Re: Planet X

In Article  <FUI17.27324$WI.8304628@typhoon.hawaii.rr.com> David Tholen wrote:
> Nancy Lieder writes:
>> 4. then had orbit changes that included perturbing away from
>>     Jupiter as it passed,
>
> Incorrect; it never perturbed away from Jupiter.

As The Small Kahuna wrote, "like shooting fish in a barrel".  You're
going to be accused of being my shill, next, David.  

As I note from the Hale-Bopp page on the ZetaTalk site
(http://www.zetatalk.com/halebopp/hb000001.htm), there were several
ephmeris noted by JPL's Dan Yeomans and NASA's Don Dubbrick.  They
reported these orbit changes due to OBSERVED positions of Hale-Bopp, or
so they said. I quote from this Hale-Bopp page:

    The Original {link} orbit was published by Don Marchholz
    on September 12, 1995, then by Sky & Telescope {link} in
    November, 1995, then by the Minor Planet Center {link} on
    February 22, 1996 then by the IAU {link} on May 27, 1996,
    then by Dan Yeomans of JPL {link} on May 28, 1996, then
    by Don Dubbrick of NASA {link} on June 5, 1996 who
    stated that the orbit would be available as a downloaded file
    upon request, and then by JPL Again {link} on June 27, 1996.
        Hale-Bopp
            (http://www.zetatalk.com/halebopp/hb000001.htm)

And during these OBSERVED position of Hale-Bopp which resulted in orbit
changes, here's where they had Hale-Bopp - perturbing AWAY from
Jupiter!  I quote again,

    On May 28, '96 JPL posted new orbital elements for HB,
    which when placed into my Skymap program come up the
    a RA and Dec for that date of
            May 28, '96     RA: 19h31m44s   Dec: 15.9.20 S
    Presumably HB was observed to be there, else why the
    need to correct NASA's Feb 22, '96 orbital elements. Then
    on June 27, '96 JPL came back and posted new orbital
    elements. Presumably they had observed HB changing
    position, and thus the need for new elements. When I
    place the June 27, '96 elements into my Skymap and
    compare the RA and Dec to where the observed position
    of HB on May 28, '96 would have placed it, I find the
    mythical HB moving firther away from Jupiter, at a time
    when it is passing Jupiter.
            May 28, '96     RA: 19h0m10s    Dec: 12.21.35 S
            Jun 27, '96     RA: 19h0m9s     Dec: 12.17.4 S
    Do comets lurch away from their perturbing influences,
    the giant Jupiter? The Zetas wish to speak to this issue.

        This careless oversight on the part of the conspirators
        demonstrates with remarkable clarity what we have
        been stating. Hale-Bopp is not a real object in the
        heavens, being tracked, it is an orbit painted across
        the sky with a cheering section posting regularly on
        the message boards. It doesn't exist. When, ever,
        has a comet lurched away from Jupiter when passing it,
        by several arc minutes? Was not the posting on May 28
        a result of an actual observation? Was not the posting
        on June 27 a result of an actual observation? If this is
        the case, as we are sure the conspirators will claim,
        then how do they explain the comet being repulsed
        by Jupiter, twitching several arc minutes away from
        this gravitational giant at the moment of passage?
        This is proof that these orbits are not the result of a
        real object being tracked, but a fraud.
            ZetaTalk™, Perturb Away
                  (http://www.zetatalk.com/halebopp/hb000036.htm)

Of course, the brain dead that belive everything NASA and JPL put out,
would not have noticed.  As I've said before, the Sheep of Sci.Astro.

Please note that at the time of this ZetaTalk (mid-1996) a REAL comet
had not yet made its appearance.
   Hale-Bopp (http://www.zetatalk.com/poleshft/p46.htm)
David Knisley (one of the Shepherds) was ranting on sci.astro.amateur
how "glorious" it was, but the amateurs could not "see" it unless the
orbit had it passing some star cluster, I noted.