Re: Planet X: Changing the PAST?

David Tholen wrote in message <[email protected]>
> Steve Havas writes:
>
> >>> However, I believe the differences of these images and the areas in
> >>> discussion are great enough and inconsistent enough that it is due to a
> >>> process entirely more mischievous and purposefully misleading.
>
> >> What you believe is irrelevant, Havas.
>
> > So what's up with these inconsistencies in the NEAT images then?
>
> You're erroneously presupposing the existence of inconsistencies,
> Havas.

So then why does the NEAT image spot (Jan 19 spot location) show up as
larger and more predominant than the faint star above while on the DSS
images the Jan 19 spot location does not show up while the faint star above
can be seen? I'm obviously not a professional image analyser but that's what
I'm seeing...

> >>> If this planet is real it only makes sense for them to doctor
> >>> images to try keep the general public in the grey area for as long as
> >>> possible.
>
> >> Illogical, Havas.  NEAT is purposely designed to look for threatening
> >> objects.  Other threatening objects have made the news.
>
> > The objects couldn't have been that threatening since we're all still
> > here.
>
> Illogical, Havas; the goal is not to identify terminal impacts, but
> rather far in advance.
>
> > If the establishment has decided it's too much of a big deal to warn
> > the public why would a program like NEAT bother looking?
>
> Because we need decades of advance warning to do something about it,
> Havas.

Which has just flown right by hasn't it?

> > That would be contraindicated big time!
>
> Illogical, Havas.
>