The Bullshido NASA Letter

On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 22:29:50 -0700, Art Deco wrote:

Liar, qartl tells

That NASA hired dumb asses to post to Usenet when they're not busy lying for
NASA.

So, about that red dwarf star -- you planning on vacationing on a near
asteroid when it enters the solar system or what?

Inquiring minds want to know.

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 10:02:57 -0700, Art Deco wrote:

When will Planet X be naked eye visible

It is visible now to NASA. You won't be able to see it until 90 days before
it passes between earth and the sun. Prior to that, you'll feel see the
effects of it on earth.

http://adsbit.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/np...J.....96.1476H

Title: The location of Planet X
Authors: Harrington, R. S.
Journal: Astronomical Journal (ISSN 0004-6256), vol. 96, Oct. 1988, p.
1476-1478.
Bibliographic Code: 1988AJ.....96.1476H

Location of Planet X

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 00:08:00 GMT, fresh wrote:

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 10:02:57 -0700, Art Deco wrote:

When will Planet X be naked eye visible

It is visible now to NASA. You won't be able to see it until 90 days before
it passes between earth and the sun. Prior to that, you'll feel see the
effects of it on earth.


Hey Alexa, why isn't it visible to millions of amateur astronomers,
many of whom have sophisticated imaging equipment?

--

Find out about Australia's most dangerous Doomsday Cult:
http://users.bigpond.net.au/wanglese/pebble.htm

"You can't fool me, it's turtles all the way down."

fresh wrote:

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 10:02:57 -0700, Art Deco wrote:

When will Planet X be naked eye visible

It is visible now to NASA. You won't be able to see it until 90 days before
it passes between earth and the sun. Prior to that, you'll feel see the
effects of it on earth.

http://adsbit.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/np...J.....96.1476H

Title: The location of Planet X
Authors: Harrington, R. S.
Journal: Astronomical Journal (ISSN 0004-6256), vol. 96, Oct. 1988, p.
1476-1478.
Bibliographic Code: 1988AJ.....96.1476H

Location of Planet X

That was written in 1988, before Voyager 2 got to Neptune. The Voyager
encounters with Uranus and Neptune allowed for precise determinations of
the masses of these two planets. It turns out that the previously
accepted values were significantly in error, and that using the new
masses
makes the discrepancies in their motions go away.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/np...J....105.2000S

Title: Planet X - No dynamical evidence in the optical observations
Authors: Standish, E. M.
Journal: Astronomical Journal (ISSN 0004-6256), vol. 105, no. 5, p.
2000-2006.
Bibliographic Code: 1993AJ....105.2000S

Bob Harrington is no longer with us, but Myles Standish is alive and
well
and still very much active. The past 12 years have borne out his
conclusions.

-- Bill Owen "down the hall from Myles"

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 01:02:33 GMT, Wally Anglesea™
wrote:

why isn't it visible to millions of amateur astronomers,
many of whom have sophisticated imaging equipment?

It is, it just looks like a star when reflecting light, when not reflecting
light you can't see it

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 02:54:22 GMT, fresh wrote:

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 01:02:33 GMT, Wally Anglesea™
wrote:

why isn't it visible to millions of amateur astronomers,
many of whom have sophisticated imaging equipment?

It is, it just looks like a star when reflecting light, when not reflecting
light you can't see it

So all these millions of amateur astronomers are keeping quiet about a
new object, and none of us want to become famous for discovering it,
huh?

Alexa, you are a retard.


--

Find out about Australia's most dangerous Doomsday Cult:
http://users.bigpond.net.au/wanglese/pebble.htm

"You can't fool me, it's turtles all the way down."

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 03:13:16 GMT, Wally Anglesea™
wrote:

So all these millions of amateur astronomers are keeping quiet about a
new object, and none of us want to become famous for discovering it,
huh?

they aren't quiet about it

it's just not on the news

fresh writes:

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 01:02:33 GMT, Wally Anglesea™
wrote:

why isn't it visible to millions of amateur astronomers,
many of whom have sophisticated imaging equipment?

It is, it just looks like a star when reflecting light, when not reflecting
light you can't see it

I guess Nancy still needs a few tons of Prozac...free clue: planets in our
system don't look like stars. Stars twinkle, planets don't.

--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey ) Houston, Texas
www.chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2004-05 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Houston 5, Chicago 4 (SO) (February 12)
NEXT GAME: Friday, February 18 vs. Chicago, 7:35

On 15 Feb 2005 21:32:54 -0600, Patrick Lee Humphrey wrote:

fresh writes:

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 01:02:33 GMT, Wally Anglesea™
wrote:

why isn't it visible to millions of amateur astronomers,
many of whom have sophisticated imaging equipment?

It is, it just looks like a star when reflecting light, when not reflecting
light you can't see it

I guess Nancy still needs a few tons of Prozac...free clue: planets in our
system don't look like stars. Stars twinkle, planets don't.

whatever you say sparkey

fresh writes:

On 15 Feb 2005 21:32:54 -0600, Patrick Lee Humphrey wrote:

fresh writes:

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 01:02:33 GMT, Wally Anglesea™
wrote:

why isn't it visible to millions of amateur astronomers,
many of whom have sophisticated imaging equipment?

It is, it just looks like a star when reflecting light, when not reflecting
light you can't see it

I guess Nancy still needs a few tons of Prozac...free clue: planets in our
system don't look like stars. Stars twinkle, planets don't.

whatever you say sparkey

Thanks for confirming you're too brain-damaged to check for yourself,
Alexa...and for feeding another sockpuppet to my killfile.

--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey ) Houston, Texas
www.chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2004-05 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Houston 5, Chicago 4 (SO) (February 12)
NEXT GAME: Friday, February 18 vs. Chicago, 7:35