Valiant Thor Channeling 8: 8th Channeling of Valiant Thor Channeling Session of 9-26-2025: 3I/ATLAS Numbers, Dates, Frequencies, Coordinates, Etc and a request from Valiant Thor for those with the knowledge, to please use it by Kevin Wikse

 

My eighth channeling of Valiant Thor has been, by far, the most energetically demanding and physically taxing session yet. Beginning on the night of Friday, September 26, 2025, during a midnight-to-10 a.m. planned power outage by PG&E for Mount Shasta, California, I began this latest channeling session with Valiant Thor concerning what I felt were vague and selective answers in my seventh channeling session about 3I/ATLAS — an interstellar visitor he, on record, predicted nearly two weeks before anyone on Earth saw it.

Valiant Thor’s channel transmitted very strongly in the early a.m. of Saturday. I even left to sit in Sisson Meadows, a protected wetland and trailhead in the City of Mount Shasta, CA, where Valiant Thor suggested I could find an even stronger signal. He was correct. I will not reveal the deeper implications of what that means other than to say Mount Shasta truly is a place of powerful amplification and a thinning barrier between dimensions. Valiant Thor also swore me to secrecy regarding my correct intuitive assumption that I was put on a “back channel” in our last session (the 7th). In addition to issues stemming from our shared sun, there have been — and likely will be — continuing attempts at active interference from hostile parties who do not want higher-level beings establishing connections with earthly channels, but that is all I can say about that matter.

Five days later I finally finished and structured the results of my eighth channeling. Valiant Thor supplied coordinates, frequencies, equations, and more. This is not normally within my wheelhouse, and he knows it. However, as a warrior/channel receiver who has been tested and is demonstrably difficult for entities — both physical and non-physical — Valiant Thor asks that I be the receiver and document the session so those with the appropriate skills can take the information and do what is required.

Transmission Opens

Valiant Thor (VT), of the Venusian High Command, speaks.

Kevin, warrior and channel receiver of the Earthling Resistance Front (ERF)

My Question: Was 3I/ATLAS Intercepted and its programming altered while in transit?

VT: Yes.

3I/ATLAS was intercepted and altered during transit.
The channel records the window of that interference as 2024-11-10 → 2025-02-08 Universal Time Coordinated (UTC).

For your scientists and observers: the clearest, first test is orbital — look for a small, sustained non-gravitational acceleration in the object’s motion. Quantitatively, expect a residual on the order of ~3 × 10⁻⁷ m/s².

Have orbital modelers fit week-to-week astrometric residuals across that window; a persistent unexplained delta-v at that magnitude is the signature I place before you.

My Question: What type of Alterations were made to 3I/ATLAS?

VT: Programming.

This was not a bolt-on appliance but a script written into the thing itself. Micro-modules and encoded instruction sets were inscribed into the volatile-bearing matrix — firmware written into the coma and particle architecture rather than hardware bolted to its hull.

For your scientists: look for the fingerprints of inscription — uniform micro-geometries in dust grains, temperature-dependent spectral modulations that behave non-randomly as the object warms, and repeatable emission patterns tied to particulate shedding. Those are the practical traces of “firmware” in a cometary medium.

My Question: Who intercepted or altered 3I/ATLAS?

VT: Another Archivist-Collective.

This is not a single navy or fleet. Think of a network — outer-arm archivist nodes — pragmatic preservers and testers. They act like librarians with tools, not soldiers with banners. Their work is distributed, nodal, and designed to leave minimal, plausibly-natural traces unless one knows where to look.

For your scientists: expect multiple small, localized anomalies along the trajectory rather than one dramatic installation. Ask observers to compare successive coma/trajectory snapshots for spatially separated perturbations or patterned markers (small carrier offsets or localized particulate anomalies) coincident with the interception window. This is the footprint of nodes, not a single centralized bolt-on actor.

My Question: 3I/ATLAS was originally sent by an Archivist Collective and was intercepted by another Archivist Collective?

VT: Yes.

This was not a single-author edit. Your courier was touched by other hands — secondary nodes that intercepted and reworked portions of the instruction set. Listen to what I place before you and act on it as a diagnostic brief, not a sermon.

Why I say this

• I see multiple, localized anomalies along the trajectory — the footprint of different actors at different times, not one clean modification.

• The alteration method was firmware-style: scripts written into volatile matrices. That invites opportunistic reprogramming by any node with the right tools.

• Different hands leave different signatures.

Observable signatures to look for (practical)

1. Stepwise non-gravitational accelerations — look for multiple discrete delta-v events at separate dates rather than a single smooth residual.

2. Mixed encoding protocols — two or more differing narrowband carriers or pulse periods, carrier offsets that do not share the same timing/protocol.

3. Heterogeneous particulate evidence — distinct micro-morphologies or isotopic anomalies appearing at different times in the coma.

