| |
|
Article: <5ehr4p$d01@sjx-ixn4.ix.netcom.com>
From: saquo@ix.netcom.com(Nancy )
Subject: Re: Hale-Bopp THEN and NOW (1-6)
Date: 20 Feb 1997 15:38:01 GMT
In article <5efq17$bn9@nntp1.u.washington.edu> Lamont
Granquist writes:
>> The issue is ascribing the RETURN of a first time comet.
>> PRIOR to Hale-Bopp this wasn't done, I believe, or at
least
>> was wildly speculative. AFTER Hale-Bopp this may have
>> been done somewhat by the IAU, due to the questions that
>> were raised about what it said re Hale-Bopp.
>
> It was done for Hyakutake. ... There is a really good
article
> by Bill Owen (<4gvtta$oqf@netline-fddi.jpl.nasa.gov>,
> 1996/02/27, sci.astro, sci.astro.amateur) entitled
"More on
> accuracy, precision, and the eccentricity of Hyakutake"
which
> discusses ... how speculative the period determination was.
> lamontg@nospam.washington.edu
How sweet of him to make this statement about Hyakutake. However, his mouth is firmly sealed when it comes to Hale-Bopp. Why the DIFFERENCE? Talking down Hale-Bopp is forbidden if one is a JPL employee operating under a security clearance. These orbits may be speculative, but THE PUBLIC doesn't hear about that! The newspapers are still reporting the approximate 3-4,000 year period for the mythical Hale-Bopp!