Re: Planet-X, Why "Look Around"

Bill Nelson ([email protected]) wrote:
> And then she claims that it was found in the 
> CCD image that was posted, even though the 
> person who took the image stated that there 
> is nothing there that was not there in the 
> Palomar image made years ago.

This issue keeps getting discussed as thought the NEW blob in the
recent, 20 minute CCD is already ON the older Palomar 45 minutes CCD,
which it is not.  In addition, the existing dot Open Minded is referring
to is ALSO on the new CCD, in ADDITION to the new blob.

In Article <[email protected]>  Nancy wrote:
> In Article <[email protected]> Open Minded wrote:
>> See my updated web page:
>
> The Zetas object is NOT in your Palomar images.  In the image 
> called "Nancy's" there are TWO dots, one LARGER than 
> the Palomar (and how could that be, in that all other dim 
> objects are SMALLER in the 20 minute CCD than the 45 
> minute Palomar CCD), and one just above the Zeta object 
> but smaller. Look closely.

PSS =>   <= Nancy's Dot

Please note that:
1. all dim object are SMALLER on the recent 20 minute CCD 
2. except for the NEW object, which is LARGER
3. the new 20 minute CCD also has the dim star in the 45 minute Palomar
4. so the NEW blob is ....

=> NEW <=

If it were equivalent to the little dot being refered to as "existing",
then why are their TWO dots there? And if one wants to use the logic
that the new blob is one and the same as the "existing" dot in the 45
minute Palomar, then why is the NEW dot LARGER on the CCD with less
exposure time, when all other dim spots are SMALLER.  There are two
arguments here, for the blob being NEW.

PSS =>   <= Nancy's Dots

Hello! 

Palomar 45 Minute CCD
. <=dot

Recent 20 Minute CCD
. <= dot
* <= new blob

This is not NEW?