Re: Planet X: Alternative Explanation 2

Bill Nelson wrote:
>> even when there are sightings of Planet X at the
>> exact coordinates given by the Zetas.
>
> There have been three, if I recall correctly, claims of
> sightings. There have not been any verified sightings -
> even though many of us have made many attempts to
> do so - including using "observatory grade" scopes.

There have been no verified NON sightings either.  Orion has been "in
the sun" for the past several months, so when and by whom did these
occur?  There certainly has been no documentation even to the level of
that recorded at the Troubled Times Rogue Planet TEAM
(http://www.zetatalk.com/teams/tteam342.htm).  Were these "observatory
grade" scopes capable of magnifying to the degree that those $200,000
scopes can?

Why do you suppose that observatories get their budgets funded if any
old home scope was as good?  Is there no different between a home scope
and those hugely expensive observatory scopes?  None?

OBSERVATORY SCOPES COST WHAT THEY DO BECAUSE THEY DO THINGS YOUR HOME
SCOPE CANNOT! They filter out or limit light pollution, they magnify,
and I'm not sure what else but I'll bet there are dozens of things they
do that your few hundred or thousand dollar scopes DO NOT DO.
It has been made abundantly clear during these discussions that an
observatory scope must be used, until mid-2002.

So, Bill, what observatory was used?  Time and place and documentation
please?

Please step up to The Small Kahuna's challenge and give us the details
and POST YOUR IMAGE!  This way others, who may doubt the sincerity of
the debunkers, and are or plan to go to an observatory and look
themselves, can make a proper comparison.  No doctoring.  Use the rules
as laid down by The Small Kahuna.

In Article <[email protected]> Kahuna wrote:
> The bottom line is that I do not trust anyone who says "I have
> looked myself and there is nothing there".  I trust them when
> they say "Look, here is the image.  Notice for *yourself* that
> there is nothing there. Notice that there continues to be
> nothing there for repeated postings of the same viewpoint
> taken at different times.  Notice that differential processing of
> successive temporal images do not suggest a moving object."

In Article <[email protected]> Kahuna wrote:
> Would you care to stop whining about the damn magnitude
> and take me up on my "image challenge"?  Post images at the
> coordinates each week along with differential images week to
> week.  Actual images.  No friggin red filter, preferably B/W
> and it might help if as a courtesy you posted it contrast inverted.
> Raw images, not GIFs, JPEGs or other images with compression
> artifacts.