Re: Planet X Animated GIF

I M Openmind wrote in message <c6cdf9f8.0205101700.1e059b6e@posting.google.com>
> Steve Havas wrote in message <bMXC8.55973$uE2.3849914@news2.calgary.shaw.ca>
>> I M Openmind wrote in message <c6cdf9f8.0205100148.57409ac8@posting.google.com>
>>> Steve Havas wrote in message <9txC8.49413$xS2.3665823@news1.calgary.shaw.ca>
>>>> Michael L Cunningham wrote in message <3CDA7A01.2080706@earthlink.net>
>>>>> Nancy Lieder wrote:
>>>>>> 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?
>>>>>
>>>>> You had better check with your boy Nancy as he already admitted to his
>>>>> error. Steve Havas really doesn't know how to process a FITS image much 
>>>>> less interpret it.
>>>> 
>>>> No, the error was with the NEAT images which were NOT available for
>>>> viewing except for a small portion in the shape of a cross.
>>>> --- serious astrometry errors ---
>>>>
>>>> __________
>>>> I     I    I
>>>> I     I    I
>>>> I____ I____I  <=== narrow portion viewable horizontally across center and 
>>>> I     I    I       vertically down center
>>>> I     I    I
>>>> I____ I____I
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>
>>> But I am sure that you will confirm what you have admitted before:
>>> your claim of proof of altered images turned out to be spurious
>>> because you were, in fact, comparing a PSS1 image with a PSS2 image.
>>> I shown this by posting portions of the headers of the FITS files to
>>> which you provided links.
>>>
>>> Please also post more detailed information on the "serious astrometry
>>> errors".  This message regularly shows up when PSS data are requested
>>> from the DSS for an area near the edge of the original PSS plate.
>>> Nancy says that you have received this message for NEAT images.
>>> Please specify a request position and a NEAT image number for which
>>> you have received this message so we can see whether Nancy's
>>> correction of my post was warranted.
>>
>> The unavailable NEAT images were id: 20011216040155a  2001-12-16
>>                                    : 20011216055443a  2001-12-16
>>                                    : 20011216072630a  2001-12-16
>> and the errors showed up without any PSS data being requested. After trying
>> to access these images for 3 or 4 weeks they finally became viewable. The
>> requested location was 4 27 18, 12 8 52 or there's about as I would try
>> slightly different coordinates to see if it would make any difference.
>
> Come on Steve ... please confirm that your original report of altered
> images came about because you were comparing a PSS1 image with a PSS2
> image.

My original report of altered images concerned the Jan 19 spot showing up on
the NEAT images when it did not show up anywhere else while also appearing
to be larger and brighter than the faint star/PX spot location of the Jan 5
and the PSS images (also the NEAT images which were unavailable and the no
comment from Tholen). I jumped the gun when I mixed the PSS images up which
I previously confirmed. However, that in no way negates my charges that the
NEAT images have been doctored as the evidence in no way relies on my mix up
of the PSS1 and PSS2 images. In my excitement, for a short time I thought
the PSS images may have been doctored but that quickly became completely
groundless.