Continuation The Electric Comet Theory Boogaloo (Part 2)

[Sol88]

Great mission, well done to everyone involved!

No the real fun starts!! With all the contradictions on the standard "mainstream" theory, even if the EU doesn't get a look in, it's still going to be a blast to reconcile the data to the prevailing theory!!

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

Great mission, well done to everyone involved!

No the real fun starts!! With all the contradictions on the standard "mainstream" theory, even if the EU doesn't get a look in, it's still going to be a blast to reconcile the data to the prevailing theory!!

Yes. Scientists reexamine prevailing theories when new data is introduced. That is called "doing science" and contrasts directly with the methodology of Electromathigamagical Space Whatever "theory."

In this case there are no datapoints which call into question the current scientific understanding of comets, asteroids, the sun, stars or planetary orbits.

The data provides greater understanding, building on existing knowledge. Any minor contradictions from expected results are surely headed for the endless river of grad students needing research topics.

 

[Reality Check]

With all the contradictions on the standard "mainstream" theory, ...

There are no contradictions in the mainstream fact of comets being balls of ices and dust, Sol88, and everything matches that mainstream fact.

That "all the contradictions" is a lie because there are no contradictions in the mainstream theory. There are probably some things that the mainstream theory cannot explain abut the 67P observations. There are some 67P observations that will cause the mainstream theory to be modified. That is a little thing we call science !

1. 29 August 2016 Sol88: Repeating a lie does not make it true. You know that the electrostatic transport of dust across airless bodies is not anything to do with sublimation.
2. The multiple lies about Static electricity may transport dust across airless planetary bodies.
3. 29 August 2016 Sol88: A lie about data showing an electrical discharge screams your persistent delusions about comets !
4. 29 August 2016 Sol88: The stupidity of a "The effect of surface topography on the lunar photoelectron sheath and electrostatic dust transport" paper.
5. 30 August 2016 Sol88: A lie about collimated jets since there is no such problem, e.g. they can issue from pits which any rational person knows collimates them !
6. 30 August 2016 Sol88: A delusion that the 19 Feb. outburst issued from an area where it was impossible for it to be collimated (which it was not !).
7. 30 August 2016 Sol88: A delusion that the Sun does not exist ! Sunlight ionizes gas.
8. 30 August 2016 Sol88: A delusion that a landslide possibly triggering the outburst magically makes it impossible for it to be collimated.
9. 30 August 2016 Sol88: The delusion that an outburst described as clouds is collimated jets
10. 30 August 2016 Sol88: Repeated delusion that electrostatic transport of dust has anything to do with his debunked delusions about comets
11. 5 September 2016 Sol88: A "fluffy dust with some ices mixed in" lie since the COSIMA and MIDAS instruments only looked at captured dust.
12. 5 September 2016 Sol88: Persists with more than 7 years of ignorance about comets and in this case what Sol88 cites!

The parroting of the Thunderbolt cult ignorance, delusions and lies in this thread alone (continuation of a thread that is now 7 years of delusions from Sol88 and Haig!).
10th April 2015: The ignorance, delusions and lies in the Thunderbolts web site, videos, etc.
More than a year and counting of fear of doing basic physics: 25 June 2015 Sol88: Use a impact calculator to calculate the size of the crater on a comet made of rock by the Deep Impact impactor.

 

[BazBear]

Great mission, well done to everyone involved!

No the real fun starts!! With all the contradictions on the standard "mainstream" theory, even if the EU doesn't get a look in, it's still going to be a blast to reconcile the data to the prevailing theory!!

Yes, there are plenty of contradictions. There are the "mainstream" theories and hypotheses based on real data, and then there is the crap the EC/EU crowd are pushing.

The scientists involved would probably laugh at the strawmened and cherrypicked lies the later camp hangs their tinfoil hats on...

If they bleeping cared!

 

[jonesdave116]

Great mission, well done to everyone involved!

No the real fun starts!! With all the contradictions on the standard "mainstream" theory, even if the EU doesn't get a look in, it's still going to be a blast to reconcile the data to the prevailing theory!!

