> carolb Wrote:
> > Starbinder Wrote:
> > > Hi Carol,
> > >
> > > Been following the Rosetta Mission for 15
> > months
> > > now. I've watched the conference you linked.
> > > 1:06:00 Jean-Pierre Bibring is speaking. He
> > > reprimands a collegue for making a cartoon of
> > the
> > > skier on Hapi Valley saying that it was the
> > wrong
> > > thing to do. He goes on to say that there is
> > > surface ice anywhere on the comet and even in
> > the
> > > crevasses where they have looked deep.
> > >
> > > Ever wonder why we aren't getting any OSIRIS
> > > images??
> > >
> > What ARE you talking about? What part of
> > urface]this link from Rosetta[/url] didn't you
> > read?
> > Do I have to isolate the mentions of surface
> > for you? Start with these.
> > [quote]Using the high-resolution science camera
> > board ESA’s Rosetta spacecraft, scientists
> > identified more than a hundred patches of water
> > ice a few metres in size on the surface of
> > 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko.[/quote]
> > [quote]A new study just published in the
> > Astronomy & Astrophysics focuses on an analysis
> > bright patches of exposed ice on the comet’s
> > surface.
> > Based on observations of the gas emerging from
> > comets, they are known to be rich in ices. As
> > move closer to the Sun along their orbits,
> > surfaces are warmed and the ices sublimate into
> > gas, which streams away from the nucleus,
> > along dust particles embedded in the ice to
> > the coma and tail.[/quote]
> > [quote]Now, using images taken with Rosetta’s
> > OSIRIS narrow-angle camera last September,
> > scientists have identified 120 regions on the
> > surface of Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko that
> > are up to ten times brighter than the average
> > surface brightness.[/quote]
> > [quote]“Water ice is the most plausible
> > explanation for the occurrence and properties
> > these features,” says Antoine Pommerol of the
> > University of Bern and lead author of the
> > “At the time of our observations, the comet
> > far enough from the Sun such that the rate at
> > which water ice would sublimate would have been
> > less than 1 mm per hour of incident solar
> > By contrast, if carbon dioxide or carbon
> > ice had been exposed, it would have rapidly
> > sublimated when illuminated by the same amount
> > sunlight. Thus we would not expect to see that
> > type of ice stable on the surface at this
> > time.”[/quote]
> > Are these scientists lying about the evidence
> > before their eyes?
> > As for Osiris images, I have no idea what
> > talking about. There are plenty on the Rosetta
> > blog.
> > Carol
> As I understand it most if not all of those
> reports or papers were from September 2014.
> Bibring updates the overall mission in June by
> saying that even the lightest spots (blue) are
> actually very dark, from memory I think he says 3
> times darker than the darkest of the moon. Very
> low albedo. I suspect there is some very creative
> dynamic image stretching going on at ESA. Not only
> in trying to produce ice where there is none but
> just this week with super-illuminated imagery to
> bring out jets.
> FYI they are not releasing OSIRIS images as they
> promised they would. There is an orgy of NAVCAM
> Give Bibring a listen.
I find it hard to believe what I've just read there. You're so far down the conspiracy rabbit hole, it's just not worth responding to.