Hale-Bopp object confirmed by leading astrophysicist
Wes Thomas
Now on the Art Bell show (http://www.artbell.com/art/stations.html for
stations):
According to Prof. Courtney Brown (social scientist) of Emory
University and Farsight Institute and Prudence Calabrese
(astrophysicist, PhD candidate) of the Farsight Institute:
An astrophysicist (specialist in planetary science and comets, pioneer
in his field, and affiliated with a top-ten university) has taken "a
couple of hundred" photos that confirm Shramek's observations of an
anomalous object near Hale-Bopp. The astrophysicist, they state,
believes this is a spheroid object larger than earth, is traveling
behind the comet Hale-Bopp, appears intermittently with irregular
positioning with reference to the comet, is hollow (based on the
comet's movement relative to the object), and is emitting light and
"intelligent" ("complex patterns") radio signals received by a
professional radio astronomer and currently being analyzed for
patterns. The astrophysicist has not yet been named but may make a
press announcement next week.
Art Bell said there are rumors on the Internet of the astrophysicist's
identity. Has anyone heard any of these rumors or have any information
or speculations on the identity of this astrophysicist, his
institution, or that of the radio astronomer? Your anonymity will be
assured if you prefer not to be quoted.
Wes Thomas, we...@sonic.net
Writer
Mark Gingrich
Wes Thomas (we...@sonic.net) wrote:
> According to Prof. Courtney Brown (social scientist) of Emory
> University and Farsight Institute and Prudence Calabrese
> (astrophysicist, PhD candidate) of the Farsight Institute....
[delusional claims deleted]
Any truth to the rumor that the Farsight Institute's astrophysics
program was ranked "second" in academic achievement, right behind
the Music department at Gallaudet University?...
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mark Gingrich gri...@rahul.net San Leandro, California
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Kurt Foster
Wes Thomas (we...@sonic.net) wrote:
: Now on the Art Bell show (http://www.artbell.com/art/stations.html for
: stations):
: According to Prof. Courtney Brown (social scientist) of Emory
: University and Farsight Institute and Prudence Calabrese
: (astrophysicist, PhD candidate) of the Farsight Institute:
: An astrophysicist (specialist in planetary science and comets, pioneer
: in his field, and affiliated with a top-ten university) has taken "a
: couple of hundred" photos that confirm Shramek's observations of an
: anomalous object near Hale-Bopp.
[snip]
: Art Bell said there are rumors on the Internet of the astrophysicist's
: identity. Has anyone heard any of these rumors or have any information
: or speculations on the identity of this astrophysicist, his
: institution, or that of the radio astronomer? Your anonymity will be
: assured if you prefer not to be quoted.
: Wes Thomas, we...@sonic.net
: Writer
:
You again? As a writer (if such you are), you aught to know better than
posting a bunch of rumors without checking them first. Especially since
this crap about an "anomalous object" has been so thoroughly discussed,
debunked, and disproved.
The following might be of interest...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
.From: we...@sonic.net (Wes Thomas)
.Newsgroups: sci.astro.amateur,sci.astro,alt.conspiracy
.Subject: Anomalous object near Hale-Bopp?
.Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 11:15:31 GMT
.Message-ID: <328c4df...@news.sonic.net>
.
.Art Bell show reporting right now that an amateur astronomer has
.sighted a giant strange object visually near the Hale-Bopp comet. The
.object mysteriously appeared Wednesday night and resembles Saturn, but
.is "sefl-illuminating" with anomalously-even illumination, according
.to Chuck Shramek, an amateur astronomer in Houston.
.
.See http://www.artbell.com/art/images/halebopp5.jpg and
.http://www.artbell.com/art/images/halebopp6.jpg
.
.Is anyone else seeing this?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
.Newsgroups: sci.astro.amateur,sci.astro,alt.conspiracy
.Subject: Re: Anomalous object near Hale-Bopp?
.Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1996 00:45:04 GMT
.Message-ID: <328d0e01...@news.sonic.net>
.
.On Fri, 15 Nov 1996 11:15:31 GMT, we...@sonic.net (Wes Thomas) wrote:
.
.Thanks for sharing, but my question remains: has anyone actually
.looked at Hale-Bopp to check this?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
.From: Steve Jolly <sjo...@avana.net>
.Newsgroups: sci.astro.amateur,sci.astro,alt.conspiracy
.Subject: Re: Anomalous object near Hale-Bopp?
.Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1996 00:13:40 -0400
.Message-ID: <328E91...@avana.net>
.
.In his message, Hal Finney relates how he compared the Palomar Sky
.Survey charts and the postings on Shramek's "mysterious object" home
.page, and continues:
.
.>...(On the Palomar charts) sure enough the big
.>bright star just jumps out at you, with two dimmer
.>stars nearby, such that the 3 match the photo
.>in question very closely.
.
.>Yet if you look at http://paradise.pplnet.com/
.shram/hbmap.gif, you see what is supposedly
.>the output from a star charting program, which
.>shows the two dim stars, but no big bright one!
.>Mysteriously, it is missing, although the Palomar
.>chart you pointed out clearly shows it.
.
.>I am forced to conclude that it has been edited
.>out of the star chart by the unscrupulous Mr.
.>Shramek in order to deepen the mystery
.>surrounding his picture...
.---------
.
.Outstanding response! One of the best, terse, scalpel-sharp postings
.I've seen in memory. Neat--but mortal--incision in Mr. Shramek and his
.photos; autopsy shows fatal deflation.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
.Newsgroups: sci.environment
.Subject: Hale-Bopp Comet (The Truth)
.Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 02:30:03 -0800
.Organization: ABATE of Oregon - Central Oregon Chapter
.Lines: 15
.Message-ID: <32903A...@empnet.com>
.
.Recently information leading people to believe that something large is
.trailing behind the Hale-Bopp Comet has been sweeping the US. This mis-
.information has been causing some folks to panic and otherwise, encure
.undue stress needlessly. For the full story and all the facts, truths
.included <thats an extra bonus>, go to the following web site below.
.
. http://www.halebopp.com/
.
.Please note that this site has been put together by people who know what
.they are doing two of these folks happen to be Hale and Bopp.
.
.
.Have A Good One,
.Tamsen
.tam...@empnet.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
.From: baa...@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
.Newsgroups: sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary,sci.astro.amateur
.Subject: Sky & Telescope News Bulletin - 11/22/96
.Date: 22 Nov 1996 22:43 UT
.Message-ID: <22NOV199...@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov>
.
.SKY & TELESCOPE NEWS BULLETIN
.NOVEMBER 22, 1996
.
.COMET HALE-BOPP
.
.A week ago the air waves and Internet were abuzz with news of a "Saturn-
.like object" seen alongside Comet Hale-Bopp. A Houston astrophotographer
.claimed to have spotted this "new planet" on Art Bell's radio talk show.
.It turns out that the mystery object was SAO 141894, an 8th-magnitude
.background star missing from the sky-charting software the Texan was
.using.
.Meanwhile, moonlight and low altitude have made observing Hale-Bopp
.(C/1995 O1) difficult in recent days, but the comet is now about
.magnitude 4.5 and continues to brighten as it slips toward conjunction
.with the Sun. Here are Hale-Bopp's positions for the coming week at 0
.hours Universal Time:
.
. Date R. A. Decl.
.----------------------------
.November 23 17h 56.4m -1d 30'
. 25 17 58.3 -1 18
. 27 18 0.2 -1 5
. 29 18 2.1 -0 51
.
[rest of posting snipped]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Tyler
we...@sonic.net (Wes Thomas) writes:
>...The astrophysicist has not yet been named but may make a
>press announcement next week.
i'm sure he hasn't been named, nor will he be.
dave
______________________________________________________________________
-David W. Tyler "It seems you feel our work is not
-USAF Phillips Laboratory of benefit to the public."
-Albuquerque, New Mexico
-ty...@plk.af.mil --Rachel
Douglas Weller
On Fri, 29 Nov 1996 09:38:18 GMT, we...@sonic.net (Wes Thomas) wrote:
>Now on the Art Bell show (http://www.artbell.com/art/stations.html for
>stations):
>
>According to Prof. Courtney Brown (social scientist) of Emory
>University and Farsight Institute and Prudence Calabrese
>(astrophysicist, PhD candidate) of the Farsight Institute:
It would make things a bit clearer if you explained that the Farsight
Institute specialises in remote viewing -- without telescpes! Is Brown really
a professor at Emory still?
Wes Thomas
On 29 Nov 1996 18:50:02 GMT, kfo...@rainbow.rmii.com (Kurt Foster)
wrote:
> You again? As a writer (if such you are), you aught to know better than
>posting a bunch of rumors without checking them first.
That's why I'm posting: to check them, duh. BTW, Art Bell reported
tonight that the Lick Observatory has confirmed these "rumors."
Comments, anyone?
Phil Fischer
In article <329eacd6...@news.sonic.net>,
Wes Thomas <we...@sonic.net> wrote:
>Art Bell said there are rumors on the Internet of the astrophysicist's
>identity. Has anyone heard any of these rumors or have any information
>or speculations on the identity of this astrophysicist, his
>institution, or that of the radio astronomer? Your anonymity will be
>assured if you prefer not to be quoted.
Yes, the astronomer is Edwin Hubble himself, speaking from the dead through
me. Of course the sceptics won't believe me but what do you expect from people
that don't even believe there is a face on mars.
Phil
Eric Greene
we...@sonic.net (Wes Thomas) wrote:
>Now on the Art Bell show (http://www.artbell.com/art/stations.html for
>stations):
>
>According to Prof. Courtney Brown (social scientist) of Emory
>University and Farsight Institute and Prudence Calabrese
>(astrophysicist, PhD candidate) of the Farsight Institute:
Found this article on the Emory web site (www.emory.edu) and found it
interesting in content for both showing how readily Courtney Brown is
agreeable towards and testing of this alledged "remote viewing"
capabilities and for the cost of teaching these untested abilities to
others.
===================================================
The Courtney Brown affair and academic freedom
Academic freedom -- the right of faculty members to pursue and discuss
whatever interests they wish, no matter how outlandish or repugnant
others might find them -- is a cornerstone of institutions of higher
learning. Without it, the very rationale undergirding that remarkable
democratic organization we call a university crumbles. Nevertheless,
there are inevitably times when academic freedom conflicts with a
university's best interests. When this occurs, vexing pragmatic and
ethical questions arise.
The most recent example of this conflict at Emory involves Dr.
Courtney Brown, an associate professor in the political science
department. Brown's actions and words have, to put it mildly, aroused
considerable ridicule and controversy at Emory and in the broader
academic community. In his new book, Cosmic Voyages: A Scientific
Discovery of Extraterrestrials Visiting Earth, Brown claims to use
powers of "remote viewing" (an alleged psychic ability permitting
individuals to "see" objects at enormous distances) to visit Mars and
observe the actions of aliens. He purports to have uncovered
indisputable evidence that two races of extraterrestrials, Martians
and Greys, left the red planet centuries ago and have taken up
residence in the dark recesses of Earth.
But Brown does not stop there. His remote viewing methods, which are
"as rigorously controlled as those used in any solid social science
text," have revealed that Adam and Eve were architects of a genetic
engineering project and that numerous Star Trek episodes were written
with the assistance of aliens. In one of the book's more remarkable
chapters, "The Grey Mind," Brown claims to have "entered the mind" of
an extraterrestrial and investigated its psychological make-up. Brown,
who directs the "Farsight Institute" in Atlanta, offers seminars--at a
cost of $3,000 per head--that promise to provide attendees with the
psychic abilities he has mastered.
One hardly knows where to begin. Brown's book is remarkable for its
virtually complete absence of any data that would qualify as
scientific by even the most liberal evidential standards. His
"findings" consist entirely of unverified subjective experiences, and
the reader searches in vain for anything vaguely resembling a
controlled experiment. Brown neglects to mention either the results of
a recent government-appointed scientific panel on remote viewing,
which concluded that "evidence for the operational value of remote
viewing is not available, even after a decade of attempts," or the
critiques of Ray Hyman, a psychologist at the University of Oregon,
who has shown that the scientific evidence in support of remote
viewing is seriously flawed. Philosopher David Hume maintained that
extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence; Brown's evidence
is, to be charitable, singularly unimpressive.
In light of Brown's claims, I recently challenged him to a test of his
alleged psychic abilities. I proposed that he appear at a
meeting of my undergraduate seminar on Science and Pseudoscience in
Psychology, where my students and I would subject him to a simple
controlled experiment examining his capacity to remotely view stimuli
in an adjacent room. I assured him that he would have considerable
input regarding the selection of stimulus materials, and agreed to
publicize the results of this test in both Emory newspapers regardless
of its outcome.
