Re: Planet X Animated GIF
I M Openmind wrote in message <c6cdf9f8.0205060232.4977e85c@posting.google.com>
> Nancy Lieder wrote in message <3CD5F23C.3EE72A05@zetatalk.com>
>> While the Neat NEAT Trick operators were "taking vacation" or otherwise
>> not heard from, immediately after the Jan 19th announcment, and then the
>> NEAT images were either unavailable to be downloaded or had serious
>> errors in them so they could not be displayed ...
>>
>> In Article <3C7D2AA5.35E63605@zetatalk.com> Nancy Lieder wrote:
>>> 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
>>
>> The OBVIOUS source of comparison was being overlooked! Open Minded's
>> Jan 5th infrared image, compared to Pierre's Jan 19th infrared image, of
>> which we have the ORIGINAL .FITS from the CCD camera. On Jan 5th, the
>> object identified by the Zetas is NOT at the Jan 19th location, and on
>> Jan 19th, the object identified by Pierre is NOT at the Jan 5th
>> location.
>>
>> Images: http://www.zetatalk.com/usenet/use90543.htm
>> Images: http://www.zetatalk.com/usenet/use90548.htm
>>
>> This demonstrates that the NEAT images, if they show otherwise, have
>> been doctored!
>
> What about the Palomar PSS 1 & 2 photographs, taken years before?
> They show both your Jan 5 and Jan 19 stars as well. I have shown
> already that both objects were on the image that was (erroneously)
> called the ESO DSS image. That is actually a Palomar PSS2 image taken
> a decade ago. Many people all over the world have copies of that
> image in their libraries. The other source of comparison is the PSS1
> photograph (called DSS1 sometimes) which again exists in the libraries
> of observatories all over the world. I have both available to me and
> I have examined them and the objects that you claim as your planet was
> photographed at Palomar years ago. I could scan these photographs and
> post them (that's what the DSS has done, they have scanned at very
> high resolution all those photographs) but you would claim that I have
> faked the result so I won't bother.
Check-mate IMO, looks like Nancy's got you debunked. I have repeatedly
examined the Palomar images and have not been able to find anything above
noise at the Jan 19 location. Your Jan 5 image also does not show anything
at that location. You can even see on your painstakingly constructed site:
http://us.geocities.com/openmindxx/compare3.htm
that the faint star/PX location on your Jan 5 image would extend down into
the top of the middle star (of the tight three star vertical group) that is
just over on the right while the faint star which is shown on the PSS1E and
PSS2R would not extend down into the top of the middle star on the right.
It does not make sense to me that the faint star on the PSS2R (which is of
higher quality than the Jan 5 image) would suddenly becomes larger and
elongate down a few arc seconds as shown on your Jan 5 image over a period
of 12 years. Is it a slow burning super-nova or what?
You and Tholen previously tried to lead me to believe that the reason I was
not seeing an object on the Palomar images (Jan 19 spot location) was
because that depending on filtering that was used could make an object show
up more or less prominently, depending on the colour of the light, than the
NEAT images which are unfiltered. This object shows up on the NEAT images so
very disgrossly well that it makes me wonder just what colour would it have
to be to be completely washed out on all the Palomar images including Red
and Blue. It makes more sense to me that it is in fact a new, moving object
at that location and that the NEAT images have been doctored.
