Not so "missing" is it? All that was required was to go straight to the primary source for the data. I gave that link as well:
[link to archive.stsci.edu]
And here is the result of grabbing the data from those coordinates:
[link to imageshack.us]

Of course he doesn't mention my processing of the sky survey data. Why would he? That is such an obvious red herring I can't even begin to imagine what kind of idiot would fall for it. What he does mention in the sky survey itself and the fact that google is using that, google is not producing live images themselves. Anyone can go straight to the sky survey and get the data for the "missing region" themselves.

Again, another red herring. I never said a damn thing about Morrison hearing about "my study." What I said is that he didn't disagree with me. You claimed his answer disagreed with mine. It did not. It reaffirmed what I said, even if it didn't go into as much detail, even if he didn't go to the trouble of presenting the "missing region" himself.

Your "factual point" is a red herring.

Danth's law. All you have done is throw out a red herring. I presented the "missing region" from Google sky. You claimed to be winning, but like most Danth's law violators, you have lost. Badly.

Holy shit, are you substituting the word "study" for "sky survey?" Are you that stupid? Morrison specifically mentioned the sky survey by name, the Palomar sky survey, aka POSS2/UKSTU! It's right here dumbass:
[link to archive.stsci.edu]