Seems to me that those pushing it claim it fits every fact they come across even when some are mutually exclusive.
That's the power of EC: whatever you observe can be interpreted to be consistent with your retroactive predictions.
Smooth surface on a comet? That's what you'd expect because EDM would destroy any outcroppings!
Rough surface on a comet? That's you'd expect because it's rock!
No water vapor? That's what you'd expect because it's rock dust!
Water vapor? That's you'd expect because solar hydrogen is reacting with comet oxygen!
Bright pixels? That's what you'd expect, it's EDM!
No bright pixels? That's what you'd expect because there wasn't an EDM happening at just that instant.
Jets combine into one big jet? That's what you'd expect because of double layers!
Jets diverge? That's what you'd expect because the particles are still charged!
High measured density? That's what you'd expect because it's rock!
Low measured density? That's what you'd expect because the net charge messes up the density measurement!
Comet goes quiet at perihelion? That's what you'd expect because the charge has equalized!
Comet is most active at perihelion? That's what you'd expect because the charge takes longer to equalize!
Comet activity is similar during inbound and outbound legs despite what must be wildly different charge states? That's what you'd expect because (some bizarre sun-charge-plasma words)!
Meanwhile, in the EC version of mainstream theory:
Smooth surface on a comet? Aha! The dirty snowball theory is wrong because the comet would have exposed dirt and it wouldn't be smooth!
Rough surface on a comet? Aha! The dirty snowball theory is wrong because the comet would have a smooth surface due to all the melting!
No water vapor? Aha! It can't be a dirty snowball, then!
Water vapor? Aha! It still can't be a dirty snowball because of (some bizarre rationale involving the sun's corona)
Bright pixels? Aha! Dirty snowball doesn't predict any bright pixels!
No bright pixels? Stuck pixels, transients, etc, should be causing some bright pixels regardless of the subject, so they're hiding data, and they wouldn't be hiding data if it supported dirty snowball!
Jets combine? Aha! Dirty snowball must be wrong, because there's no reason that sublimation jets from a dirty snowball would combine!
Jets diverge? Aha! Dirty snowball must be wrong, because on Earth, if you boil water in several pans, the steam all goes the same direction, so subliming ice on a comet should cause jets that all go the same direction!
High measured density? Aha! Dirty snowball predicts low density.
Low measured density? Aha! They have no good way of measuring density, so they're simply making up data to support their discredited dirty snowball theory, those ignorant money-grubbing hypocrites who're willing to sacrifice any shred of scientific integrity to cling to unscientific dogma established by the big-science priesthood. They're probably socially awkward and kick dogs, too.
Comet goes quiet at perihelion? Aha! Dirty snowball is wrong because it says the comet should stay active at perihelion.
Comet is most active at perihelion? Aha! Dirty snowball is wrong because (some bizarre misconception involving solar wind).
round and round we go . . .
I'm sure tusenfem can help you if your stuck!
).
! Unless you really want to start with the Velikovskian delusions (1950's) or the Jurgen fairy stories published in his journal (1970s?).
