The Permanent ... "Deep Impact - The Final Word" - Sub Page
(this sub page has been updated numerous times so re-read especially the bottom addendums)
i wrote the following material for the main home page in January 2006 when the final Deep Impact Space Probe spectrometer data was released by NASA ... it is SOOO important that i am making this a permanent sub page for all to see ... there is a great deal more detail but the basics are listed below and there is a LOT going on behind the scenes regarding this data and this topic ... so this is an ongoing issue ... anyone who still thinks that comets are "dirty snow balls" must read this INCLUDING and especially professional astronomers (of course their denial will keep them from admitting this) ... oh well ... the rest of the world knows now ....
DEEP IMPACT at COMET TEMPEL 1 ...
when numbers do not lie
THE FINAL WORD - part I ... by jim mccanney
the year was 1987 and i was sitting in a sushi bar in San Francisco following a meeting of the American Geophysical Union ... i was having supper with NASA scientist Dr Tycho von Rosenvinge and journalist Jonathan Eberhart from the Weekly science magazine "Science News" ... the AGU meeting dealt with the results of the first ever fly by of a comet ... the satellite was NASA's ISEE-III plasma physics experiment package (renamed ICE-3 in expectation of a dirty snow ball nucleus when the ISEE-III was diverted to examine a comet) ... the comet was Giacobini-Zinner ... also discussed in the meeting were results of data from the comet fly by of comet Halley including the Giotto space craft ... at that time scientists were fully convinced that they would see a very white snowy nucleus spewing out voluminous amounts of water vapor from the ENTIRE SURFACE of the comet nucleus ... NO credentialed scientist had ever dared to state that comets were not dirty snow balls ... yet all of my papers had been published in either peer reviewed astrophysics journals or other peer reviewed interdisciplinary journals ... and all of the NASA scientists knew all about it ... many of them knew me personally and remembered me from the old Cornell days ... long before some of them ever had their degrees ... (it has always been interesting to hear some deny that they knew me ... a policy intervened by NASA to do damage control) ... at this time ... as i said there was a hush and apologetics occurring because over night the dirty snowy ball of ice was seen to be the blackest object ever recorded in the solar system ... over night the news stated that although the surface was black there must be regions from which the water must be ejected to form the highly visible comet tail (but this should not be a problem ... the nucleus was just a little dirtier than expected)...
now let's zoom ahead 20 years ... an entire new crop of NASA scientists have emerged ... most of whom were not even out of grade school when i was giving talks at Los Alamos National Laboratories or AGU meetings or opposing the dominating figure of carl sagan and the astrophysics community of that era gone by ... i was not confronting them with letters ... i was there in the midst of their meetings and programs ...
in 2006 ... 20 years after that one particular AGU meeting ... the percentage of ice required by "theorists" on a comet nucleus has steadily been diminished and along with it something has been lost in the translation ... in the original dirty snow ball comet model regarding calculations published in peer reviewed journals ... scientists originally expected 100% surface contribution of icy water sublimating to create the comet tail ... after close range readings of numerous comet nuclei with spectrometers (giving more exacting data than mere photographs or images could provide with their susceptibility to interpretation) ... the startling truth is now at hand (the data i knew would eventually be forthcoming as i sat in the rotunda of the old library at Cornell writing my papers in 1979) ... the following data illustrates the point ... these numbers scream out one unmistakable result ... yet even the journal SCIENCE seems to want to keep its head in the sand as it publishes the results of the DEEP IMPACT spectrometer results (the last numbers in the narration below)
1985 (pre comet fly by theory) expected 100% surface contribution of ice and snow sublimating from the comet nucleus to create the observed comet tail
1986-7 scientists reduce the estimate to 60% surface contribution and add the possibility of cracks and fissures ejecting jets of water ... but now these "jets" must be seriously active to make up for the lesser surface area contribution
in the early 2000's 3 comet close up encounters show no ice or snow on the nucleus ... so theorists now reduce expectations from 40% surface contribution to hopefully 4% ... HMMM ... and now with a measured surface temperature of over 80 degrees Fahrenheit .... HMMMM ... the strangeness factor grows exponentially since water ice in space sublimates at a far lower temperature ... the nucleus is now seen to be a hot dry rock with no snow or ice at all ... and no gushing fissures to make up for the original dirty snow ball surface contribution calculations ... another little problem arises in that now there is insufficient solar energy to probe the cracks and fissures to produce the amount of water needed to fill the tail area on a continual basis ... scientists have adjusted some calculations for their convenience ... but forgot to adjust all the contribution calculations ... as long as we are talking about this there is another slight detail ... the dirty snow ball comet model is self defeating ... that is ... as the comet tail develops it blocks the solar radiation that allegedly is affecting the nucleus to create the tail ... another point that i always used to point out was that the three large icy moons of Jupiter are continually out in the solar wind and according to the dirty snowball model should be belching out enormous comet tails and they are not ... they have no comas ... no water being released at the surface of any of these ... according to the theory they should have all lost their icy surfaces LONG AGO ... but lets not complicate things with these details that were obvious decades ago since now we have real data that does not lie
enter July 4, 2005 ... i was one of the main guests on the Coast to Coast AM radio show with host George Noory to receive the data from DEEP IMPACT and discuss it on the air ... much of the visual data had been released but scientists on the NASA team with held the spectrometer data "for further analysis"
on January 17, 2006 again i was guest on the Coast to Coast AM show and one of the topics host George Noory and i discussed was the fact that finally the spectrometer data had been released ... in the words of NASA scientists ... the surface was too hot to allow surface water and "it must be buried deep in the nucleus if it were there" ... in the impact area there was a serious lack of water and what they did observe was at 1400 degrees Kelvin (super heated and not exactly what you would compare to a docile melting snow ball although that is exactly what earth based observers claimed !!!) ...