But Brown categorically refused. His reasoning was curious: In his
e-mail response to me, he asserted that "tests of the type you have
talked about are very old hat" and that the current status of remote
viewing "goes light years beyond that which your letter suggests." But
if Brown's psychic powers are as advanced as he claims, shouldn't he
be able to pass an elementary test of these powers with flying colors?
Brown also declined my offer on the grounds that he did "not want to
drag Emory into my other activities" and that he is "rigorous about
not mixing what I do elsewhere with what I do at Emory." This
rationale seems disingenuous at best. If Brown did not wish to involve
Emory in his exploits, why did he list his academic affiliation with
Emory in his book and on his web site? Brown apparently wants to have
it both ways: He publicizes his association with Emory when it might
afford him the imprimatur of academic legitimacy, but refuses to
submit to scientific tests by Emory colleagues on the grounds that he
does not wish to "drag Emory" into a firestorm of controversy. But it
is too late: Emory's reputation has already been besmirched. As
George Armelagos of the Department of Anthropology notes, "Brown is
naive if he believes his fantasies do not affect the image of the
University."
Why should we at Emory care about Brown? Many of his Emory colleagues
will surely suggest that he is best ignored. But such an attitude
would be misguided. As Carl Sagan argues in his recent book, The
Demon-Haunted World, the public's inability to think critically about
scientific issues is an unappreciated source of our educational and
social woes. By remainingsilent on Brown's shenanigans, we do our
students, who desperately need role models of clear reasoning, a
serious disservice.
Moreover, we leave ourselves open to criticisms such as those of
Robert Baker of the University of Kentucky, who suggested
that the Brown affair "bring(s) into question whether Emory has any
high scientific standards."
So how should Emory respond to Brown? I would argue that Brown's
academic freedom be protected unconditionally, and that we defend his
right to pursue his interests without threat of official sanction or
penalty. Nevertheless, academic freedom also gives Brown's colleagues
license to criticize him openly. It is incumbent on qualified Emory
faculty to inform the public that Brown's assertions are
scientifically irresponsible, and that his money-making ventures and
refusal to submit himself to independent tests of his paranormal
claims are ethically reprehensible. Academic freedom, like all
freedoms (e.g., the right to vote), becomes meaningless when not
exercised. Let us not forfeit it at a time when Emory's reputation as
a serious institution of higher learning is being challenged.
Scott O. Lilienfeld is an assistant professor in the Department of
Psychology.
Eric Greene Deep-Sky BBS (1:133/208)
e...@america.net (404)321-5904
tran...@mhv.net
In article <32a01e34...@news.sonic.net>, we...@sonic.net (Wes Thomas) wrote:
>On 29 Nov 1996 18:50:02 GMT, kfo...@rainbow.rmii.com (Kurt Foster)
>wrote:
>
>>posting a bunch of rumors without checking them first.
>
>tonight that the Lick Observatory has confirmed these "rumors."
>Comments, anyone?
Art is a LOON.....
Tom
chris sheehan
David Tyler wrote:
>
> we...@sonic.net (Wes Thomas) writes:
>
> >...The astrophysicist has not yet been named but may make a
> >press announcement next week.
>
> i'm sure he hasn't been named, nor will he be.
>
after all, arent checkout ilse tabloids very creative at that?
(sorry folks)
Steven Gourley
That is a bunch of crap! there is no planet orbiting Hale-Bopp!!!!!
People wake up! Art Bell is an idiot and so is Shramek. Go out and
look at Hale-Bopp. There is no planet visible next to it. Lets see
the pictures this "astrophysicist" has. How come there are only two
people who have imaged this object? Thousands have already taken
pictures of it. The object was proven to be a star that Shramek
didn't see becuase he didnt't know how to work his Megastar program.
Go to hale-bopp.com and see for yourself. The "rings" on it were
just diffraction spikes that you can see in millions of photographs
of plain stars!
Jeff Gourley
Jeff...@msn.com
Michael Cunningham
> >posting a bunch of rumors without checking them first.
>
> tonight that the Lick Observatory has confirmed these "rumors."
> Comments, anyone?
>
Comments? Art Bell is an idiot and Chickenlittle is the astrophysicist
that confirmed the sky is falling. Go back to writing for the National
Inquirer. Empty minds want to know.
Michael (All views are mine and I'm narrow minded because my scope is an
F10)
Bernhard Rems
Hi there,
Gosh, the world is full of weird people, even in the academic breed. We
have something like that here in Austria, too. Professor Tollmann, a noted
geologist, now claims that there is evidence that the great flood of the
bible was caused by a meteroite about 30 million years ago - and that in
the myths of the peoples of the world this is still remembered (as are the
dinosaurs, which appear as dragons).
As much as Tollmann has done for geology, he simple went nuts in his later
years (a fate he shares with some other scientists).
Regards,
Bernhard
Bernhard Rems
bgr...@daheim.ping.at
Carl Wilson
Wes Thomas <we...@sonic.net> wrote in article
<329eacd6...@news.sonic.net>...
> Now on the Art Bell show (http://www.artbell.com/art/stations.html for
> stations):
>
> According to Prof. Courtney Brown (social scientist) of Emory
> University and Farsight Institute and Prudence Calabrese
> (astrophysicist, PhD candidate) of the Farsight Institute:
>
> An astrophysicist (specialist in planetary science and comets, pioneer
> in his field, and affiliated with a top-ten university) has taken "a
> couple of hundred" photos that confirm Shramek's observations of an
> anomalous object near Hale-Bopp. The astrophysicist, they state,
> believes this is a spheroid object larger than earth, is traveling
> behind the comet Hale-Bopp, appears intermittently with irregular
> positioning with reference to the comet, is hollow (based on the
> comet's movement relative to the object), and is emitting light and
> "intelligent" ("complex patterns") radio signals received by a
> professional radio astronomer and currently being analyzed for
> patterns. The astrophysicist has not yet been named but may make a
> press announcement next week.
>
> Art Bell said there are rumors on the Internet of the astrophysicist's
> identity. Has anyone heard any of these rumors or have any information
> or speculations on the identity of this astrophysicist, his
> institution, or that of the radio astronomer? Your anonymity will be
> assured if you prefer not to be quoted.
>
> Wes Thomas, we...@sonic.net
> Writer
>
I hate to wish my life away, but I wish the year 2000 would get here and be
gone. The closer we get, the more the loons appear to be crawling out of
the woodwork.
Wes Thomas
Now the Farsight Institute is reporting:
1. ....a group claiming to be deeply from within the
intelligence arena of the United States has been
feeding false information about us to important
people who have expressed a desire to help with
our agenda. The purpose has been to use these
people to discredit us in a way that has proved
to be quite clumsy. Through their clumsiness, it
has become known to us that this group is
planning a last ditch effort to discredit us in a
few days. Their hope is to rid us from the public
arena, thereby allowing them to re-start the
secret remote viewing projects within the
government's intelligence apparatus, as well as
to try one more time to squash the public's
awareness of the new and public information
regarding the extraterrestrials and consciousness
that is quickly coming to light.
(http://www.farsight.org/farsight/newsflash.html)
2. On April 20, 1996 H. Fukushima and N.
Yamamoto of the National Astronomical
Observatory of Japan photographed the
Hale-Bopp Comet. They used the observatory's
50cm Reflector and a CDD Camera. The
photograph shows an anomalous feature on the
edge of an "object" next to the "Comet". The
photograph shows a funnel eminating from the
top of the object and gradually dissipitating into
space.
Is this object the companion to Hale-Bopp? We
are tracking down sources at the National
Observatory in Japan for confirmation.
(http://www.farsight.org/farsight/newsflash2.html)
Comments?
Steve Jolly
A direct link to the National Astronomical Observatory of Japan photo
is...
http://www.nao.ac.jp/pio/HB/hb_0420.jpg
...but I can save you the trouble. The "mysterious companion object" is
clearly wearing a little black party hat. So, the aliens are getting
seasonal. Also, if you look just above and to the left, forming a
perfect triangle with Hale-Bopp and the "companion," you'll see a
slanted pair of eyes, one of them apparently in the act of winking. A
_perfect_ triangle! You don't expect me to believe that's sheer chance,
do you? And the hieroglypics showing in the banner photographed just
below Hale-Bopp are amazingly reminescent of Japanese--clear proof, or
at least strongly suggestive, that Japan was originally colonized by
Ancient Aliens!
At first, I didn't believe, but now that the evidence is rushing in...
Brian Zeiler
On 30 Nov 1996 22:06:35 GMT, "Carl Wilson" <ca...@sprynet.com> wrote:
>I hate to wish my life away, but I wish the year 2000 would get here and be
>gone. The closer we get, the more the loons appear to be crawling out of
>the woodwork.
Yeah, wasn't the first stage of the apocalypse supposed to have begun
by now? Years ago I thought it was supposed to start in 1994, then
1996. I'm sure a new interpretation of Nostradumbass will avoid
falsification of the prediction, naturally.
____________________________________________________________________________
Science, Logic, and the UFO Debate:
http://www.primenet.com/~bdzeiler/index.html
-----------------------
"Form 8-R must be completed by persons listed in Item 9a of Form 7-R or Items
4a or 6a on Schedule D, and by all persons listed in Item 10 of Form 7-R and
by all persons applying for registration as an AP of a CPO or CTA."
-- CFTC Regulatory Guide
____________________________________________________________________________
Big G
Wes Thomas wrote:
>
> Now the Farsight Institute is reporting:
>
[blah blah blah]
> Comments?
You're Cuckoo-for-Cocoa-Puffs?
--
-Garrett
tran...@mhv.net
In article <32a0c01e...@news.sonic.net>, we...@sonic.net (Wes Thomas) wrote:
>Now the Farsight Institute is reporting:
[SNIP!]
>2. On April 20, 1996 H. Fukushima and N.
> Yamamoto of the National Astronomical
> Observatory of Japan photographed the
> Hale-Bopp Comet. They used the observatory's
> 50cm Reflector and a CDD Camera. The
> photograph shows an anomalous feature on the
> edge of an "object" next to the "Comet". The
> photograph shows a funnel eminating from the
> top of the object and gradually dissipitating into
> space.
Can everyone say diffraction spike? From the SAO star.....
Tom
Tom Randall Amateur Radio - KB2SMS
tran...@mhv.net Mt. Beacon Amateur Radio Club / ARRL / 10-10
Member: AAVSO Solar Division
Opinions herein are mine and may not be that of MHV.NET!
Stephen Tonkin
Is it a space-ship or is it a comet?
How can we tell?
We humans *do* have at least two potential supernatural capabilities,
which a pitiful minority ever get to develop fully. These supernatural
powers *will* reveal the true nature of this mysterious object. I have
used these faculties to merge my very being with the object known as
"Hale-Bopp" and can reveal to you that it *is*, without question, a
comet.
These potential supernatural capabilities are "coherent thought" and
"common sense".
Now -- homework time: See if you can develop these powers sufficiently
to enable you to reveal the true nature of the likes of Shramek, Brown,
Bell...
--
Stephen Tonkin : UK Amateur Telescope Making Pages
<s...@aegis1.demon.co.uk> : <http://www.aegis1.demon.co.uk/atm.htm>
<stephen...@starbase.org> : (50.9105N 1.829W)
Peter Drumm
In message <32A05E...@pop-dnh.mv.net> - chris sheehan
<lostwo...@pop-dnh.mv.net>Sat, 30 Nov 1996 16:18:00 GMT writes:
:->Dave, oh come on, i am sure by then they will have made one up,,
:->after all, arent checkout ilse tabloids very creative at that?
Speaking of tabloids, (I know, I'll probly get flamed, and this
belongs in alt.its.true.world.ending.tommorrow, but anyway-) I picked
up a Weekly World News tonite, it's always good for a laugh. Some of
the articles include;
Govt's Secret Plan to Prevent the End of the World by Assasinating the
Anti-Christ!
Pilot Sights Angels at 32,000 Ft!
The Earth is Splitting in Two!
Underground Tornadoes Sucking Down Whole Towns!
and, on the cover,
The Secret Prophecies of Satan!
IMO, the Hale-Bopp-strange-object guys should get together with the
World-is-Ending guys and all go jump on a
big-spaceship-following-a-big-comet, keeping their intent completely
secret from the government and everyone else, of course.
pdr...@dwave.net <http://www.dwave.net/~pdrumm>
Using OS/2 Warp 4!
Wausau, WI. 44d 58m 00s N x 89d 36m 45s W
All opinions are mine alone, you go get your own!
