"Whether the lack of observations from the amateurs is because the information about mid-2002 visibility was incorrect, Planet X does not exist or is not at the coordinates given, or any other reason beyond my imagination, I will not speculate."

Jan Rypdal

TT Watch

From: "Jim Walters" <jimbwalters@a...>
Date: Sun Apr 13, 2003 5:06 pm
Subject: Naji's 'Grid of Images', 12-Apr-03

The following ZT link shows a series of images taken by Naji on the  evening of 12-Apr. Are we seeing some sort of camera (or other) artifact here -- Every pic seems to have some sort of amorphous 'blob' occupying the greater portion of the center of the
frame.

http://www.zetatalk.com/teams/rogue/naji36.htm

Also, I'm curious what the mathematical basis for the statement 'The angle of the Red Persona is where I expected it to be and it does make sense.' is.

Thanks,
Jim

------o------

From: Michael L Cunningham <bogeystar@e...>
Date: Sun Apr 13, 2003 5:52 pm
Subject: Re: [tt-watch] Naji's 'Grid of Images', 12-Apr-03

There is no mathematical basis for anything pertaining to red or white personas.

The images taken by Naji shows artifacts due to not applying calibration frames to each image. Naji has failed to apply flats, darks, and bias frames to reduce and remove noise from his images. Those blobs in the center of each image of his grid are noise and nothing more.

None of the "imaging team" in my opinion has the necessary experience to process FITS images much less present them in a manner of scientific value.


Michael

------o------

From: "mlistman" <mlistman@i...>
Date: Mon Apr 14, 2003 12:25 am
Subject: MC's pics and qualified processing

Your opinion here may very well be true, but for a lack of anyone with experience or presentation skills, they are all the group has.

However, it seems that we have had someone with such skill and experience here all along...

You have stated many times that you would be more than happy to provide the group with pictures from your scope, when Nancy claims it should be visable with your class of equipment. With claims that it should be visable with the naked eye or at least binoculars, shouldn't that point have been past (assuming that your scope is at least as good as a pair of binoculars)? How much longer will you keep everyone waiting?

------o------

From: Michael L Cunningham <bogeystar@e...>
Date: Mon Apr 14, 2003 3:08 am
Subject: Re: [tt-watch] MC's pics and qualified processing

Being "they're all the group has" is an understatement. Due to their inability to process images properly or acceptably, they're misleading those of you who believe in their processing. Since Dell turns the contrast all the way up on these FITS images, turn you contrast all the way up on your TV's and tell me what you see.

There's a number of news groups that deal with image displays and processing images (alt.binaries.pictures.astro & sci.astro.ccd-imaging) where any of you can read the messages and learn how to properly process images plus a number of Yahoo groups also deal in image processing. As of to date, neither Havas or Dell have visited them or even tried to learn how to do basic processing.

>However, it seems that we have had someone with such skill and experience here all along... You have stated many times that you would be more than happy to provide the group with pictures from your scope, when Nancy claims it should be visable with your class of equipment. With claims that it should be visable with the naked eye or at least binoculars, shouldn't that point have been past (assuming that your scope is at least as good as a pair of binoculars)? How much longer will you keep everyone waiting?<

You'll be waiting forever since Dell and Nancy love to hijack images and use them for their own agendas, i.e. readjusting the contrast and circling noise as claimed objects. Sorry but I won't subject my images or myself to that type of abuse. You can thank Dell and Nancy for the lack of support from the amateur community for that very reason.

Naji's images are just fine to try and locate a 5th to 6th magnitude object in them since the claimed visual sightings are at the limit of eye visibility. Problem with Naji's images are they don't show anything as bright and the stars that are shown are around 9th magnitude and marked on the charts. Any scope is better than a pair of binoculars and any binoculars are better than the naked eye. We're at the point now, if it isn't visible in a pair of binoculars, it isn't there as claimed by Nancy.

Now if someone on this forum wishes to learn to process images properly and refute Dell's and Havas work, I'd be pleased to advise that individual.

Michael

------o------

From: "Jan" <anybody@a...>
Date: Mon Apr 14, 2003 6:31 pm
Subject: Re: [tt-watch] MC's pics and qualified processing


Whether Michael L Cunningham will ever provide any images remains to be seen. I would not bet my ranch on it though.

