Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!

'Research' for them consists of searching the web for things anomalous enough to attribute to Planet X.

They start out with a conclusion (i.e., as stated in the ning rules: The existence of Planet X is not open to debate!) then look for anything that they can 'spin' to suggest it is true in some convoluted way.

Standard kOOk behaviour.

Nancy at her best (make that funniest):

OZT
Despite the halo, this is a capture of Planet X. The Sun and Moon have halos these days because of the grease in the atmosphere from Planet X. When such objects appear, there is puzzlement among those unaware of the presence of Planet X, but when they bump into the rumors on the Internet, a connection is made. So indeed, such revelations are important, but just one of many such routes by which those previously unaware learn the truth. Will the establishment consider this a threat? Since this is not an official leak, and can be discredited by “experts”, this is certainly not the threat that the appearance of Planet X and its Moon Swirls and the String of Pearls on SOHO have posed. What the establishment fears are signs in the skies that the public will NOT be persuaded to deny. Something like a Second Sun that is seen by the majority of the populace, worldwide. Something like a dancing Moon Swirl in the skies that does not have the trajectory that a group of asteroids might have. Then what?
EOZT

Study astronomical seeing and Dawes Limit. That should tell you all you need to know. If you have a photographic background you should have no trouble understanding the explanation.


Dawes' Limit


If two equally-bright stars are so close together that their Airy disks overlap, they will be seen as a single star, although perhaps as an elongated one. If, however, the Airy disk of one star falls in the first dark diffraction ring of the second, each star can be seen separately – not as two distinct points, but as two small disks of light touching and forming a Figure 8, in which the intensity of light between the two touching disks drops by a clearly visible 30%.
English astronomer William R. Dawes (1799-1868, and known as the “eagle-eyed” for his acute vision) determined that the smallest separation between two stars which shows this 30% drop is equal to 4.56 arc seconds divided by the aperture of the telescope in inches. The larger the telescope aperture, the smaller the separation that can be resolved

[link to www.astronomics.com]

So you are saying that one of the images . . . the one on World Telescope is really two stars or bodies and are blurred together . . . and the one on Google is . . . ?

Not there? Help me here?
Didn't say that, George. Or, if I have gone completely senile, show me where I said that.

Study astronomical seeing and Dawes Limit. That should tell you all you need to know. If you have a photographic background you should have no trouble understanding the explanation.


Dawes' Limit


If two equally-bright stars are so close together that their Airy disks overlap, they will be seen as a single star, although perhaps as an elongated one. If, however, the Airy disk of one star falls in the first dark diffraction ring of the second, each star can be seen separately – not as two distinct points, but as two small disks of light touching and forming a Figure 8, in which the intensity of light between the two touching disks drops by a clearly visible 30%.
English astronomer William R. Dawes (1799-1868, and known as the “eagle-eyed” for his acute vision) determined that the smallest separation between two stars which shows this 30% drop is equal to 4.56 arc seconds divided by the aperture of the telescope in inches. The larger the telescope aperture, the smaller the separation that can be resolved

[link to www.astronomics.com]

So you are saying that one of the images . . . the one on World Telescope is really two stars or bodies and are blurred together . . . and the one on Google is . . . ?

Not there? Help me here?
Didn't say that, George. Or, if I have gone completely senile, show me where I said that.

I didn't say you said that . . . I was asking a rhetorical question because that is all that I could infer from your message. I must not understand what you are trying to communicate. Chalk it up to not knowing enough about the subject to get your message . . .

Study astronomical seeing and Dawes Limit. That should tell you all you need to know. If you have a photographic background you should have no trouble understanding the explanation.