Ahh, yes, new discoveries, meaning plenty of work for *actual* science to get its teeth into. Yay.
However, as predicted many moons since, there was no contradiction of the fact that there would be H2O in the coma. Which we already knew for 30 years. As reported.
No contradiction of the fact that there would be ice below the surface, and ice in the coma. Which we already knew from Tempel 1 and Hartley 2. As reported.
No contradiction of the fact that the density would be somewhere between 0.2-0.6 g cm^3. As predicted, and as already known.
No contradiction of the fact that, as Alfven predicted, the solar wind carried IMF would hang up and drape around the comet. And that a diamagnetic cavity would form. But we already knew that from 1986.
No contradiction of the already known fact that the comet wasn't made of rock.
I could go on, but you get the idea.

Now, there was a list of predictions that somebody from EU left on here a while back - I wonder how much of that is contradicted by the findings?

 

[JeanTate]

@Jrrarglblarg, Reality Check, BazBear, and jonesdave116:

I think there's an incredibly encouraging message in Sol88's post that you may have missed. True, it's far from obvious, but it hints at a real revolution!

You see, since so much incredible data is now (or soon will be) available, Sol88 is saying - albeit rather indirectly - that the "electrical theorists", including the newly recruited ones with strong mathematics backgrounds, have already hunkered down and are starting some rigorously scientific analyses of the data from an, um, alternative perspective.

Typical timeframes for these sorts of things are a year or so (between start of analyses and posting of preprints on arXiv, or submitting to Icarus); however, for the team Sol88 is so passionately supporting, it may take them less time (after all, they've been working on this for nearly four decades) or perhaps a bit longer (after all, they've published nothing in the past four decade, in relevant peer-reviewed journals, so they're likely not familiar with what's involved).

Being so close to the core team, I'm sure Sol88 will be getting updates on the progress being made, and I hope he'll pop in now and then to give us updates. Of course, we know it's highly unlikely he'll understand the details (his posts in this, and other similar, threads reveal a rather poor basis for understanding the relevant physics, statistics, data analysis, etc), but at least he can pass on messages.

 

[jonesdave116]

@Jrrarglblarg, Reality Check, BazBear, and jonesdave116:

I think there's an incredibly encouraging message in Sol88's post that you may have missed. True, it's far from obvious, but it hints at a real revolution!

You see, since so much incredible data is now (or soon will be) available, Sol88 is saying - albeit rather indirectly - that the "electrical theorists", including the newly recruited ones with strong mathematics backgrounds, have already hunkered down and are starting some rigorously scientific analyses of the data from an, um, alternative perspective.

Typical timeframes for these sorts of things are a year or so (between start of analyses and posting of preprints on arXiv, or submitting to Icarus); however, for the team Sol88 is so passionately supporting, it may take them less time (after all, they've been working on this for nearly four decades) or perhaps a bit longer (after all, they've published nothing in the past four decade, in relevant peer-reviewed journals, so they're likely not familiar with what's involved).

Being so close to the core team, I'm sure Sol88 will be getting updates on the progress being made, and I hope he'll pop in now and then to give us updates. Of course, we know it's highly unlikely he'll understand the details (his posts in this, and other similar, threads reveal a rather poor basis for understanding the relevant physics, statistics, data analysis, etc), but at least he can pass on messages.

Hi Jean - you forgot a couple of tags. Here they are: [sarcasm] [/sarcasm]

 

[jonesdave116]

Oh, what the heck - just for posterity's sake, seeing as this post was on the previous incarnation of this thread;
From 7 Dec 2014, in reply to this post from Tusenfem:

Oh forget it Ben, they are not doing anything, David is just trolling.
They are waiting for mainstream researches to do something, and then they will twist the results to their own view.
IMHO David Talbott is the biggest disappointment that arrived at (JREF) ISF from thunder, I had expected a lot more.

We have:

Well, I guess we could have another argument here as to who's most disappointed Tusenfem.

Actually I think I win. It's not as if you've stuck your neck out with any meaningful predictions to counter the explicit predictions of the electric comet. In fact, looking over a single week of my participation here, it appears I've added quite a lot by comparison, and I'll begin posting the content on a Rosetta blog on the Thunderbolts site this coming week.

... But hold on. Now we see a claimed "announcement" of water on the surface. Therefore, before I have a chance to change my own prediction of NO WATER ICE ON THE SURFACE (beyond a trivial frost as on Tempel 1), here are my predictions as they stood just a couple of hours ago. Expect some modest changes, but no wholesale retractions based on new info.

