Steven Greer Gets Pressed by Reporter About UFO Disclosure Promises

A quick recap sets the stage. The object in question—often referred to as Three Eye Atlas or 3I/ATLAS—has captured attention because of its speed, brightness, strange trajectory, and timing. On Newsmax, the host framed it with dramatic stakes: a Manhattan-sized object, unusually illuminated, accelerating, skimming the plane of Earth’s orbit, and possibly using a solar slingshot to mask a maneuver. He even suggested the window around the Sun could offer cover for a “secret high-speed” adjustment before approaching Earth. He cited a vanishingly small probability of the object being natural, then promised a follow-up interview with Dr. Avi Loeb.

Here’s where it gets interesting. In Loeb’s appearance, he did not say it’s definitely alien. He assigned a 0-to-10 scale—zero being definitely natural, ten being definitely technological—and placed this object around a 4. In other words, Loeb gives it a 40% chance of having a designed trajectory. That’s not certainty. It is, however, a strong scientific invitation to look closer.

On the other side of the seesaw is Dr. Steven Greer, who told Newsmax he thinks it’s unlikely to be a manufactured alien object. He leaned toward a big rock—potentially an asteroid-like body—while urging better imaging and better data. The key takeaway from both men isn’t actually disagreement; it’s an oddly aligned call to investigate.

What Dr. Steven Greer Told Newsmax

Greer’s core point was caution: don’t let fear or hype get ahead of the data. He noted the object is more likely a natural body than a built craft and suggested the proper response is to get “better eyes on it.” He drew a distinction between comets and large asteroidal rocks, and he questioned some of the claims around acceleration and trajectory until more solid measurements arrive.

Greer also argued that a truly advanced interstellar vehicle would not behave like a slow-burning cometary visitor. In his view, such craft would travel “transdimensionally,” beyond the speed of light, and not meander through the solar system on a path that looks like a long-haul commute. He even floated the idea that space could contain extraterrestrial detritus—old debris or “garbage”—that’s been drifting for millennia, which would be very different from an operational craft.

Importantly, Greer advised readiness without panic: improve surveillance, collect intelligence, and avoid psychological operations that exploit fear. He referenced historical warnings about stoking global anxiety via asteroid threats and emphasized the need for calm, methodical observation as this object approaches its next key milestones.

The Accountability Question: Where’s Disclosure?

The Newsmax host also pressed Greer on something separate but related: his earlier public timelines about “disclosure.” Greer responded that progress is happening behind the scenes with law enforcement and investigative teams, framing certain legacy programs as criminal and unconstitutional. He said the bottleneck is at the congressional and White House level and suggested that authorizations may be needed to address those programs directly.

Whether you agree with that assessment or not, the moment underscored a broader theme: extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence, and deadlines rarely age well. If this object teaches us anything, it’s that real answers come from instruments, not promises.

Dr. Avi Loeb’s 40% Case for Design

Loeb’s interview, aired the next day, laid out why he assigns a meaningful probability to design over chance. His reasons were specific:

- Size and rarity: If this were a roughly 20-kilometer rock, the expectation is that such an object should show up in our cosmic neighborhood on timescales of around once every 10,000 years—not once per decade. That mismatch raises eyebrows.

- Cometary behavior: Loeb noted the lack of a typical comet tail. There’s a subtle fuzz ahead of it—a glow that could be dust on its surface burned off by sunlight—but not the pronounced tail we often see.

- Fine-tuned trajectory: The object’s path lies neatly in the plane of the planets around the Sun (the ecliptic). Loeb estimated the chance of that alignment by random chance at about one in 500.

- Planetary flybys: The odds that it would pass so close to multiple planets—Mars, Venus, and Jupiter—also struck him as low, on the order of one in 20,000.

- Convenient concealment: When it gets closest to the Sun, Earth won’t be in position to see it. That observational blind spot is exactly the sort of thing you’d want if you were trying to change course out of view—at least, that’s the hypothesis.

To be clear, Loeb isn’t declaring it alien. He’s arguing that the anomalies justify targeted observation. He even proposed a practical, low-cost test: use the Juno spacecraft, currently in Jupiter’s environment, to get a closer look when the object nears Jupiter in March 2026. Instead of ending Juno’s mission by sending it into Jupiter this September, he suggested extending the mission by about six months to bring the probe near 3I/ATLAS’s path. He said Congresswoman Anna Paulina Luna spoke with him and sent a letter to NASA encouraging that option.

