Re: Planet X: Dec 4 Images!
Michael L Cunningham wrote:
> mercy snipping to sci.astro.amateur...
> Observer on the Fringe wrote:
> > Now that we have determined that Michael Cunningham doesn't know what he is
> > talking about, and makes accusations without full knowledge, and then gives
> > the "messenger" an "F" for being the mere messenger of data.... what can we
> > conclude from Mr. Havas's image of the blatent red filtered "anomoly" in a
> > spot where it should "not" be according to past imaging?
> > Take your time... we have about 4 months or so.
> > ElTonyO
> You have about four months to pull your head out of your ass.
> I know exactly what I'm talking about but you have zip knowledge of
> anything related to astronomy. I do not make accusations. I point out
> the blatent falsehoods and lies espoused by a small group of individuals
> (such as yourself) trying to impose a hoax upon an unsuspecting public.
> You feed on fear. We on the other hand point out there is nothing there
> to fear. Do you know which end of the telescope to look through? Have
> you viewed this object or tried to view it yourself? No? You are a
> classic fool.
> Go back to tt-watch with Mike O'Hara, Jeremy Rogers & Milly and report
> your weather disasters, your political conspiracies, your unfounded and
> unsupported claims against NASA, the government, the CIA and your local
> Boy Scout Troop.
> Make sure you high-five the Zeta clones with every report from the BBC,
> rense.com, and Zeta-babble without researching anything in a reasonable
> and logical way.
> Make sure you understand Nancy and the admitted Zeta lies (is it live or
> Memorex?) when Zeta babble "tells you the truth". It could be a lie for
> your own good (snicker!).
> Come back and point out this Planet X to us that constantly goes dimmer
> instead of brighter (from 2nd magnitude in 1995 to 11th magnitude last
> year to a 20th magnitude spot with "two personas" LOL!) when it makes
> it's closest approach.
> ...and you have the unmitigated gall to state on this forum that I don't
> know what I'm talking about? LOL!
> Dell! Is that you?
> Nancy! You gotta do better than send idiots to this forum! At least Dell
> was fun!
Yes indeed... so far you have pointed out that "Steve is wrong", but only by
"screaming" it like a child...and then... with the help of "I M Openmind", you
were even proven wrong in your initial claim, and even admitted so yourself,
So far... you admit you were wrong in slamming Steve, and yet you claim no proof
So what are you basing your claims of "righteous" on? Where are your proofs of
Steve being wrong?
Why are you calling names at Dell?