Re: Planet X: Dec 4 Images!

Earl Colby Pottinger wrote:

> Observer on the Fringe <[email protected]> :
>
> >
> > Michael L Cunningham wrote:
> >
> >> I M Openmind wrote:
> >>
> >>> I think you mean:
> >>> USNO Star Mag:  15.1 (Blue)  13.8 (Red)
> >>> Field: 476
> >>> Magnitude: 14.29
> >>> RA: 04h 22m 49.85s  Dec: +12°07'44.16"
> >>> RA: 04h 22m 40.05s  Dec: +12°07'19.92"  (Epoch 2000)
> >>>
> >>> but this is the bright (relatively) star just above and to the right
> >>> of the frame 3 defect chosen by Lieder as the "white" persona.  Havas
> >>> is excited by his "red" persona which seems to be a star and which is
> >>> not apparent in my 11 disk copy of the USNO-a2.0
> >>
> >> You are correct as I was working with limited information. I never saw
> >> the image with the "red & white personas" circled until I got home
> > tonight.
> >>
> >> Irregardless, after re-examining the images (again) against this new
> >> information there is nothing there in either spot. They're chasing noise
> >> and defects (again).
> >>
> >> The "team" earns an F from the astronomers who they spam with their
> >> nonsense.
> >>
> >> Michael
> >
> > Now that we have determined that Michael Cunningham doesn't know what he is
> > talking about, and makes accusations without full knowledge, and then gives
> > the "messenger" an "F" for being the mere messenger of data.... what can we
> > conclude from Mr. Havas's image of the blatent red filtered "anomoly" in a
> > spot where it should "not" be according to past imaging?
> >
> > Take your time... we have about 4 months or so.
> >
> > ElTonyO
>
> That Steve and you are still lying ZetaDrones.  You can't claim one set of
> standards to M.C. unless you are also willing to apply them to S.H. also.
> Reasoning, simple, M.C. admits making a mistake and corrects himself.  Steve
> on the other hand claims to have seen Planet X directly himself last year but
> is now pointing to images that no human can see directly thru any telescope
> that exists on Earth.  You are supporting Steve without questioning his
> earlier claims which he has not corrected, making you also a supporter of the
> same lie.
>
> You can't claim one set of standards to M.C. unless you are also willing to
> apply them to S.H. also.
>
>                  Earl Colby Pottinger
>

Your claims are erroneous, sir.... you call Steve a "liar" with no back up of
proof.  Please provide evidence... (i.e. hardcare red-filtered star images that
show Steve's "X" image exists in prior scannings).  Please provide up-to-date
images of Steves claims, to prove otherwise.

It's easy to mock that what you can't prove, only when the minority show
different.  Be bold... and "prove" otherwise.  As an observer-on-the-fringe... I
see only only "mocking" in this forum... and only a few who dare to show
evidence.  If you have real data to show otherwise... please show it.
Otherwise.... who are you to mock others like Steve, who has real data?

TonyO



Thank you.