"bright surface patches (camera saturation, most obvious in the case of Tempel 1)" Isn't this the same phenomenon Hoagland claims for the 'face on Mars' and a nearby 'pyramid'?
Not that I know of... but I don't follow Hoagland. If there were electrical discharge occuring in those locations, then it may be a similar phenomenom.
The camera saturation has been observed in several instances on comets and on some of the moons... in one, NASA, photoshopped the saturated pure white areas (that appear consistently on the peaks of ridges) and added the appearance of molten lava to explain the brightness that they could not explain in any other fashion.
Been a while since I read his stuff on that score. Last I recall, he has a list of 'confirming' evidence on most of the main features of stuff he's talking about. I think the face on Mars has been left a bit in the dust because of the city on Mars that some of his more recent stuff is about--including, evidently, very startling photos supposedly taken directly off NASA craft's transmissions or some such. He's certainly a fascinating character regardless of what's on or not on Mars.
Mostly, in terms of Mars, I don't trust the traditional stereotypic explanations from the standard folks much at all. Doesn't mean I trust Hoagland 100's of percent more. I just figure he's got to be more honest and true to reality than the traditionalists. Too many folks with too much globalist special interests stuff have been too much in charge of the traditionalists for too long for me to put much stock in their constructions on reality.
Besides, Hoagland's more fun.
Am surprised you are so incredulous about the new comet stuff listed. Are you insisting you don't believe that the new observations are factual??? Or you just have a hard time letting go of familiar traditional constructions on comet reality???