‘Super weird’ object may be space’s first confirmed exomoon 25%

By Andrew Paul23%

7/22/2026, 6:15:35 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 19 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Unattributed Quote, and Self-Serving Bias, with Ambiguity (Equivocation) as the most egregious example at 23.6% saturation with 116 hits. Analysis detected 514 faulty-reasoning hits from 492 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 37.8% and a BS Rank of 25% (15,416 of 20,557 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 75.00% of the article peer group.

Broadly speaking, our solar system is simply a collection of planets , their moons , and other cosmic objects like asteroids existing in gravitational orbits around the sun. 
There are countless systems out there like it, too. 
But one stellar system about 72 light-years from Earth isn’t quite like anything else researchers have ever seen. 
In fact, astronomer Kevin Hoy would go so far as to describe CD-35 2722 as “super weird” compared to our corner of the galaxy. 
“The system is somewhat hard to define using solar system-based words like ‘planet’ and ‘moon,’” the astronomer from Chile’s Universidad Diego Portales and the Millennium Nucleus of Young Exoplanets and their Moons (YEMS) recently said in a statement . 
The system is detailed in a study co-authored by Hoy and recently published in the journal Nature . 
Hoy and colleagues recently aimed the European Southern Observatory’s Very Large Telescope (ESO’s VLT) at the young oddball system CD-35 2722 that centers on a star about half the mass as the sun. 
Orbiting this star is a brown dwarf, which is a type of gas giant that is larger than a planet, yet smaller than a star. 
In this case, the brown dwarf is about 30 times more massive than Jupiter—but it’s not alone. 
Orbiting that object is yet another entity with a mass equivalent to Jupiter itself. 
“The exosatellite is clearly massive enough to be a planet, but it does not orbit a star, though it orbits an object that orbits a star,” said Hoy. 
So is it a moon, or not? 
“We have a clear delineation between the planets and the sun in the solar system, so defining things like moons is simple,” added YEMS director and study-coauthor Alice Zurlo. 
“In the CD-35 2722 system, where we are blurring the lines between stars, planets, and moons, the whole thing becomes more complicated to describe.” 
According to their study, Hoy, Zurlo, and their team suspect their mystery may be an exosatellite or exomoon. 
These are naturally occurring planetary satellites located outside the solar system. 
Although researchers have documented over 6,000 exoplanets throughout the cosmos, the handful of exomoon candidates still lack enough evidence to prove their identities. 
If true, it would be the first of its kind ever confirmed by astronomers. 
For now, more observations are needed before astronomers can definitively classify the strange entity—but it’s also a matter of scientific semantics. 
“Being the third wheel in this system makes us want to call it a moon, even if it is nothing like the small, rocky moons we have in our system.” 
Regardless, the latest exomoon suspect marks a major moment in exploring the universe. 
“As exotic as it is, this system is truly unique and represents a breakthrough: the first plausible detection of an exosatellite,” said Zurlo. 
The post ‘Super weird’ object may be space’s first confirmed exomoon appeared first on Popular Science . 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 3.7%Andrew Paul: 2.6%Popular Science: 2.2%Confirmation Bias3.7%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 1.5%Popular Science: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 3.7%Andrew Paul: 3.1%Popular Science: 2.6%Availability Heuristic3.7%This article: 1.8%Andrew Paul: 1.1%Popular Science: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic1.8%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.7%Popular Science: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 4.7%Andrew Paul: 3.3%Popular Science: 3.0%Overconfidence Bias4.7%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 4.5%Popular Science: 3.5%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.3%Popular Science: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 5.9%Andrew Paul: 0.7%Popular Science: 0.7%Status Quo Bias5.9%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.3%Popular Science: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 5.5%Andrew Paul: 6.9%Popular Science: 4.7%Optimism Bias5.5%This article: 4.7%Andrew Paul: 0.8%Popular Science: 0.7%Pessimism Bias4.7%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 4.4%Popular Science: 3.0%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 6.1%Andrew Paul: 0.6%Popular Science: 0.7%Self-Serving Bias6.1%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.1%Popular Science: 0.3%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.1%Popular Science: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.3%Popular Science: 0.4%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 3.7%Andrew Paul: 1.7%Popular Science: 2.2%Halo Effect3.7%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 1.7%Popular Science: 0.9%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.4%Popular Science: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.1%Popular Science: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.0%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.1%Popular Science: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 8.3%Andrew Paul: 5.6%Popular Science: 4.3%Appeal to Authority8.3%This article: 1.4%Andrew Paul: 1.2%Popular Science: 0.8%False Dilemma1.4%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.6%Popular Science: 0.3%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.1%Popular Science: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 1.8%Andrew Paul: 5.1%Popular Science: 4.2%Hasty Generalization1.8%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.1%Popular Science: 0.0%Red Herring0.0%This article: 2.6%Andrew Paul: 0.5%Popular Science: 0.5%Bandwagon2.6%This article: 6.1%Andrew Paul: 3.4%Popular Science: 2.8%Appeal to Emotion6.1%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.9%Popular Science: 0.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 2.4%Popular Science: 2.3%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 3.7%Andrew Paul: 0.6%Popular Science: 0.5%Burden of Proof3.7%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.3%Popular Science: 0.4%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 5.7%Andrew Paul: 0.3%Popular Science: 0.4%Composition/Division5.7%This article: 3.7%Andrew Paul: 1.9%Popular Science: 2.3%Anecdotal3.7%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 23.6%Andrew Paul: 2.2%Popular Science: 2.1%Ambiguity (Equivocation)23.6%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.3%Popular Science: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.3%Popular Science: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 7.9%Andrew Paul: 2.3%Popular Science: 1.6%Unattributed Quote7.9%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 1.0%Popular Science: 0.8%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 5.1%Popular Science: 3.9%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 1.4%Popular Science: 1.3%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 1.0%Popular Science: 2.8%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

492 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers34%attributed speech325writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageKevin Hoy • 24 words • 0.0% coverageKevin Hoy • 39 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageKevin Hoy • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageAlice Zurlo • 29 words • 0.0% coverageAlice Zurlo • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageAlice Zurlo • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Alice Zurlo

100%flagged-word coverage
76 attributed words46% of attributed speech62% writer coverage

No manipulation-pattern hits were found in this speaker's attributed words or the writer's voice.

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.