|
Leider's -analysis- page
|
|||||
| From: idont1@hotmail.com (Idon't) Subject: Leider's "analysis" page Date: 14 Mar 2002 12:09:32 -0800 Xref: sn-us sci.astro:366109 I have made a study of Nancy Leider's "analysis" page. I am not an astronomer, but this may be of use to those who wish to follow a lay-persons' reasoning in this matter. IMopen is welcome to include this on his "Nancy" pages if he wishes. I originally prepared this for posting on the "tt" lists, but I find that they simply do not want to hear it. -- For those who are open to information.... I will be more specific about the non-evidence I found on the Leider "analysis" page. I strongly suggest pasting this message into a notepad or new email so you can refer to it while looking at the page of images. Here is the page in question- http://www.zetatalk.com/usenet/use90446.htm I made a careful study. Here is what I found... ............ Example 1-- "One vs Two Objects"-- OK- there is a star circled in both images. Problem is, the star is very dim and barely shows at all in the Palomar image. It, like other dim objects, shows up better in the Jan 5 image- partly because the Jan 5 image is blown up larger. This makes a proper comparison difficult from the git-go. The Jan 5 image might be rotated slightly more counterclockwise. The pointers DO NOT point to the same sky locations on the two images. The "PX" pointer in the Jan 5 image is placed higher and actually points to the star location- the "PX" pointer is pointing at the star, not at a new object. There is actually NOTHING at the "star" pointer in the Jan5 image- just a small noise blob like you can see in many other places on the image. You can use the edge of a business card laid flat against the computer screen to check these things. If possible, leave the card in position and scroll the screen. A subtle misdirection ploy has been used in example 1, but you can see through it by using the straightedge to line things up. There is actually only ONE object in the red circles. ==== Example 2-- "Existing star location"-- In this example the Palomar(left) image is the one blown up larger. In this Palomar image you can now make out the star. Again, the lines placed on the two images do not match in location from one image to the other. This creates a false impression. If you place a business card along the lowest red line in the left image and then slide it directly across(or scroll) to the right image while maintaining the same angle, you will see that the angle of that line has been altered in the right image. The horizontal red line has also been shifted upward in the right image. The resulting IMPRESSION is that the bottom left corners of both red triangles are at the same location- but, they are NOT... they are *above* the star location in the right image. The yellow lines in the right image supposedly converge at a second object(PX), but it is impossible to see the area in question because it is obliterated by the red and yellow lines. There is the ILLUSION that there might be two separate objects there, but no actual objects can be seen. Thus, in example 2, we again find a subtle deception, but NO actual evidence of a second object. ==== Example 3-- "Movement from Jan5 to 19"--This one is downright silly. First of all, what image is this?? From when?? Leider doesn't show the DATE or origin of this image, so it cannot possibly be accepted as providing the claimed "information". Second, there is absolutely nothing visible in the Jan 19 circle anyway, so what is the point of this other than to create the ILLUSION of more "evidence"? We see a pattern emerging- that of a manipulation of empty examples into erroneous "proofs" of PX. Example 3 provides zero legitimate evidence of a moving object in the sky. ==== Example 4-- "Absent from Jan 5 Pos /at Jan 19 Pos."-- This image, from Jan 19, is rotated to a different orientation and is a mirror image of the others- making it difficult to assess or compare. There is a pointer to a star- OK, same star as before. There is a pointer to "nada"- OK fine, since nothing is there. Ah, now we find a pointer to "Planet X". Problem is, you can't simply point to an object in an image and say it MOVED to that location without providing a comparable image of the same area from a different date which shows a change in position. Leider fails to provide this. Without it, example 4 is worthless for anything other than giving more false impressions. Once again, what Leider trots out as "evidence", when closely examined, is nothing of the kind. ==== That wraps up my review of Leider's "analysis" page. In conclusion... There is NO credible evidence of the existence of Planet X presented anywhere on the page- NONE WHATSOEVER. In my opinion, what I found here is a blatant and shameless manufacturing of "evidence" for the sole purpose of contriving "proof" to support spurious claims. I have no idea what ultimate purpose this might serve for Leider, but it is clearly not in the service of veracity that she toils. "Idon't" |
