January 31, 2005
Prepare4Contact YahooGroup Website
I just read that James
McCanney has reported that Comet Holmes
continues to expand and can again be seen by the naked
eye (see insert below). This suggests that Holmes
continues to discharge plasma particles in a spectacular
way through its expanding Coma.
While some might debate whether Comet Holmes is
an ET artifact, and/or was created by benevolent ETs or
not, it's clear that something extraordinary is
happening with it. As I have already mentioned, McCanney
believes that Comet Holmes will experience anther
spectacular plasma discharge on Dec 22 when it
comes into alignment with the tails of Mars and Earth.
This means it will become much brighter and therefore
easier to see. McCanney believes that Comet Holmes is
growing into a new planet and has a nucleus that is a
100 km thick, in contrast to the 3km claimed by NASA.
Consequently, I recommend that we continue our group
meditation on Comet Holmes
for the following Sundays in December, Dec 9, Dec 16,
Dec 23 and Dec 30 at 8 pm.
What follows below is first McCanney's brief comments on
Holmes continued expansion, and then a couple of
articles on the comet plasma discharge model. One views
him as the originator of this alternative theory of
comets, while the second views the origins coming from
Comet Holmes Update
DECEMBER 03, 2007
I just came in from a very
cold and windy observation session of Comet Holmes
... it is VERY VISIBLE to the naked eye given dark
viewing conditions and is larger than before ... the
tail is well defined with numerous branches just like
Comet Hale Bopp ... Comet Holmes just keeps growing and
growing ... if it were located between mars and earth
you would see it to be four times bigger than the sun
... much to the chagrin of standard science ...
It isn't going away and
will be visible for a very long time to come ... I will
soon be able to make some definitive statements about
orbital changes due to the tail drag as this newly
forming minor planet pulls in significant amounts of
local matter as defined in my Plasma Discharge Comet
On January 12, 2005, NASA launched its latest space probe, Deep
Impact, named after the recent Hollywood science fiction film.
Recall, in the cliffhanger a team of courageous astronauts (led by
tough guy, Robert Duvall) sacrifice their lives to deflect a
speeding comet from its collision course with earth, thus saving
human civilization from catastrophe. NASA's newest mission is also a
last-ditch gambit, of sorts: an attempt to save the current comet
Open any astronomy book and you will read that comets are dirty
snowballs - conglomerates of ancient rock and ice left over from the
creation of the solar system. And it must be true, right? After all,
it says so in the textbooks, and surely the university professors
can't be wrong. The problem is that over the five decades since Fred
Whipple first proposed the snowball model in 1950, neither NASA nor
anyone has proved that comets are actually made of ice.
Every time NASA scientists focus their
instruments on the surface of comets, they see only rocky stuff.
Comets look like asteroids.
So, where's the ice?
repeatedly to find it, NASA has concluded that the ice must be
hidden by surface dust, or is buried out of sight. Deep Impact will
attempt to resolve this question by looking below the surface.
Next July, if all goes well, the unmanned Deep Impact spacecraft
will rendezvous with a small comet named Tempel 1, not to avert a
collision, but for the purpose of causing one. Once in position, the
craft will send a 300+ pound "impactor" - essentially a 3 foot
diameter copper projectile - directly into the speeding comet's
path. No nuke or explosive charge will be needed to blast a hole in
the comet's surface. The comet's tremendous kinetic energy will do
that. Tempel 1 is clipping along at an estimated 12 miles a second.
The plan is to study the 100-300-foot crater excavated by the
collision. During its fly-by, the spacecraft will also gather
spectroscopic data from the ejected gas, dust and debris. Much
planning has gone into the selection of the impact site, to
(hopefully) assure that the crater will be in full sunlight, instead
of shadow. Comet Tempel 1 has an irregular shape - it is only about
5 miles in diameter. With a bit of luck, NASA's cameras will obtain
a good look at the comet's freshly excavated surface.
It will be the first time that NASA has
actually probed the interior of a comet. NASA expects to confirm the
presence of ice.
Will they find
For the answer we will have to wait until next summer. When the
rendezvous happens - assuming things go according to plan - earth
bound folks with binoculars will be treated to a show of celestial
fireworks; although exactly how bright and visible the collision
will be is open to question.
The event will take place - believe it
or not - on the fourth of July, independence day. One wonders if the neocons in Washington
had something to do with this.
At very least, the date shows the extent
to which science has been politicized.
