, chemical emissions from cold space, even stuff like brightness bouncing around, gets a weighted score. You pile up enough anomalies, the score climbs. Borisov scored, what, half a point—so, hard pass, just a rock. 'Oumuamua kicked up to three. ATLAS is now what—5.2? That’s after the James Webb spotted persistent nickel and that tail flipping after perihelion, none of which walk like a duck, if you know what I mean.

Olga Ivanova - Female, Progressive

But Duke, here’s where it’s tricky. The scale sounds rigorous—totals are built up from peer-reviewed data—but who decides the weights? There's criticism: that the Loeb Scale’s weighting can be subjective. Plus, talking about a possible alien spacecraft in public, even as a “fifty-fifty,” that stirs up more than academics. People want to believe! They fund telescopes, yes, which is great for science, but it also feeds sensationalism. Suddenly, you have rampant UFO speculation crowding out nuanced science. And not everyone can separate a data-driven anomaly from internet clickbait.

Chukwuka

Olga, that's true—and honestly, I see it all the time, even back home at the VFW. Folks hear "score five out of ten," and instantly it's, "They're here!" not understanding that's just "we don’t know yet." I do appreciate Loeb's insistence—he says it outright: this isn't belief, it's not a dogma, it's just betting odds. The number drops if new natural explanations pop up; it rises only with fresh data. Still, you've got to be careful how you present that to the public.

Major Ethan “Sentinel” Graves

That’s the balance, right? As a former cop and soldier, you know the drill—you go where the evidence leads, not where emotion takes you. But if the experts are saying, “Hey, 3I/ATLAS just got bumped up on the alien-o-meter because of this weird nickel emission and zero carbon monoxide,” you’d be negligent not to keep your eyes wide open. Science or speculation? Sometimes, that line is razor thin, and that's why you need a system.

Duke Johnson

I mean, at least the system's falsifiable. Score goes up or down as new, hard evidence rolls in. That’s better than the "trust me, bro" kind of science, right?

Olga Ivanova - Female, Progressive

Yeah. But as we debate, it’s not just about numbers and checklists. How these stories are handled affects how people understand science—or misunderstand it. Scientists and journalists, we do have some responsibility. Sometimes raising “what if it’s aliens?” is just the hype machine. But real policy and funding decisions are made in this fog—telescopes get built or not, planetary defense teams get spun up or not, all depending on how these things are scored and sold.

Chukwuka

Let’s talk fallout. If you look at the reaction from NASA and the European Space Agency, they’ve been pretty blunt—they think the Loeb Scale overhypes so-called "fringe" ideas. Their argument is, if you keep sounding the alien alarm for every weird rock, you end up crying wolf, and the public loses trust in science. Meanwhile, Avi Loeb claps back with, “Ignoring anomalies is scientific malpractice.” Honestly, I sort of get both sides. The line between healthy skepticism and closed-mindedness is thin.

Olga Ivanova - Female, Progressive

And there’s also a human toll, right? When public imagination runs wild, it changes how people see the world, for better or worse. Sometimes it inspires. But if the public’s focus shifts to every speculative sky event as an existential risk, you get policy whiplash. Loeb’s scale will soon trigger international emergency protocols if an object crosses a six out of ten. That transformation—from academic debate to planetary defense activation—can whip up fear or urgent action at the stroke of a scorecard. Is that the world we want?

Duke Johnson

I tell ya, if policy’s gonna shift because a rock scores a six, we better be sure the scoreboard ain’t rigged. If you call for an intercept mission, we’re talking billions of dollars, global cooperation—all on a statistical hunch. Back in the military, you don’t scramble the jets unless the radar’s solid. Chessboard's already crowded; you don’t flip it over on a maybe.

Major Ethan “Sentinel” Graves

Duke, you’re right—and that actually brings me to a chess analogy. Sometimes the best move is the obscure one, the one that cracks everyone’s assumptions and forces you to see the board differently. If science always plays it safe, you can miss those “black swan” discoveries. On the other hand, you get checkmated if you see every shadow as a queen. Where’s the sweet spot? Maybe you have to risk ridicule—or being wrong—to actually find the truth. But the mechanisms for checking, like this scale being falsifiable, that’s what makes it defensible, not just interesting.

Chukwuka

And if I can tie it all together—I think this debate, at the edge of science and imagination, is what keeps us coming back to the table. We’re not going to settle the “are we alone?” question tonight, but with new tools like the Loeb Scale, at least science doesn’t have to run from tough questions. We'll keep watching the skies and following the data, questioning every step—because that’s what this show and our listeners are here for. All right folks, that’s a wrap for today. Olga, Duke, Ethan—any last words before we sign off?

Olga Ivanova - Female, Progressive

Just remember, every weird signal is a human story too—let’s not lose sight of how wonder can unite and divide. Thanks for listening, everyone.

Duke Johnson

Stay vigilant, keep curious, don’t jump the gun. Catch y’all next time.

Major Ethan “Sentinel” Graves

Nothing’s ever solved in one game, but every move matters. See you in the next episode, folks.

Chukwuka

Thank you, team—and to our listeners, don’t forget: keep asking bold questions. We’ll be back with more soon. Goodbye, everyone.