Planet X OBSERVATORY Cooperation #1

I posted in late November in the thread Planet X: 3 Observatories
PRESENT that there were currently 3 tacks being taken by observatories,
i.e. 

1. Refuse to look THERE.  “We ain't gona look THERE, 
   and never mind why.”

2. Refuse to look ANYWHERE.  “We're closed for repairs, 
   indefinitely.  Go away.”  

3. Give extensive help, which does anything but. 
   “Here, lets take a CCD image for 3 minutes or so, 
   and compare to the star charts ... see, nothing 
   there but the usual stars. Too cloudy for infrared 
   today, though.”

Sonja documented #1 in South Africa, Steve #2 in Vancouver, and I’ll
give you an anonymous excerpt on #3, currently playing out in the Good
‘Ol USA. 

Anonymous wrote:
> Nancy Lieder wrote:
>> 4. Palomar Comparison
>> What is being compared?  I have to wonder how the 
>> images can be IDENTICAL over years, when comets
>> and novas come and go, even large asteroids might, 
>> and planets MOVE.  If we're only comparing stars,
>> and galaxies, then I can see this.  So he took a star 
>> chart Palomar and a short duration image which 
>> would take in stars but not much else, and
>> compared them?  Otherwise, there would be 
>> DIFFERENCES!  My thinking. At least something, 
>> over a couple years, etc.  Just suggesting that this
>> might be a quick way to discourage you, etc.
> 
> My image would show anything that is there, down to 
> much much fainter objects than she has said X should 
> be.  Of course comets and novas come and go ... the 
> Palomar images (they are images, taken with the 60inch
> Schmidt telescope, not "charts") were carefully selected 
> by one of my mentors, [anonymous], to exclude such 
> things.  The fact that my image does not show such a 
> transient object is no big surprise ... a random 3 minute
> expssure on 1/60 sq. degree of sky would not be 
> expected to catch something transient. 

Oops!  He was looking for a brown dwarf, about as large as Pluto but
dimmer, and he is stating a “random 3 minute exposure on 1/60 sq degree
of sky would NOT be expected to catch something transient”, which he
defines as including “comets and novas“.  Humm.