On Cat Comets and Dogmatic Science

Avi Loeb just wrote a Medium article about the interstellar comet I3/Atlas - and while the comet itself is interesting, his commentary on the state of science today is the real takeaway.

This is what we know about the enigmatic comet at the time of this writing:

• It's 1,000 times more massive than any interstellar comet we've seen before
• It has a tail emanating from its "forehead" instead of trailing behind
• It's shedding nickel without iron—suggesting industrial alloys rather than natural minerals
• Its light polarization is completely anomalous (suggesting surface properties that are different form other comets)
• It follows a weirdly convenient trajectory aligned with our solar system's ecliptic plane

This isn't science fiction people...

And what we also know, is that the scientific establishment doesn't want you to ask the obvious questions.

The comet itself IS interesting. Meaning it's an interstellar object with an anti-tail pointing forward. That's crazy. And Loeb nails it: it's like finding a cat with its tail coming out of its forehead. You'd think scientists would be all over this, but what was really surprising in Loeb's piece wasn't the astronomy. It was his scathing commentary of how modern science handles anything that doesn't fit the current narrative.

Loeb tried to publish his analysis explaining the physics behind I3/ATLAS's strange behavior. More than rejecting his science, the journal editors commented that he shouldn't speculate on the anomalies. One editor flat-out told him his results would be "of rather limited interest to the research community." Another demanded he simply call it "an unusually massive comet" and the arXiv (which is supposed to be an open platform) blocked his paper for days without explanation.

This is a Harvard professor. Former chair of the astronomy department. Not a guest host on Ancient Aliens...

Why this is relevant to us

Loeb's Medium article does strike a chord that resonates deeply with what this website (EnigmaticIdeas.com) is all about. I put this together because I was tired of watching the scientific gatekeepers declare what questions we can ask and which experiments we're permitted to run. While they're busy enforcing orthodoxy, some of us are out here actually testing the weird stuff - building consciousness-interaction devices, experimenting with random number generators, exploring the edges where materialist science gets uncomfortable.

Loeb uses a spot-on metaphor in his article: It's like neighbors insisting that an animal in your backyard must be a cat, regardless of what you actually observe. If it has no tail, it must be a 'dark cat' with an invisible tail.

When 1I/'Oumuamua showed up with no visible tail despite being classified as a comet, not surprisingly they invented "dark comets". Essentially invisible-tailed cats. Now with I3/ATLAS displaying multiple violations of comet physics, it's happening again: ignore the data, suppress alternatives, attack anyone who looks closer.

This might sound familiar my readers. It's the same playbook that's always been used for consciousness research, psi phenomena, UFO investigations, or any other territory that threatens their status quo. The same editors who won't publish Loeb's comet analysis are intellectual cousins to the ones who reject statistically significant telepathy experiments or dismiss decades of data from Princeton's PEAR lab.

The Dogma Tax

Here's the truth: every major scientific breakthrough started with someone paying attention to the anomalies. Quantum mechanics? Born from an anomaly called the ultraviolet catastrophe. Relativity? Thank the Michelson-Morley experiment that "failed." Continental drift? Some German meteorologist noticed fossils were in the wrong places.

Unfortunately, where we are today, is that we have what Loeb aptly calls "self-imposed ignorance inflicted by the refusal to be open minded." The scientific establishment has become so invested in defending their theories that they'd rather dismiss data than adjust their models. They've turned peer review into ideological review. They've made careers out of explaining why the impossible things we observe aren't actually happening.

Meanwhile, there are citizen scientists and garage tinkerers working outside the system. The people building brainwave entrainment devices in their garages, running consciousness experiments in their basements, and yes, sometimes (most of the time?) getting null results because that's how real science works. But at least they're following the data, not the dogma.

Loeb makes a critical point: our survival might literally depend on our willingness to consider unconventional explanations. He compares us to dinosaurs unable to recognize asteroid threats. That might sound dramatic when talking about a distant comet, but the principle is dead-on. Reality doesn't care about theoretical preferences.

Here's another metaphor: The anti-tail of I3/ATLAS points forward while the scientific establishment looks backward. While they're busy gatekeeping, the anomalies themselves are piling up. The universe is serving up mysteries that won't fit in their filing cabinets.

So...what do we do?

1) We document everything. When journals won't publish anomaly research, we create our own repositories. When editors demand orthodox interpretations, we preserve the raw data. Every unexplained observation, every statistical outlier, every "that shouldn't happen" moment goes in the vault.

2) We keep building and testing. The tools for serious research have never been more accessible. Arduino boards, SDRs, high-speed cameras, precision sensors, etc. You can build a consciousness research lab for less than the cost of a decent gaming PC. While they're arguing about whether to study anomalies, we're already running the experiments.

3) We connect the dots across disciplines. The fight against scientific dogma isn't limited to astronomy or consciousness research. It's everywhere. When astrophysicists like Loeb challenge orthodoxy about interstellar objects, it strengthens the case for investigating all the other phenomena mainstream science won't touch. We're all in this together.

4) We maintain intellectual honesty without bowing to authority. I3/ATLAS might be natural, might be artificial, might be something we can't put into words. The point isn't to jump to conclusions—it's to actually look at the data without predetermined answers. That's what real science looks like, even if the journals won't publish it.

I3/ATLAS will make its closest approach to Earth in January 2026. By then, we'll either have answers or more creative explanations for why we shouldn't ask questions. But the comet itself is almost beside the point now. What it reveals is how broken our scientific institutions have become.

Loeb writes that "truth is revealed by evidence and not by the number of 'likes' on social media." That's true. But that truth is also revealed by the running the experiments they tell you not to run, asking the questions they tell you not to ask, and reporting on the anomalies they tell you don't matter.

That's why this site exists. That's why we build weird devices and test controversial hypotheses. That's why we document the anomalies and preserve the data. Because somewhere between the dogma and the dismissals, between the peer review and the social media pile-ons, reality will continue to reveal itself.

The anti-tail of I3/ATLAS points forward while science looks backward. Maybe it's time more of us started pointing in the same direction. Forward toward a future where investigating the improbable is an imperative.

After all, if you're not willing to test the hypotheses that scientists won't touch, are you really doing science? Or are you just abiding by someone else's orthodoxy?

Welcome to the edge. It's where all the interesting stuff happens anyway.

Dear reader, as you can see from the types of topics we cover, we do not write for a search algorithm and we do NOT display ads of any kind. That's because with AI, the web business model that we've all known and loved in the past is broken. We believe that being subscription based is a more equitable model - so If you like our content, please consider becoming a member to keep this site going! Also, if you enjoyed this article please consider leaving a tip or sharing on social media! Thank you again for your support and readership.