Michael's agenda of "debunking" Planet X has been all too evident since he joined TT Watch. His postings on sci.astro are much more outspoken and
generally rather negative, as his postings there are not moderated.
 

His postings on TT Watch have in general been allowed because he has provided necessary and important information about image processing and astronomy in general. (Sometimes, when he has made more general comments in other areas, he has also clearly shown the limits of his knowledge.)

Contrary to other "debunkers" that have found their postings never made it to the list, he seems however to have understood and accepted the premises of his participation, and adjusted his style accordingly. Furthermore, his postings on TT Watch are sometimes also being edited to remove negative and/or personal comments, making a more factual and neutral appearance than maybe he himself has intended.
[Suprise, suprise and after all that crap about stealth moderation not being possible.]
Whether his style change & factual approach is more than skin deep remains to be seen if & when better images of Planet X surfaces.

Regards,
Jan

------o------

From: "Jan" <anybody@a...>
Date: Mon Apr 14, 2003 6:39 pm
Subject: Re: [tt-watch] Naji's 'Grid of Images', 12-Apr-03

J.William Dell wrote:
3) There are a number of individuals who post here, who indicate they have telescope and imaging equipment. am waiting for them to provide their fits files imaging of coordinate location/on dates for our public view. They have not.<

I live at 60' N latitude, in an area where it's freezing cold during winter, light all day & night during summer, and normally rains and/or is overcast during spring and autumn. The viewing & imaging conditions are not quite as optimal as in the Arizona desert or the African highlands. :-)

I do have a 10" Meade LX200GPS scope and a CCD camera, both acquired last May. Before I got my scope, I hardly knew the Big Dipper or what a CCD
camera was. I have now participated in a number of imaging workshops, I'm a member of 3 astro clubs, and frequently go to the meetings (whenever I'm in town, that is). I have participated in some local star parties, and have started to know the local astro community pretty well.

There are a number of reasons I have not yet provided any images. In no particular order, this is in part because:

* Mastering astro photography (using film or CCDs) is not done overnight, but requires skills and expertise which takes time to build. The best way to discredit oneself is to provide improperly processed images, jump to unfounded conclusions etc., which I don't want to do.

* During this winter, I was on the road for extensive time periods.
 

* The current coordinates for Planet X are not good from my location, low in
the sky and obstructed by trees on my own & the neighbor's properties. I also have a custom made, permanent mount for the scope, which has now proven worthless, as the Planet X coordinates are obstructed by my house.
 

* Imaging is much more complex than viewing. Not only the CCD & PC equipment and preparations (bias, flats and darks), but the scope setup must be more or less perfect in an equatorial mount instead of the normal AltAz mount.

However, the most important reason is that I have tried to observe Planet X
and found nothing so far. First time I tried, at a local star party, the area was too low in the sky when it finally cleared up, and therefore too much atmospheric disturbances. I have recently tried twice at a better location at home, without seeing anything yet. I was planning to try again tonight, as the skies have been clear during the day, but the clouds are now rolling in again :-(

Besides MLC and myself, I do not know any others on the list that have stated that they have the required equipment and/or skills. On sci.astro, most of the "debunking team" also seem to lack the necessary imaging skills, even though many (but not all) of them are experienced amateur astronomers. Some images are finally surfacing though. So far, there's only one poster, using infrared equipment. However, his images do not show any Planet X.

What bothers me more is that so far, no amateur astronomers have reported
any observation and/or imaged Planet X. The sci.astro crowd seem to have some perverted interest in "debunking" Nancy, ZetaTalk and Planet X, and may be disregarded as biased. However, as I believe Michael has pointed out a few times already, there are people out there that would give an arm and a leg to be the first to image a 10th planet, regardless of any pole shift or any other potential influence on Earth.

Whether the lack of observations from the amateurs is because the information about mid-2002 visibility was incorrect, Planet X does not exist or is not at the coordinates given, or any other reason beyond my imagination, I will not speculate. However, as there are now only 4-6 weeks left to the given timing of May 15 - June 1, we will know soon enough.

Regards,
Jan

------o------

 

Next