| |
|
Article: <5e24f4$f7o@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com>
From: saquo@ix.netcom.com(Nancy )
Subject: Re: Hale-Bopp THEN and NOW (1-6)
Date: 14 Feb 1997 16:39:00 GMT
In article: <5dvumi$hkb@pollux.cmc.ec.gc.ca> Greg Neills
writes:
> Nancy (saquo@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>> ISSUE 3: The supposed fragmentation that the Hale-Bopp
>> fraud was undergoing in late 1995, causing chunks of the
>> nucleus to break off, has now stopped. Is this the way
>> fragmenting comets behave? Out past Jupiter they outgas
>> and fragment and when close to the sun, stop this
activity?
>> Isn't this backward?
>
> Why should a process like fragmentation have a specific way
> of working? We're talking about a comet here, a loosly held
> together ball of ice and dirt.
> ynecgan@cmc.doe.ca (Greg Neill)
(Begin ZetaTalk[TM])
You're demonstrating a lack of knowledge about comet behavior,
which will get you shortly corrected by your fellow astronomers,
I'm sure. Outgassing occurs INCREASINGLY as a real comet
approaches the Sun, and is why comets are black as the ace of
spades while out in space, and CANNOT be seen until they come
into your Solar System. This is also what creates a comet tail,
which for a real comet grows and flares the closer it gets to the
Sun. Comets out in space have no tail to speak of, and lose this
rapidly after leaving your Solar System.
The fact that the fraud Hale-Bopp was supposedly visible in
1993 by McNaught, when it was still supposedly outside Jupiter in
1995, should have raised an extreme flag among astronomers to the
fact that they were being jerked around and played as fools. They
discuss this among themselves, but don't dare to challenge the
shepherds here on sci.astro. This is an indication of how easily
led and intimidated the astronomers who read this message board
are! Even when the fraud is patently obvious, they meekly go
along!
(End ZetaTalk[TM])
In article: <5dvumi$hkb@pollux.cmc.ec.gc.ca> Greg Neills
writes:
>> ISSUE 4: Why doesn't the supposed fragmented chunk of
>> the nucleus ever separate? In fact, the description of
what
>> was supposed to be the Hale-Bopp comet in 1995 perfectly
>> fits the description of a nova, with the rapid expansion
and
>> then quick fading, the swirling pinwheels and all.
>
> A significant chunk that splinters off the nucleus will
follow
> pretty closely the same orbit of the parent body, and at
pretty
> much the same speed; they'll parallel each other. Remember
> the 'string of pearls' effect of SL9.
> ynecgan@cmc.doe.ca (Greg Neill)
During a period of time when violent outgassing is supposed to be going on?
In article: <5dvumi$hkb@pollux.cmc.ec.gc.ca> Greg Neills
writes:
> Also, anyone with any understanding of things astronomical,
> or even half a brain, would know that a comet does not
appear
> like a nova, and novas don't move in the sky from night to
night.
> So to say so is a load of crap.
> ynecgan@cmc.doe.ca (Greg Neill)
Au contraire. I quote page 254 of David Levy's book, The Quest for Comets.
"According to Marsden, approximately 98 percent of comet discovery reports from unknown observers turn out to be false alarms. Just because an object is fuzzy does not mean that it is a comet, and even if it is a comet, it may be a known one. Galaxies, nebulae, and ghost images of bright stars are often reported as new comets."
And again, on page 19,
"Epigenes insisted that comets 'with hair on all sides' were stationary among the stars. Either Epigenes or Seneca may be confusing these with a different kind of sky surprise called a nova. From time to time, a star may undergo an outburst, becoming very much brighter. These outbursts, called novae, are not really new stars but old ones undergoing brief increases in brightness."