| |
|
Article: <5ee4u9$8b4@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>
From: saquo@ix.netcom.com(Nancy )
Subject: Re: Hale-Bopp THEN and NOW (1-6)
Date: 19 Feb 1997 06:00:41 GMT
In article <5ecng2$1a0g@news.ccit.arizona.edu> Jim
Scotti writes:
> When a comet is at a distance of 14 AU, the surface
> temperature of the dark nucleus will be between 74 and 88
> degrees Kelvin already. CO and several other volatiles,
> including CO2, H2CO, and H2S have sublimation
> temperatures below these temperatures and are able to
> drive a distant cometary outburst. The comet just has to
> be big enough to produce enough of a coma for us here
> on Earth to be able to see it.
> jscotti@LPL.Arizona.EDU (Jim Scotti)
(Begin ZetaTalk[TM])
And whatever happened to all that outgassing when the so-called
comet passed the Sun, rounding the Sun, and still presumably
warming from all this closeness to the Sun, came back for a
second pass? Do we see huge clouds of those volatiles now? We see
NO CLOUDS OF VOLATILES. Zip! Nada! All this is what you are
calling a comet that is a REPEATER? Did it outgass into
nothingness, and this due to its supposed stability so that it
retains something of itself for a return trip? This was the
aspect of this fraud that most alerted thinking men and women to
its fraudulent nature. Totally contrary to all cometary behavior,
and yet you defend it!
Are you trying to tell the readership, Jim, that the Hale-Bopp
fraud is absurd, and CANNOT be defended? You're doing a good job
if this is the case, which leads us to another point we wish to
discuss. This issue should be given a fresh heading, so as not to
be lost to the readership - a topic titled IN SYMPATHY to the
Hale-Bopp Cooperative.
(End ZetaTalk[TM])