Remember, debating facts is a thought crime.


Anthony Peratt's site, which hosted many documents, is down for some reason. 

If you received an email from me, a copy of that email with working links to Peratt's papers can be found here.

A mirrored archive of Peratt's papers can be found here.

Comets are not made out of water and ice; they are made out of rock.
They discharge a plasma coma due to the rapidly changing electrical field they are moving through.
Since they spend most of their time in the outer solar system, they acquire a charge relative to that environment. As it approaches the Sun’s electrical field, it has to equalize its charge rapidly which causes the discharging we see as comet tails.
(my video covering the facts presented on this page)
The deep impact mission, which sent a probe out to impact comet Tempel 1,  found the following:
1. The copper impactor generated such an energetic explosion that the primary mission sensors were swamped and the primary mission of photographing the crater was unable to be carried out. (Such a flash would be expected with a metal object approaching a highly charged object)
"We didn't expect the success of one part of the mission (bright dust cloud) to affect a second part (seeing the resultant crater). But that is part of the fun of science, to meet with the unexpected. "

Physicist Wal Thornhill commenting:

"It is now well documented that every scientist associated with the project was stunned by the scale of the energetic outburst. These scientists understood the kinetics of impact, and they all agreed that the explosion would be equivalent to 4.8 tons of TNT. That’s a good-sized bomb, but not even close to what occurred."

2. The impact generated finely divided dust, something that should be impossible due to sublimation. Dust particles must be in their pristine state.
3. Photographs of the surface showed sharp relief, a rocky appearance, and impact craters with no clearly defined ice, not a dirty half melted snowball.  
4. No water ice has been found on any other comets surface.  See comet Borrelly and comet Wild 2.
5. Massive changes in the spectrum compared to before and after impact (something completely unexpected from a melting snowball).
6. "Dust jets" (they are really plasma plumes) on the dark side of the comet.
7. And then there is the fact that at best only 0.5% of the surface could be claimed to be ice.   - and even that's a stretch in my opinion. 

"Since the visible images have a higher spatial resolution, we use those images to calculate the extent of ice on Tempel 1's surface. That turns out to be a small fraction of the surface, only 0.5%. "

"What is significant is that the extent of this ice on Tempel 1's surface is not sufficient to produce the observed abundance of water and its by-products in the comet's coma. "

A few more quotes from the Deep Impact scientists commenting on the impact event data:
"Theories about the volatile layers (water ice) below the surface of short-period comets are going to have to be revised"
"All we needed was a factor of three boost from the impact to get a definite detection," said Qi. "We didn't see that."
"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."
Some more
"There's a lot of structure on the comet, which is a bit surprising," Richardson said. "That could mean there's some strength to the comet."
Here is a picture of the actual impact.  I want you to keep in mind that the 850 lbs copper impactor that is striking the comet is basically an invisible spec in these images.  It's so tiny against the huge comet that you can't even see it.  As one scientist put it, "Its like a mosquito hitting a 747."  The nucleus is estimated to be about 5 kilometers (3.1 miles) across and 7 (4.3 miles) kilometers tall.  The detonation of the impactor is tremendous.  Far greater than any model predicted (well not exactly... the electric model predicted it correctly).  The impact event actually created a double flash.  Two explosions took place; again, something correctly PREDICTED by the electric comet theorists.  In fact all of the above observations were correctly PREDICTED by electric comet theorists.  The double flash was created by an electrical discharge between the copper impactor and the comet, then the impact itself produced a flash.
 NASA/UM M. F. A'Hearn et al., Science 310, 258 (2005)
In 2004 the Stardust mission sent a probe to collect dust samples from comet Wild 2.  The dust samples that came back showed organic compounds that must have formed in EXTREME heat.  No plausible explaination exists in the standard model of comets for how these particles ended up in the coldest and oldest places in our solar system.  It is important to note, that such particles are a by-product of electric discharge machining with plasmas.  So while the standard theory of comets has no ready explaination for the findings, the electric model of comets predicted this.
Other comets have also displayed intense brightening at distances too far from the sun to be attributed to melting and a host of other phenomina not explainable by sublimation such as xray emission and filamented tails.   Here's a perfect example of filamentation that is completely unexplainable in the standard model.