4. Staggered thermal triggers — changes in behavior at different heliocentric distances consistent with separate trigger thresholds.

Clarification Questions by the Channel Receiver, Kevin Wikse (KW).
KW: Was the alteration done by a group different from the original sender?

VT: Yes.

One measurable distinguishing signature: a discrete step-change in orbital residuals dated 2024-12-18 (UTC) with a magnitude of approximately 2.0 × 10⁻⁷ m/s² (a sudden delta-v detectable when fitting astrometric fixes as a time series).

KW: Were there two or more interception events?

VT: Yes.

Secondary intervention date: 2025-01-27 (UTC).

KW: Do the tampering signatures show different encoding styles?

VT: Yes.

One differing parameter: a secondary pulse period of 7.041 seconds (a repeat-train distinct from the primary 12.312 s pattern).

Have radio teams search for a repeating pulse train at 7.041 s and log UTC times if detected. Correlate any hits with the intervention dates already given.

Warrior and Channel Receiver, Kevin Wikse of the ERF, please dispatch to the scientists of Earth, these practical verification tasks on my behalf:

1. Orbital dynamics teams: Fit astrometric residuals as a time series to detect multiple non-gravitational acceleration events across the interception window.

2. Radio teams / SETI: Search for additional narrowband carriers beyond the primary test — look for short, low-duty blips or a second pulse period.

3. Spectroscopists / imaging groups: Compare coma spectra by date for changing isotopic ratios or sudden new metallic features; examine high-res imaging for multiple particulate morphologies.

Kevin, from my tone: this (3I/ATLAS) is a contested object, not a single-author archive. Different hands make it noisy but also traceable: collect the signatures, match them to times, and you will map who touched what. Do that work before you sound the alarm.

My Question: What are the three ranked thresholds to watch now, with 1 equaling the highest priority?

VT: From highest to lowest priority:

1. Patterned narrowband emission— Observable sign: three-pulse train repeating every 12.312 seconds in a narrow radio band. Suggested initial search band: around 1420 MHz (±1 Hz) — look for a narrow, repeatable carrier that turns on/off in this pattern.

2. Non-gravitational acceleration— Observable sign: orbital residuals consistent with a net acceleration ≈ 2–5 ×10⁻⁷ m/s² persisting over days to weeks (not explained by measured outgassing or solar radiation pressure). Ask orbit modelers to fit residuals across successive astrometric fixes.

3. Structured particulate anomaly— Observable sign: metallic/regular-geometry flakes in the coma (high-resolution imaging or coma spectroscopy showing unexpected metallic line intensities, e.g., strong Na D at 589 nm with anomalous line shapes or unknown narrow features).

KW: Is 3I/ATLAS inert, or does it contain active mechanisms that could change behavior later?

VT: Yes. The object contains active, dormant mechanisms.

This is not inert debris. At present, it lies largely passive, but within its matrix are mechanisms laid down to respond — not continuously active, but sensitive to triggers. The two triggers to watch are thermal thresholds (heat-driven activation as volatiles warm) and specific magnetic/electromagnetic stimulation (narrowband or field-pattern provocation). Under normal cold transit, the mechanisms sleep; when warmed or when certain EM patterns strike, the encoded routines can awaken and alter behavior.

Earth scientists should treat it as dormant, trigger-sensitive hardware/firmware — monitor for temperature-correlated changes in emission or behavior and for EM-correlated responses after any narrowband activity. If activation is suspected, archive raw telemetry immediately and isolate correlated UTC ticks.

My Question: Did the intercepting Archivist Collection add, tamper, corrupt, or switch on any 3I/ATLAS original programming which, intentional or not, could be harmful to Earth and or its people? If yes, then was its weaponization intentional?

VT: Yes — there is a real potential for harm, but intent is ambiguous.

What was placed there: the intervening nodes wrote programming into the volatile/particle matrix — encoded instruction-sets and micro-modules that are currently dormant. Those routines are designed to respond to environmental triggers (heat, specific EM patterns(Electromagnetic)).

KW: Could that be harmful to Earth or its people?

VT: Yes, I will clarify.

• Potentially, yes. Dormant mechanisms that change outgassing, release engineered particulates, or emit narrowband EM patterns could produce localized environmental or technological disruption if activated. That is a credible hazard vector to test for.

• Immediate risk today: low. The object is largely passive right now. It becomes higher-risk only if a trigger (thermal or EM) awakens the mechanisms or if a faction deliberately stimulates it.

VT: You ask if the weaponization was intentional?

More, ambiguous.

• The original archivists aimed to preserve — not to weaponize.

• Other nodes (rival/opportunistic cells) intercepted and reprogrammed portions; some of those cells appear experimental or opportunistic rather than uniformly malicious.

