At 03:03 AM 6/1/2003 +0000, you wrote:
> So I should just take your word for it because you know all
> this stuff?
> Yes, I'd believe you or the guy at the observatory or your average
> amateur astronomer sooner than I'd believe Nancy, but that's no
> compliment. I'm trying to stay away from "belief" here entirely
> and look at the evidence. There's zero that it's Planet X, to be
> sure, but what have we got to support the hypothesis that it's the
> Moon and a reflection, other than some authority's say-so (and the
> lack of a reasonable alternative)?
>> The other responses to my comment were better in that they provided
> additional evidence that I could see for myself. I'm not really
> arguing the conclusion (which is eminently reasonable), just trying
> to work out how strong the evidence really is.
Instead of asking others to provide "evidence" for something they never
presented as reality to begin with is misleading on your part.
You'd do better to ask Nancy for the evidence rather than take her word as
truth as so many others have done.
The main reason I've stayed with tt-watch these many years and stood my ground
against Nancy since 1995 is to offer an alternative to her "truth". It is
better to educate one's self with the knowledge to refute these fake "truths".
Evidence for Internal reflections is best learned by reading about them in
any optics book found at your local library. Questions can then be posed to
the group as to the why should we accept such reflections in optics
as "evidence" for the proof of someone's outlandish claim.