Comet C/2007 N3 Lulin (negative luminance) - J. Brimacombe

Spectral images of other comet nucleui have turned up no evidence of any water ice at all.
"Past efforts with the near-IR spectrometer on Deep Space 1 mission flying past comet Borrelly and from the ground of comets far from the sun and not enshrouded with coma, have yielded no evidence of water ice on their surface." 
An article in New Scientist further calls the "melting snowball" theory into question:
A space telescope that usually studies the most powerful explosions in the universe has set its sights on an approaching comet. Its observations at ultraviolet and X-ray wavelengths should help reveal the comet's composition and 3D structure.
X-ray emissions?  That's quite the snowball.  I didn't know melting ice was capable of producing x-ray emissions violent enough to be studied by x-ray telescopes.  I guess we can stop going to hospitals for x-rays and just pick up some ice from the local gas station now.
An image of comet Lulin in the x-ray spectrum:
(Image: NASA/Swift/U of Leicester/DSS/STScI/ AURUA/Bodewits et al.)
Oh, and let's not leave out the fantastic piece NASA gave us on the comet Holmes outburst.
"Like people, all comets are a little different. We've been studying comets for hundreds of years -- 116 years in the case of comet Holmes -- but still do not really understand them"  
In fact every single piece of evidence ever found pertaining to comets goes against the dirty snowball theory. I could probably rattle off about 20 or 30 observational findings refuting the dirty snowball theory.

Further, comets are pitch black!  They are as dark as the toner in a copy machine:

"We have known for years that the surface of the earths Moon is dark -- about as reflective as an asphalt parking lot," said Robert Nelson, a project scientist on the Deep Space 1 mission at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory. "The nucleus of Borrelly is about half as reflective as the Moon."

Scientists call this reflectivity -- the sunlight that is not absorbed by an object -- albedo.

"I'm not sure how you get an albedo that low," said Donald Yeomans, an expert on comets and asteroids at JPL. 


When you electrically burn something it turns black with soot!

Wal Thornhill and Dave Talbot gave a reviewed presentation at the IEEE ICOPS on the subject of electric comets which can be found here:
Thorhill, Talbot, Poster Presentation, IEEE 33rd ICOPS, Traverse City Michigan, June 4-8 2006

Oh, I almost forgot.  Comet brightness is linked to sunspots.  Yet another electrical connection between comets and the Sun's electrical field.  Again, totaly unexplained in the standard dirty snowball model.
M. J. Bosler, "Sur les variations d'éclat de la comète d'Encke et la période des taches solaires"(1909) Comptes rendus hebdomadaires des séances de l'Académie des sciences, 1909 (T. 148). Chart: page 1740
Top curve, dotted: Comet brightness
Bottom curve, solid: Number of sunspots.
But since seeing is believing; here’s some photographs of asteroids and comets.
Guess which one is which.
image credits to NASA
Hey but I'm not done!
Check out the predictions made about the deep impact missions here:
Then let your jaw hit the floor when you realize a bunch of electrical engineers nailed it.
How about some more articles on the stupendous effects of comets from the Thunderbolts team:

Another “Deep Impact” Surprise

How about some more published articles on the subject of electric comets:
Icarus Volume 23, Issue 4, December 1974, Pages 601-610
Icarus Volume 29, Issue 1, September 1976, Pages 147-151
Minor Bodies in the Outer Solar System: Proceedings of the ESO Workshop Held at Garching, Germany, 2-5 November 1998, ESO ASTROPHYSICS SYMPOSIA. ISBN 3-540-41152-6. Edited by A. Fitzsimmons, D. Jewitt, and R.M. West. Springer-Verlag, 2000, p. 177
Alfven, H., (1957) Tellus, 9, 92

AI Ershkovich, Space Science Reviews, Vol. 25, 1980
I also know where Earth's water came from, but that's another story.
It sure as heck didn't come from comets.