Dawes' Limit


If two equally-bright stars are so close together that their Airy disks overlap, they will be seen as a single star, although perhaps as an elongated one. If, however, the Airy disk of one star falls in the first dark diffraction ring of the second, each star can be seen separately – not as two distinct points, but as two small disks of light touching and forming a Figure 8, in which the intensity of light between the two touching disks drops by a clearly visible 30%.
English astronomer William R. Dawes (1799-1868, and known as the “eagle-eyed” for his acute vision) determined that the smallest separation between two stars which shows this 30% drop is equal to 4.56 arc seconds divided by the aperture of the telescope in inches. The larger the telescope aperture, the smaller the separation that can be resolved

[link to www.astronomics.com]

So you are saying that one of the images . . . the one on World Telescope is really two stars or bodies and are blurred together . . . and the one on Google is . . . ?

Not there? Help me here?
Didn't say that, George. Or, if I have gone completely senile, show me where I said that.

I didn't say you said that . . . I was asking a rhetorical question because that is all that I could infer from your message. I must not understand what you are trying to communicate. Chalk it up to not knowing enough about the subject to get your message . . .



If you knew I didn't say that, George, why did you ask if I did?

Methinks reading comprehension is not your strong suit.

Look, there are a number of reasons why an image of the same part of the sky may look different from one view to another, did you ever think that just perhaps they were not displayed at the same resolution, or that they were processed differently, or that they were taken with different cameras and telescopes?

Apparently that never entered your thinking.

Study astronomical seeing and Dawes Limit. That should tell you all you need to know. If you have a photographic background you should have no trouble understanding the explanation.


Dawes' Limit


If two equally-bright stars are so close together that their Airy disks overlap, they will be seen as a single star, although perhaps as an elongated one. If, however, the Airy disk of one star falls in the first dark diffraction ring of the second, each star can be seen separately – not as two distinct points, but as two small disks of light touching and forming a Figure 8, in which the intensity of light between the two touching disks drops by a clearly visible 30%.
English astronomer William R. Dawes (1799-1868, and known as the “eagle-eyed” for his acute vision) determined that the smallest separation between two stars which shows this 30% drop is equal to 4.56 arc seconds divided by the aperture of the telescope in inches. The larger the telescope aperture, the smaller the separation that can be resolved

[link to www.astronomics.com]

So you are saying that one of the images . . . the one on World Telescope is really two stars or bodies and are blurred together . . . and the one on Google is . . . ?

Not there? Help me here?
Didn't say that, George. Or, if I have gone completely senile, show me where I said that.

I didn't say you said that . . . I was asking a rhetorical question because that is all that I could infer from your message. I must not understand what you are trying to communicate. Chalk it up to not knowing enough about the subject to get your message . . .



If you knew I didn't say that, George, why did you ask if I did?

Methinks reading comprehension is not your strong suit.

Look, there are a number of reasons why an image of the same part of the sky may look different from one view to another, did you ever think that just perhaps they were not displayed at the same resolution, or that they were processed differently, or that they were taken with different cameras and telescopes?

Apparently that never entered your thinking.

That may true . . . but assuming the same general resolution in both cases and found in the same sector of the sky . . . stars I thought are relatively stable except in cases when they are near black holes (usually only near the center of galaxies). So if something is there in one telescope frame (coordinates and relative resolution) and then gone in a few days or weeks or months . . . is this not an indication that it is something other than a star? or just simply an error of some type?

Study astronomical seeing and Dawes Limit. That should tell you all you need to know. If you have a photographic background you should have no trouble understanding the explanation.


Dawes' Limit


If two equally-bright stars are so close together that their Airy disks overlap, they will be seen as a single star, although perhaps as an elongated one. If, however, the Airy disk of one star falls in the first dark diffraction ring of the second, each star can be seen separately – not as two distinct points, but as two small disks of light touching and forming a Figure 8, in which the intensity of light between the two touching disks drops by a clearly visible 30%.
English astronomer William R. Dawes (1799-1868, and known as the “eagle-eyed” for his acute vision) determined that the smallest separation between two stars which shows this 30% drop is equal to 4.56 arc seconds divided by the aperture of the telescope in inches. The larger the telescope aperture, the smaller the separation that can be resolved

[link to www.astronomics.com]

So you are saying that one of the images . . . the one on World Telescope is really two stars or bodies and are blurred together . . . and the one on Google is . . . ?