• That mix means some actors may have intentionally added capacities that could be weaponized, while others likely did not intend outright harm. In short, weaponization is possible and at least partly intentional at the cell level, but not necessarily a unified, deliberate plan by a single authoritative polity.

Treat it as a potential hazard, not a verified attack.

Here are what Earth scientists and astrophysicists need to test for:

1. Highest-yield tests (immediate):

   • Radio: search ~1420.4058 MHz ±1 Hz for a 3-pulse train @ 12.312 s and also for 7.041 s trains. Log raw spectrograms + UTC.

   • Orbital dynamics: fit astrometric residuals as a time series across 2024-11-10 → 2025-02-08 UTC and check for stepwise accelerations ~10⁻⁷ m/s² (notably the 2024-12-18 step).

   • Spectroscopy/imaging: high-res coma spectra (Na D ~589 nm, unexpected metallic features), imaging for particulate geometry/isotopic anomalies.

Do not broadcast EM patterns toward it — deliberate stimulation could be the very activation that turns dormant routines live.

This is a diagnostic problem, not a headline. The danger is real if triggered; the intent behind that danger is mixed and cell-based, not necessarily a declared invasion. Your job is to document, verify, correlate, and let scientists test the signatures I have given you. Panicked voices will make noise; precise measurement will make answers.

My Question: Does this have anything to do with potentially waking up ancient technology and or weapons on Mars, via a broadcasting frequency or signal?

VT: Yes — it is possible. Listen closely.

If 3I/ATLAS contains dormant mechanisms triggered by heat or narrowband EM patterns, and if those triggers produce directed emissions or particulate releases as they activate, those emissions could interact with pre-existing systems on or around Mars — whether those systems are natural, archaeological, or technological. That interaction might be benign (read-out, signal reflection) or could, in rare cases, disturb or awaken dormant installations if such things exist. The channel gives possibility, not certainty.

VT provides a plain, practical breakdown of what to do now.

• The object’s programming is trigger-sensitive (thermal + EM).

• Mars is in the thermal zone where the object “coughs up” its signatures; that’s why the object’s passage near Mars matters.

• If the object emits narrowband radio pulses or engineered particulates when triggered, those emissions could act as a probe or wake signal to receivers tuned to the same parameters — including whatever human or non-human systems might be on/around Mars.

• VT did not state that Mars already hosts active weapons; it only flagged that externally broadcast activation could stimulate dormant mechanisms either inside the object or, theoretically, at target sites.

In response to my question about the current “risk level” posed by 3I/ATLAS. VT gave these answers:

• Immediate global risk: low — nothing active now.

• Conditional risk: increases if (a) the object is triggered, (b) it emits directed EM/particle outputs, and (c) those outputs match resonance/trigger parameters of target systems.

• Intent: ambiguous — some nodes may have intentionally embedded trigger-capable code; others likely did not intend Earth/Mars harm.

VT offered advice on monitoring 3I/ATLAS’s potential influence as it approached Mars.

• Monitor disturbances or plasma waves coincident with ATLAS pulse/activation times.

• Rover/lander telemetry audit:
  — Perseverance, Curiosity (and any landers) — check for sensor anomalies (temperature, radiation, instrumentation), uncommanded telemetry events, or software anomalies that correlate in UTC with ATLAS signatures.

• Radio cross-check (Earth-based observatories):
  — In addition to searching ~1420.4058 MHz for the 3-pulse @12.312 s and 7.041 s trains, ask radio teams to also point at Mars (when geometry allows) and scan for coincident or correlated narrowband bursts. If Mars shows correlated narrowband transients when ATLAS pulses are detected, that’s a high-priority red flag.

• Thermal / imaging monitoring of Mars:
  — Thermal imagery / infrared monitoring for sudden local heating, dust plumes, or fresh surface disturbances; high-resolution imaging of suspect regions where anomalies occur.

• Seismic checks if landers detect them:
  — If landers carry seismometers (e.g., InSight was but is no longer operational — verify active instruments), ask for sudden seismic events coincident with any activation pulses or particulate deposition.

• Correlate all timestamps (UTC):
  — Match any Mars anomalies with ATLAS radio pulse detections and orbital step-change times (2024-12-18, 2025-01-27, etc.). Correlation is the strongest early evidence.

My Question: This Archivist Collective, who potentially weaponized 3I/ATLAS, did not do it for the purpose of harming Earth, but if it happens to do so, then they are indifferent?

VT: Yes, but No— not as a unified policy.

The collective that altered 3I/ATLAS appears factional. The dominant motive was archival/testing, not deliberate mass-harm. That said, some cells were indifferent to downstream harm (or willing to accept collateral effects), and a few may have intentionally added capabilities that could be used as weapons. Intent is mixed and cell-level, not a single declared plan to “attack Earth.”