R. Klappal
Mark Gingrich <gri...@rahul.net> wrote:
>Any truth to the rumor that the Farsight Institute's astrophysics
>program was ranked "second" in academic achievement, right behind
>the Music department at Gallaudet University?...
>--
You forgot to mention the songs of the Mime Chorus ... and the
photography from the Braille Institute!
kla...@xnet.com
41N48' 88W15'
================
Good telescopes let you look at faint, fuzzy objects in the sky;
Cheap telescopes make everything faint & fuzzy.
T Jacobs
Your very funny... but...
What is it, really? You people are very keen to cut down and criticize,
but slow to offer any real comments. I too am VERY skeptical about this
Hale-Bopp thing, but even JPL and NASA admit that they saw something
with the comet for 17 minutes on the night of November 14, 1996... there
are several pictures (besides C Schrameck's "saturn-like object") that
show anamolous things about the comet. Even the HST picture from last
year that showed the "chunk" breaking away from the "nucleus" is as yet
not really explained. This Japanese picture is another strange photo.
I suppose that in time this will all blow over and the comet will pass
us by uneventfully... but what if... ?
This is a really big universe, and I'm sure that there is a lot "out
there" that we don't even begin to have a vague understanding of. I
hope that something happens someday that will make the "know it all"
science crowd tremble. Humility is a really attractive quality to
have... even for a scientist.
Just my opinion...
Ted
Jeff Gourley
Baldanza Casimiro
see any object that follows the comet.
I think that Bell & Shramek are two big delirant IDIOT!!!
Casimiro Baldanza, Italy
W. Scott Gibson
dwe...@ramtops.demon.co.uk (Douglas Weller) wrote:
! Is Brown really
>a professor at Emory still?
Yup, he has tenure.
Scott Gibson
Olin Habegger
> Mark Gingrich <gri...@rahul.net> wrote:
>
> >Any truth to the rumor that the Farsight Institute's astrophysics
> >program was ranked "second" in academic achievement, right behind
> >the Music department at Gallaudet University?...
>
> >--
>
> You forgot to mention the songs of the Mime Chorus ... and the
> photography from the Braille Institute!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This is the type of unprofessional slander we are talking about, being
emitted from the professional/amateur scientific community. I have been
reading foul trash from those who know better. Put value in your posts and
substance rather than the ridicule and viciousness of your comments.
I still am asking for images from the "scientific community" for the night
of 11/14/96. All I am getting are the "old" images. Have you observed a
Nova or variable star with the same luminance for days, months, years?
I cannot believe the associations you are part of would condone your
unprofessional attacks. There are very few others making the same
rational stand I am making in this group.
BTW, I do know some very good and kind "sightless" people that wouldn't
make any unkind comments about you!
Dick. N6MAS
Stephen Tonkin
T Jacobs <jac...@mail.idt.net> wrote:
>Even the HST picture from last
>year that showed the "chunk" breaking away from the "nucleus" is as yet
>not really explained.
Haven't seen the photo, but disconnection events and nuclear (ie "of the
nucleus") fragmentation are not exactly unknown or unexplained
phenomena.
>
>This is a really big universe, and I'm sure that there is a lot "out
>there" that we don't even begin to have a vague understanding of.
Quite likely -- for that reason alone there is no need to create mystery
where none exists. There *are* things about comets that aren't fully
understood -- but whether or not they are spaceships isn't one of them.
It is logically inept to argue "there are lots of things we don't know,
therefore this is one of them".
> I
>hope that something happens someday that will make the "know it all"
>science crowd tremble.
If scientists think they "know it all", how do you explain the scramble
to get research funding? Research is undertaken precisely to delve into
the unexplained and unknown.
However, most of us live in a free society and are free to believe
whatever we want -- if gullible people want to believe in con-artists
whose motives are selling books and being paid for chat-show
appearances, that is their right in a free society.
Steven Drinovsky
Wes Thomas wrote:
>
> Now on the Art Bell show (http://www.artbell.com/art/stations.html for
> stations):
>
> According to Prof. Courtney Brown (social scientist) of Emory
> University and Farsight Institute and Prudence Calabrese
> (astrophysicist, PhD candidate) of the Farsight Institute:
>
> An astrophysicist (specialist in planetary science and comets, pioneer
> in his field, and affiliated with a top-ten university) has taken "a
I too would like to know who this is so I can ask him where to send
in my $0.02 to get a nifty certificate that says I am a astrophysicist
(specialist in planetary science and comets, pioneer in my field,
and affiliated with a top-ten university). This guy could not have
achieved this standing and put up with this for more then a second.
So this guy is either a fraud, was misquoted, or we don't have all
the facts. But in all cases I am sure that HB is just a comet.
BTW isn't it strange that with all this we haven't heard a word
from <censored>. (I refuse to post even a portion of her name due
to the amount of flaming I would get). :)
Steven
--
Steven Drinovsky sdrin...@wic.tdh.state.tx.us
Texas Department of Health, home (512) 453-2317
WIC Automation work (512) 458-7111x3476
http://www.netcom.com/~sdrinovs pager (512) 403-8453
My opinions are my own and by no means represent the state of Texas.
--
I think so, Brain, but if we didn't have ears, we'd look like weasels.
-Pinky from Pinky and the Brain.
Richard A. Schumacher
>Now the Farsight Institute is reporting:
>1. [claims that they are being ridiculed by the government
to suppress The Truth]
>2. [represention of a fan of material ejected by Hale-Bopp
as some anomalous object]
How can people intelligent enough to type on a keyboard give
themselves over to such paranoia and wishful thinking? There
must be 100,000 people world-wide with telescopes capable of
seeing Hale-Bopp in enough detail to show any such anomalous
objects, if they existed. Many hundreds of these are in use
at any given moment. Nothing anomalous near Hale-Bopp could
be kept secret for more than five minutes.
Richard A. Schumacher
>Now the Farsight Institute is reporting:
>1. [claims that they are being ridiculed by the government
to suppress The Truth]
>2. [represention of a nearby star's diffraction spike as
Mark
T Jacobs wrote:
> What is it, really? You people are very keen to cut down and criticize,
> but slow to offer any real comments.
I have no idea and I'm no astronomer (well, I used to stargaze as a
kid),
just a thought, what if HB has a huge nucleus I mean say 300 miles,
and this nucleus is breaking up. Now, these "pieces" would be as large
as your typical comet (5-10 miles) and produce corona's of their own.
Could this be what folks are seeing????
Just thinkin' out loud.....
Mark
R. Klappal
am...@ix.netcom.com (Olin Habegger) wrote:
>I still am asking for images from the "scientific community" for the night
>of 11/14/96. All I am getting are the "old" images. Have you observed a
>Nova or variable star with the same luminance for days, months, years?
Rather than worring about other images from THAT NIGHT, go login to the
Digitized Sky Survey (http://stdatu.stsci.edu/dss/dss_form.html); use Mr
Shramek's coordinates; download the image and observe his SATURN LIKE
OBJECT! Lo and behold! His SLO that is accompanying Hale Bopp has not
moved noticable, relative to the other stars, since the night of July
27, 1954. [If you wish, and can find someone to show you a replicate of
the actual Palomar Observatory Sky Survey plate, or its microfiche, you
will find the date engraved in the corner.]
Now, I agree, there is no comet in that picture. The comet is +/- 42
years out of place. All the rest of the image is there.
... snip ...
>BTW, I do know some very good and kind "sightless" people that wouldn't
>make any unkind comments about you!
>Dick. N6MAS
GO BACK AND RE-READ MY POSTING!! I made no unkind comments concerning
any blind person (I refuse to mollycoddle using euphemistic,
"politically correct" "sightless".) All of my statements have been
towards radio "personalities", in the middle of the November SWEEPS
period, capitalizing on gullible people to artificially increase their
ratings.
Grow up!
X-files is NOT a documentary.
Bye now; Have a nice day.
kla...@xnet.com
41N48' 88W15'
================
Nothing in the nature of things is or has been more closely
concealed. The only thing in which it does not satisfy everybody
is that its usefulness is not clear to the unreflecting.
J.Kepler of Wurttemberg
Mysterium Cosmographicum
================
Peter Besenbruch
Baldanza Casimiro wrote:
> I think that Bell & Shramek are two big delirant IDIOT!!!
I'm afraid I'll have to disagree, sort of. <g> Schramek and Bell are a
Flim-Flam team. This means they work together to make money by
deliberately lying, spreading rumors. I don't think their actions here
will make them rich, but it should help pay a few bills.
Mike Beebe
: I have been reading foul trash from those who know better. . .
Does Steve Winters know you're stealing his act?
Mike Beebe
--
"I haven't had this much fun since my pet monkey ate a pound of coffee
and chased me around the block with a butcher knife!"
Darren Garrison
be...@scd.hp.com (Mike Beebe) wrote:
>: I have been reading foul trash from those who know better. . .
>
>
> Does Steve Winters know you're stealing his act?
>
>
LOL. How many people get THAT one? If it was Terry Ortman, he would
be planning lawsuits right about now. :-)
peter nelson
Mike Beebe wrote:
> OBAstro: The group I work with here at HP contains more astronomers
> per square inch than any place I've ever seen. It's simply
> crawling with them. I think I've learned more since working
> here than in 5 years of (rank) amatuer astronomy. Probably
> because you can't get mindlessly smashed here first . . .
>
> Mike "They all got better scopes, too!" Beebe
We have lots of amateur astronomers at my HP site
(HP-MPG) too. Maybe there's a hoshin about or
something. No "H-B-is-an-alien-mothership" types
that I know of where I work. I'll have to mention this
to our Diversity committee to see of we can get some.
---peter
alk
Bad reasoning does not refute bad reasoning.
Eric Greene wrote:
> Found this article on the Emory web site (www.emory.edu)
[Follows an excerpt of a document attributed to Scott O. Lilienfeld
of Emory, Psychology:]
> I recently challenged him to a test of his
> alleged psychic abilities. I proposed that he appear at a
> meeting of my undergraduate seminar on Science and Pseudoscience in
> Psychology, where my students and I would subject him to a simple
> controlled experiment examining his capacity to remotely view stimuli
> in an adjacent room. I assured him that he would have considerable
> input regarding the selection of stimulus materials, and agreed to
> publicize the results of this test in both Emory newspapers regardless
> of its outcome.
>
> But Brown categorically refused. His reasoning was curious: In his
> e-mail response to me, he asserted that "tests of the type you have
> talked about are very old hat" and that the current status of remote
> viewing "goes light years beyond that which your letter suggests." But
> if Brown's psychic powers are as advanced as he claims, shouldn't he
> be able to pass an elementary test of these powers with flying colors?
...
Because Brown does not claim any psychical abilities of his own,
to my knowledge, upon review of the website at www.farsight.com.
In fact, the technique of "scientific remote viewing" described
at that site could not be carried out under the conditions which
Lilienfeld proposed, because it requires a number of independent
investigators -- that is in fact what justifies (in Brown's mind,
at least) the use of the adjective "scientific". While the raw
data of the SRV technique consist of subjective impressions (the
same could be said of astronomy in the absence of photography!)
the "scientific" character of the technique is derived from the
use of blind independent confirmation. In coarse terms, the
technique is scientifically valid in principle, i.e. may
result in statistically significant observations of anomalous
effects. (Although it should also be noted that *what* is
being observed has not been established, even assuming generously
that the pitifully vestigial reported results are honestly
representative.)
> Scott O. Lilienfeld is an assistant professor in the Department of
> Psychology.
Scott O. Lilienfeld has grossly misrepresented Brown's claims, and
if Scott O. Lilienfeld was aware of this misrepresentation at the
time, his honesty is therefore suspect. If not, his behaviour is
nonetheless irresponsible.
Troy Dawson
Richard A. Schumacher wrote:
>
> How can people intelligent enough to type on a keyboard give
> themselves over to such paranoia and wishful thinking? There
> must be 100,000 people world-wide with telescopes capable of
> seeing Hale-Bopp in enough detail to show any such anomalous
> objects, if they existed. Many hundreds of these are in use
> at any given moment. Nothing anomalous near Hale-Bopp could
> be kept secret for more than five minutes.
http://www.halebopp.com/zback05.htm#eyes
=td=
Troy Dawson
R. Klappal wrote:
>
> Now, I agree, there is no comet in that picture. The comet is +/- 42
> years out of place. All the rest of the image is there.
>
yes, but the issue now is why that mag 9 star is outshining HB...
=td=
Mike Beebe
: >
: > Does Steve Winters know you're stealing his act?