Not there? Help me here?
Didn't say that, George. Or, if I have gone completely senile, show me where I said that.

I didn't say you said that . . . I was asking a rhetorical question because that is all that I could infer from your message. I must not understand what you are trying to communicate. Chalk it up to not knowing enough about the subject to get your message . . .



If you knew I didn't say that, George, why did you ask if I did?

Methinks reading comprehension is not your strong suit.

Look, there are a number of reasons why an image of the same part of the sky may look different from one view to another, did you ever think that just perhaps they were not displayed at the same resolution, or that they were processed differently, or that they were taken with different cameras and telescopes?

Apparently that never entered your thinking.

That may true . . . but assuming the same general resolution in both cases and found in the same sector of the sky . . . stars I thought are relatively stable except in cases when they are near black holes (usually only near the center of galaxies). So if something is there in one telescope frame (coordinates and relative resolution) and then gone in a few days or weeks or months . . . is this not an indication that it is something other than a star? or just simply an error of some type?



Assumes facts not in evidence.

Study astronomical seeing and Dawes Limit. That should tell you all you need to know. If you have a photographic background you should have no trouble understanding the explanation.


Dawes' Limit


If two equally-bright stars are so close together that their Airy disks overlap, they will be seen as a single star, although perhaps as an elongated one. If, however, the Airy disk of one star falls in the first dark diffraction ring of the second, each star can be seen separately – not as two distinct points, but as two small disks of light touching and forming a Figure 8, in which the intensity of light between the two touching disks drops by a clearly visible 30%.
English astronomer William R. Dawes (1799-1868, and known as the “eagle-eyed” for his acute vision) determined that the smallest separation between two stars which shows this 30% drop is equal to 4.56 arc seconds divided by the aperture of the telescope in inches. The larger the telescope aperture, the smaller the separation that can be resolved

[link to www.astronomics.com]

So you are saying that one of the images . . . the one on World Telescope is really two stars or bodies and are blurred together . . . and the one on Google is . . . ?

Not there? Help me here?
Didn't say that, George. Or, if I have gone completely senile, show me where I said that.

I didn't say you said that . . . I was asking a rhetorical question because that is all that I could infer from your message. I must not understand what you are trying to communicate. Chalk it up to not knowing enough about the subject to get your message . . .



If you knew I didn't say that, George, why did you ask if I did?

Methinks reading comprehension is not your strong suit.

Look, there are a number of reasons why an image of the same part of the sky may look different from one view to another, did you ever think that just perhaps they were not displayed at the same resolution, or that they were processed differently, or that they were taken with different cameras and telescopes?

Apparently that never entered your thinking.

That may true . . . but assuming the same general resolution in both cases and found in the same sector of the sky . . . stars I thought are relatively stable except in cases when they are near black holes (usually only near the center of galaxies). So if something is there in one telescope frame (coordinates and relative resolution) and then gone in a few days or weeks or months . . . is this not an indication that it is something other than a star? or just simply an error of some type?



Assumes facts not in evidence.

So you won't answer a hypothetical question?

Study astronomical seeing and Dawes Limit. That should tell you all you need to know. If you have a photographic background you should have no trouble understanding the explanation.


Dawes' Limit


If two equally-bright stars are so close together that their Airy disks overlap, they will be seen as a single star, although perhaps as an elongated one. If, however, the Airy disk of one star falls in the first dark diffraction ring of the second, each star can be seen separately – not as two distinct points, but as two small disks of light touching and forming a Figure 8, in which the intensity of light between the two touching disks drops by a clearly visible 30%.
English astronomer William R. Dawes (1799-1868, and known as the “eagle-eyed” for his acute vision) determined that the smallest separation between two stars which shows this 30% drop is equal to 4.56 arc seconds divided by the aperture of the telescope in inches. The larger the telescope aperture, the smaller the separation that can be resolved

[link to www.astronomics.com]

So you are saying that one of the images . . . the one on World Telescope is really two stars or bodies and are blurred together . . . and the one on Google is . . . ?