But, somewhere, God must be laughing at us silly humans, because
NASA has about as much chance of finding ice in
Tempel 1 as the
proverbial snowball in hell. It just isn't going to happen. There's
too much contrarian evidence. It's been accumulating for years, and
should have melted the ice model, long ago. Yet, NASA stolidly
presses onward. The agency greets every new anomaly with ad hoc
improvisations, and has gone to increasingly outlandish lengths to
preserve its ice theory.
Why? Answer: because so much hangs in
the balance. The stakes are very high. More is involved than simply
comets. At issue is the Red Shift, the expanding universe, the
theory of black holes, and yes, even the big bang - all at risk if
NASA's cometary house of cards comes crashing down.
To see why the ice model is wrong, let us look at several anomalies:
In 1991 Halley's Comet caused a stir
by announcing itself from so far away - it was then between the
orbits of Saturn and Uranus. Halley's is one of the smaller
comets, yet it became visible at fourteen times the distance of
the earth from the sun, a fact that solar heating cannot
explain. The standard explanation is that the sun's warmth is
responsible for the cometary coma and tail. But at that enormous
distance the sun was simply too faint.
Evidence of an even more remarkable phenomenon, the sunward
spike - previously unknown - was first documented in a 1957
photograph of the
stunning feature must be seen to be believed.
photographed on April 25, 1957.
anti-tail extending from the coma appears to precede the comet,
though it actually trails from behind.
Over the years since the first
sunward spike was photographed, dozens of other comets have been
shown, at times, to display this amazing phenomenon. The spikes
always point toward the sun. Yet, NASA has dismissed the
photographic evidence - however compelling - as nothing but an
optical illusion, an artifact, a play of light, etc.
NASA is in robust denial. Why? Sunward spikes are incompatible
with the current ice model.
On May 1, 1996 the Ulysses spacecraft documented another
previously unknown feature of comets, when it crossed the tail
Comet Hyakutake at a point more than 350 million miles from
the comet's nucleus. The ephemeral tail, in other words,
stretched across the equivalent of three and a half times
Earth's distance from the sun - a number that is astonishing.
The discovery was accidental - and
wholly unexpected. Scientists had never guessed that comet tails
were so long. Ulysses had been studying the solar wind, and so,
had the necessary equipment on board to detect the ions
typically associated with comets. The satellite also recorded
the magnetic field directional changes that are associated with
comet tails. Detailed analysis showed that both kinds of data
were in agreement.
For most scientists, this was enough
to confirm the discovery. Notice, the remarkable tail length
means that when Comet Hyakutake moved around the sun toward its
minimum point (perihelion), the invisible portion of its tail
arced across a vast reach of the solar system. The fact that the
tail maintained its integrity at such extreme distance is
incompatible with the standard view that the tail is composed of
materials blown away from the nucleus.
Something more is going on, here.
The question is: What?
But the big event, also in 1996, was the discovery of X-rays coming
from the head of Hyakutake. This discovery set the scientific world
on its ear, because naturally occurring X-rays are associated with
extreme temperatures: in the range of millions of degrees Kelvin.
Yet, here they were coming from a supposed ball of ice. There was no
immediate word from NASA about how or why an icy cold comet could
produce X-rays. The discovery was the work of the German ROSAT
satellite, and no mistake about it.
During the next few years
X-radiation was detected in half a dozen other cases, including the
Four years passed before NASA finally announced a solution to the
puzzling anomaly. In April 2000, NASA conceded that extreme
conditions are necessary for X-ray emission to occur. But, rather
than call into question its own theory that comets are cold, NASA
attempted to square the circle. The agency explained that the X-rays
had been produced by the solar wind, which - it asserted - was
merely an extension of the extremely hot solar corona. NASA's
explanation explained nothing, and amounted to a contradiction, as
any intelligent high school science student should have been able to
The official word showed that NASA was
fumbling with a mystery it did not understand, grasping at air like
a blind man trying to steady himself. (For NASA's official word go
Next summer, when NASA fails to confirm the presence of ice in the
nucleus of Tempel 1, the question that the space agency should have
been asking in 1996 will become paramount.
(Of course, this does not
mean that NASA will come clean. Indeed, it will be interesting to
see how far NASA is prepared to go to defend its ice model. Probably
the contortions will continue. Not for no reason the agency acronym
has been subject to redux: NASA - Never A Straight
Everyone agrees that comets have an atmosphere. It is known as the
coma, and has been shown to include significant amounts of water
vapor, along with hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, sulfur, gaseous
hydrocarbons, and various other compounds. The proportions vary from
comet to comet. The present model holds that the water comes from
the cometary nucleus.
