carolb Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Starbinder Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > carolb Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Starbinder Wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Carol,
> > > >
> > > > Been following the Rosetta Mission for 15
> > > months
> > > > now. I've watched the conference you
> linked.
> > At
> > > > 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
> > no
> > > > 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
> > >
> >
> [url=http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Scien
>
> >
> > >
> >
> ce/Rosetta/Exposed_water_ice_detected_on_comet_s_s
>
> >
> > > urface]this link from Rosetta[/url] didn't
> you
> > > read?
> > >
> > > Do I have to isolate the mentions of surface
> > ice
> > > for you? Start with these.
> > >
> > > [quote]Using the high-resolution science
> camera
> > on
> > > board ESA’s Rosetta spacecraft, scientists
> > have
> > > identified more than a hundred patches of
> water
> > > ice a few metres in size on the surface of
> > Comet
> > > 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko.[/quote]
> > >
> > > [quote]A new study just published in the
> > journal
> > > Astronomy & Astrophysics focuses on an
> analysis
> > of
> > > 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
> > they
> > > move closer to the Sun along their orbits,
> > their
> > > surfaces are warmed and the ices sublimate
> into
> > > gas, which streams away from the nucleus,
> > dragging
> > > along dust particles embedded in the ice to
> > form
> > > 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
> > of
> > > these features,” says Antoine Pommerol of
> the
> > > University of Bern and lead author of the
> > study.
> > >
> > > “At the time of our observations, the comet
> > was
> > > 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
> > energy.
> > > By contrast, if carbon dioxide or carbon
> > monoxide
> > > ice had been exposed, it would have rapidly
> > > sublimated when illuminated by the same
> amount
> > of
> > > 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
> > you're
> > > 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
> > though.
> >
> > 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.
>
> Carol

Actually, you don't need to respond. I suggested a listen of Bibring the LEAD investigator/scientist who says that reason the surface looks bright is due to dynamic image stretching. He also says, as I mentioned, the lighest spots, which he shows as he talks are actually darker than the darkest of our moon. His words not mine.

Don't listen to him if you don't want to, but until you do you will not know what he is saying about ice, light spots and image enhancements.