Re: Where's Planet X in the New Images?

ABC wrote in message <uovr7c890ir507@corp.supernews.com>
> FunkyMunky wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 23 Sep 2002 11:44:22 -0400, ABC <none@nospam.com> wrote:
> >
> >>Fin Fahey wrote:
> >>
> >>> PL wrote in message <2002923-4495-744421@foorum.com>
> >>>>
> >>>> > Can someone confirm this is there or not once and for all?
> >>>> >
> >>>> > http://www.zetatalk.com/teams/rogue/shavas1.htm
> >>>>
> >>>> Am I missing something?  It does not state where PX is in the pictures.
> >>>> There are numerous stars in the pictures.  If it's there then why not circle
> >>>> it? It's not the bright star!  It clearly states "The bright star in the images
> >>>> is SAO 93912."
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Nancy and Steve, who are total digital incompetents (possibly in both
> >>> senses of the word 'digital') are trying to get real astronomers to work
> >>> for them. Everyone, for obviously good reasons, is refusing. If anyone
> >>> puts their name, in any way, to one of Havas' shots, Nancy will run up a
> >>> blodgy version of the shot on the web with a big ring drawn in crayon
> >>> around some arbitrary coordinates and claim that some tiny artefact in
> >>> that is her planet.
> >>>
> >>
> >> What is the meaning of the above paragraph? I am not sure why Nancy just
> >> couldn't circle something herself (pick a random small artifact). Why does
> >> she need anyone's help to perform that task?
> >>
> >
> > Why?  Because if she can attribute the drawing of a circle to *anyone*
> > except herself (and her imaginary friends), she can gain credibility.
> > She has none herself, so any help is probably welcomed.
> > <<snip>>
>
> But why would any of the people that don't believe Zetatalk and think Nancy
> is not who she says she is circle some faint artifact and claim it to be
> her predicted planet X?
>
> You mean to say if I took a crayon and circled some artifact, posted it to
> a website somewhere and said "this looks like it could be it" then she
> would use that as "ammunition"? But I am not an astronomer. "I am not
> anything." How would that help her credibility?
>
> No one here seems to be the type that would circle an artifact and say
> "here it is" if it really isn't. Am I wrong?

I can hear it now... "The Knowledgeable people on sci.astro have checked
(my) coords and have said this is Px, see!  (caps mode ON) ALL OF MY OTHER, FANTASTIC
PREDICTIONS ARE TRUE!  TRUE I SAY! TRUE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And if it then proved to be erroneous "Dunno, the knowledgeable people on
sci.astro are 'supposed' to know their stuff, guess not, oh well.....

Hard to hold a greased snake....

But you know your agenda, so why are you asking us?

O'