Not there? Help me here?
Didn't say that, George. Or, if I have gone completely senile, show me where I said that.

I didn't say you said that . . . I was asking a rhetorical question because that is all that I could infer from your message. I must not understand what you are trying to communicate. Chalk it up to not knowing enough about the subject to get your message . . .



If you knew I didn't say that, George, why did you ask if I did?

Methinks reading comprehension is not your strong suit.

Look, there are a number of reasons why an image of the same part of the sky may look different from one view to another, did you ever think that just perhaps they were not displayed at the same resolution, or that they were processed differently, or that they were taken with different cameras and telescopes?

Apparently that never entered your thinking.

That may true . . . but assuming the same general resolution in both cases and found in the same sector of the sky . . . stars I thought are relatively stable except in cases when they are near black holes (usually only near the center of galaxies). So if something is there in one telescope frame (coordinates and relative resolution) and then gone in a few days or weeks or months . . . is this not an indication that it is something other than a star? or just simply an error of some type?



Assumes facts not in evidence.

So you won't answer a hypothetical question?



Nope. Too easy for people with little training, less experience and a need to believe to twist words into meanings that were never intended.

Study astronomical seeing and Dawes Limit. That should tell you all you need to know. If you have a photographic background you should have no trouble understanding the explanation.


Dawes' Limit


If two equally-bright stars are so close together that their Airy disks overlap, they will be seen as a single star, although perhaps as an elongated one. If, however, the Airy disk of one star falls in the first dark diffraction ring of the second, each star can be seen separately – not as two distinct points, but as two small disks of light touching and forming a Figure 8, in which the intensity of light between the two touching disks drops by a clearly visible 30%.
English astronomer William R. Dawes (1799-1868, and known as the “eagle-eyed” for his acute vision) determined that the smallest separation between two stars which shows this 30% drop is equal to 4.56 arc seconds divided by the aperture of the telescope in inches. The larger the telescope aperture, the smaller the separation that can be resolved

[link to www.astronomics.com]

So you are saying that one of the images . . . the one on World Telescope is really two stars or bodies and are blurred together . . . and the one on Google is . . . ?

Not there? Help me here?
Didn't say that, George. Or, if I have gone completely senile, show me where I said that.

I didn't say you said that . . . I was asking a rhetorical question because that is all that I could infer from your message. I must not understand what you are trying to communicate. Chalk it up to not knowing enough about the subject to get your message . . .



If you knew I didn't say that, George, why did you ask if I did?

Methinks reading comprehension is not your strong suit.

Look, there are a number of reasons why an image of the same part of the sky may look different from one view to another, did you ever think that just perhaps they were not displayed at the same resolution, or that they were processed differently, or that they were taken with different cameras and telescopes?

Apparently that never entered your thinking.

That may true . . . but assuming the same general resolution in both cases and found in the same sector of the sky . . . stars I thought are relatively stable except in cases when they are near black holes (usually only near the center of galaxies). So if something is there in one telescope frame (coordinates and relative resolution) and then gone in a few days or weeks or months . . . is this not an indication that it is something other than a star? or just simply an error of some type?



Assumes facts not in evidence.

So you won't answer a hypothetical question?



Nope. Too easy for people with little training, less experience and a need to believe to twist words into meanings that were never intended.

I got your answer . . .

Study astronomical seeing and Dawes Limit. That should tell you all you need to know. If you have a photographic background you should have no trouble understanding the explanation.