: >
: >
: LOL. How many people get THAT one? If it was Terry Ortman, he would
: be planning lawsuits right about now. :-)
Y'know, over on alt.usenet.kooks, Kettler has completely blown a hose
over this and is writing spittle-flecked rants about how someone is a
KNOWN LIAR, in caps, of course.
When you get the all-caps rant, y'know you're dealing with a king-hell
looney.
OBAstro: The group I work with here at HP contains more astronomers
per square inch than any place I've ever seen. It's simply
crawling with them. I think I've learned more since working
here than in 5 years of (rank) amatuer astronomy. Probably
because you can't get mindlessly smashed here first . . .
Mike "They all got better scopes, too!" Beebe
Edward Barus
T Jacobs (jac...@mail.idt.net) wrote:
: Your very funny... but...
:
: What is it, really? You people are very keen to cut down and criticize,
: but slow to offer any real comments. I too am VERY skeptical about this
: Hale-Bopp thing, but even JPL and NASA admit that they saw something
: with the comet for 17 minutes on the night of November 14, 1996... there
: are several pictures (besides C Schrameck's "saturn-like object") that
: show anamolous things about the comet. Even the HST picture from last
: year that showed the "chunk" breaking away from the "nucleus" is as yet
: not really explained. This Japanese picture is another strange photo.
: I suppose that in time this will all blow over and the comet will pass
: us by uneventfully... but what if... ?
:
: This is a really big universe, and I'm sure that there is a lot "out
: there" that we don't even begin to have a vague understanding of. I
: hope that something happens someday that will make the "know it all"
: science crowd tremble. Humility is a really attractive quality to
: have... even for a scientist.
:
: Just my opinion...
: Ted
FINALLY! A man with something intelligent to say.
Just my opinion ...
Ed
Stephen Tonkin
alk <a...@pobox.com> wrote:
>While the raw
>data of the SRV technique consist of subjective impressions (the
>same could be said of astronomy in the absence of photography!)
>the "scientific" character of the technique is derived from the
>use of blind independent confirmation.
I would give it more credence if it was actually capable of accurate
testable prediction.
Something like predicting a comet (or anything else) *before* it is
confirmed by traditional scientific methods might convince a few people;
until it is capable of testable predictions it is, by definition,
pseudoscience. Period.
Robert Sheaffer
In article <32A4E08D...@pobox.com>, alk <a...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>Eric Greene wrote:
>
>> Found this article on the Emory web site (www.emory.edu)
>[Follows an excerpt of a document attributed to Scott O. Lilienfeld
>of Emory, Psychology:]
>>
>> e-mail response to me, he asserted that "tests of the type you have
>> talked about are very old hat" and that the current status of remote
>> viewing "goes light years beyond that which your letter suggests." But
>> if Brown's psychic powers are as advanced as he claims, shouldn't he
>> be able to pass an elementary test of these powers with flying colors?
>...
>
>Because Brown does not claim any psychical abilities of his own,
>to my knowledge, upon review of the website at www.farsight.com.
Oh, yes he does! He claims to have been a "scientific remote viewer"
for the military.
And using these "advanced" techniques, he has discovered that there
are not one but two E.T. races, the Greys and the Martians.
>Scott O. Lilienfeld has grossly misrepresented Brown's claims, and
>if Scott O. Lilienfeld was aware of this misrepresentation at the
>time, his honesty is therefore suspect. If not, his behaviour is
>nonetheless irresponsible.
Yes, it's *so* irresponsible and dishonest to challenge psychic claimants to prove
their claims!
--
Robert Sheaffer - Robert....@siemenscom.com - Skeptical to the Max!
Goro Adachi
Stephen Tonkin wrote:
> Something like predicting a comet (or anything else) *before* it is
> confirmed by traditional scientific methods might convince a few people;
> until it is capable of testable predictions it is, by definition,
> pseudoscience. Period.
Comet Hale-Bopp was predicted before its discovery. A "very bright
comet" in sky of "Northern Hemisphere" in "1997". Is that clear
enought? It was predicted during the '80s. This is discussed in-depth
on my web site. Incidentally, this current Hale-Bopp-ET connection was
also predicted. Let's hear what you think of that.
My web site is at:
http://www.concentric.net/~adachi/prophecy/prophecy.html
--
--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+-
GORO ADACHI E-Mail: ada...@cris.com
URL: http://www.concentric.net/~adachi/
Darren Garrison
bgr...@daheim.ping.at (Bernhard Rems) wrote:
>Hi there,
>
>Gosh, the world is full of weird people, even in the academic breed. We
>have something like that here in Austria, too. Professor Tollmann, a noted
>geologist, now claims that there is evidence that the great flood of the
>bible was caused by a meteroite about 30 million years ago - and that in
>the myths of the peoples of the world this is still remembered (as are the
>dinosaurs, which appear as dragons).
The flood part is garbage, but the dragon part is probably right.
Ancient peoples found huge bones from what appeared to be giant
reptiles. They called them dragons. We call them dinosaurs.
William Mayers
>Comet Hale-Bopp was predicted before its discovery. A "very bright
>comet" in sky of "Northern Hemisphere" in "1997". Is that clear
>enought? It was predicted during the '80s. This is discussed
in-depth
>on my web site. Incidentally, this current Hale-Bopp-ET connection
was
>also predicted. Let's hear what you think of that.
Hey! If the esteemed and erudite prognosticator were truly psychic,
why didn't he:
1. Predict the precise date upon which the comet would be discovered?
2. Predict precisely the path it would take around the sun?
3. Predict the names of the gentlemen who eventually discovered it?
4. Predict the nationality of either or both?
5. Predict the academic affiliation of either or both discoverers?
6. Predict the actual luminosity of the comet at various points?
Point: any jerk can make a thousand predicitons and expect to be able
to score a hit on a couple - and if he is vague enough, such as
predicting "a bright comet in the northern skies in 1997", he can
guarantee a much larger aura of infallability...just grab onto those
events that approximate his prediction and pretend that it's a "hit".
And as far as the ET connection? Aww, give us a break, fer crapsakes!!
Bill Mayers
RLR
h...@ix.netcom.com(William Mayers) wrote:
>
>>Comet Hale-Bopp was predicted before its discovery. A "very bright
>>comet" in sky of "Northern Hemisphere" in "1997". Is that clear
>>enought? It was predicted during the '80s. This is discussed
>in-depth
>>on my web site. Incidentally, this current Hale-Bopp-ET connection
>was
>>also predicted. Let's hear what you think of that.
>
>
I would also like to know his definition of "very bright". I would
think this would depend on the location of the viewer. It would also
be interesting to determine the number of "very bright" comets that
have arrived over the years (frequency of arrival). But then, again,
what is a "very bright" comet?
{sigh}
RLR
Peter Besenbruch
Troy Dawson wrote:
> yes, but the issue now is why that mag 9 star is outshining HB...
There are several answers:
1) The star is not outshining the comet.
2) The star is mag. 8.5, I believe. Since each magnitude represents a
2.5x change in brightness, that half magnitude is a significant
differance.
3) Hale-Bopp was shining at mag. 4.5-5 in that photo. It was also a
spread out object. The star is much larger than the comet, but the light
from it comes from so far away that the star is essentially a point
source of light. A much fainter star will show up faster than a spread
object in a picture.
4) Now I get a little technical: How fast a star appears on a CCD chip
depends on the size of the main mirror of a telescope. The numbers
tossed around for Shramek's scope is 8-10". How fast a spread object
appears on a CCD depends on the speed of the optics, otherwise known as
the telescope's f-ratio. A large, slow (long f-ratio) telescope will
show lots of bright stars, but the comet might not even appear in the
CCD image. A small, fast (short f-ratio) scope will show very few, faint
stars, but the comet will be bright.
5) More technical stuff: Schramek used an f6.3 Schmidt-Cassegrain
(called an SCT) design scope by Meade. The diameter of the secondary is
about 40% of the diameter of the main mirror. That is a huge
obstruction. The effect is to reduce sharply the contrast of the optics.
Stars will record in about the same time in this scope, but extended, or
spread, objects will be harder to record.
Now for the analysis. You cannot directly compare the brightness of
stars and comets on a CCD image. You need instead to compare the
brightness of the other stars in the image with the supposed UFO. To do
the comparrison, you need to calibrate the CCD by taking dark frames and
flat frames. I don't think Shramek did this.
Shramek used a moderately fast telescope (the f-ratio was 6.3) for its
type, but in the overall scheme of things, f6.3 is considered medium to
slow. Combine this with the low contrast performance of the scope, and I
would say the picture looks normal.
Stephen Tonkin
Goro Adachi <ada...@cris.com> wrote:
>Stephen Tonkin wrote:
>
>> Something like predicting a comet (or anything else) *before* it is
>> confirmed by traditional scientific methods might convince a few people;
>> until it is capable of testable predictions it is, by definition,
>> pseudoscience. Period.
>
>comet" in sky of "Northern Hemisphere" in "1997". Is that clear
>enought? It was predicted during the '80s. This is discussed in-depth
>on my web site. Incidentally, this current Hale-Bopp-ET connection was
>also predicted. Let's hear what you think of that.
Your web site declares that the prediction is of a comet appearing in
the Northern hemisphere in 1997.
IIRC H-B appeared in the southern hemisphere of the sky in mid 1995. It
became naked-eye visible in 1996, also (but only just) in the southern
hemisphere.
I also think that giving half the sky as a predicted location for the
appearance of something is a little, shall we say, broad. So is the
time-scale of a year.
Something like the month of appearance and an RA and Dec to within a
degree or so would be much more convincing.
RLR
Peter Besenbruch <p...@lava.net> wrote:
{Very GOOD explanation snipped}
>Shramek used a moderately fast telescope (the f-ratio was 6.3) for its
>type, but in the overall scheme of things, f6.3 is considered medium to
>slow. Combine this with the low contrast performance of the scope, and I
>would say the picture looks normal.
I think that was an excellent explanation...too bad the lunatic fringe
will probably ignore it.
RLR
Terence Christopher Platt
In article <32A43D...@twics.com>, Troy Dawson (t...@twics.com) writes:
>R. Klappal wrote:
>>
>> Now, I agree, there is no comet in that picture. The comet is +/- 42
>> years out of place. All the rest of the image is there.
>>
>
>
>
Hi,
I know it is fatal to reply to these postings, but I just
had to answer this! My company (Starlight Xpress) manufacture CCD
cameras and I am very familiar with the reason for the brightness
of this star on Chuck's image. This star is a spectral type M red
giant (info. which is provided by Megastar - the program that he
was using - incorrectly!) and M type stars are VERY bright in the
near infra-red. The CCD in his camera is a Texas Instruments
TC255, which has an EXCELLENT near infra-red response (better than
its visible light performance!). If you put the response of the
camera alongside the spectral emission curve of this star, you
will see that there is an APPARENT brightness increase of several
magnitudes, due to the infra-red excess.
This is an extremely common problem with inexperienced CCD
users - there have been hundreds of 'discoveries' of new variables
and novae, all of which turn out to be very red stars boosted out
of obscurity by the CCD spectral response!!
There is a very simple answer to this question, if you need proof.
Just ask Chuck to image the same area with the same equipment and
exposure - the star will still be there and it will still be
anomalously bright!
Conclusion - DO NOT TRUST AN UNFILTERED CCD IMAGE WHEN LOOKING FOR
UNUSUAL OBJECTS. There are lots of red giants about!
Regards,
Terry
Richard A. Schumacher
>> at any given moment. Nothing anomalous near Hale-Bopp could
>> be kept secret for more than five minutes.
>http://www.halebopp.com/zback05.htm#eyes
Uhh, yeah. We're supposed to get excited about a glitch in one
CCD camera? What do you think it is?
Richard A. Schumacher
>yes, but the issue now is why that mag 9 star is outshining HB...
It's brighter in the infrared than is HB, and CCD cameras are
often most sensitive in the IR. Next.
Richard A. Schumacher
>Comet Hale-Bopp was predicted before its discovery. A "very bright
>comet" in sky of "Northern Hemisphere" in "1997". Is that clear
>enought? It was predicted during the '80s. This is discussed in-depth
>on my web site. Incidentally, this current Hale-Bopp-ET connection was
>also predicted. Let's hear what you think of that.
Ah, yes. But why not discuss these things _before_ they happen?
>My web site is at:
On a web page, no one can tell you you're full of shit.
Peter Besenbruch
Terence Christopher Platt wrote:
> This star is a spectral type M red
> giant (info. which is provided by Megastar - the program that he
> was using - incorrectly!) and M type stars are VERY bright in the
> near infra-red. The CCD in his camera is a Texas Instruments
> TC255, which has an EXCELLENT near infra-red response (better than
> its visible light performance!). If you put the response of the
> camera alongside the spectral emission curve of this star, you
> will see that there is an APPARENT brightness increase of several
> magnitudes, due to the infra-red excess.
