You're welcome, Sol88.
Let's start by getting the lay of the land straight, the Thunderbolts team planted a seed which I watered and watched grow
So you are close to the EU core team then?
into something so threatening to the mainstream that it's actually quite funny watching the reactions from posters here!
(bold added)
Really?
AFAIK, the only ISF member who posts here who is also actively involved in research on 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko (or any comet) is tusenfem, and his reaction is, IMHO, about as far from finding what you posted as "threatening" as it is possible to imagine.
So the information
I seek is from behind closed doors like the AGU fall meeting NOT from the fantastic team over on
The Thunderbolts Project 
Isn't it true that the program (list of presentations) at meetings like the AGU is public? And that most, if not all, such presentations end up as papers, published in relevant peer-reviewed journals such as Icarus?
But more important, isn't it true that the data from missions like Rosetta is publicly available?
Given both these - please comment if either is incorrect - what is it that
you seek, specifically, that you couldn't get already (or after a few months)?
Re-reading what David Talbott - who is most certainly a core EU team member - wrote here (thanks for reposting it, jonesdave116), I'm curious to learn how the team is doing, in its quantitative analyses of the Rosetta data. In particular, it would seem that the data from Rosetta are inconsistent with just about every one of Dave T's items (do you agree?), so what's their approach now?
Finally, do you know if the EU team are using Bayesian or frequentist (or perhaps both) statistical analyses of the Rosetta data?
!).
.
!
!
