I see, so you asked for an example showing massive and rapid volcanism, surface changes, and atmosphere changes, I provide it, you ignore it and want a complete do-over of the entire argument with you getting to put words in my mouth right at the start.

Regardless of what he said, atmospheric changes are not proof of the comet's size. Orbital perturbations of Mars or the lack thereof are.

Excuse me, I never said that. This is not a competition, a bet, or a race to see who has telescopic equipment and who does not. I will provide the data and the empirical data are all that matter, not who it came from. If you wish to do it yourself as well you're welcome to, you have until October to learn how to do so. You can buy or rent a telescope as needed. You do not have to do so and it is really irrelevant to the matter, the question is whether you will ignore empirical data when it is presented. I have asked this over and over and you still refuse to give an answer. Instead you ignore what I said and put words in my mouth. Answer the question, will you ignore the empirical data if it shows that Mars' orbit was not perturbed and the mass of the comet was low contrary to what McCanney claimed. Yes or no?