Re: Jan 25th Havas Images

Thomas McDonald wrote in message <zkoZ9.654$kJ6.10789@reggie.win.bright.net>
> Steve Havas wrote:
> > Sarah Mc wrote in message <3c09ad3.0301270947.130c8de8@posting.google.com>
>
> <snip>
>
> >> Just because there's something on a better image, doesn't mean it
> >> shows up on your image as well Havas. Your planet X "white" is a hit
> >> pixel. Look at the animations. Your planet x "red" is an image
> >> artifact. It's not moving "to the right", it's stationary in the image
> >> field, as the stars track off to the left. You don't even understand
> >> the most simplistic of problems with imaging, do you Havas?
> >>
> >
> > The Jan 25 images had very little tracking movement as far as I can tell
> > so I don't think there was any problems with the imaging.
> >
>
> Havas,
>
> Re-read Sarah's words.  She said nothing about any tracking
> movement; in fact, quite the reverse.  See if you can figure
> it out, and what it means for your "red" and "white"
> personas on those images.
>
> If necessary, I could spell it out for you; but I'm even
> more of a neophyte in image processing than you are.  I'm a
> bit surprised you made this gaffe.
>

Sara: "Your planet x "red" is an image artifact. It's not moving "to the
right", it's stationary in the image field, as the stars track off to the
left. You don't even understand the most simplistic of problems with imaging,
do you Havas?"

Sara is clearly saying the object is not moving but is staying in the same
spot as the tracking of the stars (due to telescope movement not tracking
perfectly with the rotation of the Earth) moves to the left and gives the
appearance that the image artifact is moving.

>
> <snip>
>