• likelihood of a hot and dry surface ("hot," as in the familiar lexicon of comet science)
• no layers's of ice exposed beneath the surface, despite the requirements of standard theory
• no ice at the source of jets, not even where the most energetic jets are active
• electric discharge as the essential contributor to the comet's increasing activity
• abundance of unexplained rocky debris on the surface, as seen on asteroids, including sharp edged boulders exhibiting no ices.
• visible electrical erosion of the surface in the fashion of electrical etching of surface materials and electric discharge machining (edm)
• surface electrochemically transformed and burned black by this discharge activity, as in laboratory experiments
• focused glow discharge enigmatically moving across the surface during the course of the Rosetta observations
• useful comparisons of this activity to the moving electrified plumes of Jupiter's moon Io and Saturn's moon Enceladus
• electric fields configuring and reconfiguring layers of dust on the surface, despite the absence of an atmosphere
• removal of “astonishing,” complex crystalline molecules from the surface, with comparisons to materials on planets and moons, likely including Mars or Earth, or both.
• no appreciable “stardust,” the long-presumed primeval matter of comets
• no support for the long-presumed "compositional zoning" in textbook solar system history and comet theory
• useful comparison of dust configurations on the surface to formations seen in laboratory experiments with electric fields acting on layers of dust
• x-ray and ultraviolet emissions exceeding any scientific predictions just 20 years ago
• evidence for electrochemical production of hydroxyl and/or water by electrical action on surface silicates and clays
• evidence for production of water and/or hydroxyl by electrical activity in the coma
• unexpected negative ions close to the nucleus
• improbable hydrogen cloud gathered and held in place at the outer regions of the coma
• additional electrochemical transactions in the coma adding to diverse chemistry, ranging from CO2 to methane, alcohol, cyanide, and more
• relationship of comet flaring to arrival of charged particles from solar outbursts

Add the POSSIBILITY of a break-up of the nucleus in response to a solar outburst, though that’s not something I'd hang a hat on.

David Talbott

Not gone well, has it?

 

[Reality Check]

Not gone well, has it?

The current focus of this thread has been Rosetta and 67P however there have been previous missions that EU have made "predictions" about especially the Deep Impact mission to comet Tempel 1. They are of the same bad and vague quality as David Talbott's "predictions". What is worse is that instead of deafening silence there is a web page containing lies dating from 2005!
The lies, failures and successes of Thunderbolts Deep Impact predictions

 

[jonesdave116]

The current focus of this thread has been Rosetta and 67P however there have been previous missions that EU have made "predictions" about especially the Deep Impact mission to comet Tempel 1. They are of the same bad and vague quality as David Talbott's "predictions". What is worse is that instead of deafening silence there is a web page containing lies dating from 2005!
The lies, failures and successes of Thunderbolts Deep Impact predictions

Exactly. I've seen that nonsense. Focussing on a non-existent pre-impact flash, and claiming it as a correct prediction, whilst totally failing to acknowledge the size of the crater, and the fact that solid ice grains were excavated from it, as confirmed by two different spacecraft.
For anybody that was even halfway scientifically educated, that should have been the end of the EC right there. I guess there wasn't a press release on those findings, so they never got to hear about it! Either that, or the originators of the EC simply didn't want their disciples knowing about such things. It certainly seemed to take a few of them by surprise when I brought it up on the Rosetta blog. Much scrambling around trying to get the solar wind to form solid ice in the coma within 3 minutes of impact! Pretty much all the EUers drifted away from that blog by the end.
Evidence (or the complete lack of it) has a way of dousing the fires of evangelical fervour!

 

[Sol88]

@Jrrarglblarg, Reality Check, BazBear, and jonesdave116:

I think there's an incredibly encouraging message in Sol88's post that you may have missed. True, it's far from obvious, but it hints at a real revolution!

You see, since so much incredible data is now (or soon will be) available, Sol88 is saying - albeit rather indirectly - that the "electrical theorists", including the newly recruited ones with strong mathematics backgrounds, have already hunkered down and are starting some rigorously scientific analyses of the data from an, um, alternative perspective.

Typical timeframes for these sorts of things are a year or so (between start of analyses and posting of preprints on arXiv, or submitting to Icarus); however, for the team Sol88 is so passionately supporting, it may take them less time (after all, they've been working on this for nearly four decades) or perhaps a bit longer (after all, they've published nothing in the past four decade, in relevant peer-reviewed journals, so they're likely not familiar with what's involved).

