Planet X: Neat NEAT Trick
In Article <BINc8.firstname.lastname@example.org> David Tholen wrote:
> slackerattheinboxdotorg <email@example.com> writes:
>> Are you on vacation?
> Didn't curiosity kill the cat?
Or so he hopes. Dave doesnt answer, much less like, questions which
point to his activities.
In Article <3C717603.C2015A6C@zetatalk.com> Nancy Lieder wrote:
> Steve Havas (firstname.lastname@example.org) wrote:
>>> A second set of infrared images of Planet X was taken
>>> on Jan 19, 2002. The Haute-Provence Observatory ..
>> I see Dave Tholen has not made any comments yet...
>> Does this image speak for itself?
> Dave is waiting for instructions from his handlers.
And he apparently GOT them! I received a note from Steve Havas regarding
a new NEAT image recently taken and trumped by Tholen debunking the Jan
19th imaging of Planet X, claiming that it also shows up a year earlier.
Nancy, when I was finally able to bring up the .fits file
of the NEAT image (2001-01-17) I was able to confirm
that they do show an existing object exactly where the
object is in the Jan 19/2002 image. The other object that
was shown on the Jan 19,2002 image (below and left
when inverted and rotated) is not present.
Steve reports that looking at Palomar images he does NOT find this.
It's funny because on all the Palomar/Digital Sky Survey
images I looked at I was not able to see any object in that
location even though the faint object that is directly above
(as on Jan 5,2002 image) is visible. In fact, on the NEAT
image, the faint object previously mention is DIMMER
than the apparently pre-existing object below. So, I don't
understand how on the Palomar images the faint object
above appears, nothing below and on the NEAT image
the nothing below (new object on Jan 19,2002 image)
is as bright or brighter than the object directly above.
And finally, ends up wondering if the NEAT image was doctored.
It seems to me that it would not be too difficult for the
NEAT images to be altered to match the new object in
the Jan 19 image and in fact would be a good way to
continuously discredit all new images.
Yes INDEED, and David Tholen who works in association with the NEAT
program (located in Hawaii) has a track record for posting these images
for the powers that be. Now we know what he did on vacation. Back in
the Hale-Bopp days, I noted an uneven stretch in some Hale-Bopp images
and I quote from this page, which has the images displayed (they have
since disappeared from the URL mentioned)
Below are three series of images from the Institute for
Astronomy in Hawaii, by D. Tholen and R Wainscoat, IfA
from their web sites at
of what is
purported to be Hale-Bopp on September 1, 1995.
Separate images for red, green, and blue spectrums are
taken to create the final image, which is an overlay of the
The three rows below are purported to be of the same
swath of sky, but from the bottom row up the rows have
been subjected to what is called a stretch, enhancing the
brightness of dim stars below a certain threshold. During
a stretch, any enhanced light will stop being enhanced as
soon as it reaches the threshold. However, a careful
examination of the results of the stretch in the center of
the image, where Hale-Bopp is purported to be, and all
the peripheral stars, appears to show that the stretch was
not evenly applied. The center portion where Hale-Bopp is
purported to be brightens at a faster rate, and does not stop
being enhanced when the peripheral stars stop being
NEAT is a NASA/JPL Program, works in conjunction with these bodies.
Would NASA lie? Could we see the images from the Hubble, right off the
reel and not held back and issued only once a year or so, like a
Christmas present to the taxpayer who PAYS for all of this? What is
there to hide? Except, of course, the truth.