Loeb emphasized that no one has asked him to stop talking about it. He framed his view as scientific curiosity, not certainty: gather data, compare signatures, and within a month or two we should know more about whether it behaves like a comet or not. He even floated a friendly idea: beam a radio message—think simple code—to say hello. If it’s technology, start with a peaceful introduction.

Why This Debate Matters Right Now

Across both interviews, two truths can hold at once. First, extraordinary claims require scrutiny; fear doesn’t help. Second, when credible anomalies crop up, it’s responsible to investigate. That’s the healthy middle ground where public interest and real science meet.

What’s particularly valuable here is the focus on testable proposals. You don’t have to buy every claim, and you don’t have to dismiss every anomaly. But you can support gathering decisive data:

- Extend an existing spacecraft for a close pass if it costs little and delivers high-value information.

- Coordinate ground-based and space-based observations around key dates.

- Publish the results openly so the public and the scientific community can assess the evidence.

This is how you cut through sensational headlines, social media rumors, and all-or-nothing thinking. You turn “maybe” into “measured” by pointing instruments at the mystery.

What to Watch Next

- The solar slingshot: The object is expected to perform a close approach around the Sun in late October. Multiple voices in the Newsmax segments suggested that the next 30–90 days could be decisive for determining whether it shows classic cometary behavior, breaks up, or does something unexpected.

- The near-term data window: Loeb said that within a month or two we should have enough signatures to call it more confidently natural or not.

- Jupiter in 2026: The object could pass near Jupiter in March 2026. That’s the window where Juno might help, if NASA extends the mission and plots the trajectory accordingly.

A Practical Way to Think About It

Let’s talk probabilities, because that’s where this conversation can go off the rails. A 40% chance is not a prediction; it’s a wager that the odds of design aren’t negligible. Scientists express uncertainty in numbers so they can be proven wrong—or right—by data.

In plain terms:

- If it behaves like a normal comet, it likely is a comet.

- If it keeps defying expectations—no tail, odd illumination, suspiciously precise geometry—then the design hypothesis gains weight.

- Either way, targeted observation is a win. We learn something about the object, and we sharpen the tools we’ll need for the next interstellar visitor.

It’s also healthy to separate three different questions that often get conflated:

- Is this particular object artificial? That’s a yes/no question science can address with better data.

- Do advanced non-human civilizations exist? Loeb argues the odds are good, given the sheer number of Earth–Sun analogs. Greer says their technology wouldn’t look like this object’s behavior. You don’t have to settle that philosophical question today to decide to point a camera at the sky.

- Should we panic? No. Curiosity and caution beat fear every time. Even Loeb’s “friendly ping” idea is framed as a test, not a provocation.

My Take: Curiosity Without the Hype

The best part of these two interviews is that, beneath the disagreement, both voices are calling for exactly what the public deserves: transparency and data. Greer urges skepticism about fear narratives and wants better intelligence. Loeb outlines anomalies, proposes a straightforward test with Juno, and puts a number on his uncertainty so everyone knows exactly what he means.

Also worth noting: timelines and promises rarely survive contact with reality. The Newsmax host’s question to Greer about earlier disclosure deadlines is a reminder that the surest “disclosure” is always the kind that arrives as evidence—images, spectra, trajectories, and mission results—not press clips.

If you’re reading this wondering what to do next, here’s a simple checklist:

- Stay tuned for observational updates across the next 30–90 days.

- Watch for any NASA announcements about Juno’s mission plan.

- Seek out data over hype: official mission logs, observatory updates, and peer-reviewed analysis when it arrives.

- Keep an open mind without surrendering to fear.

Final Takeaway

This moment isn’t about choosing a team—Team Comet or Team Craft. It’s about choosing a method. Greer says don’t panic; Loeb says don’t dismiss; both say look closer. That’s the right path.

So let’s do the simple, sensible thing. Point our best instruments at 3I/ATLAS. Extend a mission if it gives us a clean shot at answers. And when the data come in, accept what they say—whether it confirms a perfectly natural comet or forces us to redraw the line between the familiar and the truly extraordinary.

Either way, we win. We’ll know more than we did yesterday. And we’ll be better prepared for the next object that streaks in from the dark, asking us—quietly, insistently—to look up and think bigger.