Dawes' Limit


If two equally-bright stars are so close together that their Airy disks overlap, they will be seen as a single star, although perhaps as an elongated one. If, however, the Airy disk of one star falls in the first dark diffraction ring of the second, each star can be seen separately – not as two distinct points, but as two small disks of light touching and forming a Figure 8, in which the intensity of light between the two touching disks drops by a clearly visible 30%.
English astronomer William R. Dawes (1799-1868, and known as the “eagle-eyed” for his acute vision) determined that the smallest separation between two stars which shows this 30% drop is equal to 4.56 arc seconds divided by the aperture of the telescope in inches. The larger the telescope aperture, the smaller the separation that can be resolved

[link to www.astronomics.com]

So you are saying that one of the images . . . the one on World Telescope is really two stars or bodies and are blurred together . . . and the one on Google is . . . ?

Not there? Help me here?
Didn't say that, George. Or, if I have gone completely senile, show me where I said that.

I didn't say you said that . . . I was asking a rhetorical question because that is all that I could infer from your message. I must not understand what you are trying to communicate. Chalk it up to not knowing enough about the subject to get your message . . .



If you knew I didn't say that, George, why did you ask if I did?

Methinks reading comprehension is not your strong suit.

Look, there are a number of reasons why an image of the same part of the sky may look different from one view to another, did you ever think that just perhaps they were not displayed at the same resolution, or that they were processed differently, or that they were taken with different cameras and telescopes?

Apparently that never entered your thinking.

That may true . . . but assuming the same general resolution in both cases and found in the same sector of the sky . . . stars I thought are relatively stable except in cases when they are near black holes (usually only near the center of galaxies). So if something is there in one telescope frame (coordinates and relative resolution) and then gone in a few days or weeks or months . . . is this not an indication that it is something other than a star? or just simply an error of some type?



Assumes facts not in evidence.

So you won't answer a hypothetical question?



Nope. Too easy for people with little training, less experience and a need to believe to twist words into meanings that were never intended.

I got your answer . . .



I doubt that.

Look, George, I am sure you mean well, but frankly I have to question whether or not you are all that interested in learning.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

So you won't answer a hypothetical question?



Nope. Too easy for people with little training, less experience and a need to believe to twist words into meanings that were never intended.

I got your answer . . .



I doubt that.

Look, George, I am sure you mean well, but frankly I have to question whether or not you are all that interested in learning.

Learning is a two way street . . . without dialog no one progresses . . . one day I may have signicant wisdom I can share . . .

Talking about Nancy and Planet-X. I found these three clips that I would like your take on . . .



Idiots who haven't got a clue.

So nothing is worth commenting on?

Look, George, I am sure you mean well, but frankly I have to question whether or not you are all that interested in learning.

Learning is a two way street . . . without dialog no one progresses . . . one day I may have signicant wisdom I can share . . .

That may true . . . but assuming the same general resolution in both cases and found in the same sector of the sky . . . stars I thought are relatively stable except in cases when they are near black holes (usually only near the center of galaxies). So if something is there in one telescope frame (coordinates and relative resolution) and then gone in a few days or weeks or months . . . is this not an indication that it is something other than a star? or just simply an error of some type?

That may true . . . but assuming the same general resolution in both cases and found in the same sector of the sky . . . stars I thought are relatively stable except in cases when they are near black holes (usually only near the center of galaxies). So if something is there in one telescope frame (coordinates and relative resolution) and then gone in a few days or weeks or months . . . is this not an indication that it is something other than a star? or just simply an error of some type?

IF such a thing occurs it is not an indication of ANYTHING specific, but an anomaly that might bear further investigation. This is what astronomers do. When something looks odd, they check it out.

A single anomaly on an image could be just about ANYTHING, and is certainly not in any way evidence that an impossible invisible planet of doom is sneaking about trying to remain hidden.

You are just clutching at straws in an attempt to flog the Planet X dead horse further.

In the end, Clare resorted to flat-out lying to 'prove' how she was always 'right'. She is an egotistical buffoon. She got only what she deserved all along.

DrPostman has a comic/cartoon that's a shining example of their mentality.

This one?

