Just for a bit more clarity, for people who may be lurking and are possibly not able to post on here, due to being terminally stupid and offensive:
Thornhill lied (by omission) about the ice ejected from the impact at Tempel 1. Ditto about the ice entrained in the jets at Hartley 2. Or are we to believe that somebody who has been studying comets for ~40 years just happened to miss those particular papers/ press releases?
Why prattle on about a non-existent pre-impact flash, when the biggest news from Tempel 1 was the ice that was ejected?
How could one say, in regard to the impactor at Tempel 1: "Copious X-rays will accompany discharges to the projectile, exceeding any reasonable model for X-ray production through the mechanics of impact." And then somehow fail to bother to read the papers that show, definitively, that no such X-ray enhancement was seen?
How does somebody, who has allegedly studied comets for 40 years, and gets most of his laughably bad science from press releases, miss something like this?:
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/epoxi/epoxi20101118.html
I'll give another sneak preview of my magnum opus on this pathetic 'electric comet' woo:
Thornhill, somewhat ironically, wrote; “By the time of “Deep Impact” (July 4, 2005), comet theory had fragmented into contradictory hypotheses, due in part to the absence of detectible (sic) water on cometary surfaces—a prerequisite of standard theory.” Ironic, in the sense that ‘standard theory’ had known for some time that most of the ice contributing to outgassing had to be subsurface. Even more ironic, due to the fact that that the impact excavated solid ice grains, precisely as expected by standard theory, but not according to Thornhill, essentially killing his model right there and then.
How can somebody, who supposedly has a BSc degree in a physics related area, contend that H
+ from the solar wind smashes into extremely hard to find O
- to create OH? Really? At ~1 keV? Err, no.
How can said idiot then contend that the OH, which won't form, will be then 'misinterpreted' by scientists as H
2O? Never heard of spectroscopy, I presume. How are scientists getting a sub-millimeter signal at ~557 GHz from H
2O, and somehow confusing that with OH? Hint: OH will not give you a signal anywhere near that wavelength, as would be very easy to find out. I've only got ~ 2 dozen references to such detections between 1985-2006. Obviously some people, who claim to have been studying comets for four decades, are rather selective in their reading.
How could anybody contend that the solar wind could have any relationship to the water outgassed by a comet, when we knew from 1986 at Halley, not to mention the AMPTE experiments, that the solar wind is getting nowhere near the nucleus at the time when the comet is most active? How stupid does one need to be to suggest such a thing? And how stupid does one need to be to believe it?
Why (seemingly deliberately) bring up the X-rays (generated by charge exchange) at comets, in favour of his pathetic woo? When we already knew that it was due to CX? Which, for the hard of thinking, is produced, for the most part, in narrow line emission that can be tied back to the individual ion that is involved in the CX.
How could one contend that comets are just 'asteroids on eccentric orbits', when there are asteroids on eccentric orbits that are most definitely not behaving like comets?
These are just some of the appalling errors made by Thorhill and Talbott in their 'electric comet' poster of 2006. It was supposedly meant for presentation at the ICOPS conference in Michigan, in 2006. That also, I believe, was another piece of fiction.
So, let's have a vote from the non-contributing lurkers:
1) Was Thornhill lying? Or;
2) Was Thornhill just grossly stupid?
There are no other options.
P.S.
Can we now get it in writing that a certain woo merchant believes Carl-Gunne Fälthammar is 'irrational'. And still believes (due to an hilarious inability to understand running difference images) that the Sun has a solid surface? Lol.
If anybody wants to check that the idiot Thornhill did indeed say the things I have attributed to him, then his and Talbott's 2006 laughably bad 'poster', is here:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/pdf/ElectricComet.pdf
!
!
.
! 