|||||
|
|
|||||
| Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 05:54:04 -0500 From: I M Openminded <openmind@telocity.com> Subject: Re: Leider's "analysis" page Xref: sn-us sci.astro:366158 Idon't wrote: > I have made a study of Nancy Leider's "analysis" page. I am not an > astronomer, but this may be of use to those who wish to follow a > lay-persons' reasoning in this matter. IMopen is welcome to include > this on his "Nancy" pages if he wishes. I originally prepared this for > posting on the "tt" lists, but I find that they simply do not want to > hear it. > -- > > For those who are open to information.... > I will be more specific about the non-evidence I found on the Leider > "analysis" page. I strongly suggest pasting this message into a > notepad or new email so you can refer to it while looking at the page > of images. Here is the page in question- > http://www.zetatalk.com/usenet/use90446.htm > I made a careful study. Here is what I found... > ............ > Example 1-- "One vs Two Objects"-- OK- there is a star circled in both > images. Problem is, the star is very dim and barely shows at all in > the Palomar image. It, like other dim objects, shows up better in the > Jan 5 image- partly because the Jan 5 image is blown up larger. This > makes a proper comparison difficult from the git-go. The Jan 5 image > might be rotated slightly more counterclockwise. The pointers DO NOT > point to the same sky locations on the two images. The "PX" pointer in > the Jan 5 image is placed higher and actually points to the star > location- the "PX" pointer is pointing at the star, not at a new > object. There is actually NOTHING at the "star" pointer in the Jan5 > image- just a small noise blob like you can see in many other places > on the image. You can use the edge of a business card laid flat > against the computer screen to check these things. If possible, leave > the card in position and scroll the screen. A subtle misdirection ploy > has been used in example 1, but you can see through it by using the > straightedge to line things up. There is actually only ONE object in > the red circles. > ==== > Example 2-- "Existing star location"-- In this example the > Palomar(left) image is the one blown up larger. In this Palomar image > you can now make out the star. Again, the lines placed on the two > images do not match in location from one image to the other. This > creates a false impression. If you place a business card along the > lowest red line in the left image and then slide it directly across(or > scroll) to the right image while maintaining the same angle, you will > see that the angle of that line has been altered in the right image. > The horizontal red line has also been shifted upward in the right > image. The resulting IMPRESSION is that the bottom left corners of > both red triangles are at the same location- but, they are NOT... they > are *above* the star location in the right image. The yellow lines in > the right image supposedly converge at a second object(PX), but it is > impossible to see the area in question because it is obliterated by > the red and yellow lines. There is the ILLUSION that there might be > two separate objects there, but no actual objects can be seen. Thus, > in example 2, we again find a subtle deception, but NO actual evidence > of a second object. > ==== Thanks, Idont. I have found that I no longer have the patience to plow |
|||||
|
|
|||||
| From: idont1@hotmail.com (Idon't) Subject: Re: Leider's "analysis" page Date: 15 Mar 2002 19:48:10 -0800 I M Openminded <openmind@telocity.com> wrote in message news:<3C91D2CC.8060301@telocity.com>... > Thanks, Idont. I have found that I no longer have the patience to plow > through Nancy's material in this careful fashion. You're welcome. Glad to be of service. I'm honored to be included on your pages. I know about the "patience" thing. Nanzeta counts on overwhelming people with sheer volume and tenacity. I won't go to that effort again either. I'm over it. Regards, I >I really did start > this with an open mind in the sense that I was willing to make an honest > attempt to see if there was an object at the coordinates that she > posted. As my pages show, I made the necessary effort to interpret what > she said rather than fixating on her incorrect terminology (e.g. degrees > of RA; pixtels instead of pixels ... have folks noticed that she has > re-edited all her pages and "pixtels" are now "pixels"). I have given > up on that effort now. As you show, she misrepresents my images with no > thought of ever trying to present truthful, accurate interpretation. > > This will show up on my pages this weekend if I get the time. Geocities > will start charging for FTP access in April and I do not intend to pay > so the pages will be frozen at that time. Meanwhile I will continue to > add "guest" analysis contributions. |
|||||