Great answer; I learned something. Thanks.
Goro Adachi
Stephen Tonkin wrote:
> Goro Adachi <ada...@cris.com> wrote:
> >Stephen Tonkin wrote:
> >
> >> Something like predicting a comet (or anything else) *before* it is
> >> confirmed by traditional scientific methods might convince a few people;
> >> until it is capable of testable predictions it is, by definition,
> >> pseudoscience. Period.
> >
> >comet" in sky of "Northern Hemisphere" in "1997". Is that clear
> >enought? It was predicted during the '80s. This is discussed in-depth
> >on my web site. Incidentally, this current Hale-Bopp-ET connection was
> >also predicted. Let's hear what you think of that.
> Your web site declares that the prediction is of a comet appearing in
> the Northern hemisphere in 1997.
That's correct. And it is the only dated prediction concerning comets
by that particular source.
> IIRC H-B appeared in the southern hemisphere of the sky in mid 1995. It
> became naked-eye visible in 1996, also (but only just) in the southern
> hemisphere.
The source actually states that the comet will be "particularly visible
to the northern hemisphere"... and of course HB will be in the sky of
Northern Hemisphere around its perihelion around 4/1/97.
> I also think that giving half the sky as a predicted location for the
> appearance of something is a little, shall we say, broad. So is the
> time-scale of a year.
If you do a probability calculation, I think it will be shown that it
was a highly unlikely prediction. And remember, it was predicted about
a decade ago.
> Something like the month of appearance and an RA and Dec to within a
> degree or so would be much more convincing.
That's in the realm of impossibility :) There is that Uncertainty
principle of QM, you know.
Stephen Tonkin
Troy Dawson <t...@twics.com> wrote:
>R. Klappal wrote:
>>
>> Now, I agree, there is no comet in that picture. The comet is +/- 42
>> years out of place. All the rest of the image is there.
>>
>
This issue has been done to death. In fact, once you take into account
that a comet is an extended object and that CCDs (unsurprisingly)
respond to light differently to eyes (see elsewhere in this thread), you
will realise that it is a non-issue.
Fox
[quoting Christopher Platt and Peter Besenbruch]
Hi Christopher,
the explanation of the high infra-red sensitivity in shramek's camera
and the resulting "brighter" star is known to me already (some could
read this explanation short after shramek's pic was on the net).
Question:
Has ever anyone done a re-photograph of the shramek-picture under
the same circumstances, using the _same equipment_ (camera, scope) and
coordinates, same field of view and exposure-times ? (This is all
known!)
If this is so easy...where are the pictures of the same starfield
with the SAME saturn-like thing and the hords of astronomers shouting
"Look here ! There you have your "SLO" !" ???
If astronomers re-photograph this section of the sky and the star again
turns into an SLO then please post your pictures (if not already).
If they re-photograph this section with the stars under the same
circumstances and it does NOT turn into an SLO...well.....
ok..greets
Bill and Sandra Tyner
Baldanza Casimiro (bald...@bo.infn.it) wrote:
: I follow HaleBopp from June from ITALY, the weater was good and I don't
: see any object that follows the comet.
: I think that Bell & Shramek are two big delirant IDIOT!!!
: Casimiro Baldanza, Italy
Go get 'em Casimiro! But, ease up he's good for the economy...keeps a
lot of radio stations going overnight.
Martin Hardcastle
In article <32A43D...@twics.com>, Troy Dawson <t...@twics.com> wrote:
>Richard A. Schumacher wrote:
>>Nothing anomalous near Hale-Bopp could
>> be kept secret for more than five minutes.
>
>http://www.halebopp.com/zback05.htm#eyes
That doesn't look very `secret' to me. Or particularly surprising.
Martin
--
Martin Hardcastle Mullard Radio Astronomy Observatory, Cambridge
Be not solitary, be not idle
Bernhard Rems
Hi there,
t...@twics.com wrote:
> R. Klappal wrote:
> >
> > Now, I agree, there is no comet in that picture. The comet is +/- 42
> > years out of place. All the rest of the image is there.
> >
>
> yes, but the issue now is why that mag 9 star is outshining HB...
>
> =td=
Infrared excess?
Regards,
Bernhard
Bernhard Rems
bgr...@daheim.ping.at
Bernhard Rems
Hi there,
ada...@cris.com wrote:
> > I also think that giving half the sky as a predicted location for the
> > appearance of something is a little, shall we say, broad. So is the
> > time-scale of a year.
>
> If you do a probability calculation, I think it will be shown that it
> was a highly unlikely prediction. And remember, it was predicted about
> a decade ago.
No, not at all. Better than 50% chance. I now predict that a nice comet
will be visible in the northern hemisphere around the middle of 1998. Got
a good chance to be recognized as a psychic after that :-) (because I will
cite this mail after it happened - or let it be forgotten :-)) ).
Rob Roy
The Hamilton Amateur Astronomers have just updated their home page
with a totally new look. Check out the very entertaining, indexed
monthly newsletters and the 1997 calendar of events in "What's New?".
"Resources" include links to WWW Astronomy, Canadian Amateurs and
Clubs, our junior groups web page and useful observing tips.
It's at: http://www.science.mcmaster.ca/HAA/index.html
..............................................
Rob Roy
Stan
Fox wrote:
>
[snip]
This has been done to death here. I can understand if you still want to
reply to these guys, but when you do, please remove sci.astro.amateur from
the newsgroups line. Let's get this crap out of s.a.a.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stan Schwarz | "I just want to live like Yogi Bear
st...@bombay.gps.caltech.edu | He kicks ass on the average bear."
---------------------------------------------------- -Stukas Over Bedrock -----
Martin Tom Brown
In article <Jr47XWAI...@aegis1.demon.co.uk>
as...@aegis1.demon.co.uk "Stephen Tonkin" writes:
> Goro Adachi <ada...@cris.com> wrote:
> >Stephen Tonkin wrote:
> >
> >> Something like predicting a comet (or anything else) *before* it is
> >> confirmed by traditional scientific methods might convince a few people;
> >
> >Comet Hale-Bopp was predicted before its discovery. A "very bright
> >comet" in sky of "Northern Hemisphere" in "1997". Is that clear
> >enought? It was predicted during the '80s. This is discussed in-depth
> >on my web site. Incidentally, this current Hale-Bopp-ET connection was
> >also predicted. Let's hear what you think of that.
>
> Your web site declares that the prediction is of a comet appearing in
> the Northern hemisphere in 1997.
>
> IIRC H-B appeared in the southern hemisphere of the sky in mid 1995. It
> became naked-eye visible in 1996, also (but only just) in the southern
> hemisphere.
>
> I also think that giving half the sky as a predicted location for the
> appearance of something is a little, shall we say, broad. So is the
> time-scale of a year.
But cleverly constructed "rain or go dark before morning" predictions
are their stock in trade. Do not underestimate the the skills required
to do this. It's actually quite a clever form of audience manipulation.
To a non-astronomer his H-B prediction claim might even sound convincing.
In a 10s news sound bite it could even be reported as true :(
Regards,
--
Martin Brown <mar...@nezumi.demon.co.uk> __ CIS: 71651,470
Scientific Software Consultancy /^,,)__/
s6...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
I used to read books about astronomy that described the behavior of people
in mideval times, and earlier, reacting to the appearance of a bright
comet in the sky. All sorts of dire consequences would be attributed the
the appearance of the comet, like plagues, wars, etc. But I could be
assured by the fact that I lived in more enlightened times and that such
things didn't happen any more. Even some of the events surrounding Comet
Halley's apparition in 1910 could be excused. After all, the Earth passed
through the tail of the comet, and after professional astronomers released
the news that cyanogen gas was present in the comet's tail, some less than
scrutable people were bound to jump on it and make a quick buck.
But now we have Hale-Bopp and all the speculation on its companion, aliens
and whatever other sensationalistic bullshit there is out there. Does this
happen whenever there are bright comets? Did this kind of thing happen
with Kohoutek and West? I guess people are just not as enlightened as I
thought they were. Chalk it up to youthful naiveity, I guess.
Sean Dzafovic
Troy Dawson
Richard A. Schumacher wrote:
>
> >> at any given moment. Nothing anomalous near Hale-Bopp could
> CCD camera? What do you think it is?
from the explanations now on halebopp.com, plus the original
raw image (why wasn't this posted in July????) it is possible
that the eyes are an artifact of the software processing the
bright blob of the nucleus/coma.
The camera seems to be functioning correctly, and so does the
software btw, so the case is still open though.
Not that I really care about the putative presence of a SLO.
If it's really an alien thing, then waiting is half the fun, and
if it's just ice, then it's just ice.
The Sept. Hubble shots did show beautiful streamers; let's
hope HB continues the show!
=td=
Troy Dawson
Terence Christopher Platt wrote:
>
>
> >yes, but the issue now is why that mag 9 star is outshining HB...
> >
> >=td=
> >
>
>
> There is a very simple answer to this question, if you need proof.
> Just ask Chuck to image the same area with the same equipment and
> exposure - the star will still be there and it will still be
> anomalously bright!
thanks; Mr Shramek?
=td=
Fox
Hello,
yesterday i asked polite if any astronomer already has re-photographed
the section of the sky with the stars under the same circumstances
(scope, coordinates,camera) as did shramek to SHOW whether (or not) the
SLO (saturn like object) appears again. I asked also for an url or
something in case such pictures could have been posted already.
Two "replied" until now....
R.Klappal wrote:
>HEY! STUPID!
>We told you, back on your first posting, that the "rings" of your
>SLO are diffraction spikes. Newtonian scopes make 'em. Refractors with
>dirty optics make 'em. Mis-aligned and/or dirty SCTs make 'em
Hi Mr Arrogant, that's nice "you" TOLD me....but too bad i know
what diffraction-spikes ARE and what CAUSES them since i was a
12 years old kid and was into astronomy. Your surprising news really
BORE me...i asked for PICTURES supporting your now since eons discussed
explanations and not for an explanation of what diffracton spikes are !
If the whole SLO-thread annoys "you all" that much then i ask AGAIN why
i have NEVER seen a picture where i can SEE with my own eyes how
the SLO appears ?
>
> ITS A STAR!
>November was sweeps month for radio/TV ratings. Art Bell wants to
>charge more for his advertising. Its a scam to get listeners!
YOU KNOW WHAT ?
I'm tired of that already....Art Bell...Art Bell...scam..scam..scam,
doin' it for the money...etcetera......
You know what ? Visit www.halebopp.com and LOOK for yourself how
hale now released his SECOND book about hale-bopp. What a entertainer,
nuuuh.....so how's that hale now making bucks with his books about
hale-bopp ? Maybe he will have a nice section in it covering the
amazing SLO-story also...and maybe a bit x-files touch as on their
webpage already......
I just can laugh hearing your arguments....and how you define
what/who is "scientific".
>You are not Fox Mulder. Thats a scam too.
>X-files is not a documentary
What ya don't say...you're not the first one "arguing" with such
statements about a pseudo for the net...so what ? Gone out of arguments ?
So we need to be a little bit emotional ?
Or strengthen your (NON EXISTING) "arguments" in a discussion with
such wise sentences like "x-files is not a documentary" ?
Still i miss an answer to my posting and the above doesnt change ANYTHING,
call me 1000 names...it's just a proof of your "scientific" way of
discussing.
>Ignorance results from a lack of information.
>Stupidity results from ignoring.avoiding information.
That's right....i'd say: Read a few books...maybe then we can restart
a "discussion"....i doubt you're ever able to do that...neither
you're willing to talk with anyone who doesnt share your opinion from
the first beginning.
>
>kla...@xnet.com
and the next.....
Stan Schwarz wrote:
>This has been done to death here. I can understand if you still want to
>reply to these guys, but when you do, please remove sci.astro.amateur from
>the newsgroups line. Let's get this crap out of s.a.a.
What please has been done to death ? I asked for pictures ;) I also asked
where to get them if already posted.....look....discussing is something
else.
Your naming my posting "crap" also doesn't strengthen your position and
your arguments...looks just helpless to me. Was it such an enormous
task for you to prove your theoretical TALKING with a simple picture ?
Was it ?
Your note above about "remove s.a.a"...was a good laugh...ya know,
next time i post requests for astronomy pictures in alt.sex.bondage !
waiting for the next...i'm sure there will be some more similiar
"useful" replies...
