Re: Where's Planet X in the New Images?

Sarah Mc wrote:
>
> So tell us Jan, what's the magnitude of this "spot", and tell us if it
> would be visible in your new 10" amateur scope.

I have not tried it yet myself. No clear skies, being out traveling too
much, waiting for my superwedge (stuck in traffic, it seems) and possibly
still too low for my location.

> While you're at it, explain why Nancy now claims that **all three**
> "spots" are actually planet X, due to red light bending, white light
> bending, and of couse, the "ghost" of planet x. Dp you agree with that
> statement as well?

Wrong. The claim yesterday was that my candidate object was the non-red
light component, and that Steve's candidate pointed to by ZetaTalk is the
red component. And no, I will not get into an endless "red doesn't bend"
discussion.

> And, while you're at it, how about explaining why all the known,
> identified objects on the image (down to mag 19.5) show tracking
> errors, while the "spots" don't?

All object including the spots show tracking errors BEFORE stacking. After
stacking, NONE shows tracking errors except the noise.

> Did Planet X know how far off the mount was from the celestial pole,
> or know how far off the RA drive speed was from sidereal?
>
> Get real Jan, you have the evidence right in your hand, and refuse to
> see it. Either you're a knowing part of the Planet X hoaxers, or
> you're just plain dumb, or you're following in Blind Faith.

Ditto. You have the images available to you, and choose the only stacking
method that leaves out the new objects.

> By the way, here's a quote from Pierre-Eric, from the now infamous OHP
> images (who did his own analysis on Havas' files):
>  "It seems there is nothing "new" around the position given by the
> Zetas. Thus Nibiru is approaching in some "cloaked" or "stealth" mode,
> or maybe the Zetas are playing a bad game with us..."
>
> http://membres.lycos.fr/dcorb/N/SHavas/

That was because his mailbox had flooded, and he had only received a few of
the images. This has later been corrected in e-mails, but I can see that it
has not yet been corrected on the page you refer to. Btw, image 2 on that
page does show the object.

> ZetaTalk has become the best sitcom around, and is being laughed at by
> even the most diehard "Niburu" believers. With people like ABC and
> Anonymous trolling sci.astro, Nancy making things up as she goes
> along, the further moderation of the IRC chats (no one's allowed to
> talk now except Nancy, and those granted permission by her), and the
> constant denial of the evidence by the ZetaCult - Nancy has been
> reduced to nothing less than a dog and pony show at the county fair.

I would rather say that would be the best description of sci.astro.

> And the ZetaCult members believe the dog can write and the pony can
> talk.

Sarah, lately the imbeciles on the debunking team (The Commentator, Earl
Colby Pottinger, CeeBee and others) have set a new low on this NG. After you
got nowhere with your cult drivel and unfounded allegations against Nancy
and Troubled Times, your profile has been a lot better than theirs. Some of
your responses have even been reasonable, and you were the first to actually
do some work on the images. For a while, I thought maybe you would prove to
be a reasonable person, judging for yourself. How wrong one can be...

Your and IMO's reactions so far seem to indicate that indeed you do have a
hidden agenda, trying to ignore the information right there in front of your
eyes on the images provided, and try to make others believe "nothing there".

Please note btw that I have never claimed this to be Planet X, as the
analysis of the images cannot say anything about the nature of the object
yet. Only further tracking, imaging & analysis can tell us that. The
interesting point however is that we did indeed find something in the area
where the ZetaTalk provided coordinates pointed.

Regards,
Jan