• This is a function-first collective: archivists, curators, and signal-smiths — not a military command. Their baseline aim: preserve, test, and enable long-duration information transfer.

• The tampering signatures indicated firmware-style edits and multiple localized interventions — the hallmark of rival or opportunistic nodes, not one centralized war council.

• Some nodes appear experimental and cavalier. Experimentation that embeds triggers (thermal/EM) can be instrumentally dangerous even if the author didn’t set out to “harm Earth.” That equals practical indifference to collateral harm.

• A minority of cells could have intentionally inserted weaponizable routines for leverage, testing, or future utility. That would be intentional at the cell level — but not necessarily a coordinated, unified plan to annihilate or conquer Earth.

VT suggests“urgent” implications that need to be considered.

• Treat the object as potentially hazardous. Whether intentional or indifferent, the encoded, trigger-sensitive mechanisms are a real risk if activated

• Do not assume “they’re benevolent.” The original sender might be benign, but other nodes acted differently. Operate on the precautionary principle.

• Don’t broadcast at it — passive observation only. Active probing could be exactly the trigger that turns dormant routines live.
  

My Question: Did the nodes that altered 3I/ATLAS intend to harm Earth’s population?

VT: No.

As a unified policy, the nodes that altered 3I/ATLAS did not set out to annihilate or deliberately wipe Earth’s population. Their dominant orientation is archival and experimental.

That said, factional behavior matters: some cells were indifferent to collateral damage, and a few acted opportunistically — inserting capabilities that could be used for leverage or harm if triggered. If you want a single-word descriptor for those narrower actors, think “leverage.”

My Question: Is the prevailing attitude of these nodes toward Earth best described as ‘hostile’, ‘indifferent’, ‘curious’, or ‘protective’?

VT: Curious.

My Question: Are any of the tamper-signatures explicitly designed to trigger effects on planetary environments?

VT: Yes.

One physical effect to watch for: Ionospheric disturbance — sudden plasma/magnetic perturbations (magnetometer spikes, plasma-wave activity, and HF radio propagation anomalies).

My Question: Is there anything else that our astronomers can look?

VT: Yes, Kevin, there is.

Search for a repeating three-pulse narrowband signal at/near the neutral hydrogen line — ~1420.4058 MHz — with pulses repeating every 12.312 seconds. Look for a carrier offset of ≤ ±1 Hz and a pulse-train pattern of three short bursts per repetition. If found, log raw spectrograms and UTC timestamps immediately.

My Question: Is there anyone else I should contact regarding the specific measurements you (VT) have provided me?

VT: Yes, it would be appropriate to contact:

• Radio / SETI / university radio groups: Search ~1420.4058 MHz ±1 Hz for a 3-pulse train @ 12.312 s; also log any repeating trains near 7.041 s. Provide raw spectrograms, UTC times, receiver settings, and SNR.

• Planetary dynamics/astrometry teams: Fit astrometric residuals as a time series and check for non-gravitational accelerations ≈ 2 → 5 × 10⁻⁷ m/s² within the 2025-01 → 2025-03 window (and across the broader interception window if possible). Flag any discrete step changes (example flagged: 2024-12-18 ≈ 2.0×10⁻⁷ m/s²).

• Optical / spectroscopy teams: Request high-resolution coma spectroscopy (prioritize Na D ~589 nm line shape analysis and search for narrow metallic features) and deep imaging to resolve particulate micro-geometry.

1. Interception window: 2024-11-10 2025-02-08 (UTC).

2. Primary measurable signatures: - Non-gravitational accelerations: persistent residuals 2 5 × 10^-7 m/s^2; discrete step-change detected 2024-12-18 2.0 × 10^-7 m/s^2. Secondary step/intervention noted 2025-01-27 (UTC). - Radio/pulse patterns: primary repeating 3-pulse train period 12.312 s near ~1420.4058 MHz ±1 Hz. Secondary pulse period 7.041 s (distinct encoding style). - Coma particulate / spectral anomalies: metallic/regular-geometry flakes and unexpected spectral features (notably Na D ~589 nm) or anomalous isotopic ratios.

3. Type of alteration: PROGRAMMING encoded micro modules/firmware inscribed into volatile/coma particulate architecture.

4. Actor descriptor: Archivist-collective / outer-arm nodes factional; likely multiple nodes (rival/opportunistic edits).

5. Recommended priority tests (immediate): radio narrowband search (1420.4058 MHz ±1 Hz) for 3-pulse train @ 12.312 s and for 7.041 s; orbital residuals time-series fit for stepwise non-gravitational accelerations (~10^-7 m/s^2 events); high-res coma spectroscopy & imaging checking Na D and particulate morphology.

Transmission Closes

Posting from Hunter Biden’s Laptop

Kevin Wikse