Re: Planet X: NOT a Star

tholen@AntiSpam.ham wrote:
<snip>

Here is the point you try to make:
"Nancy's claim is wrong because it contains fatal contradictions".

Here is your evidence:
1. There are no units defined for the coordinates.
2. There are no units defined for the magnitudes.
3. The source reported to be from Zeta says to set your equipment for
   11th magnitude, but you can't set equipment for magnitude.
4. It was sighted reportedly with a small scope, but why cannot everybody
   see it then.
5. It is reported to be a fuzzy object, but at it's distance and size it
   should be a pinpoint.
6. She wrote 'pixtel', this is not an english word.
7. It is reflecting 81 times less light than Pluto, and it is not reflecting
   sunlight at all.
8. ... more like this (I guess), I don't remember right now.

And an actual mistake by Nancy:
9. Nancy said the object was 2nd and 11th magnitude, when pressed she
   said it was "absolute" versus "aparent", shortly after this was changed
   to "whole spectrum" and "set equipment to" by those reported to be
   from Zeta.

If you say that the magnitude problem is a real problem and not explained
enough by the fact she is messaging, then that is just fine with me. You can
say something for that "look, it is congruent with if she is making this
up". I say, yes, "but it is also congruent with if she is helping explain the
messages she reports to receive". You may say "I don't care about that,
now she has lost".  Logically, both arguments fall way against each other 
though, but's that's just being too fair isn't it. And we *want* Nancy to 
lose won't we. Am I close to the money?

Josh