David W. Knisely
Hi there. Yes, there were a few fringe groups with comet Kohoutek (end
of the world, collisions with Earth, plagues, ect.), probably because,
like Hale-Bopp, Kohouted was discovered well in advance of its visual
apparition, giving time for the fringe groups to get something going.
Actually, I kind of liked the comet. It was far from a dud (visible
easily to the naked eye and a four degree tail with the full moon in the
sky). When the moon got out of the way, it was easy but fainter, showing
a ten degree tail and putting Halley's performance to shame.
--
David W. Knisely, KA0CZC email: dk8...@navix.net
Prairie Astronomy Club, Inc. http://www.infoanalytic.com/pac/
Attend the 4th annual NEBRASKA STAR PARTY, AUGUST 2-9th, 1997
BABYLON 5: Our last best hope for QUALITY science fiction.
Stephen Tonkin
Goro Adachi <ada...@cris.com> wrote:
>
>If you do a probability calculation, I think it will be shown that it
>was a highly unlikely prediction. And remember, it was predicted about
>a decade ago.
No, it is a better than 1:2 probability. In fact, comets are discovered
(or "appear") etc every year. Of those which "appeared" in 1995, for
example, more than 75% spent some of that time "appearing" in the
northern hemisphere of the sky. (ditto for the southern hemisphere)
This is precisely what wouuld be expected.
He does not say what "bright" means -- brightness is relative. Uranus
is bright compared to Pluto, but not compared to the Sun. Was a more
testable estimate of brightness made?
Now lets see how the mathematics of probability *should* be applied to
this supposed prophet. Firstly, let's look at his "hit-rate" with
"significant" events -- you will find he predicted rematrkably few of
them. This is typical of these people -- they conveniently ignore all
the things that happen which they didn't predict.
Did he predict comet Hyakutake? (ie bright comet in 1996)
Did he predict the break-up of comet Schumaker-Levy and its impact with
Jupiter?
In fact, there are many "significant" events which these "prophets" fail
to predict. They make general vague statements which have little chance
of being wrong and conveniently forget those predictions which turn out
to be misses despite their wide, catch-all pronouncements.
Now, I predict that the west coast of Britain, north of Liverpool, will
be hit by gales, force 8-9 (Beaufort) in the last week of October, 1997.
Now, that statement has far less probability of being correct than the
p"prediction" of a comet appearing in an entire hemisphere in an entire
year. It is also a much more easily testable, since I have narrowed
down the location and timescale and defined the range of wind speeds.
If I am correct, am I a prophet? Pah! Any fool can make those sorts of
prediction and have a better-than-even chance that a majority of them
will be correct. Making the prediction requires no special skills,
although I concede that making money out of it does.
Bruce Daniel Kettler
Mul...@aabspsii.org (Fox) wrote:
>Hello,
>
>yesterday i asked polite if any astronomer already has re-photographed
>the section of the sky with the stars under the same circumstances
<snip>
>R.Klappal wrote:
>
>>HEY! STUPID!
>>We told you, back on your first posting, that the "rings" of your
>>SLO are diffraction spikes.
<snip>
>Hi Mr Arrogant, that's nice "you" TOLD me....but too bad i know
>what diffraction-spikes ARE and what CAUSES them since i was a
>12 years old kid and was into astronomy.
<snip>
Oh, you mean stay on the point you bring up? No, these people
don't do that!
Oh, yes, this arrogance and stupidity is quite prevelant amongst
these people of great knowledge. Too bad they cannot put their
knowledge, intelligence, and experience to good use, since so
many of their minds are so messed up, otherwise.
>If the whole SLO-thread annoys "you all" that much then i ask AGAIN why
>i have NEVER seen a picture where i can SEE with my own eyes how
>the SLO appears ?
>> ITS A STAR!
>>November was sweeps month for radio/TV ratings. Art Bell wants to
>>charge more for his advertising. Its a scam to get listeners!
>YOU KNOW WHAT ?
>I'm tired of that already....Art Bell...Art Bell...scam..scam..scam,
>doin' it for the money...etcetera......
Yes, the ART BELL matter is nothing but a diversion. These people
don't want to discuss the issues you raise, but rather make up
new one's.
>You know what ? Visit www.halebopp.com and LOOK for yourself how
>hale now released his SECOND book about hale-bopp. What a entertainer,
>nuuuh.....so how's that hale now making bucks with his books about
>hale-bopp ? Maybe he will have a nice section in it covering the
>amazing SLO-story also...and maybe a bit x-files touch as on their
>webpage already......
>I just can laugh hearing your arguments....and how you define
>what/who is "scientific".
>>You are not Fox Mulder. Thats a scam too.
>>X-files is not a documentary
>What ya don't say...you're not the first one "arguing" with such
>statements about a pseudo for the net...so what ? Gone out of arguments ?
>So we need to be a little bit emotional ?
Talk about diversionary arguments, have you read the one about
me, supposedly, advertising? I have many free offerings on my
web page, and I've pointed THOSE OUT! So, to discredit me, and
to say they cannot look at the free information and links, they
say I'm supposedly "advertising." What a joke!
>Or strengthen your (NON EXISTING) "arguments" in a discussion with
>such wise sentences like "x-files is not a documentary" ?
>Still i miss an answer to my posting and the above doesnt change ANYTHING,
>call me 1000 names...it's just a proof of your "scientific" way of
>discussing.
Yes, I get the same thing. Anyone who disagrees with these
people, or who even *QUESTIONS* some of their points or illogic,
seems to get blasted with insane insults and character
assassination.
For examples of this mentality, click on
"Skeptics"
at the site, shown below. And, don't call that advertising,
because that's a FREE SERVICE!
>>Ignorance results from a lack of information.
>>Stupidity results from ignoring.avoiding information.
>That's right....i'd say: Read a few books...maybe then we can restart
>a "discussion"....i doubt you're ever able to do that...neither
>you're willing to talk with anyone who doesnt share your opinion from
>the first beginning.
>and the next.....
>Stan Schwarz wrote:
>>This has been done to death here. I can understand if you still want to
>>reply to these guys, but when you do, please remove sci.astro.amateur from
>>the newsgroups line. Let's get this crap out of s.a.a.
>What please has been done to death ? I asked for pictures ;) I also asked
>where to get them if already posted.....look....discussing is something
>else.
>Your naming my posting "crap" also doesn't strengthen your position and
>your arguments...looks just helpless to me. Was it such an enormous
>task for you to prove your theoretical TALKING with a simple picture ?
>Was it ?
>Your note above about "remove s.a.a"...was a good laugh...ya know,
>next time i post requests for astronomy pictures in alt.sex.bondage !
Well, you might consider something like it. DO POST REQUESTS FOR
pictures of people doing sex bondage from the astronomy groups.
Consider the bondage that their minds is held under. Consider
the fear of ridicule from other astronomers, and the probable
fact that their sex lives are affected. See, Mulder, you joke,
but your jokes may be closer to reality than you realize.
>waiting for the next...i'm sure there will be some more similiar
>"useful" replies...
Oh, yes, and my "Skeptics" section will, when I have time, have
some of them placed in my "hall of fame."
Perception -- http://www.psicounsel.com - Opening
-- -- then select - Doors
Creation-- -- Scientific Study of Psychic Phenomena - That
-- -- ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| - Lead
Reality -- -- The Internet Fax Psychic Connection - Home
*DOWNLOAD* "Development of Mental Energy." Test and improve
* * * * * your psychic abilities with this computer program.
Robert Haler
Fox wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> yesterday i asked polite if any astronomer already has re-photographed
> the section of the sky with the stars under the same circumstances
> SLO (saturn like object) appears again. I asked also for an url or
> something in case such pictures could have been posted already.
>
> Two "replied" until now....
Well, since you were so "polite", I will give you a nice and polite
reply.
Regardless of how much you ask, it is unlikely that anybody with the
skills and equipment to fullfill you request will take the time to
bother with it. It's not that they don't like you Fox, or that they are
hiding something. It's because as far as the astronomical community is
concerned, the "SLO" is a non-issue. It has been explained to our
satisfaction. We are comfortable with the fact that it is a star as
confirmed by various pieces of data which corroborate each other. The
astronomers are only concerned as to whether they can prove the identity
of the object to themselves and other people with the education and
experience to understand the phenomenon on their level. Proving the true
nature of the object to you is way down on this list of things they want
to do today....It comes right after dental work.
So, asking for people to duplicate the experiment for you is probably a
waste of time - as is asking for URLs with pictures of it. Because, in
the grand scheme of things, we just don't give a rip whether you are
convinced or not. It's not meaness or a coverup - it's just reality.
Didn't you say before that you work for a magazine or a newspaper? If
they are paying you to investigate this, why don't you ask them to buy
or rent you the equipment necessary to recreate the experiment? You
could then prove the issue to yourself - with no middle men filtering
the data. If your employer won't pay - maybe Chuck Shramek would be
willing to take a new pic of the star for you. If Chuck doesn't come
through - maybe you can organize a group of people with "enquiring
minds" who are as concerned about this as you - and will help you fund
it.
In the end Fox, it boils down to the fact that there are two kinds of
people in the world: Those that know O.J. did it - and those that still
have doubts - unless you can show them video tape of the crime in
progess shot from three angles.....
--
Robert Haler
rha...@lymax.com
"Reality is independent from your perception of it." - RDH
David W. Knisely
Re: going back to the field of the "SLO". I do not have access to any
CCD imaging equipment at the moment, but after Mr. Shramek's appearance
on Art Bell's "program", I went back and looked at the field with my 10"
Newtonian. All the stars which should have been in Mr. Shramek's
picture were there (including 8.5 magnitude SAO 141894), but of course
the comet was not. The field still matches (and it matched with the
digital sky survey when all this arguing began), so I see no reason to
abandon the star explanation for the "SLO". I think SLO should stand for
"star-looking object". Lets move on, ok?
R. Klappal
Mul...@aabspsii.org (Fox) wrote:
>Hello,
>yesterday i asked polite if any astronomer already has re-photographed
>the section of the sky with the stars under the same circumstances
>(scope, coordinates,camera) as did shramek to SHOW whether (or not) the
>SLO (saturn like object) appears again. I asked also for an url or
>something in case such pictures could have been posted already.
>Two "replied" until now....
>R.Klappal wrote:
>>HEY! STUPID!
>>We told you, back on your first posting, that the "rings" of your
>>SLO are diffraction spikes. Newtonian scopes make 'em. Refractors with
>>dirty optics make 'em. Mis-aligned and/or dirty SCTs make 'em
>Hi Mr Arrogant, that's nice "you" TOLD me....but too bad i know
>what diffraction-spikes ARE and what CAUSES them since i was a
>12 years old kid and was into astronomy. Your surprising news really
>BORE me...i asked for PICTURES supporting your now since eons discussed
>explanations and not for an explanation of what diffracton spikes are !
>If the whole SLO-thread annoys "you all" that much then i ask AGAIN why
>i have NEVER seen a picture where i can SEE with my own eyes how
>the SLO appears ?
... snip ...
OK, since you edited sci.astro.amateur back into tyhe list, I'll tell
you why I have not posted any said pictures.
1. I do not believe there is anything to the "SLO" claim. I do not
believe there ever was. I have seen many explanations, all consistent
with each other and consistent with my experience in astronomy,
photography, and digital imaging.
2. I have seen NO evidence, compelling or otherwise, to suggest that #1
is incorrect. I have seen a lot of misunderstanding, misinformation,
denial, and the use of psychics/mystics to maintain the claim, but no
evidence.
3. I still work in film, not CCD. The spectral response of my medium is
different than the CCD's. Maybe the campus where I teach astronomy will
get a CCD for the new observatory that is under consideration; I
can't/won't afford one now; priorities, ya know.
4. At this time, Hale-Bopp, and/or its former position, is very low in
my western sky when I get home from work. This means a low angle thru a
lot of polluted atmosphere and not much time for film exposures.
5. I, too, use an SCT which is less likely to cause diffraction spikes
than the newts, as you indicated you understand. I try to keep my
optics clean and aligned. I have no interest in trying to dirty-up or
misalign the optics to generate such diffractions.
6. Your refusal to accept the explanations that have been provided
before suggest to me that you would continue to doubt any evidence that
I posted, suggesting instead that I have doctored the image. I could.
I won't. I don't work that way.
7. Thus, I have neither the interest nor the desire to make the effort.
On the other hand, if you provide a legitimate email adddress, I'll send
you dates and maps (comet and star field diagrams) of Mr. Shrameks
future claims, should he wish to make them. I'll send them before he
publishes, if your request gives me a few days.
