Brian Cox Exposes Shocking Truth Behind Alien Spaceship Theories with Unseen ‘Reliable’ Evidence
So, here we are again—just when you think space rocks are minding their own business, zooming past silently, along comes a comet that stirs up a cosmic soap opera. Enter 3I/ATLAS, the interstellar visitor that’s been tagged by NASA as a harmless traveler but hyped by some, notably a Harvard physicist, as a potentially sketchy alien spaceship plotting a hostile takeover. Cue Brian Cox, the science rockstar who’s had enough of this cosmic drama and threw some cold, hard facts into the mix—reminding us all that 3I/ATLAS is just a natural chunk of carbon dioxide and water ice, minding its own orbit like a cosmic tourist. But hey, isn’t it fascinating how a lump of ancient rock fragments from a long-gone star can spark such wild theories? Maybe the real thrill is in the mystery, not the menace. Curious to cut through the noise and see what’s really out there? LEARN MORE
Having hit out at the theories of an ‘alien spaceship’ making its way towards us, Brian Cox has shared some ‘reliable’ sources.
The science legend recently issued a response to the claims and conspiracy theories surrounding the interstellar object 3I/ATLAS.
First detected by the pros at NASA on 1 July, astronomers confirmed it was not from our solar system, and there have been some bizarre observations that make it unique from other rocks out in space.
But while the space agency said it poses ‘no threat to Earth and will remain far away’, a theoretical physicist at Harvard University, Avi Loeb, has expressed belief that it could be a ‘potentially hostile’ alien craft speeding towards Earth.
However, Cox has spoken about this ‘drivel’ and today (1 November) shared more of his take on it.

The comet has garnered a lot of attention in the scientific community (NASA)
The Harvard scientist’s claims
Loeb has been warning for quite some time about the potential repercussions of the comet coming to Earth.
While suggesting it may have been purposely ‘braking thrust’ as it approaches our planet, the scientist suggested that there is a 30 to 40 per cent chance the comet isn’t a ‘naturally formed’ object.
“The hypothesis in question is that [3I/ATLAS] is a technological artefact, and furthermore has active intelligence,” he wrote in a paper with Harvard researchers Adam Hibberd and Adam Crowl.
He added that ‘two possibilities follow’, listing: “First, that its intentions are entirely benign and second, they are malign.”
Speaking to LADbible, he ranked 3I/ATLAS on ‘the Loeb scale’ where zero meant there was nothing out of the ordinary and 10 was the object being of ‘confirmed extra-terrestrial artificial origin’ and put it at a four.
“So that means it’s most likely natural, but nevertheless it’s a very high probability for it being something else, and that’s why we should continue to consider it seriously,” he said of why he has continued to suggest 3I/ATLAS is worthy of further study.
What’s Cox said?
So, earlier this week, Cox wanted to make things clear ‘given recent drivel online’.
He wrote on X: “Comet 3I/Atlas is a comet, made of carbon dioxide and water ices and bits of other stuff. It is entirely natural in origin, its orbit is as expected, and it will whizz around the sun and then disappear off into the galaxy again.
“If it ever encounters another inhabited solar system in the far future I hope the living things there are more sensible than us and enjoy it for what it is – a visitor from elsewhere in the galaxy – a pristine lump of rock and ices which formed around a distant, maybe long-dead star billions of years ago and many light years away, just passing through. Isn’t that wonderful enough?”
And today, he shared a useful link for those wanting to know more about 3I/ATLAS.
He wrote: “This is the place you should look if you want detailed, reliable information. These are not yet published in journals and care is still required, but it’s as good a place as any to see fast-developing research in action, and if you have questions you may find answers here.”
Cox also added another bit of advice: “A good rule of thumb is to look at the ones that have been submitted to journals (usually noted in the comments).”













Post Comment