Planet X: Neat NEAT Trick

In Article  <BINc8.30670$dx6.9060938@twister.socal.rr.com> David Tholen wrote:
> slackerattheinboxdotorg <take@guess.com> writes:
>> Are you on vacation?
>
> Didn't curiosity kill the cat?

Or so he hopes.  Dave doesn’t answer, much less like, questions which
point to his activities. 

In Article <3C717603.C2015A6C@zetatalk.com> Nancy Lieder wrote:
> Steve Havas (shavas7@hotmail.com) wrote:
>>> A second set of infrared images of Planet X was taken 
>>> on Jan 19, 2002. The Haute-Provence Observatory ..
>
>> I see Dave Tholen has not made any comments yet... 
>> Does this image speak for itself?
>
> Dave is waiting for instructions from his handlers.

And he apparently GOT them! I received a note from Steve Havas regarding
a new NEAT image recently taken and trumped by Tholen debunking the Jan
19th imaging of Planet X, claiming that it also shows up a year earlier.

    Nancy, when I was finally able to bring up the .fits file 
    of the NEAT image (2001-01-17) I was able to confirm
    that they do show an existing object exactly where the 
    object is in the Jan 19/2002 image. The other object that
    was shown on the Jan 19,2002 image (below and left 
    when inverted and rotated) is not present. 
        Steve Havas

Steve reports that looking at Palomar images he does NOT find this.
     
    It's funny because on all the Palomar/Digital Sky Survey
    images I looked at I was not able to see any object in that
    location even though the faint object that is directly above
    (as on Jan 5,2002 image) is visible. In fact, on the NEAT 
    image, the faint object previously mention is DIMMER 
    than the apparently pre-existing object below. So, I don't 
    understand how on the Palomar images the faint object 
    above appears, nothing below and on the NEAT image 
    the nothing below (new object on Jan 19,2002 image) 
    is as bright or brighter than the object directly above. 
       Steve Havas

And finally, ends up wondering if the NEAT image was doctored.

    It seems to me that it would not be too difficult for the 
    NEAT images to be altered to match the new object in 
    the Jan 19 image and in fact would be a good way to 
    continuously discredit all new images. 
        Steve Havas

Yes INDEED, and David Tholen who works in association with the NEAT
program (located in Hawaii) has a track record for posting these images
for the powers that be.  Now we know what he did on “vacation”.  Back in
the Hale-Bopp days, I noted an uneven stretch in some Hale-Bopp images
he provided.
    http://www.zetatalk.com/halebopp/hb000066.htm
and I quote from this page, which has the images displayed (they have
since disappeared from the URL mentioned)

    Below are three series of images from the Institute for 
    Astronomy in Hawaii, by D. Tholen and R Wainscoat, IfA 
    from their web sites at 
    http://galileo.ifa.hawaii.edu/images/hale-bopp/tholen-sep1/hb_ufo_tholen.html 
    of what is 
    purported to be Hale-Bopp on September 1, 1995. 
    Separate images for red, green, and blue spectrums are 
    taken to create the final image, which is an overlay of the 
    three. 

    The three rows below are purported to be of the same 
    swath of sky, but from the bottom row up the rows have 
    been subjected to what is called a stretch, enhancing the 
    brightness of dim stars below a certain threshold. During 
    a stretch, any enhanced light will stop being enhanced as 
    soon as it reaches the threshold. However, a careful 
    examination of the results of the stretch in the center of 
    the image, where Hale-Bopp is purported to be, and all 
    the peripheral stars, appears to show that the stretch was 
    not evenly applied. The center portion where Hale-Bopp is 
    purported to be brightens at a faster rate, and does not stop 
    being enhanced when the peripheral stars stop being 
    enhanced. 

NEAT is a NASA/JPL Program, works in conjunction with these bodies. 
Would NASA lie?  Could we see the images from the Hubble, right off the
reel and not held back and issued only once a year or so, like a
Christmas present to the taxpayer who PAYS for all of this? What is
there to hide?  Except, of course, the truth.