From: skip <email@example.com>
To: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 11:07:30 +700
Subject: [ART] Lies from JPL
At http://encke.jpl.nasa.gov/Recent_Images.html, I found the following message:
"It is with significant regret that the COHP announces that comet images will no longer be accepted and posted from all contributors. This page is a "free-time" activity and the time required to post comet images has grown significantly over the past year (now requiring 20-40 hours or more per month). There are now many other pages (including some at JPL) that post comet images. To provide better service to COHP users, I intend to provide a more extensive set of links to other sites with images while continuing to post a very limited number of images on the COHP. Images already submitted will be posted as time permits. Contributors having unique comet images (including those taken at professional observatories, showing a new comet, or interesting detail) and who are interested in having the images posted on COHP should contact the undersigned prior to submitting the image(s). csm."
I sent them the following email:
> Being a webmaster myself, I find it
> hard to believe that posting images
> requires as much time as you say.
> However, I would be glad to handle
> the acceptance and posting of any HaleBopp images at your website
> for free. Seeing as this will probably be the most spectacular comet
> in the last several hundred years, it seems incredible that you would
> pass up this opportunity to provide these images.
Here's their reply:
>Thank you for your offer. However, there are several reasons why
>I can't/won't accept.
>1) I can't let you onto my computer for security reasons.
>2) I do intend to start posting images again myself. My comments
>on how long it takes are based on experience..note that the image is
>posted in two locations. I do the home page on my free time...during
>Hyakutake I was working 40+ hours on the home page. At the moment I have
>some personal business that takes priority.
>3) Ron Baalke of JPL will post everything in sight when the object gets brighter.
>4) Please don't take offense at this, but you obviously don't know about
>comets because your last statement is absolutely false. Ikeya Seki 1965,
>West 1976, the great comet of 1882 and the great comet of 1843, Hyakutake
>1996, and others were all probably more spectacular that Hale-Bopp will be.
>There have been a number of comets visible in the daytime (all those mentioned
>except Hyakutake were visible in the daytime). during the last couple of
>hundred years...H-B is unlikely to reach this level of brightness.
>Thanks for your offer,
> Charles S. Morris | |
> <firstname.lastname@example.org> | "Every absurdity |
>JPL 300-319 | has its champion" |
>Pasadena, CA 91109 | |
>(818) 354-8074 (office & voice) | -- anonymous (?) |
>(818) 393-5184 (FAX) | |
Interesting quote he has there at the end. While I don't consider myself an expert in comets, his last statement does not acknowledge the statements of many top astronomers who commented on Hale Bopp, early on, before Hale Bopp became so controversial. Here's one:
"...taking the situation at face value,
this comet is in many respects similar to the Great Comet of 1811
and may perform as spectacularly."
-Brian Marsden of the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory in Cambridge Mass.
It has been stated in many places that Hale Bopp was 250 time brighter than
Halleys comet was when it was at a comparable distance. This comet could be extremely specatcular.
It's obvious to me that they have some kind of
agenda here. What does he mean when he says this: "Ron
Baalke of JPL will post everything in sight when the object gets
brighter." It's already visible to the naked eye. This is
such bullshit! If you want to read more lies from the likes of
the JPL regarding Hale Bopp go to this website:
If you don't think there's a coverup going on here, you're obviously not paying attention.