Being so close to the core team, I'm sure Sol88 will be getting updates on the progress being made, and I hope he'll pop in now and then to give us updates. Of course, we know it's highly unlikely he'll understand the details (his posts in this, and other similar, threads reveal a rather poor basis for understanding the relevant physics, statistics, data analysis, etc), but at least he can pass on messages.

Thanks JT

Let's start by getting the lay of the land straight, the Thunderbolts team planted a seed which I watered and watched grow into something so threatening to the mainstream that it's actually quite funny watching the reactions from posters here!

So the information I seek is from behind closed doors like the AGU fall meeting NOT from the fantastic team over on The Thunderbolts Project

 

[Sol88]

Let's take...

Ahh, yes, new discoveries, meaning plenty of work for *actual* science to get its teeth into. Yay.
However, as predicted many moons since, there was no contradiction of the fact that there would be H2O in the coma. Which we already knew for 30 years. As reported.
No contradiction of the fact that there would be ice below the surface, and ice in the coma. Which we already knew from Tempel 1 and Hartley 2. As reported.
No contradiction of the fact that the density would be somewhere between 0.2-0.6 g cm^3. As predicted, and as already known.
No contradiction of the fact that, as Alfven predicted, the solar wind carried IMF would hang up and drape around the comet. And that a diamagnetic cavity would form. But we already knew that from 1986.
No contradiction of the already known fact that the comet wasn't made of rock.
I could go on, but you get the idea.

Now, there was a list of predictions that somebody from EU left on here a while back - I wonder how much of that is contradicted by the findings?

Diamagnetic cavity

P43A-2095: Structure and dynamics of the umagnetized plasma around comet 67P/CG

At distances close enough to the Sun, when comets are characterised by a significant outgassing, the cometary neutral density may become large enough for both the cometary plasma and the cometary gas to be coupled, through ion-neutral and electron-neutral collisions. This coupling enables the formation of an unmagnetised expanding cometary ionosphere around the comet nucleus, also called diamagnetic cavity, within which the solar wind magnetic field cannot penetrate.
The instruments of the Rosetta Plasma Consortium (RPC), onboard the Rosetta Orbiter, enable us to better constrain the structure, dynamics and stability of the plasma around comet 67P/CG. Recently, magnetic field measurements (RPC-MAG) have shown the existence of such a diamagnetic region around comet 67P/CG [Götz et al., 2016]. Contrary to a single, large scale, diamagnetic cavity such as what was observed around comet Halley, Rosetta have crossed several diamagnetic structures along its trajectory around comet 67P/CG.
Using electron density measurements from the Mutual Impedance Probe (RPC-MIP) during the different diamagnetic cavity crossings, identified by the flux gate magnetometer (RPC-MAG), we map the unmagnetised plasma density around comet 67P/CG. Our aims is to better constrain the structure, dynamics and stability of this inner cometary plasma layer characterised by cold electrons (as witnessed by the Langmuir Probes RPC-LAP).
The ionisation ratio in these unmagnetised region(s) is computed from the measured electron (RPC-MIP) and neutral gas (ROSINA/COPS) densities. In order to assess the importance of solar EUV radiation as a source of ionisation, the observed electron density will be compared to a the density expected from an ionospheric model taking into account solar radiation absorption.
The crossings of diamagnetic region(s) by Rosetta show that the unmagnetised cometary plasma is particularly homogeneous, compared to the highly dynamical magnetised plasma observed in adjacent magnetised regions. Moreover, during the crossings of multiple, successive diamagnetic region(s) over time scales of tens of minutes or hours, the plasma density is almost identical in the different unmagnetised regions, suggesting that these unmagnetised regions may be a single diamagnetic structure crossed several times by Rosetta.

contrasted with

P43A-2091: Increased electron pressure as possible origin of magnetic field dropouts observed by RPC-MAG of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko

