It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Here is another good example. The Deep Impact comet probe destroyed this "dirty snowball" theory a thousand times over. A probe went TO the comet. They took pictures too. They found NO ICE, no form of water at all. They have pictures of jets shooting out of the comet, as in the tail. NO WATER INVOLVED. A comet is a rock, just like an asteroid.
The coma and the tail are two different things. The Earth has NEVER passed through a comet's tail. This time it will.
Hartley 2 spews out more water than other comets its size,
By the 1980s, however, new discoveries began to force changes in the language of comets. The theorized surface water proved far more difficult to find than anyone had imagined. In 1986, visits to Halley’s comet by the European Giotto and Russian Vega probes failed to locate surface water and raised the distinct possibility that the nucleus might not be ejecting water into space. A feature story in the journal Nature following the encounter acknowledged that, “…only indirect and sometimes ambiguous evidence of water has been found; indeed, some facts seem to contradict this hypothesis”. The flyby of Comet Borrelly by the Deep Space 1 craft in 2001 “detected no frozen water on its surface”, according to a NASA release. "The spectrum suggests that the surface is hot and dry. It is surprising that we saw no traces of water ice," said the lead investigator Dr. Laurence Soderblom.
Then, in January 2004, the Stardust spacecraft passed by Comet Wild 2, identifying a dozen jets of material exploding from the nucleus. The craft plowed through surprisingly dense pockets of dust swirling around the comet, but investigators were astonished that they could not find even a trace of water on the surface, despite the energetic activity
By the time of “Deep Impact” on July 4, 2005, comet theory had fragmented into mutually contradictory hypotheses—a comet was a dirty snowball, an icy dirtball, a gravel pile, a rubble heap, or an easily-fragmented fluffball. NASA’s recent report on the Deep Impact mission suggests that investigators found a smattering of water ice on the surface of comet Tempel 1. The problem is that, to account for the water supposedly being “exhaled” by Tempel 1, the investigators needed 200 times more exposed water- ice than they could find. Advocates of the “electric comet” say that the issue here is not a question of fact so much as one of interpretation. Prior assumptions have hardened into dogma, which has prevented comet researchers from seeing possibilities that might be obvious to those who do not share the dogma. After noting that the surface of Borrelly was “hot and dry”, NASA scientists did not question their theoretical starting point. Soderblom did not doubt the presence of water somewhere. "We know the ice is there," he said. "It's just well-hidden”.
To solve the dilemma, scientists turned to modeling the possible chemical reactions with the help of supercomputers and spectroscopic observations, beginning with the assumption that volatiles “boil off” the surface via solar heating. From that starting point a theory passed into rigid beliefs and unwarranted statements of “fact”. As the space age has demonstrated so poignantly, the hardened beliefs did not give way even when later visits to comets not only failed to verify the assumptions, but produced a litany of surprises. No one should be permitted to state as fact the idea that large volumes of “water” fill the comas of comets. The scientific instruments do not see water. What they see as the most abundant companion of cometary dust is the “hydroxyl” radical, OH. In considering the source of OH, the theorists possess a deficient toolkit. Standard theory has little to work with other than photolysis, the process by which light absorption can break a molecule down into its separate building blocks. But conventional theorists, already “knowing” that the coma is a product of water boiling off the nucleus, concluded with equal confidence that the coma’s water has been broken down by the Sun’s ultraviolet radiation, forming the hydroxyl radical (OH) along with atomic hydrogen and oxygen. By this reasoning, the abundance of OH in a comet nucleus becomes a direct pointer to the abundance of water held by the nucleus. So the distinction between fact and theory is quickly blurred. A superabundant “leftover” of the hypothesized conversion of water into OH is hydrogen. But in truth, it is not easy to produce hydrogen though any process other than electrolysis. And there is a suspicious absence of adequate experimental work to verify that the photolysis assumed by cometologists is actually feasible on the scale their “explanation” requires.
Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by CaptChaos
Can you explain this video, ie provide some sort of introduction?
I have a long standing position of not watching videos. I do that to save me tha agony of watching irrelevant stupidity.
What is in this video that you deem worth watching?
Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by chrismicha77
Go back and actually read the thread. Both of the links you have provided have been thoroughly discredited.
Originally posted by ngchunter
reply to post by chrismicha77
Here's a thread I think you'll find quite enlightening:
Is that so? Funny that NASA has the same info on their website.
Edit: Can you show me that these two links I provided have been debunked? I would think if you had looked at them, then, you would know that neither one have been provided.
There appears to be some reservations among amateur astronomy enthusiasts, as well as privately funded entities, concerning Leonid Elenin's discovery of the Comet C/2010-1....
Now, how does this relate to the Mayan prophesy, you rightly wonder....
The Hopis prophecy....
What am I looking for in this thread my friend? The skeptics that say Comet Elenin & Honda do not exist and that all the EQ's & volcanoes are just mere coincedence?
Originally posted by CaptChaos
No, I am the one who should apologize, it wasn't you calling me a nitwit.
Funny word though, anyway.