Re: Planet X Animated GIF

In Article <c6cdf9f8.0205061436.7426b404@posting.google.com> Open Minded wrote:
> Steve Havas wrote: 
>> There was never a problem operating the "image selection 
>> mechanisms", the images were simply not available for 
>> viewing, ie. serious astrometry errors
>
> the "serious astronometry errors" refers to the quality of 
> plate solutions on the PSS images, it has nothing to do 
> with images being available for viewing.

Wrong, Open Minded.  We're talking NEAT images here, not PSS. The issue
Steve reported with the NEAT images was that a PORTION of the image was
viewable, and a PORTION not viewable. In particular, the .FITS file, per
Steve's report (and he made this image available for ALL to do their own
checking, at the URL noted below), has "most of the data is missing or
all the same repeating sequences in large chunks".  How did YOU, Open
Minded, view and make available on YOUR web site this Dec 16, 2001 NEAT
image if Steve found it in this shape? 

On Thu, 28 Feb 2002 in thread Planet X: Changing the PAST?
In Article <3C7EA2FF.9D02FC71@zetatalk.com> Nancy Lieder wrote:
> NEAT image
> On this image you can see when comparing the two spots in 
> question that the one below is without a doubt larger and 
> brighter than the one above. Also, when I was trying to 
> bring up the NEAT images from Dec. 16/2001 that IMO 
> had on his site (which show the spot in question to be even
> larger and brighter than the Jan 17/2001 image), all three 
> pictures come up with only a small part viewable in the 
> shape of a cross and says there are serious astrometry 
> errors with the image. When I go to see the actual .fits 
> file most of the data is missing or all the same repeating 
> sequences in large chunks. Definitely someone has been 
> in there I think for it to look like that and it has to have 
> been recent otherwise IMO would not have been able to 
> post the image on sci.astro...
>
> New Image
> Here is a .fits file of the Jan 19 image rotated and reversed. 
> Still Dave or no one else brave enough has addressed the 
> issue of why the NEAT images so brilliantly show the 
> new spot when it doesn't seem to appear in any other 
> images.