The Rosetta Plasma Consortium MAGnetometer (RPC-MAG) has observed signatures of magnetic field dropouts in the inner coma region of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko at distances from 30km to 400km, which is larger than what has been predicted by numerical simulations of the cometary plasma environment. It is still unclear how these magnetic field dropouts form in the inner coma region. In the present work, we use our newly developed multi-fluid plasma-neutral interaction model (Huang et al. 2016) to investigate this problem. The model solves the governing multi-ion MHD equations for the cometary and solar wind ions and electrons, and the Euler equations for the neutral gas fluid. We show that a strong local increase of electron pressure is capable to generate the features of the magnetic field dropouts observed by RPC-MAG: the simulation results show that a low magnetic field region is formed and the recovery phase of the magnetic field magnitude is faster than the declining phase, which suggests that the mechanism proposed here based on localized enhancement of electron pressure may provide a possible explanation for the unusually large distance of the observed magnetic field dropouts.

Any comments?

 

[Sol88]

but the real treat, the defining difference between the sublimating dirtysnowball and the ELECTRIC COMET...the JETS!!

No let's take a look what up for AGU meeting wrt jets.

P43A-2087: Mapping of the source regions of the dust jets on comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko

Because of the inclination of the rotational axis to the orbital plane and the orbital motion around the Sun, the sunlit regions on the nucleus surface of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko moved from the northern hemisphere to the sourthern hemisphere between August, 2014 and August, 2015. From the comparison of the dust jet features in images taken at successive time series, the footpoints of these jets can be identified by a projection method. The distributiosn of the corresponding source regions can be compared with the geomorphology of the nucleus surface from inbound to outbound. The correlation of the dust jet activity with the volatile outgassing phenomenon as monitored by different scientific instruments onboard Rosetta will provide important information on the sublimation process.

I predict very important!!

but that's it 1 paper???

 

[Sol88]

related to Jets

AE21A-08: Scaling of Dielectric Breakdown Thresholds in Earth's and CO2-rich atmospheres: Impact for Predictions of Extraterrestrial Transient Luminous Events and Lightning Discharges

Earth's atmospheric electricity manifests itself in the form of glow, corona, streamer, and leader discharges observed as Saint Elmo's fire, sprites, lightning and jets discharges, and other Transient Luminous Events (TLEs). All of these are types of dielectric breakdown, but are governed by different physics. In particular, their initiation is associated with the crossing of specific electric field thresholds: relativistic runaway, streamer propagation, conventional breakdown, or thermal runaway thresholds, some better understood than others. For example, the initiation of a lightning discharge is known to occur when the local electric field exceeds a value similar to relativistic runaway field, but the exact threshold, as well as the physical mechanisms at work, remain rather unclear to date.

Scaling laws for electric fields (and other quantities) have been established by Pasko et al. [GRL, 25(12), 2123-2126, 1998] and Pasko [NATO Sci. Series, Springer, 253-311, 2006]. In this work, we develop profiles for initiation criteria in air and in other atmospheric environments. We further calculate their associated scaling laws to determine the ability to trigger lightning flashes and TLEs in our solar system.

This lets us predict the likelihood of electrical discharges on, e.g., Mars, Venus and Titan, and calculate the expected electric field conditions, under which discharges have been observed on Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune [Leblanc et al., ISSI Spa. Sci. Series, Springer, 2008, Yair, Adv. Space Res., 50(3), 293-310, 2012]. Our results anticipate the arrival of ExoMars 2016's Schiaparelli module, which will provide the first records of electric field at the surface of the planet [Déprez et al., EGU GA, 16, 16613, 2014]. This research is also motived by the increasing probability of manned missions to Mars and the potential electrostatic hazards it may face [Yair, 2012], and by the role of electrical discharges in the creation of active radicals, some of which may be of biological importance [Miller, Science, 117, 528-529, 1953; Biochem. Biophys. Acta, 23, 480-489, 1957].

No THUNDERBOLTS team required to use a least half a brain to "work it out"!!!

i.e mainstream science can't even work out how lightning here on Earth is generated!!! You tell me how rubbing ice grains together can generate lightning

just a couple fun quotes from wiki

Necessary conditions
Main article: Thunderstorm

In order for an electrostatic discharge to occur, two preconditions are necessary: (1) a sufficiently high electric potential between two regions of space must exist; and (2) a high-resistance medium must obstruct the free, unimpeded equalization of the opposite charges.

