Re: Planet X: Nov 15 IMAGES! (Moving!)

David Tholen wrote in message <DEfF9.44679$%[email protected]>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> ZetaTalk writes:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Once again, Planet X in the White Persona moved in accordance with the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Zeta Coordinates, spot ON.
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>> David Tholen wrote: 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm still waiting for you or anyone to produce some astrometry, Nancy.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm also still waiting for a logical explanation for a "White Persona".
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> ZetaTalk writes:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> And once again, Planet X in the Red Persona also moved from its position
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> as taken from the clear skies of Arizona on Nov 11 along the path of the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Zeta Coordinates.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> David Tholen wrote: 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm still waiting for you or anyone to produce some astrometry, Nancy.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm also still waiting for a logical explanation for a "Red Persona".
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>> Steve Havas wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> So Dave, do you not agree that there is a new object at the "red persona"
> >>>>>>>>>>>> location captured on the Nov 15 images not found on the DSS or NEAT
> >>>>>>>>>>>> images?
>
> >>>>>>>>>> David Tholen wrote: 
> >>>>>>>>>>> I don't even know what "red persona" means, Havas.  The concept isn't
> >>>>>>>>>>> physically plausible.  I do know that Nancy's object doesn't appear
> >>>>>>>>>>> in any of those images.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Steve Havas wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I can't really see anyone arguing that spot being a pixel defect, cosmic
> >>>>>>>>>>>> ray or noise as it shows up just slightly less bright than the pre-existing
> >>>>>>>>>>>> object just to the left of it and also shows up noticeably well on several
> >>>>>>>>>>>> of the individual frames.
>
> >>>>>>>>>> David Tholen wrote: 
> >>>>>>>>>>> Then you should be able to produce both astrometry and crude photometry
> >>>>>>>>>>> and report those results right here.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Steve Havas wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> If these Nov 15 images showed the fainter stars as well as the DSS or NEAT
> >>>>>>>>>>>> do then I think that red persona spot would show up extremely well.
>
> >>>>>>>>>> David Tholen wrote: 
> >>>>>>>>>>> I don't even know what "red persona" means, Havas.  The concept isn't
> >>>>>>>>>>> physically plausible.  I do know that Nancy's object doesn't appear
> >>>>>>>>>>> in any of those images.
>
> >>>>>>>>> Steve Havas wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> We can call it something else besides "red persona" if you want.
>
> >>>>>>>> David Tholen wrote: 
> >>>>>>>>> I'm not interested in calling it anything; I'm interested in a
> >>>>>>>>> physically plausible explanation.
>
> >>>>>> David Tholen wrote: 
> >>>>>>> Note:  no physically plausible explanation provided.
>
> >>>> David Tholen wrote: 
> >>>>> Note:  still no physically plausible explanation provided.
>
> >>>>>>>>> Steve Havas wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> I was only using it as a convenient reference for the location so you
> >>>>>>>>>> would quickly know what spot I was talking about.
>
> >>>>>>>> David Tholen wrote: 
> >>>>>>>>> Why not simply provide the right ascension and declination (specify the
> >>>>>>>>> reference frame), the magnitude (specify the bandpass), and a time tag
> >>>>>>>>> (specify the reference frame) for every image?
>
> >>>>>> David Tholen wrote: 
> >>>>>>> Note:  no coordinates provided.
>
> >>>>>>>>> Steve Havas wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> My only question is if you see a new object at "that" location based
> >>>>>>>>>> on what you can see from the images and for simplicity I in no way
> >>>>>>>>>> object to you assuming it is not Planet X or any such thing.
>
> >>>>>>>> David Tholen wrote: 
> >>>>>>>>> You have yet to specify "that" location.  Give me the coordinates and
> >>>>>>>>> a time tag.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Steve Havas wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Also, these new images used 1 x binning totalling 8 x 2 min exposures so
> >>>>>>>>>>>> were not as light sensitive or numerous as the 3 x binning images I took
> >>>>>>>>>>>> but have much higher resolution with very clean resulting images.
>
> >>>>>>>>>> David Tholen wrote: 
