Re: Planet X: NOT a Star

In Article <eboaptgqmql2blk289o46hntj4o4nr9g5d@4ax.com> Officer Bob wrote:
>>>> Are these photo's available ?
>>>
>>> Why waste the time. There isn't anything there.
>>
>> You saying "there is not anything there", but
>> hiding the pictures... this is not satisfactory.
>
> No one is hiding anything...
> The HST is a  exception, the data is under an
> embargo for a set period of time, before it is
> released to the public.

Why?  The taxpayer PAYS for it.  Why is the public denied what those who
RENT an observatory, and have, per your explanation, exclusive rights to
the data, have?  Did they not PAY for it!  What is the secret?  WHAT IS
THE SECRET!

> To take a set of pictures for Nancy's FauX planet
> would take time. She hasn't given a set of
> recognizable co-ordinates to use for
> photographing. If someone did, She would
> change the co-ordinate system on them,
> (Nancy has already done this with the
> magnitude system)

The coordinates do not and have not changed.  They've been out there
since 1997.  The folks who went looking this past Spring did not have a
problem with the coordinates.  Are you saying the Hubble folks, NASA et
al, are incompetent and can’t do what these folks did?
http://www.zetatalk.com/teams/tteam342.htm

>> Give us these pictures.
>
> Take them yourself or put a project out to bid.
> I am sure someone would be willing to appease
> your ignorance for enough dollars. The object
> as described by Nancy is 100% IMPOSIBLE.

But the IRAS team went looking in 1983 for this impossible object, and
found it quick enough!

>> And give us all hubble pictures as-they-are-made,
>> also.
>
> No!

They're a secret Josh.  There's something there they don't want you to
see.  Lot of things, actually, and who are YOU or the general public,
the taxpayer, to demand to know!

In Article <9n4olu$c7r$2@news1.xs4all.nl> Josh wrote:
> This planet was NOT discovered until 1983, so
> you go figure what is meant by "need an
> observatory". They even needed a special
> infra-red satalite to detect it.
>
> That is all you got on Nancy isn't it:
> little word-twisters, and nothing more.
> Don't think these arguments can count on
> a whole lot of sympathy from reasonable
> ppl, actually, they may work contrary your
> goal and proof what "debunking" is all
> about, right here in full view on sci.astro,
> for the whole world to see the truth.

And Officer Bob and Tholen give us a pretty good example of what a
government coverup is all about.  "Because we said so."  "No, you can't
see the pictures."  "We'll give you what we want, when we want - you're
in the dark, with incomplete info, and WE have the cards."