Last night, I tried to perform the confirmation observation from my
backyard. As I was aligning my HOP-TO mount ;-) and getting the
star fields, I noticed how the stars were getting dimmer and dimmer
and I could hardly see the diamond asterism. When I looked up, the
sky was being swallowed up my the marine layer.

Tonight (06/03), I went to bed early. Leaping out of bed at the
sound of the alarm at 10:30pm, I quickly loaded my truck with a few
more things (coke, machete and yes my Starbound chair, etc.), my 4"
TV-102 Light Cup and I was off to Mt. Laguna. Incidentally, my
backyard was covered with fog and the marine layer. After climbing
to 3000 ft (from my backyard's 2000 ft. elev.), the fog was still
thick and I thought of turning back. But at 3000+ ft., the fog
started to clear up and I could see the stars! At 4000 ft., it was
very promising. I went to the same spot at 6000 ft. and boy the
sky was really nice, and amazing how it was so dry and yuppie, no
light pollution at all :->!

After I got dark adapted, I did a photometric sequence following the
dimmest stars I could see: I could see V mag 13.7 star GSC 5656-262
and V mag 13.9 star GSC 5657-218, but *not* V mag 14.1 star GSC
5657-97 :-(. So mag 13.9 was my telescopic limiting magnitude for
the night (all with averted vision of course ;-). Seeing was around
Pickering 6 (maybe a bit more).

In the first report, several responders pointed out that one of the
star at the "tail" of the diamond asterism was missing in my drawing.
Indeed, star (f) which is GSC 5657-168 with magnitude of 14.1 (V mag
13.1) was missing :-(. Tonight, I found out why. The two stars
were closed to each other. When I looked at (e)(f) with direct
vision, somehow I saw only one star. But if I use averted vision
then I could see two. After that, at times I could see two with
direct vision as well. One other difference tonight: (a) was quite
obvious with direction vision.

Well, the location where I saw the allegedly Pluto of 06/02 does
not appear to have any star there this morning (06/02). Using the
detail chart, I looked at where Pluto is supposed to be this morning.
With difficulty and always using averted vision at 176x and 220x, I
could see a very dim "star" at the location where Pluto should be.
There should be no star there and there are no other stars in the
vicinity. Please take a look at the sketch (BTW, I covered up the
sketch from 06/02 when I sketched this morning.)
http://members.cox.net/ronby/Planet-Sketches/Pluto-060403.jpg

After the session, I took the naked eye limiting magnitude reading.
I could see the mag 6.5 star HD 153229 and maybe the mag 6.6 star
HD 152585 (well averted vision for sure). So let's say NLM=6.5.
Wow, I've never seen sky this dark before!

So the 102mm question is: did my 4" TV-102 Light Cup really show me
Pluto? I'm pretty convinced I did. However, being inexperienced
I welcome your skepticism, but on one condition: please also explain
to me why you think my Light Cup has failed me. My Light Cup
believe skepticism without substantiation is well subjective. Oh,
don't worry about hurting my feeling as it's full of inexperience
;-). This is the only way I can learn from you seasoned observers.
In the final analysis, even if I failed here, there's all the next
time ;-). So please lay it in between the chin; I did ask for it ;-).

Thanks in advance and thanks for following my saga of Pluto.

Ron B[ee]
PS - When I get that 8" Discovery Dobs, I'll give Pluto another
plucking to see if it's really easy with aperture ;-).