Re: Planet X: Changing the PAST?

Bob Officer wrote in Article <[email protected]>: 
> On Thu, 04 Apr 2002 07:36:05 GMT, [email protected] in sci.astro wrote:
> 
>> Bob Officer writes:
>>
>>>>>>>> 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?
>>
>>>>>>>> Irrelevant, Havas, given that you were referring to
>>>>>>>> inconsistencies in the NEAT images.  One NEAT image and one DSS
>>>>>>>> image are not the same as NEAT images, Havas.
>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm obviously not a professional image analyser but that's
>>>>>>>>> what I'm seeing...
>>
>>>>>>>> Take a moment to think about what you're seeing, Havas.  Then
>>>>>>>> think about how the DSS was digitized from a photographic plate
>>>>>>>> taken through either a red or blue filter, while the NEAT image
>>>>>>>> is taken in essentially unfiltered light.  Then think about how
>>>>>>>> a red star just might show up more prominently in a photo taken
>>>>>>>> through a red filter than a blue star.  Or you can think about
>>>>>>>> how a blue star might show up more prominently in a photo taken
>>>>>>>> through a blue filter than a red star.  It's easy to make the
>>>>>>>> same piece of sky look different by simply using a different
>>>>>>>> filter, Havas.  No "doctoring" of the images is necessary. 
>>>>>>>> Have you ever noticed how the colors of some automobiles look
>>>>>>>> different at night when illuminated by street lights?  Did
>>>>>>>> somebody doctor the color of the car? 
>>
>>>>>>> Even more important is film used. Steve can do a little
>>>>>>> experiment. Take a Camera and use a variety of films and speeds.
>>>>>>> Try Fuji, and Kodak, ASA 64, 200, and 400. Shoot the same scene
>>>>>>> at the same time of day, light brightness, sun position... Try
>>>>>>> to eliminate all the variables except for the film.
>>>>>>> For Fun toss in a Digital CCD camera and shoot the same scene.
>>
>>>>>> Of course, astronomical CCD cameras don't really work in color
>>>>>> the way a camcorder does.  You need to take three black and white
>>>>>> images through red, green, and blue filters and then combine them
>>>>>> properly to produce color.
>>
>>>>> I have found that true. I have experimented with a home built CCD
>>>>> camera. :)
>>
>>>> With making color images?
>>
>>> No, Only B&W images.
>>> I have played with using red and blue filters.
>>
>> Add green and then you can start experimenting with color composites.
>> A related footnote:  the image of Hale-Bopp that was taken from our
>> web site, digitally altered to put a fake companion next to the comet,
>> was a color composite.  The relative brightnesses of the stars was one
>> clue we used to determine that it was my image of Hale-Bopp that was
>> used.
> 
> That was my next goal. I rebuilt the mount to create a more stable
> platform... Then built a new scope to go with the new mount.
> 
> 
>>>>>>> Then look at the finished pictures. Guess what the colors will
>>>>>>> tend to very all over the place. Some of the photos will have a
>>>>>>> bluer and some will have more red.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then look at the CCD Pic...  All these factors have to be
>>>>>>> considered when you compare photos taken in different surveys. 
>>>>>
>>>>>>> the goal of astronomers and technicians is to make all the
>>>>>>> images consistence during a survey. 
>>
>>>>>> I wonder how many plates were rejected simply because the seeing
>>>>>> didn't measure up to survey standards?
>>
>>>>> I wonder if those numbers are around someplace. I find most
>>>>> amateur astronomers are closed mouth about the ratio of successful
>>>>> images vs those that are judged "flawed" in some manner.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is it true with Pro?
>>
>>>> I don't know; doesn't get asked often enough.
>>
>>> I know when started doing film photos with my 16inch f6, I might
>>> take 10 photos and end up with one which good. I did get where one
>>> out of three was "passable". Most of my initial problems was in
>>> focus and tracking errors. After several years I Found My largest
>>> problems were all tracking errors and overflying airplanes.
>>
>> The number of geocentric satellites I have trailed across CCD images
>> is staggering.  But those don't get thrown out.
> 
> Well they get put in a different file. As long as you can obtain
> usable data, no real picture is "thrown out". It might not look as
> pretty, but you never know what else could be hiding...
> 
> [...]

I find it amusing that the critics and skeptics of Zetatalk who have 
repeatedly stated that they believe the Zetan's are no more than 
schizophrenic auditory hallucinations (which being in the field of 
psychology, I find to say is unlikely in Nancy's case), are even bothering 
to waste their time with Nancy.  Why even engage her or anything she has to 
say?  Why not just add her to a kill file in your newsreader - you'll never 
see her again... then you can get back to your more important matters?

Why all the elaborate discussion... afraid of something?  

Something to think about...

Regards, Sam