Re: Planet X: Magnitude (Revisited)

Magnus Nyborg wrote:
> 
> Nancy!
> 
> The image at http://www.nybtech.com/Astronomy/Pictures/NGC7331-001022.jpg is
> a picture of a galaxy (the large one, the smaller ones are much dimmer at
> about mag 15) that is about the same brightness that you claim planet-X to
> be. The galaxy also extends about 100.000x the area that planet-X extends,
> meaning it has _much_ lower surface brightness.
> 
> I took this image last year, with a 12" telescope and one of the simplest
> ccd-cameras on the market. Can you see the galaxy ?
> 
> Not only is this galaxy visible in a longtime cdd-image, it is easily
> visible to the eye when looking through the same telescope (and
> significantly smaller telescopes aswell). Why don't you simply acknowledge
> that you have absolutely no idea at all what you are talking about!
> 
> Clear Skies,
> Magnus

Do you have an equivalent image of the supplied coordinates for the
supposed Planet X to show its absence? Do you have several time stamped
images to show that differential image processing does not show
something moving?

If so, you could easily add *data* to the argument. Instead of just
arguing.

The Small Kahuna