It is well understood that during a thunderstorm there is charge separation and aggregation in certain regions of the cloud; however the exact processes by which this occurs are not fully understood.[19]

The atmosphere provides the electrical insulation, or barrier, that prevents free equalization between charged regions of opposite polarity. This is overcome by "lightning", a complex process referred to as the lightning "flash".

Since the base of a thunderstorm is usually negatively charged, this is where most CG lightning originates. This region is typically at the elevation where freezing occurs within the cloud. Freezing, combined with collisions between ice and water, appears to be a critical part of the initial charge development and separation process. During wind-driven collisions, ice crystals tend to develop a positive charge, while a heavier, slushy mixture of ice and water (called graupel) develops a negative charge. Updrafts within a storm cloud separate the lighter ice crystals from the heavier graupel, causing the top region of the cloud to accumulate a positive space charge while the lower level accumulates a negative space charge.

 

[Ziggurat]

i.e mainstream science can't even work out how lightning here on Earth is generated!!! You tell me how rubbing ice grains together can generate lightning

How does rubbing your feet on carpet generate sparks?

 

[tusenfem]

Let's take...



Diamagnetic cavity

contrasted with



Any comments?

both things can happen depending on the large variety of plasma processes in the complicated interaction of an outgassing comet with the solar wind

 

[tusenfem]

but the real treat, the defining difference between the sublimating dirtysnowball and the ELECTRIC COMET...the JETS!!

No let's take a look what up for AGU meeting wrt jets.



I predict very important!!

but that's it 1 paper???

no that is one poster

 

[Reality Check]

Let's start by getting the lay of the land straight, the Thunderbolts team...

Let us start with the real world where you started as so abysmally ignorant about comets (e.g. their measured density of less than water = they are not rocks!) so that you fell for the ignorant delusions of the Thunderbolts cult 7 years ago. It is now 7 years later and you have proved that you are just a unthinking cult follower content to believe in the lies and delusions that Thunderbolts are spewing.

1. 29 August 2016 Sol88: Repeating a lie does not make it true. You know that the electrostatic transport of dust across airless bodies is not anything to do with sublimation.
2. The multiple lies about Static electricity may transport dust across airless planetary bodies.
3. 29 August 2016 Sol88: A lie about data showing an electrical discharge screams your persistent delusions about comets !
4. 29 August 2016 Sol88: The stupidity of a "The effect of surface topography on the lunar photoelectron sheath and electrostatic dust transport" paper.
5. 30 August 2016 Sol88: A lie about collimated jets since there is no such problem, e.g. they can issue from pits which any rational person knows collimates them !
6. 30 August 2016 Sol88: A delusion that the 19 Feb. outburst issued from an area where it was impossible for it to be collimated (which it was not !).
7. 30 August 2016 Sol88: A delusion that the Sun does not exist ! Sunlight ionizes gas.
8. 30 August 2016 Sol88: A delusion that a landslide possibly triggering the outburst magically makes it impossible for it to be collimated.
9. 30 August 2016 Sol88: The delusion that an outburst described as clouds is collimated jets
10. 30 August 2016 Sol88: Repeated delusion that electrostatic transport of dust has anything to do with his debunked delusions about comets

The parroting of the Thunderbolt cult ignorance, delusions and lies in this thread alone (continuation of a thread that is now 7 years of delusions from Sol88 and Haig!).
10th April 2015: The ignorance, delusions and lies in the Thunderbolts web site, videos, etc.
More than a year and counting of fear of doing basic physics: 25 June 2015 Sol88: Use a impact calculator to calculate the size of the crater on a comet made of rock by the Deep Impact impactor.

 

[Reality Check]

Any comments?

Yes - someone cannot understand English ! Two papers about different subjects:

• P43A-2095: Structure and dynamics of the umagnetized plasma around comet 67P/CG
  Diamagnetic cavity.
• P43A-2091: Increased electron pressure as possible origin of magnetic field dropouts observed by RPC-MAG of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko
  Magnetic field dropouts.

 

[Reality Check]

Sol88: Still a cult follower of the Thunderbolts delusion of an electric comet

but the real treat, the defining difference between the sublimating dirtysnowball and the ELECTRIC COMET...the JETS!!

The insanity of the ELECTRIC COMET pops up its ignorant and deluded head yet again! Your delusions about JETS do not exist in the real world.

8 November 2016 Sol88: Still an unthinking cult follower of the Thunderbolts delusion of an electric comet.