Re: Planet X: Dec 13 and 14 Images

Dave Paterson wrote: 

> Observer on the Fringe wrote:
> >
> > O'Brother wrote:
> >>
> >>  (1) How every star in the sky has only 1 image but yours has two?  Just go
> >>      out and look up, how may images of betelgeuse, sirius, polaris, etc. 
> >>      do you see?
> >
> > As someone already posted in here, quote: "Planet X is a brown dwarf that gives
> > off red light.  Some of the light in the spectrum is a very low intensity,
> > which isn't seen very often in nature.
>
> This isn't an answer - you're just repeating nonsense, and not very
> good nonsense at that.
>
> The electromagentic spectrum is very well understood, and astronomers
> have been making observations from radio wavelengths all the way up to
> gamma rays for decades.
>
> There are several ground based and orbiting infra-red telescopes which
> are regularly imaging objects much, much fainter than your supposed
> planet, but this weird effect has never been seen before.
>
> > This light because of its low intesity is subjected to bending by the 
> > atmosphere and gravity the same way the sun gets larger as it sets or is 
> > rising.
>
> Wrong, wrong, WRONG!!!!  This repeated claim is one of the most easily
> disproven of Nancy's kindergarten science.  The sun is actually
> compressed slightly in the vertical direction when near the horizon -
> the apparent increase in size is an optical illusion.
>
> You can easily make a simple measuring device from some bits of wood
> and a few nails, but like all of the "faithful" you'll refuse to
> actually do the experiment in case it does prove your messiah is
> wrong.
>
>
>
> [I'm not even going to start on the question of the amount
> gravitational bending the Earth would cause.]
>
> > However this is the same principle but not the
> > exact same circumstances, the sun doesn't have as low intesity red light,
> > niether does any other object out in space.  As far as the "red" and "white"
> > persona goes, these are just words for designation from what I gather.  The
> > "red" persona is the lowest intesity light which is subject to bending, and the
> > "white" persona is higher intesity red light which travels in higher waves and
> > isn't as subjected to bending.
>
> > She isn't literally saying thats its white
> > light, its just a word for designation"....  It hardly matters what I say, or
> > the zeta's say, since you will smugly rip apart anything Nancy say's, without
> > proving her wrong.
>
> >> (2) How your star, since it is HUGE, 11th Mag, 20th Mag, has a LONG Tail
> >>     (your words) and swirling moons, but is only being seen by only Zeta
> >>     Believers and no one else?
> >
> And people have looked there and seen nothing.  Steve's poorly
> processed images still show there's nothing there.
>
> >>  Care to try your hand at it?  I'll add you to my list of people I've asked
> >>  these questions to, perhaps there will be a BIG PRIZE for the ZetaLoyal that
> >>  can give PLAUSIBLE ANSWERS to all of these simple questions.  Remember,
> >>  simply saying "MommaZeta sez so" is not a valid answer.
> >>
> >> O'
> >> > Looking forward to your latest findings.
> >> >
> >> Looking forward to your clarifications and answers to these knotty
> >> questions, so we can proceed with image analysis and get the word out to the
> >> billions whose lives are at risk from the MALEVOLENT AND DEMONIC RED PLANET
> >> that is relentlessly closing in on us.
> >
> > Questions for you now... your turn:
> >
> > 1) Do you think Einstein was an idiot for endorsing Hapgoods radical pole
> >    theories, even though Hapgood was only a history professor?
>
> "Idiot" may be a bit harsh - misguided might be a better choice.
> However, I think he was motivated by an urge to do science, and if you
> actually read his "endorsement" it comes across much more as "this may
> be a load of nonsense, but as scientists we should still evaluate it".
>
> It's definitely not giving unequivocal support to Hapgood.
>
> >

I'm sorry, but your circular arguments, that provide no "anti" proof, do not count.
I sited evidence.  You simply mocked it, and provided no back-up.
Same ol'stuff... different day.

Observer on the Fringe