Re: Planet X: Neat NEAT Trick

Nancy Lieder wrote in Message <[email protected]>
> In Article <[email protected]> David Tholen
> wrote:
> > slackerattheinboxdotorg <[email protected]> writes:
> >> Are you on vacation?
> >
> > Didn't curiosity kill the cat?
>
> Or so he hopes.  Dave doesn't answer, much less like, questions which
> point to his activities.
>
> In Article <[email protected]> Nancy Lieder wrote:
> > Steve Havas  ([email protected]) wrote:
> >>> A second set of infrared images of Planet X was taken
> >>> on Jan 19, 2002. The Haute-Provence Observatory .. 
> >> I see Dave Tholen has not made any comments yet...
> >> Does this image speak for itself?
> >
> > Dave is waiting for instructions from his handlers.
>
> And he apparently GOT them! I received a note from Steve Havas regarding
> a new NEAT image recently taken and trumped by Tholen debunking the Jan
> 19th imaging of Planet X, claiming that it also shows up a year earlier.
>
>     Nancy, when I was finally able to bring up the .fits file
>     of the NEAT image (2001-01-17) I was able to confirm
>     that they do show an existing object exactly where the
>     object is in the Jan 19/2002 image. The other object that
>     was shown on the Jan 19,2002 image (below and left
>     when inverted and rotated) is not present.
>         Steve Havas
>
> Steve reports that looking at Palomar images he does NOT find this.
>
>     It's funny because on all the Palomar/Digital Sky Survey
>     images I looked at I was not able to see any object in that
>     location even though the faint object that is directly above
>     (as on Jan 5,2002 image) is visible. In fact, on the NEAT
>     image, the faint object previously mention is DIMMER
>     than the apparently pre-existing object below. So, I don't
>     understand how on the Palomar images the faint object
>     above appears, nothing below and on the NEAT image
>     the nothing below (new object on Jan 19,2002 image)
>     is as bright or brighter than the object directly above.
>        Steve Havas
>
> And finally, ends up wondering if the NEAT image was doctored.
>
>     It seems to me that it would not be too difficult for the
>     NEAT images to be altered to match the new object in
>     the Jan 19 image and in fact would be a good way to
>     continuously discredit all new images.
>         Steve Havas
>
> Yes INDEED, and David Tholen who works in association with the NEAT
> program (located in Hawaii) has a track record for posting these images
> for the powers that be.  Now we know what he did on "vacation".  Back in
> the Hale-Bopp days, I noted an uneven stretch in some Hale-Bopp images
> he provided.
>     http://www.zetatalk.com/halebopp/hb000066.htm
> and I quote from this page, which has the images displayed (they have
> since disappeared from the URL mentioned)
>
>     Below are three series of images from the Institute for
>     Astronomy in Hawaii, by D. Tholen and R Wainscoat, IfA
>     from their web sites at http://galileo.ifa.hawaii.edu/images/
>     hale-bopp/tholen-sep1/hb_ufo_tholen.html of what is
>     purported to be Hale-Bopp on September 1, 1995.
>     Separate images for red, green, and blue spectrums are
>     taken to create the final image, which is an overlay of the
>     three.
>
>     The three rows below are purported to be of the same
>     swath of sky, but from the bottom row up the rows have
>     been subjected to what is called a stretch, enhancing the
>     brightness of dim stars below a certain threshold. During
>     a stretch, any enhanced light will stop being enhanced as
>     soon as it reaches the threshold. However, a careful
>     examination of the results of the stretch in the center of
>     the image, where Hale-Bopp is purported to be, and all
>     the peripheral stars, appears to show that the stretch was
>     not even applied. The center portion where Hale-Bopp is
>     purported to be brightens at a faster rate, and does not stop
>     being enhanced when the peripheral stars stop being
>     enhanced.
>
> NEAT is a NASA/JPL Program, works in conjunction with these bodies.
> Would NASA lie?  Could we see the images from the Hubble, right off the
> reel and not held back and issues only once a year or so, like a
> Christmas present to the taxpayer who PAYS for all of this? What is
> there to hide?  Except, of course, the truth.

When I was trying to bring up the NEAT images from Dec. 16/2001 that IMO had
on his site (which show the spot in question to be even larger and brighter
than the Jan 17/2001 image), all three pictures come up with only a small
part viewable in the shape of a cross and says there are serious astrometry
errors with the image. When I go to see the actual .fits file most of the
data appears to be missing. Definitely someone has been in there I think for
it to look like that and it has to have been recent otherwise IMO would not
have been able to post those image on his website...

Also, when I went to look back at the images which I was looking at last
night from SkyView, they now CLEARLY show an object where the Jan 17/2002
object is! I looked at this exact same image very carefully last night at
least a dozen times and there was NOTHING there at that spot! Dave's group
must be working very fast. tsk, tsk...