| |
|
Article: <[email protected]>
From: [email protected](Nancy )
Subject: Re: IN SYMPATHY to the Hale-Bopp Cooperative
Date: 22 Feb 1997 22:02:04 GMT
This debate has been cross-posted to sci.astro.amateur, sci.astro.planetarium, sci.space.news, and alt.paranormal as CNN did not choose to list sci.astro among the Usenet sites where information on Hale-Bopp could be located. Check
for the sci.astro debate thread history.
In article <[email protected]>
>> 8. carefully doctored the STORY LINE TO BE PARSED
>> OUT from the half dozen major observatories around the
>> world, and the dozen or so independent astronomers who
>> would give the story the appearance of being
egalitarian.
>>
>> 9. released images of the nova taken by the Hubble, but
>> burried any further threat of exposure of the game plan
being
>> played out by CONSIGNING ALL FURTHER HUBBLE
>> PICTURES to a single trustworthy individual, a Principle
>> Investigator.
>
> Your so called nova pictures taken by HST look an awful
> lot like a comet to me. And there are not just one principle
> investigator - there are going to be many by the time HB
> heads back out into the far reaches of space.
> [email protected] (Jim Scotti)
(Begin ZetaTalk[TM])
Proof that the story line was parsed out to the major
observatories can be found in the fact that in those early days
they were all reporting the comet head TO BE SOMETHING DIFFERENT.
Regardless of how you try to explain away their public
statements, if their verbiage and images BOTH are referring to a
dark place, a coma around a dark place, a bright spot, etc., when
they were talking about THE COMET HEAD, then they have recorded
for us dramatically that they were to ASSUME the nova was a comet
and do the best they could with the story line. Just failed to
coordinate properly, as no one expected ZetaTalk to begin picking
this apart!
Just why DID NASA consign exclusive rights of something the
public has PAID for to a Principle Investigator that has hidden
them for a year! Did he pay for this? He got this for FREE. Is
there any logic in hiding data from scientists? NONE! Why should
a PI be allowed first crack at data that others are excluded
from, when this data was not DEVELOPED AT HIS EXPENSE? This is
the rationale for data being withheld during research, that the
institutes backing the scientists spent their own money to secure
the data! Did Hal Weaver or his institution, Harvard, spend a
penny to put the Hubble up in the sky?
(End ZetaTalk[TM])
This multiple story line is documented in Troubled Times at