Re: Planet X : NEW Coordinates to Feb 9, 2003

O'Brother wrote:

> Observer on the Fringe wrote in message <3E040052.41A34851@hotmail.com>
> >
> >
> > Michael L Cunningham wrote:
> >
> >> Observer on the Fringe picked his nose and scrawled:
> >>
> >>> Yep, yep, yep.. beautiful there, Bob!  Very nice, indeed.
> >>>
> >>> It is stuff like this, replies like Bob's, that continue to amaze me, in
> >>> that it shows, beyond a doubt, that most critics are not even bothering to
> >>> look at the evidence, let alone, give Nancy credit for her past.
> >>
> >> Nancy is given great credit here... for being a kook and cult leader.
> >>
> >> I have reviewed all the images supplied by Havas and have been
> >> processing them in every manner this whole week waiting for Havas and
> >> Dell to circle their suspected objects. Finally today they coughed up
> >> the data! Sadly, they've circled noise again.
> >>
> >> As per Steve's comments...
> >>
> >> "I took some 20 min 1x binning image (made possible by Naji's huge 10
> >> hour block of telescope time). Again, with the white/ red personas and
> >> trailing moons. The new objects are pretty obvious. So far it looks like
> >> these ones could really clinch it! The first image of the night is the
> >> Dec 13 1200sec exposure [right]. This image is not as definite as the
> >> Dec 14 images with the moons fainter and a couple very close to existing
> >> objects but I think that is about how it looks.
> >
> > Mr. Cunningham admits to being wrong at his first stab at Steve (and even I M
> > Openmind agrees, and has pointed to a real "stellar" object that has not been
> > identified), and now he further provides evidence of huge "blobs" (to use his
> > words), that now show up where they are supposedly not suppose to show up.
> >
> > Please explain the "blobs" of stellar objects, Mr Cunningham... if they are
> > pixel defects... why are they so large, and BLOB-like?
> >
> > If they are mere pixel defects... why are they so large, and unaccounted for on
> > star charts?... so large that you call them "blobs?"
> >
> > Lets look up the word "BLOB:, in the "American Heritage Dictionary", shall
> > we....
> >
> > blob (blob) n.
> > 1. A soft, amorphous mass.
> >
> > Thank you Mr. Cunningham,..... using your OWN WORDS.... we have now identified
> > unknown blobs of MASS!!!
> >
> > It's about time you admitted it.
> >
> > Observer on the Fringe
> >
> > p.s. Remember folks... It was Mr. Cunningham, who called them unidentified
> > structures of "mass".
> >
> Really grasping at straws aren't you.  Little semantics games?  Reread his
> post and this time, engage your brain instead of your mouth.
>
> Hey, had a chance to look at those 8 questions?  (actually it's 9 questions
> these days - you're getting off easy).  Once you've answered them all we can
> get down to work to turning the really big scopes on these objects, getting
> a solid ID and begin moving the populace (but since it's a HOAX its unlikely
> you'll answer the questions and unlikely anyone will ever see your fictional
> planet.)
>
> Remember, only human comprehensible terms describing visible and provable
> phenomenon actually constitute an answer.  Our B&H (Blather and Rant)
> filters are turned on so attempting redirection or scampering off to whine
> about how cruel life is will be considered "yes, I really don't know the
> answer to this one".
>
> Lay on McDuff!
>
> O'

Your questions have already been answered... please stop being annoying and
posting the same old dribble over and over.  And when you have the guts, please
explain Steves unidentifed blobs of mass?

Observer on the Fringe