link to Home Page

Re: Dell on IRC on Magnitude


My comments here are to indicate your use of different names on
different occasions. This practice indicates deceit and subterfuge.
And from that, I question your credibility. Your inane comments and
questions in private or public chats are suspect as you refuse to
identify yourself.
  You are posting as I'don't on this newsgroup. 
  You are posting as Howmo at Chats.
  I suspect you are Yaada at TT-Watch 
  (I note no denials in your response below)

You are a nuisance. 

Your running back to Sci.Astro with the latest gossip from Zetatalk
indicates you are a lap dog for whatever Shepherd is current.
Your timely distractions when Sarah McSilk shows up at Zeta chat
indicate a common strategy.

I find no point in responding to what you have written below. From
previous encounters, I've found you neither read or comprehend.

If I have a choice of believing you or the images we have been
The choice is easy.

J.William Dell     

Idon't wrote in message <>
> J.William Dell wrote in message <>
> > To: idon't/howmo,probably Yaada and the other sock puppet names you
> > use on Sci.Astro and elsewhere;
> > 
> > 1) It really makes me wonder how many of you debunkers there really are?
> >    I have identified 5 names used by this individual over the past year.
> >    Do we see an effort by one projected as many? Yes!
> OK, let's see a show of hands... How many will admit to believing Mr.
> Dell's inane blather? Come on now, speak up, don't be shy... Mr. Dell,
> kindly submit your "findings" to the standard astronomy societies,
> boards, groups, whatever. Let's see how the opinions fall.
> > 2) From your modus operandi, you attempt to be a distraction. Further,
> >    you work closely with Micheal Cunning Ham and Sarah McSilk.
> Uh huh, and Nancy has lied and told people that I have said not to
> look at her coords. Nothing could be further from the truth. NOW HEAR
> THIS: Everyone look, look, LOOK!!
> > This has
> > been apparent by the attempts to disrupt the IRC Chats in the past.
> "Disrupt"?? Last week I tried to ask: "What size scope is now needed
> to SEE Planet X", and of course: "What visual magnitude is PX at this
> time". That is  only "disruptive" if those questions are, for some
> reason, out-of-bounds. Aparently they are, since I was kicked off for
> only asking *IF* I could ask those questions.
> > With the issue of Magnitude. You and others seem very determined to
> > embroil someone in an argument over it. 
> How could there be any argument? I understand it is a fairly simple
> calc, IF you know what you are doing... You can't handle it?
> > I have no intention to engage.
> You mean that you have no intention of exposing your ineptness and
> false claims of "increasing brightness" by using *real* data.
> > It would be a waste of my time better spent on other work.
> Like basket weaving?
> > 3) When asked by howmo aka ??? in a private chat, I respond with my
> >    answer. 
> And your "answer" was a refusal to answer.
> > I now find this answer pasted in Sci.Astro. Does this serve a
> > useful purpose? 
> Yes. It shows that you, like Nancy, will not answer that very relevant
> question.
> > Only if the attempt is to whittle down the credibility
> > of another individual.
> I can't imagine how your credibility could have been whittled any
> thinner. You flatter me <grin>. I would have thought such to require
> an entire team of master whittlers, working 'round the clock...
> > You only need to undermine credibility when you
> > perceive a danger in that person. Am I a danger to your employers?
> I suspect you are a significant danger if allowed to handle sharp
> objects...
> > b) The debunkers of this group allege they have the expertise in
> >    astronomy and image processing. 
> "Allege"... That's rich... "allege", he says... Why have not You,
> Nancy, Havas, Jan, "ABC", ANYBODY ever addressed the considerable work
> on the images by IMopen (or Sarah)? Why only personal attacks and
> NOTHING about their actual image studies??
> > That has been stated as reasons why my
> > Image processing is faulty and theirs is correct. 
> Umm, no, there have been repeated specific reasons stated as to why
> you are wrong- with demo's, charts, graphs, examples and clearly
> explained reasoning.
> > Why do THEY not
> > provide magnitude info then, if it is so near and dear to their
> > thinking?
> So that Nancy can't hijack it and claim it as *real* data like she has
> done before with things like "size" estimates. It is you who have
> claimed an "increase in brightness", not us. It is for you to quantify
> that alleged increase. Of course, noise has no *real* magnitude, but I
> believe that Sarah has stated estimates of the magnitude of your
> various specks, blobs and smudges. *IF* they were actual objects in
> space, they are nowhere near the zeta claims of "11th magnitude or
> greater" or "VISIBLE in amature scopes".
> > This continuing dance is about to increase in tempo;
> > on the one side due to continued imaging of an incoming object,
> > on the other by the need to deny the possibility. 
> Only if you keep braying falsehoods like this. Otherwise, it is of
> little interest. Your continued posting is for the sole purpose of
> keeping the PX profile high enough so that it might *seem* like there
> is a "coverup".
> I 
> > J.William Dell