Astronut might be able to answer

Astronut might be able to answer

It's not a bad question at all. Here's my answer in short form; worlwide telescope and google sky both suck. They're free, they're widely known and publicized, and neither one is anywhere near adequate for this kind of research. Always, always, always look to the primary source of the material. Here are the palomar sky survey images for those coordinates:
[link to archive.stsci.edu]

[link to archive.stsci.edu]

[link to archive.stsci.edu]

There's clearly nothing of significance there in the sky survey images. Note though how much more detail you can see in the original images than in google's and microsoft's watered-down mosaics. It's the same story with every sky survey image of those coordinates you can find, with the notable exception of hydrogen-alpha narrowband images; those show a huge bubble of nebulosity in that area, but it covers the entire region around Orion, not just that one splotch. There's nothing in any sky survey that corresponds to that splotch, yet the images for worldwide telescope were made directly from those sky surveys. Neither google nor microsoft did their own survey, they just took the images from previously-completed surveys and stitched them all together into a giant mosaic. It's a processing error on microsoft's side, which is also why it's unique to microsoft's software. Google and microsoft have their own proprietary ways of handling the data, and neither one are perfect. You must go to the original sky surveys to see what comes up. stsci is one, here's another good link for canvasing a lot of sky surveys at once:
[link to skyview.gsfc.nasa.gov]

Thanks for the Ning updates. I just won't go over there...


It's a veritable Deepwater Horizon of idiocy and a very good source of material for zetasquawk.com

There is a meteorologist who never heard of supercooling and thinks that water can only freeze at 32 degrees F. Then there's Cheryl who is the resident D&G poster.

It's positively amazing that there could be a gathering of 1,400+ idiots like that.

Oh, then there are the idiots who can't identify Mercury on STEREO or SOHO.

Astronut might be able to answer

It's not a bad question at all. Here's my answer in short form; worlwide telescope and google sky both suck. They're free, they're widely known and publicized, and neither one is anywhere near adequate for this kind of research. Always, always, always look to the primary source of the material. Here are the palomar sky survey images for those coordinates:
[link to archive.stsci.edu]

[link to archive.stsci.edu]

[link to archive.stsci.edu]

There's clearly nothing of significance there in the sky survey images. Note though how much more detail you can see in the original images than in google's and microsoft's watered-down mosaics. It's the same story with every sky survey image of those coordinates you can find, with the notable exception of hydrogen-alpha narrowband images; those show a huge bubble of nebulosity in that area, but it covers the entire region around Orion, not just that one splotch. There's nothing in any sky survey that corresponds to that splotch, yet the images for worldwide telescope were made directly from those sky surveys. Neither google nor microsoft did their own survey, they just took the images from previously-completed surveys and stitched them all together into a giant mosaic. It's a processing error on microsoft's side, which is also why it's unique to microsoft's software. Google and microsoft have their own proprietary ways of handling the data, and neither one are perfect. You must go to the original sky surveys to see what comes up. stsci is one, here's another good link for canvasing a lot of sky surveys at once:
[link to skyview.gsfc.nasa.gov]

Thank you greatly for a rational, thoughtful response!

The links I posted give you access to the same surveys used by google and microsoft.

Dude, I've been over there for a while and can't stand that shit no more. There is some kind of fight going on inside the moderators and a letter is going out to I guess new people becuase it says that all the mods quit or some shit and now Cheryl is not a mod no more. Decided it would be more fun to quit being anonymous coward over here.

How long did your post last? As far as the dissent it was
predicted. We saw how the blog Nancy set up went, and knew
that the same thing would happen to the Ningcompoops. Looks
like the Facebook page Cheryl set up is gone too.

The links I posted give you access to the same surveys used by google and microsoft.

I get it . . . Thanks!

The links I posted give you access to the same surveys used by google and microsoft.

I get it . . . Thanks!

No problem. Assuming the pictures from wwt were with the "digitized sky survey" layer turned on, the particular sky survey you were looking at was indeed the same as the one on the STSCI links. The other sky surveys available in WWT are available in the last link.