R.
kla...@xnet.com
41N48' 88W15'
================
Good telescopes let you look at faint, fuzzy objects in the sky;
Cheap telescopes make everything faint & fuzzy.
James Del Vecchio
we...@sonic.net (Wes Thomas) writes:
>On 29 Nov 1996 18:50:02 GMT, kfo...@rainbow.rmii.com (Kurt Foster)
>wrote:
>> You again? As a writer (if such you are), you aught to know better than
>>posting a bunch of rumors without checking them first.
>That's why I'm posting: to check them, duh. BTW, Art Bell reported
>tonight that the Lick Observatory has confirmed these "rumors."
>Comments, anyone?
The purpose of the Art Bell show is perpetuate hoaxes.
The trademark of the host is to get cranks on the air
and humor them to keep them talking.
Sincerely,
James Del Vecchio
Paul D. Koenig
In article
<Pine.A41.3.95.961206...@fn2.freenet.edmonton.ab.ca>,
s6...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca wrote:
>I used to read books about astronomy that described the behavior of people
>in mideval times, and earlier, reacting to the appearance of a bright
>comet in the sky. All sorts of dire consequences would be attributed the
>the appearance of the comet, like plagues, wars, etc. But I could be
>assured by the fact that I lived in more enlightened times and that such
>things didn't happen any more.
[snip]
>I guess people are just not as enlightened as I
>thought they were. Chalk it up to youthful naiveity, I guess.
>
>Sean Dzafovic
We're still the same people creating myths to fit our times. Just as
"Frankenstein"
was aided by Mary Shelley's exposure to Galvani's experiments with electricity
and frog legs, today's rumors about Hale-Bopp reflect the recent developments in
CCD astrophotography and electronic starcharts. (Two developments I would not
want to do without.) These are just stories. Get to the heart of them and answer
calmly and politely as possible.
I'm sure we'll be better able to call ourselves enlightened when the
character and
quality of such discussion improves. The physics, of course, remains immutable.
Paul D. Koenig
E. W. Thompson
Fox (Mul...@aabspsii.org) wrote:
: Hello,
: yesterday i asked polite if any astronomer already has re-photographed
: the section of the sky with the stars under the same circumstances
: (scope, coordinates,camera) as did shramek to SHOW whether (or not) the
: SLO (saturn like object) appears again. I asked also for an url or
: something in case such pictures could have been posted already.
Most astronomy textbooks have photos in them showing numerous "spikes"
around various stars . . . Russell Sipe depicts just such a picture on his
web site as a comparison to Shramek's photo. Have you seen that? Isn't
Sipe's site is www.halebopp.com, which I believe you know of already?
Terence Christopher Platt
Hi,
My first question would be why didn't Shramek do this
himself at the first opportunity? - it would have saved a lot of
posting when he discovered his own mistake! Secondly, if the IR
excess explanation is already widely known - where is the need to
even raise the alien spaceship theory? This having been said, I
expect that most amateurs have more useful things to do with their
observing time than to try confirming an obvious mistake, but,
unfortunately, the area in question is rapidly sinking into the
twilight and is now very difficult to image. I would be happy to
try (if the clouds ever blow away!), but my cameras use Sony and
Philips CCDs with a much lower IR sensitivity than the TC255, and
so the result would be of doubtful value. Try asking Shramek to
take another picture - he at least has exactly the right
equipment!!
Regards,
Terry
Fox
[who was it...uh...Robert Haler...]
Hi !
> yesterday i asked polite if any astronomer already has re-photographed
> ...
> Two "replied" until now....
>Well, since you were so "polite", I will give you a nice and polite
>reply.
Yes that's rare in these times...thanx...
>Regardless of how much you ask, it is unlikely that anybody with the
>skills and equipment to fullfill you request will take the time to
>bother with it. It's not that they don't like you Fox, or that they are
>hiding something. It's because as far as the astronomical community is
>concerned, the "SLO" is a non-issue.
Yes...in other words: They come to a result without an experiment
needed to prove it...or...mathematics which then is logical ok
just by giving an (expected) result without the need to check if
the formula behind maybe is pure nonsense.
But..you say it...and i SEE it now after some weeks now, you're right
"the SLO is no issue" for you....and i also note it is more or less
useless to continue this in s.a. or s.a.a.
>So, asking for people to duplicate the experiment for you is probably a
>waste of time - as is asking for URLs with pictures of it. Because, in
>the grand scheme of things, we just don't give a rip whether you are
>convinced or not.
no comment needed.
>Didn't you say before that you work for a magazine or a newspaper? If
>they are paying you to investigate this, why don't you ask them to buy
>or rent you the equipment necessary to recreate the experiment?
No..i don't work for a magazine or paper...that'd be fun someone paying
me reading and writing in usenet....;)))
>You could then prove the issue to yourself - with no middle men filtering
>the data.
Sad enough you tell me this in sci.astro.amateur. But again...the SLO
"is no issue" and noone of you has an interest to even prove anything
and instead you say "check for yourself"....it's for me absolutely
unacceptable as a reply coming out of a newsgroup with astronomers inside
(having the equipment and experience)....but i can't change this (and your
thinking) and it's gone that far already here that also legitimate questions
are blocked like if h-b could have a companion (in strict astronomical
sense) or any other h-b related questions which could result from seeing
pictures or similiar.
greets
Fox
R.Klappal wrote:
> ...
>6. Your refusal to accept the explanations that have been provided
>before suggest to me that you would continue to doubt any evidence that
>I posted, suggesting instead that I have doctored the image. I could.
>I won't. I don't work that way.
7. Thus, I have neither the interest nor the desire to make the effort.
> ...
Re !
Thanx for your (long) reply which i accept and value high because
there was actually something SAID instead of flaming or name calling.
But i don't understand your points 6. and 7....because it's just not
true i "refuse any explanation"...i also said once i understand the
(imho) logical explanation how the SLO could appear in shramek's pic
as result of diff-spikes and ir-sensitivity of his camera.
If i had reason to doubt this i already had annyoed you all (for sure)
with writing my doubts...too bad i don't have the equipment to prove
this "statements"...especially i'm not able to confirm if the shramek
statement is true about the re-photographing HE DID (?)..because he says
yes, the star does show up at this position but is much fainter than the
day he caught the alleged "SLO"....so...you can give me the (good)
explanation how this CCD-camera pics generate the brightness and spikes,
but of course it doesnt answer (prove/disprove) what shramek says.....this is
no "rejecting your explanation" but an open unanswered question.
So it was just logical to me to ask for these pictures.
When you claim i would reject those and would claim they had been doctored
then this is just your speculation based on your thinking "we" are
all conspiracy-freaks or something the like.
If that'd be the case then it would be a little bit stupid to ask for pictures
or explanations because then i'd trust noone and no explanation or pictures had
any value for me except as evidence for the big astronomers-conspiracy,
then i'd take the "good" pictures as evidence for the SLO and the "bad
ones" (with no SLO) as evidence of conspiracy, altering and disinformation ;)
greets
Pierre
s6...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca wrote:
>
> I used to read books about astronomy that described the behavior of people
> in mideval times, and earlier, reacting to the appearance of a bright
> comet in the sky. All sorts of dire consequences would be attributed the
> the appearance of the comet, like plagues, wars, etc. But I could be
> assured by the fact that I lived in more enlightened times and that such
> Halley's apparition in 1910 could be excused. After all, the Earth passed
> through the tail of the comet, and after professional astronomers released
> the news that cyanogen gas was present in the comet's tail, some less than
> scrutable people were bound to jump on it and make a quick buck.
> But now we have Hale-Bopp and all the speculation on its companion, aliens
> and whatever other sensationalistic bullshit there is out there. Does this
> happen whenever there are bright comets? Did this kind of thing happen
> thought they were. Chalk it up to youthful naiveity, I guess.
>
> Sean Dzafovic
Yup you are right, but it's the FEAR what causes this ...
It was in the ancient times as it will be in future...we are only humans
and we never be sure about something...
S Martin
In article <19961208.E...@gwen.in-berlin.de>, Mul...@aabspsii.org (Fox) says:
>
>this "statements"...especially i'm not able to confirm if the shramek
>statement is true about the re-photographing HE DID (?)..because he says
>yes, the star does show up at this position but is much fainter than the
>day he caught the alleged "SLO"....so...you can give me the (good)
>explanation how this CCD-camera pics generate the brightness and spikes,
>but of course it doesnt answer (prove/disprove) what shramek says.....this is
>no "rejecting your explanation" but an open unanswered question.
>
than half of type M giants like the star in question do. So the result so
far is as surprising as having a girl born where you suspected a boy...
One could still pursue this by watching the star's variations over time
to see what its normal behavior was - but no... that's
too close to useful astronomical work... and takes special equipment.
-Steve Martin
Dan Pressnell
etho...@email.unc.edu (E. W. Thompson) wrote:
>: yesterday i asked polite if any astronomer already has re-photographed
>: the section of the sky with the stars under the same circumstances
>: (scope, coordinates,camera) as did shramek to SHOW whether (or not) the
>: SLO (saturn like object) appears again. I asked also for an url or
>: something in case such pictures could have been posted already.
>Most astronomy textbooks have photos in them showing numerous "spikes"
>around various stars . . .
Oh my god! Aliens are everywhere!
Dan
Martin Tom Brown
In article <Pine.A41.3.95.961206134421.66854A-100
s6...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca writes:
> I used to read books about astronomy that described the behavior of people
> in mideval times, and earlier, reacting to the appearance of a bright
> comet in the sky. All sorts of dire consequences would be attributed the
> the appearance of the comet, like plagues, wars, etc.
This came up in a talk by an astro dynamicist at a recent lecture.
One reason they were so upset was that it was believed at the time
that the fixed stars were constant and unchanging so that anything
moving other than the known planets was deeply disturbing.
Bright comets being apparently large and threatening, fireballs and
meteorites were all much feared by the populus and rulers alike.
The rulers feared such things largely because people panic when
unknown and unexplained things are occurring and become ungovernable.
One side effect of this is that the Chinese astronomers produced
wonderful records of transient events still available for analysis.
In fact their fireball record reaches the begining of the 20th century.
There is some interesting periodicity in it, which showed that roughly
every 500 years there is a significant enhancement of fireballs/year.
If the trend continues we are about due for an increase now +/- 50y.
The main part of the talk was actually about the capture cross section
for inbound comets to be perturbed into short period orbits which could
give enhanced meteor/meteorite threat to the earth.
> Halley's apparition in 1910 could be excused. After all, the Earth passed
> through the tail of the comet, and after professional astronomers released
> the news that cyanogen gas was present in the comet's tail, some less than
> scrutable people were bound to jump on it and make a quick buck.
The same was true of the Jupiter Effect, and is true of Millenium Fever :(
> But now we have Hale-Bopp and all the speculation on its companion, aliens
> and whatever other sensationalistic bullshit there is out there. Does this
> happen whenever there are bright comets? Did this kind of thing happen
> with Kohoutek and West? I guess people are just not as enlightened as I
> thought they were. Chalk it up to youthful naiveity, I guess.
It seems to be more a feature of bright ones which take a long time
to reach perihelion - so that the cranks publicity machines can react.
David W. Knisely
You need to get (and post) a real e-mail address so we don't have to
clutter up the newsgroup. To answer your question about re-imaging the
SLO area, I don't have access to CCD equipment at the present time, but
after the first Art Bell radio show (it was cloudy here that week), I did
go back two weeks later and observe the area where Hale-Bopp was at the
time Shramek took his image with my 10" Newtonian. The stars shown on
his image were all there in the correct position, and so was SAO 141894
(Shramek's SLO). The field matched his image. According to Brian Skiff
of Lowell Observatory, the "SLO" star is a red one (M1 giant probably)
about magnitude 8.4, and thus would have been slightly brighter than the
nuclear condensation of Hale-Bopp (but not the comet itself). Mr.
Shramek made a mistake. There was no moving object following Hale-Bopp.
Now can we finally get on with amateur astronomy discussions?
Michael Davias
In response to criticism:
> >You could then prove the issue to yourself - with no middle men filtering
> >the data.
>
Our protagonist replied:
> Sad enough you tell me this in sci.astro.amateur. But again...the SLO
> "is no issue" and noone of you has an interest to even prove anything
> and instead you say "check for yourself"....it's for me absolutely
> unacceptable as a reply coming out of a newsgroup with astronomers inside
> (having the equipment and experience)....but i can't change this (and your
> thinking) and it's gone that far already here that also legitimate questions
> are blocked like if h-b could have a companion (in strict astronomical
> sense) or any other h-b related questions which could result from seeing
> pictures or similiar.