and now on to the heart of the matter ... the REAL MEASURED surface water content of the comet nucleus measured at comet Tempel 1 by the DEEP IMPACT fly by probe ... published in early 2006 in the journal SCIENCE as already noted ... of the approximately 12 billion square feet of surface area of this comet nucleus ... only 300,000 square feet indicated any presence of water and this was sparse and mixed with dust ... but wait ... they failed to mention that these areas were not emitting any water "to form the tail" and secondly ... even if it were this only amounts to .025 % of the surface area ... not 100% as required by theorists in 1985 ... not 60% as required in 1987 ... not the 40% percent hoped for before the stardust mission to Comet WILD - II where they then down graded the expectation to 4% ... NOPE ... the final REAL MEASURED value was a sparsely doped area of less that 25 one thousands of one percent of the comet nucleus had any water of any kind and this was not making a tail ... there were no fissures spewing like a steam locomotive to make up for the fact that the rest of the nucleus had no water and was visibly making no contribution to the tail at all (some people have even suggested that the rock could turn to water if you can imagine that ???!!!) ... whatever the belief ... NO WATER WAS OBSERVED COMING OFF THE COMET NUCLEI OF ANY OF THESE COMETS TO MAKE A TAIL ... so where does the tail come from ??? my Plasma Discharge Comet Model is the only model that explains this data ... one has to distinguish between small and medium and large comets as detailed in my books ... this is complex ... lately there has been a real surge in attacks on me and my work from NASA and the media as well as the text book repeaters you may see on the internet (NASA paid front people who try to bad mouth me and my work) as well as the recent increase in the internet imposter wanna be pseudo-scientists with no scientific training who can only copy and then distort the work of others (i think you all know the ones i am talking about) ... it is amazing how the public including little kids can read my books and fully understand the principles involved ... yet astronomers with PhDs cannot seem to grasp the basic facts
the deep impact probe data is conclusive
Comets are the discharge of the solar capacitor by rocky objects
this is a complex topic explained in my papers and books
the topic of comets is just one small but extremely important aspect of my research on the electrical nature of the universe
comets are not dirty snow balls
this is the final word
the final word - part II
to put the problem described in the short write up above into perspective ... comet Tempel 1 has a surface area approximately 45 square miles (a 4.5 mile by 10 mile area) ... the surface total area where "water was detected" (mind you not forming a tail nor even in any abundance ... only sparsely mixed with surface dust) was 300,000 square feet ... a football field is 160 feet by 300 feet or 48,000 square feet ... one would think that the prestigious journal SCIENCE would have been totally embarrassed to publish an article implying that this area (only about 6 football fields in area compared to the 45 square miles of comet nucleus surface area) ... that this area somehow would confirm "water found on a comet nucleus" and of course the implication being that they have "confirmed the dirty snow ball comet model" ... as if we should all be impressed ... if the NASA theorists predictions were correct then this minor amount of water should have been decimated long ago ... but it is just setting there ... and NOT SUBLIMATING OR FORMING THE TAIL ... and as for the rest of the nucleus ... it is a hot dry rock with no water arising from its surface
you must understand that water ice in outer space is quite common ... take the icy moons of Jupiter for example ... they have significant icy surfaces and by the dirty snow ball theory should be RAGING COMETS ... as they continually pass in the solar wind in what is considered a prime comet tail production region by the dirty snow ball theorists ... but guess what ... there are NO comet tails around any of them ... this of course i pointed out to the Cornell space scientists in 1979 but they continue to ignore this tiny fact ... the big question now is ...
how long can NASA and the associated astronomers continue with the dirty snow ball comet model charade ???
