The first set are said to be of Neptune (close enough, exact coordinates will depend not only on time but location). The second set are supposedly of their "object." The problem is, they're not a valid set of coordinates, or at least not a complete set. It's nonsensical. They give no formatting references and give an insufficient amount of numbers for it to be the standard equatorial hh mm ss, +/-dd mm ss (hours, minutes, seconds, degrees, minutes, seconds) format. Am I supposed to interpret that as 00h 09m 21s, 00d 41' 00"? Or am I supposed to interpret that as 00h 09m, +21d 00' 41" with an implied 00s at the end of the RA? Those are two completely different locations.

TBar and I have already shown that these guys steal real amateurs' images, lie about it, and lie about what the images contain. These guys are the scum of the earth and everything they say is BS. They have no integrity whatsoever, if I point at one or even both of the locations and show there's nothing there, they can just weasel out of it by saying that that's not what they meant by the coordinates and come up with some other contrived formatting method. They didn't specify to begin with, they left it ambiguous so that they can change what it "means" at will to weasel out of anything I can produce from it. That's why I fight them on the matter of their actual content.

One of their latest videos that they claim is a "kuiper belt object" is in fact a video of the black eye galaxy, M64, most likely stolen from Night Skies Network where they previously stole material.
[link to i319.photobucket.com]