Re: Planet X: FITS files (FYI Tholen)

David Tholen wrote in message <ZvfG9.62689$%k2.18636284@twister.socal.rr.com>
> Steve Havas writes:
>
> >>>>>>>>> The fits files of the Nov 16 images are now up
>
> >>>>>>>> When will the astrometry and photometry be up, Havas?  The claim has
> >>>>>>>> been made that the position is "spot on".  Such a statement cannot
> >>>>>>>> be made without a comparison of the predicted position to the
> >>>>>>>> measured position.  Who measured the position and what is the
> >>>>>>>> measurement?
>
> >>>>>>>>> Dave, Nancy refers to them as the Nov 15 images (night of Nov 15,
> >>>>>>>>> morning of Nov 16) but they are one and the same and the header
> >>>>>>>>> reads Nov 16.
>
> >>>>>>>> Are they the same ones you were referring to previously, Havas?
>
> >>>>>>> Yes, they are. My original question is still if you see a new object
> >>>>>>> at this location: Ra: 4 23 24.2  Dec: 12 08 39 or the area within
> >>>>>>> the circle marked "red" on this page:
>
> >>>>>> I certainly don't see Nancy's object.  Now, care to explain why there
> >>>>>> is a circle labeled "white", and how you distinguish "objects" from
> >>>>>> artifacts, of which there are plenty?
>
> >>>>> That's fine. But do you see a new object at that location?
>
> >>>> I see that you didn't answer the questions, Havas.  No surprise there,
> >>>> really.
>
> >>> IMO thinks that location could be a star.
>
> >> What IMO thinks is irrelevant, Havas.  However, there are such things
> >> as variable stars, and if they can exist close to the Earth where they
> >> are brighter, they can certainly exist farther from the Earth where
> >> they are fainter, indeed faint enough to be near the detection
> >> threshold for the equipment in question.  So there can be objects all
> >> over the sky that appear in one image, but not in another.  That's
> >> why you cannot simply take a single image and compare it against
> >> another from some archive and conclude that any differences are due
> >> to moving objects.  Rather, you have to take multiple images and see
> >> the object move from frames to frame.  The sky surveys take more than
> >> two images because of the chance alignment of cosmic ray hits that can
> >> mimick a moving object.
>
> > So is that what you think it could be - a variable star?
>
> What is "it", Havas?  I wasn't referring to any object.  I simply noted
> the sort of things you could find in any image.
>

You've indirectly suggested it could be a variable star but that it takes 
multiple images to see how the object moves from frame to frame and to 
eliminate cosmic rays. The Nov 16 images consists of 8 x 120sec exposures with 
something showing up in the same location on multiple frames at that location
so does that qualify as something new?

> > I had to look it up but I think I understand what it means now...
>
> It's not a difficult concept, Havas.
>
> > "We've all heard the terms nova, supernova and black holes. These are
> > terms used by astronomer to describe some of the more exotic effects of
> > variability. Variable stars are by definition objects that display
> > variations in brightness, which can be brought about by a number of
> > factors."
>
> Whose quotation is that, Havas?
>

> >> In other words, you've not done anything to promote the notion of a
> >> Planet X.  Indeed, the entire claim that Planet X is "spot on"
> >> requires a comparison between a predicted position and a measured
> >> position.  I've not seen a single measured position, yet I've seen
> >> plenty of claims that Planet X is "spot on".  I've not seen a single
> >> measured magnitude, yet I've seen plenty of claims that it's getting
> >> brighter.  In other words, those claims are baseless.
>

That's fine, I'm just asking about the one spot regardless of claims as to 
what it is or where it should be.

> Note:  no response.
>
> >>> The dark can be downloaded here:
>
> >> What about the bias and flat, Havas?
>

We may yet see some bias and flats. I just gained access to a set and 
calibrated a sum image with them for the Nov 16 images. Numerous small pixel 
spots were elimated on the image but the areas marked as red and white 
personas still showed up the same.

> > As far as I know they were not supplied or available.
>
> So much for proper image processing.
>

Steve Havas