Re: Hale-Bopp THEN and NOW (1-6)

Article: <5egnht$72f@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>
From: saquo@ix.netcom.com(Nancy )
Subject: Re: Hale-Bopp THEN and NOW (1-6)
Date: 20 Feb 1997 05:30:37 GMT

In article <5ef2lf$hah@pollux.cmc.ec.gc.ca> Greg Neill writes:
> Actually, Jim, I for one would love to see more of the technical
> details make their way to sci.astro. Especially the low down
> on some of the orbit integration techniques being used by
> different researchers.
> ynecgan@cmc.doe.ca (Greg Neill)

Well, I don't want to hear the math, but I sure would like to know how you made the leap from orbits SIMILAR to what Hale-Bopp was supposed to have, to 4,200 years.

1. You have some comets that come in on that angle, but if they're repeating, they are repeating within 100 years or so, right?
2. You have NO repeating comets on record in the thousands of year category.

The Zetas may have let you off the hook, but I, Nancy, would like to know how you made that leap?

In article <5ecsv0$diu@news.ccit.arizona.edu> Jim Scotti writes:
> integrated the trajectories of many objects with orbits very
> similar to that calculated from the present observations of
> Hale-Bopp. .. We can then see what HB-like orbits do.
> jscotti@LPL.Arizona.EDU (Jim Scotti)