... jim mcccanney
the final word - part III
The POPULAR science press ... we all do it ... follow those links to space.com and other government mouth pieces who parrot the dribble put out by the NASA spin machine ... last week a NASA scientist complained that he was being censored regarding his research that global warming was imminent ... is it not strange the NASA is the one that initiated the big scare of global warming starting with carl sagan and his "Greenhouse Effect" (a term no longer used since scientists have long known it does not work for many reasons ... see my weather book for more details) ... yet it is ultimately ironic that NASA who has profited more than anyone with decades of grant money and scare headlines ... it is ironic that they are now censoring one of their own scientists for stating just that ... the reason ... because it is not politically correct with the new bush administration edict to let oil profits and pollution go unabated ... the point is not to digress to another topic ... but to simply point out that NASA's official "reason" for censoring this scientist was "that they screen carefully all scientific output from the agency to prevent their scientists from being misquoted" ... i have been harping on this for years as i lost access to original data from space probes and eventually even the corrupted doctored data was no longer available (i could usually get a great deal of real information out of the doctored data since i knew what to look for) ... so there is great top down control of the final "science product" that the public sees from ALL of government funded science (which is all of science in the USA and the "free world" ... except for what i am doing as the last of the independent scientists that truly saw the workings on the inside) ... so when you read any article in space.com or the other gov mouth pieces on "old or new discoveries" or "old or new space probes" or whatever ... expect a serious amount of top down control in its presentation to the public and mixed with a great deal of intentional "bad science" to keep the real truth about the workings of the cosmos from the public ... this filters into your kids' classrooms via NASA paid front men in an "outreach program" ... these are the "text book repeaters" who have free access to all the kids and the schools ... they usually have a PhD and are true tier III scientists ... all they can do is repeat what they read in a text book 15 years ago ... add in the many misinformation web sites on the internet sponsored by NASA (imagine a site for example that claims to support Velikovsky being sponsored by NASA ... a purely managed NASA misinformation site ... if these imposters had not already been around spouting their non-sense ... NASA would have had to invent them) ... this all comes from the internal NASA program decided inside think tanks on "what and how NASA is to mold information for public consumption" ... so in conclusion ... regarding the topic of the Deep Impact Probe at Comet Tempel 1 ... and how the numbers do not lie ... do not worry as NASA will find many ways to distort this information ... have it published in "respectable" journals like SCIENCE and NATURE and eventually have this material make its way into your kids' classrooms for decades to come ... listen to my show archive for February 9, 2006 on "the NASA space science missions ... bad designs ... bad data ... bad theories and bad science ... how NASA's bad science has destroyed science education in our schools" ... jim mccanney
the final word - part IV - addendum
On march 19, 2006 i was the main guest on the Coast to Coast AM radio show with host Art Bell ... the main topic was the latest disinformation released by NASA regarding the NASA Stardust mission results that "comets are born of fire and ice" ... the dust grains that were collected at comet Wild II and returned to earth showed formation at extremely hot temperatures ... need i say more as the NASA scientists struggled to create scenarios by claiming that the material must have formed around another star and then was catapulted to where it became engrained with the "icy comets" of our solar system ... this is becoming so blatantly silly and ridiculous that one cannot help but imagine these people sucking on pacifiers on their coffee breaks ... listen to the archives of that show on the coast to coast am web page ... as an addition here i am posting the NASA provided photo to go along with the above discussion showing a hot dry rock with a whispy trace of water on less than 25/1000ths of one percent of the surface and notice that the faint traces of ice are just setting there ... not coming off and certainly not creating a tail ... for comparison i am also including on the right a NASA animation created before the flyby to depict their expectations based on the dirty snowball comet model ... so you see reality on the left (minimal patches of ice just setting there and not shooting off ... the photo enhanced bluish areas) and the NASA pre-conceived notion animation on the right depicting their expectation of jets and plumes of water shooting off the nucleus from all over the place .... reality vs. NASA ... you make the call
The real comet is on the left ... NASA animation on the right ...
