Yeah I watched the whole series, he went on to explain his sources and the Australian physicist involved in the successful predictions of the mission, that were contrary to the consensus model. I then went on to read the original paper from Whipple, NASA's reports from the mission(s), Thornhills predictions, spectral results from ESA and SSC... all from the links of this video... and have posted quicker links here for those interested to do the same.
As mentioned I'm not defending the guys NASA bagging... although alot of his points were directly quoted from nasa... and after curiously researching the detail... i agree with some.. but not all of his points.... but definitely some of them.
Point taken "guys"... will try to find a nicer way to say what i was taught is "wrong"... unfortunately however you say "wrong" sounds a little uncomfortable... especially in here...
poetically...
Seems the mission-science leaders of the NASA mission have come up with a better way to do so....
Quote:
|
The consensus model of a comet leading up to the Deep Impact experiment is no longer valid, says Don Yeomans at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California, US, a member of the mission science team. "It's certainly not a dirty iceball or an icy dirtball," he told New Scientist. "It's a very, very weak, dusty structure with interior ices.
|
http://www.newscientist.com/article/...icy-cargo.html
lots of questions still left for the open minds out there...
all the best