Re: Planet X: IMO Right, Nancy Wrong, about When to Look (long)

In Article <fc8f94e.0206212046.7be1d15a@posting.google.com> Idon't wrote
> In Article <5AJQ8.52460$Lf2.3993942@news2.calgary.shaw.ca> Steve Havas wrote
> [snip]
>>
>> Give it a rest IMO, you originally screwed up on the DST and I errantly used
>> Aldebaran as the position. Your site still does not show the correct
>> position of the sun, Aldebaran from Capetown because at 7:52am the sun
>> should be shown rising on the horizon so why do you keep referencing your
>> plot when it is incorrect? Anyways, all this is moot because as Nancy has
>> mentioned in her last post that from what people have been telling her the
>> pre-dawn light polluted sky (2 hours before sunrise) does not make for
>> optimal viewing. Especially for an object as dim and diffuse as seen on the
>> images last winter
>
> What makes you think the objects (plural, by the way) in the images
> are "diffuse"? And why were they so "dim"? PX was supposed to be mag.
> 11, wasn't it?
>
>> and taking into consideration it being a certain degree
>> larger and brighter now. Last year, that astronomer I dealt with also told
>> me that those coordinates would not be viewable again until the fall (from
>> Vancouver). So, why would you tell people it should be visible in the sky an
>> hour before sunrise or do you not know how dark of a sky is needed to
>> adequately see dim, diffuse objects?
>
>
>
> Reprise: You continue the pattern of non-response I mentioned before.
> Do you think IMopen is an anti-PX conspirator? Do you think I am? I
> went through a carefull, step by step analysis of my own that IMopen
> included on his pages.
>
>
> I don't recall you ever saying, specifically, what is wrong with my
> analysis (or any others on IMopen's pages, for that matter). Are you
> only willing to look at supposed "evidence" confirming PX? Can you
> show where IMopen has *mis*- interpreted the data? I believe I showed
> where Nancy Leider's "evidence" is nothing of the kind. I believe I
> found where she *intentionally* misrepresents the data. You have no
> response to my offering?
>
> Regards, I

1. First off, I'll address your analysis that there is nothing new at the
   Jan 5 image. If you look at the comparisons of the PSS images and the Jan 5
   image IMO provides on his page

   you can see that the faint star/PX location on the 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. I'm using IMO's page here because it has the areas in question
   blown up larger than on Nancy's page and is therefore somewhat easier to do
   a direct comparison. The PSS2R image is also of a larger exposure time than
   the Jan 5 image (70min compared to 20min) and of better quality showing all
   faint, small objects etc. more clearly. Obviously, it is best to examine the
   original FITS files. From those image comparisons, it's quite clear to me
   that there appears to be a new object on the Jan 5 image slightly
   overlapping and slightly below the faint star seen on the PSS images.

2. Idon't said...
   > Example 3-- "Movement from Jan5 to 19"--This one is downright silly.
   > First of all, what image is this?? From when?? Leider doesn't show the
   > DATE or origin of this image, so it cannot possibly be accepted as
   > providing the claimed "information". Second, there is absolutely
   > nothing visible in the Jan 19 circle anyway, so what is the point of
   > this other than to create the ILLUSION of more "evidence"? We see a
   > pattern emerging- that of a manipulation of empty examples into
   > erroneous "proofs" of PX. Example 3 provides zero legitimate evidence
   > of a moving object in the sky.

   Ok, an object can clearly be seen which is circled at the Jan 19 spot
   location.

   http://www.zetatalk.com/teams/rogue/haute005.htm

   It also appears to be larger and brighter than the faint star position
   location (from Jan 5 or PSS images) which is located directly above it
   (taking into consideration inverting and rotating the image). In fact, it
   was not even a topic of debate that there was something there (of course,
   after the initial denial that there was nothing there besides "noise")
   because out of the blue it magically shows up in spades on the NEAT images,
   some of which were unavailable for viewing for almost a month after the Jan
   19 image came out. And yet, IMO somehow managed to get those same images
   posted on his site before they went "down". This "object" does not show up
   on IMO's Jan 5 image or the PSS images beyond noise and the fact that it
   shows up so very well on the NEAT images shows that they have most likely
   been doctored!

Idon't, your statement that "There is NO credible evidence of the existence
of Planet X presented anywhere on the page- NONE WHATSOEVER." does not make any 
sense to me... You have present lines which are slightly misaligned on Nancy's 
page as some of your main evidence but on IMO's page the images are lined up 
better and it is possible to clearly see a larger, and lower object on the Jan 5 
image as compared to the PSS images.

You say that there was nothing except noise on the Jan 19 image but that
image clearly shows an object and this can be more clearly seen if ones
looks at the original FITS files. Plus, it is now argued that there is a
pre-existing object there. And even if it were noise, how could that same
"noise" show up on the NEAT images and no where else?

Again, I have not presented any new information here...

Steve Havas