What's wrong with this picture ???????????????
you do not need a PhD in anything to see that comets are not what NASA expected ... the whispy thin almost non-existent patch of ice on the real nucleus on the left is just setting there ... as it has been setting there for ages ... and even if it were sublimating it would not be near enough to form a tail for even a few seconds ... let alone days and months and years on successive passages of the nucleus in its orbit ... so as both Art Bell and George Noory asked as i was guest on their respective shows ... why is NASA continuing to pound out news releases and obvious misinformation on what is obviously a totally incorrect theory ????
could something be on its way in so they have control of the popular press ???? so that when the public sees a real big comet raging in the sky that NASA will try to say ... oh don't mind that ... its just one of those harmless little snowballs ... only time will tell ... jim mccanney
the final word - part V - addendum
(added after the April 04, 2006 Coast to Coast AM show where i was the first hour guest to discuss a news release of the BBC that was released earlier that same day claiming that astronomers using the Swift X-ray telescope detected from the region of comet Tempel 1 "Impactor Ejects Mighty Water Mass" ... This was of course a totally false hyped up propaganda ploy ... this update summarizes the discussion we had on Coast to Coast AM April 04, 2006 with host George Noory and postings i placed on my main home page ... i suspect that NASA will continue to pound out this misinformation as it literally cuts funding to the space science groups and moves all the $ into the facade of the "next man to the moon ploy" which is a facade for placing all the $ into black ops space programs ... now read my discussion of the April 04, 2006 misinformation campaign launched by the irresponsible BBC report ...
if you did not catch Coast to Coast AM show tuesday April 04, 2006 10 PM Pacific Time be sure to catch the archive on the C2C web site ... i was guest first hour ... George contacted me mid day to respond to the BBC announcement claiming scientists detected 250,000 tons of water coming out of the hole made by the NASA Deep Impact probe ... of course this turned out to be more bad science ... the scientists assumed that a brightening of x-rays 13 days after the impact meant water was present in the tail and then assumed it "must have come from the deep impact impactor crater" ... no one really detected any water directly ... they detected x-rays which were assumed to mean the comet was undergoing increased water activity in the comet tail area and then further assumed that this water came from the nucleus (of course assuming the incorrect dirty snowball comet model) ... and then further assumed that it must have come from the hole made by the deep impact impactor probe ... but in reality the x-rays have NOTHING to do with water production ... rather they are the result of increases in the local electrical discharge of the comet as explained in my Plasma Discharge Comet Model ... these astronomers certainly did not directly detect any water in the comet coma area and most certainly did not detect any water coming out of the man made hole in this dry hot rocky comet nucleus ... more standard astronomy bad science and a misleading propaganda article posted by the ever irresponsible BBC ... the "discovery" was more NASA style "assumptions based on assumptions based on assumptions" with a crowd gathering Gee Whiz title ... total misinformation ... as Geroge Noory pointed out on the air ... the article released by the BBC even denied the results at the end of the article (in typical disinformation style) as it stated by one astronomer who remained un-named in the article "All this is supposition; all we know is that when we put in the numbers we seem to get an excess (of water) coming off (the nucleus) of about two and one half times over the quiescent (average) level" ... so you see ... no one saw any water (they saw x-rays and assumed another NASA assumed model that the x-rays meant there was water production which is incorrect) ... they made some calculations based on incorrect models and arrived at incorrect results and then made a concrete statement which the BBC aired as a major discovery ... NOW let's take this disinformation and all around bad science a little further ... NO ONE else with any other telescope bothered to watch this comet to see if there would be temporary brightening of this comet after the impactor hit on July 4, 2005 because the brightening was very short lived (and was mainly due to dust ... not water) ... so to imagine that somehow 13 days later all of a sudden this hot dry rocky nucleus with a 200 foot diameter hole in it belched out a ball of ice actually larger than the crater itself is a real stretch of the imagination ... yes that is correct folks ... the 250,000 ton chunk of ice that they are saying came out of this hole would be the size of a cube 200 feet on a side ... remember that the original hole that the impactor made was only about 200 feet in diameter ... and lead scientist of the impactor team Michael A'Hearn in a news announcement said that the only possible water might be a very thin layer just centimeters under the surface of the comet and that regarding "the opacity of the plume given off (it contained dust and only extremely faint traces of water) ... that suggests the dust evacuated from the comet's surface was extremity fine, more like talcum powder than beach sand. And the surface is definitely NOT what most people think of when they think of comets - an ice cube" ... here A'Hearn subtly admits that what they saw WAS IN NO WAY SHAPE OR FORM WHAT THEY EXPECTED ... IT WAS NOT AN ICE CUBE AND CERTAINLY NOT A DIRTY SNOWBALL ... additionally since brightening of comet Tempel 1was observed by earth based telescopes days and weeks BEFORE the impactor ever got to comet Tempel 1 then how in the universe could anyone assume that the brightening that occurred 13 days after the impact event could be related solely to the impactor event ???? more bad science ... so the BBC article released on April 04, 2006 was just another NASA feeble attempt to prop up the extinct dirty snowball comet model coupled with irresponsible reporting by the BBC ... expect more of this in the future
click on your browser left arrow to return to the previous page