Planet X: the JIM (let-them-drown) SCOTTI Object [4]

In thread Re: Planet X: Why Sarah Mac FAILS
In Article: <b0jth8$ha5$1@oasis.ccit.arizona.edu> Jim Scotti wrote:
> It should be a bright and obvious object like Saturn or
> even brighter, not some faint 20th magnitude noise in
> your images. So where is it Nancy? You can't defy the
> laws of Physics, Nancy.

    What has changed since our last discourse on this
    matter, Jim, when you bailed out after saying that it
    was NOT WITHIN YOUR CURRENT UNDERSTANDING
    of how things work?  Why is a brown dwarf smaller
    than your definition allows, and smoldering rather
    than hot, not possible?  Why is a sling orbit, rather
    than eliptical or egg shaped, not possible?  You send
    in another NASA lackie, Tholen, to explain that orbits
    CANNOT BE DISCUSSED unless they are in accord
    with current human assumptions!  How open minded
    of you.  For you, Jim, snuggled next to the Pope at the
    Pope Scope there in Tucson, the Earth is still flat until
    proven otherwise, and you will NOT entertain any
    concepts that might PROVE it otherwise.  A Catch-22,
    and deliberately so, as this allows the coverup to
    continue.
        ZetaTalk™

Quoting from the last Scotti exchange:

In Article <3E1CB607.5C79C152@zetatalk.com> ZetaTalk wrote:
> In Article <avhh57$n5n$1@oasis.ccit.arizona.edu> Jim Scotti wrote
>> I am speaking the truth when I say that there is nothing
>> to cover up in regards to your Planet X - it simply does
>> not exist as you have described it and the way that you
>> describe it is totally inconsistent with the way we
>> understand physics to work.
>
>    Ah, you QUALIFIED your answer, Jim, to be "as you
>    [ZetaTalk] have described it" and further QUALIFIED
>    that to be "totally inconsistent with the way we
>    understand physics to work". ...
>
>    Well, we are sure this will be a great relief to the mass
>    of the public waiting for their leadership to address all
>    this!  Not within the current understanding.  Well, in
>    the past, before the discovery of radio waves, a RADIO
>    would have been thus, and caused anyone stated that
>    such a device might transmit information over the air,
>    from a distance, to be considered crazy!  But let us
>    assume that the current situation is not similar.  Man
>    has progressed, in the past few hundred years, has he
>    not?  Has he progressed past thinking that the Earth is
>    flat, and putting to death in the most painful manner
>    any who dare say otherwise?  To man, and this includes
>    Jim Scotti who asserts that IF IT IS NOT WITHIN OUR
>    CURRENT UNDERSTANDING IT DOES NOT EXIST,
>    the current understanding is the baseline, and
>    anything other than this is WRONG.  Thus, the Earth
>    is flat, and the radio cannot operate.  If Jim has not seen
>    it, felt it, observed it, is cannot be.  No wonder the Pope
>    chose the University at Tucson to establish the Pope
>    Scope.  A kindred mind!
>        ZetaTalk™
               (http://www.zetatalk.com/usenet/use90816.htm)