The “Surprisingly” Dark Comet Chury


The ESA Rosetta probe mission to comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko has begun returning data from the spacecraft’s “Alice” ultraviolet (UV) spectrograph.  Yet again, scientists are “surprised” by what the instrument is finding.  Surprises are the hallmark of a bad theory.  Good theories make accurate predictions.

The comet is pitch black, darker than charcoal, and no ice has been detected on its surface.

“We’re a bit surprised at both just how very unreflective the comet’s surface is, and what little evidence of exposed water-ice it shows,” says Dr. Alan Stern, Alice principal investigator and an associate vice president of the Southwest Research Institute (SwRI) Space Science and Engineering Division.

I’m confused as to why the scientists are “surprised.”  This is the exact same type of surface we have observed ON EVERY SINGLE COMET we have ever viewed up close with spacecraft – pitch black, dry, cratered, looking like a solid piece of rock.

The comet also displays a rather impossible shape.  At first, scientists thought the lobed shape of comet Chury was the result of two comets colliding with each other, but Mark McCaughrean, ESA’s Senior Science Advisor, notes that, “since we’ve been there now and we can see much more detail, it really doesn’t look like that.”  The comet appears to be one solid contiguous body, as I predicted.


  • I predicted the pitch black body.
  • I predicted the solid rocky cratered surface.
  • I predicted it would be devoid of ice.
  • I predicted the lack of observed jets, even though the probe is detecting oxygen and hydrogen in the comet’s coma right now.

So if I can predict these things, why is the ESA “surprised” by what is being returned by the Rosetta probe?

Why do they keep insisting that comets are dirty melting snowballs when every single piece of evidence says this is not the case at all?

It remains to be seen if the rest of my predictions will come true.  I think there is a good chance they will.  The probe will have difficulty sticking to the surface because it wasn’t designed to land on solid rock.  The probe and spacecraft may short out or get zapped by a lightning bolt from the electrical activity on the comet.  The measurements of plasma activity on the comet by the Langmuir probe will be off the charts.

There is one other interesting fact about Chury.  Chury’s apparent mass is so low that, if it were placed into an ocean, it would float.

If the CONSERT experiment on board Rosetta is successful, I predict it will return results indicating the comet is solid rock.  If the comet is found to be solid rock, it would confirm EU’s prediction of the Earth having a lower gravity field during the time of the dinosaurs.

I recently wrote an article on the subject of dinosaurs being impossibly huge, too large to exist in Earth’s present gravitational field. There’s simply no way Earth’s gravity was what it is now when dinosaurs walked the Earth. The only way to explain their size is through a change in gravity. And the only way to explain a change in gravity is by the electric model of gravity proposed by Thornhill.

My claims of the comet being solid rock are based on the Tempel1 Deep Impact mission data.  Just like comet Chury, Tempel1 has a mass so low that it should float in water.

The Deep Impact mission to Tempel1 returned impact data consistent with a solid chunk of hardened rock, not a melting snowball. The impact barely left a scratch in the comet’s surface, yet the mass of the comet suggested it was less dense than a cheese ball. If the comet was made out of a loose aggregate of dust, the massive impact event should have left an enormous crater.

Further, the results of the impact indicate that Tempel1 does not have a hollow interior filled with ice. To quote the scientists:

“It’s pretty clear that this event did not produce a gusher,” said SWAS principal investigator Gary Melnick of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CfA). “The more optimistic predictions for water output from the impact haven’t materialized, at least not yet.” … “Theories about the volatile layers below the surface of short-period comets are going to have to be revised,” Qi said.

The impact did not leave an enormous crater, but it was preceded by a double-flash prior to the gigantic explosion that was far more energetic than scientists had predicted. The impactor’s cameras also shorted out just before impact. The double flash and massive explosion were from the electrical contribution of the comet, which was PREDICTED ahead of time by Wal Thornhill based on the EU model of comets.

Tempel1 showed us that comets are solid pieces of rock, regardless of how much they weigh.

Here’s the impact:


Here’s the crater (if you can call it that):


A 3 kilometer wide fireball barely leaves a scratch in material that supposedly would float in water.

Here’s a time series of frames taken from the Deep Impact impactor probe video.  You can see the camera start to static out from the electrical stress in the first frame, then you see the camera whiteout from the initial double-flash in the next frame (from a lightning discharge to the probe), then you see the impact location itself.

  1. DeepImpactCameraStatic
  2. DeepImpactWhiteout
  3. DeepImpactFrameAfterWhiteout

The Rosetta mission may indeed live up to its name – a Rosetta stone pointing the way toward a real history of the Earth and a new electric cosmological theory.