> >>>>>>>>>>> Then you should be able to produce both astrometry and crude photometry
> >>>>>>>>>>> and report those results right here.
>
> >>>>>>>>> Steve Havas wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> The raw .fits file are publicly available so with your expertise I
> >>>>>>>>>> imagine you should be able to comment if you see a new object at
> >>>>>>>>>> "that" location not present on DSS or NEAT images - whatever it
> >>>>>>>>>> might or might not be.
>
> >>>>>>>> David Tholen wrote: 
> >>>>>>>>> You have yet to specify "that" location.  Give me the coordinates and
> >>>>>>>>> a time tag.
>
> >>>>>>> Steve Havas wrote:
> >>>>>>>> I do not believe it's necessary for me to provide coordinates for "that"
> >>>>>>>> location because we both know what spot I'm talking about and so does
> >>>>>>>> everyone else here as it has been circled and marked on the Nov 15 images.
>
> >>>>>> David Tholen wrote: 
> >>>>>>> Don't speak for me, Havas.  I do not know what spot you're talking
> >>>>>>> about.  What is so difficult about simply providing the coordinates,
> >>>>>>> magnitude, and time tag?
>
> >>>> David Tholen wrote: 
> >>>>> Note:  no magnitude provided.
>
> >>>>>>> Steve Havas wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Besides, my coordinates would probably be out by some degree
>
> >>>>>> David Tholen wrote: 
> >>>>>>> Why would that be the case?  Are you saying that the circle might not
> >>>>>>> have been accurately placed on the image?  What technique did you use
> >>>>>>> to determine where to draw the circle?
>
> >>>> David Tholen wrote: 
> >>>>> Note:  no response.
>
> >>>>>>> Steve Havas wrote:
> >>>>>>>> and I would only end up adding confusion to what "spot" we are talking
> >>>>>>>> about.
>
> >>>>>> David Tholen wrote: 
> >>>>>>> There's already confusion.
>
> >>>>>>> Steve Havas wrote:
> >>>>>>>> So, if I may ask, what is your professional opinion of what you see
> >>>>>>>> there if anything at all?
>
> >>>>>> David Tholen wrote: 
> >>>>>>> You have yet to specify "there".  Give me the coordinates and a time tag.
>
> >>>>> Steve Havas wrote:
> >>>>>> The coordinates to as close as I can ascertain from looking at the NEAT
> >>>>>> image of that area are  Ra:
> >>>>>> 4 23 24.2  Dec: 12 08 39
>
> >>>> David Tholen wrote: 
> >>>>> That's a single position, but there are two time tags below.  Which time
> >>>>> does that position correspond to?  Surely there must have been some motion
> >>>>> in an hour.  And what reference frame is that position in?  And why do you
> >>>>> say "as close as I can ascertain", when there are astrometric reference
> >>>>> stars in the image?  And why are you looking at the NEAT image of that
> >>>>> area?
>
> >>> Steve Havas wrote:
> >>>> I'm only talking about a single position, for all the 8 images and and more
> >>>> importantly what is your opinion of what is showing up on any sum image you
> >>>> care to process.
>
> >>>>> Steve Havas wrote:
> >>>>>> Here is some basic time related information from the headers of the first
> >>>>>> and last images taken on Nov. 16.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> OBJECT  = 'n18-1-R '
> >>>>>> DATE-OBS= '2002-11-16T05:59:31' / YYYY-MM-DD observation start date, UTTIME-OBS='05:59:31'
> >>>>>> / HH:MM:SS observation start time, UT
> >>>>>> EXPTIME =   1.20000007629E+002 / Exposure time in seconds
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> OBJECT  = 'n18-8-R '
> >>>>>> DATE-OBS= '2002-11-16T06:53:38' / YYYY-MM-DD observation start date, UTTIME-OBS='06:53:38'
> >>>>>> / HH:MM:SS observation start time, UT
> >>>>>> EXPTIME =   1.20000007629E+002 / Exposure time in seconds
>
> >>>> David Tholen wrote: 
> >>>>> Above you referred to the "Nov 15 images", yet these have Nov 16 dates.
>
> >>> Steve Havas wrote:
> >>>> I meant Nov 16.
>
> >> Steve Havas wrote:
> >>> I thought the .fits files of the Nov 16 images were on ZT but just realized
> >>> they're not
>
> > David Tholen wrote: 
> >> Does that mean you're talking about images that nobody else has had the
> >> chance to see, Havas?
>
> Steve Havas wrote:
> > The .fits files of the Nov 16 images should soon be on ZT. There are currently
> > only gif pictures available on ZT of those Nov 16 images.
>
> So which image were you asking me to evaluate, Havas, Nov 15 or Nov 16?
>
> >> Steve Havas wrote:
> >>> so I guess there's not too much you can look at yet!
>
> > David Tholen wrote: 
> >> Why would there be less to look at on Nov 16 than on Nov 15, Havas?
>
> Steve Havas wrote:
> > I'm saying that you would not have been able to view the 8 .fits files of
> > the Nov 16 image as they are not on ZT yet.
>
> So which image were you asking me to evaluate, Havas, Nov 15 or Nov 16?

The images that say Nov 16 in the header.

>
> >> Steve Havas wrote:
> >>> If they don't come up I can email you them if you want.
>
> > David Tholen wrote: 
> >> You're responding to yourself, Havas.  Why would you need to email
> >> yourself any images?
>