Just watching this thread ... I'd like to add my two cents on
expectations of scientific research from a News Group: punt.
I have had to resort to my own amateur research "mission" to evaluate
the meteor/meteorite involvement in the crash of TWA Flight 800. The
news-groupies who are so "hot" on evaluating already-proven science are
numerous, but they all shy away from the controversial - and drop bombs
over the fence on the way out.
Is this bad? NO. The lathe of science seems to work best by proposing
theories, tossing the lump onto the armature of the lathe and turning,
turning, turning, as the waste is ground away, leaving a work of art or
a scrap of junk.
It is up to the proponent to surround the armature with the facts as
they see it. Don't expect the cutting tools to add value. If a cut is
in error, hopefully someone will call it so. If the facts don't hold
up, or are reasonably attributed to known science not connected with the
hypothesis, so be it.
Most discoveries in our history have been met initially with disdain by
the "officials" - the structure of our solar system - the dynamics of
plate tectonics, the bacteria that causes ulcers (treated for years by
antacids and surgery). Thank goodness that we only have to endure
flames on the net, not flames at the stake.
In today's New York Times (Sunday December 8,1996) Dartmouth College
Professor Roger D. Masters is quoted:
"You can sometimes make a bigger mistake by your
failure to see something because of your caution
than by asserting something which can't be spelled
out in every detail. Our obligation is to make the
best possible interpretation of all the bits and pieces."
This is not to say I support the theory of the poster, because I
actually side with the critics on that.
--------------------------------------------------
Michael E. Davias mi...@cintos.com
H 203.783.9854 146 High St. #303
W 212.564.6866 Milford, CT 06460
--------------------------------------------------
It is more important to make the decision right
than to make the right decision!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"What you can do, or dream you can, begin it;
Boldness has genius, power and magic in it." -Goethe
---------------------------------------------------
Troy Dawson
s6...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca wrote:
>
> But now we have Hale-Bopp and all the speculation on its companion, aliens
> and whatever other sensationalistic bullshit there is out there.
So *you* give me a hypothesis that fits this data:
1) self-luminescent body
2) apparently large (> 400km)
3) accompanying HB but not disturbing its trajectory
4) emitting bursts of radiation
These are some of the reported observations/hearsay I've picked up from the web.
I don't attach high probabilities that any of the above are 'correct', but I'm
leaving the slots open until I get further information.
That's just being scientific...
=td=
John Oliver
T Jacobs wrote:
>
> Steve Jolly wrote:
> >
> > A direct link to the National Astronomical Observatory of Japan photo
> > is...
> >
> > http://www.nao.ac.jp/pio/HB/hb_0420.jpg
> >
> > ...but I can save you the trouble. The "mysterious companion object" is
> > clearly wearing a little black party hat. So, the aliens are getting
> > seasonal. Also, if you look just above and to the left, forming a
> > perfect triangle with Hale-Bopp and the "companion," you'll see a
> > slanted pair of eyes, one of them apparently in the act of winking. A
> > _perfect_ triangle! You don't expect me to believe that's sheer chance,
> > do you? And the hieroglypics showing in the banner photographed just
> > below Hale-Bopp are amazingly reminescent of Japanese--clear proof, or
> > at least strongly suggestive, that Japan was originally colonized by
> > Ancient Aliens!
> >
> > At first, I didn't believe, but now that the evidence is rushing in...
>
> Your very funny... but...
>
> What is it, really? You people are very keen to cut down and criticize,
> but slow to offer any real comments. I too am VERY skeptical about this
> Hale-Bopp thing, but even JPL and NASA admit that they saw something
> with the comet for 17 minutes on the night of November 14, 1996...
Where? When? I have seen no indication of any other fotos on Nov 14 ...
They would certainly have helped with the whole SLO discussion ... If
you are referring to the "eyes" images those were not Nov 14 ... They
ARE interesting ... thats one reason why folks do science ... to find
discuss and eventually explain interesting observations.
Walter E. Shepherd
s6...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca wrote:
>
> I used to read books about astronomy that described the behavior of people
> in mideval times, and earlier, reacting to the appearance of a bright
> comet in the sky. All sorts of dire consequences would be attributed the
> assured by the fact that I lived in more enlightened times and that such
> things didn't happen any more. Even some of the events surrounding Comet
> through the tail of the comet, and after professional astronomers released
> the news that cyanogen gas was present in the comet's tail, some less than
> scrutable people were bound to jump on it and make a quick buck.
> happen whenever there are bright comets? Did this kind of thing happen
> with Kohoutek and West? I guess people are just not as enlightened as I
> thought they were. Chalk it up to youthful naiveity, I guess.
>
Perhaps people haven't changed, only how we communicate. In medieval
times society and communications were poorly organized. By the 20th
century, science had become an organized activity, with the resources to
command and control a world wide communications capability (e.g.,
scientific journals, academic publications, access to the public press,
etc.) In the mid-20th century, when I was growing up, this command and
control seemed to convey an image that humanity had achieved a new level
of rationality. I now believe this impression was false... humanity has
continued to maintain the same level of insanity, it just didn't get the
publicity. Now we have the internet, and now we know the screwballs are
still out there. The internet is the great leveler... it has brought
cheap world wide communications to the half baked.
Walt Shepherd
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
_ /| DISCLAIMER: Disclaimant is a hireling who speaks for himself.
\'o.O' He is as bothered and bewildered as you, and he
=(___)= Ack! probably didn't mean or say what you might have
U Thppft!! thought he meant or said.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Caldwell
In Article<32A975...@navix.net>, <dk8...@navix.net> writes:
> Hi there. Yes, there were a few fringe groups with comet Kohoutek (end
> of the world, collisions with Earth, plagues, ect.), probably because,
> like Hale-Bopp, Kohouted was discovered well in advance of its visual
> apparition, giving time for the fringe groups to get something going.
> Actually, I kind of liked the comet. It was far from a dud (visible
> easily to the naked eye and a four degree tail with the full moon in the
> sky). When the moon got out of the way, it was easy but fainter, showing
> a ten degree tail and putting Halley's performance to shame.
Yes, Halley was a real disappointment. I could just barely see it in my 7x50
binoculars.
The last comet I really enjoyed watching was back in the early '80's, I forget
its name. Before that, it was Bennet (1969i). I even helped to take some
good pix of that one from a university observatory. The split tail was very
impressive.
Richard
Paul D. Koenig
>So *you* give me a hypothesis that fits this data:
>
>1) self-luminescent body
no evidence that it is self-luminescent or merely reflected light
>2) apparently large (> 400km)
no evidence of that from a CCD photo (especially not knowing distance away)
>3) accompanying HB but not disturbing its trajectory
no evidence it is anywhere near HB from a two-dimensional photo
>4) emitting bursts of radiation
all objects emit some form of radiation, these emissions are consistent
with that of an active comet
>
>These are some of the reported observations/hearsay I've picked up from
the web.
>
>I don't attach high probabilities that any of the above are 'correct', but I'm
>leaving the slots open until I get further information.
>
>That's just being scientific...
be careful to avoid confusing speculation with evidence
PDK
Troy Dawson
Terence Christopher Platt wrote:
>
>
> My first question would be why didn't Shramek do this
> himself at the first opportunity?
He did (or soon thereafter). On Art Bell Friday he said the star
at that location was dim dim dim in his rig. So dim that he had
trouble finding it.
Next hypothesis please!
=td=
Jonathan Silverlight
In article <19961207221...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, upper...@aol.com (upper...@aol.com) writes:
>Whatever genetic coding allowed humans to burn witches or see portents in
>comets is still there. It's just that the portent-seers now have internet
>access. The tools get more sophisticated, the users often don't.
>
>I am still disappointed in one aspect of Hale Bopp. Where are the
>T-shirts? Until we see an "official Hale-Bopp T-shirt" it really hasn't
>sunk into the American psyche.
>
>Paul S.
>
El Valle Astronomers have an advert in the December Astronomy
magazine.
S Martin
In article <32AAC2...@twics.com>, Troy Dawson <t...@twics.com> says:
>
>s6...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca wrote:
>>
>> But now we have Hale-Bopp and all the speculation on its companion, aliens
>> and whatever other sensationalistic bullshit there is out there.
>
>
>1) self-luminescent body
>
>
>I don't attach high probabilities that any of the above are 'correct', but I'm
>leaving the slots open until I get further information.
>
>That's just being scientific...
>
This is off-topic is s.a.a - it just doesn't have anything to do with
amateur activities. Posts on amateur observations that might lead to those
conclusions are somewhat on-topic, but the thing's been hashed to death.
What you say would be of interest on sci.astro if they were data, but
they are not - they are conclusions. The data is the observations leading
to those conclusions.
-Steve Martin
tran...@mhv.net
>>
>> But now we have Hale-Bopp and all the speculation on its companion, aliens
>> and whatever other sensationalistic bullshit there is out there.
>
>So *you* give me a hypothesis that fits this data:
>
>1) self-luminescent body
Sunlight reflecting off it's dust, ion plazma
>2) apparently large (> 400km)
More like 25-30 miles in diameter
>3) accompanying HB but not disturbing its trajectory
Possibly a piece broke off the nucleus. This happens to comets from time to
time.
>4) emitting bursts of radiation
Not sure of this one yet...
>These are some of the reported observations/hearsay I've picked up from the
> web.
>
>I don't attach high probabilities that any of the above are 'correct', but I'm
>leaving the slots open until I get further information.
>
>That's just being scientific...
Tom
John Oliver
This is a puzzle ... I have looked at several images of the field ...
that star with his rig should look just about exactly like his "SLO" ...
where are his images of that field on other dates? Let us see for
ourselves.
--
John P. Oliver http://www.astro.ufl.edu/~oliver/jpo2.htm
(please post so all can see, instead of e-mail)
Just the FAQ ma'am, just the Unofficial Netscape UFAQ at
http://www.astro.ufl.edu/~oliver/faq/
Terence Christopher Platt
In article <32AB5...@twics.com>, Troy Dawson (t...@twics.com) writes:
>Terence Christopher Platt wrote:
>>
>>
>> My first question would be why didn't Shramek do this
>> himself at the first opportunity?
>
>He did (or soon thereafter). On Art Bell Friday he said the star
>at that location was dim dim dim in his rig. So dim that he had
>trouble finding it.
>
>Next hypothesis please!
>
>=td=
>
Hi,
Don't you find it remarkable that he hasn't posted this
'confirmation image' - unlike the discovery one?? I doubt if it
was the dimness of the star that made it difficult for him to find
- more likely the desire to confirm his own erroneous conclusions!
This star is BRIGHT for a CCD camera (with or without UFO!) and is
easy to locate for anyone with a grain of astronomical ability. See
the Palomar Sky Survey pictures, or look on any good planetarium
program - it is NOT faint. (See also the other recent posting in
this thread from an observer who has an independant image of the
star, confirming its brightness.) Let's have an undoctored image
for us to examine - not just hearsay from someone with a vested
interest in promoting this rubbish!
Regards,
Terry
Troy Dawson
Paul D. Koenig wrote:
>
> In article <32AAC2...@twics.com>, t...@twics.com wrote:
>
> >So *you* give me a hypothesis that fits this data:
> >
> >1) self-luminescent body
>
>
agree; just hearsay. Asteroids sometimes have diffraction patterns right?
> >2) apparently large (> 400km)
>
> no evidence of that from a CCD photo (especially not knowing distance away)
Well, the size bit seems to be semi-estimable (assuming the bona fides of the
imagery).
> >3) accompanying HB but not disturbing its trajectory
>
> no evidence it is anywhere near HB from a two-dimensional photo
These SLO's I've seen have diffraction patterns.
Honest question: do objects in motion relative to the field (i.e. background stars)
leave distinct diffraction spikes? Check out:
http://www.nao.ac.jp/pio/HB/hb_1116.jpg
> >4) emitting bursts of radiation
>
> all objects emit some form of radiation, these emissions are consistent
> with that of an active comet
Yes; but Art's Dr. X said he had 'modulated' radio recepts. Don't know what
the hell that means, but it sure sounds impressive.
> >These are some of the reported observations/hearsay I've picked up from
> the web.
> >
> >I don't attach high probabilities that any of the above are 'correct', but I'm
> >leaving the slots open until I get further information.
> >
> >That's just being scientific...
>
> be careful to avoid confusing speculation with evidence
Trying my best, but it's hard when the evidence is being suppressed.
Why does the Japanese observatory's Sept pic (taken 1 day earlier) look so much
better than the latest (last?) HST pic on jpl's page? The jpl image doesn't even
have any background stars, fer crissakes.
=td=
>
> PDK