The thinking is that the sun's warmth
causes the icy head to sublimate, or out gas, and the solar wind
pushes the vapors away in the amazing tail that has always been a
source of wonderment and inspiration here on earth. No question,
comets are beautiful to behold on a starry night. But neither NASA
nor anyone has shown that the water actually comes from the nucleus.
Such a deduction is understandable, but it remains unsupported by
evidence, and it is almost certainly wrong.
I have already cited the puzzling case
of Halley's Comet, whose visibility at extreme distance was
incompatible with solar warming. Here's the key question: If the
head is NOT made of ice, how then to account for the known presence
of water in the coma and tail? It's a safe bet that, next summer,
NASA will have no answer to this simple question. After all, they
couldn't explain the X-rays.
Not everyone was surprised by the discovery of X-rays. One
Jim McCanney actually predicted them. He did
so as early as 1981 in a scientific paper first published in the
journal Kronos. McCanney even urged NASA officials to look for
X-rays when the agency was preparing a fly-by of Comet
Giacobini-Zinner in 1985.
At the time, NASA's ISEE-3 satellite had
already completed its original mission, and was being reprogrammed
for comet study. The spacecraft had X-ray equipment on board, and
McCanney urged NASA to use it. Instead, NASA shut down the equipment
to conserve power. NASA's experts concluded that there was no point
in leaving the X-ray detector on, since there couldn't possibly be
X-rays coming from a cube of ice.
Fortunately, German scientists do not labor under NASA's ideological
The Germans took McCanney's recommendation seriously. In 1990
they launched a satellite of their own, the Roentgen Satellite
(ROSAT), which was equipped with an X-ray telescope. ROSAT
continues to search the heavens for high frequency X-rays.
Earth-based X-ray telescopes are not feasible, because earth's
protective atmosphere absorbs X-radiation.
This was the satellite that
independently made the big discovery in 1996.
Discharge Comet Model
McCanney is the originator of an alternative comet theory, what he
calls the Plasma Discharge Comet Model. His model challenges
several key assumptions current in today's science, which, he says,
must be overturned to correctly understand the nature of comets and
the workings of the solar system.
One of these assumptions is that
space is electrically neutral.
"Not so," says McCanney.
His comet model is, in fact, but a
subset of a grander theory that describes the electrical nature of
McCanney refers to it as the Solar Capacitor Model. He
argues that most of the energy released by the sun - by far - is
electrical, rather than in the visible spectrum. According to this
view, the sunward spikes are titanic bolts of solar electricity, and
comets are anything but cold. On the contrary, they are incredibly
hot and fiery crucibles in which chemical and nuclear transmutations
are occurring constantly.
McCanney thinks our earth and the other planets were originally
comets that were drawn from their more elliptical orbits into more
circular orbits. He is also quick to credit another maverick thinker
who preceded him:
In 1950 Velikovsky authored a
Worlds in Collision, in which he
argued, among other things, that science had failed to account for
the electromagnetic nature of comets.
Even as the book topped the bestseller
charts, several prominent figures in science, among them
Carl Sagan, ridiculed Velikovsky and eventually succeeded in destroying his reputation. Velikovsky's name became almost synonymous with wacko nonsense.
How ironic this is - because the 1996 discovery of cometary X-rays
has made Velikovsky look like a prophet.
If the Plasma Discharge Comet Model
turns out to be correct, McCanney will earn his rightful place
alongside Kepler, Galileo, and Newton; and the names Velikovsky and
McCanney will be remembered long after NASA and Sagan have been
Next time: Why it matters. How the Solar Capacitor Model could save
our civilization from self-destruction - now imminent.
To be continued...
from Michael Goodspeed
I must correct one assertion that Mark Gaffney makes in
his article, "NASA Searches
For a Snowball in Hell."
"(Jim) McCanney is the
originator of an alternative comet theory, which he calls
the Plasma Discharge Comet Model."
The historic fact is that McCanney
is not the originator of the electric comet theory. This fact
was clearly demonstrated in my essay, originally published on
your website, entitled, "The
True Origins of Electric Comet Theory."
I meticulously outlined the full
history and evolution of electric comet theory, from the late
19th century, to present day. To date, no one has challenged a
statement of fact in this essay. If there is any misstatement, I
would appreciate hearing it, and would make a correction
aka Stuart Andrew Talbott