Zetas RIGHT Again!

In Article <3BEDF805.D434C2E8@home.com> Jim wrote:
> One way to try to make Zetatalk RIGHT (wouldn't 
> that be unusual) is to change it.

And one way to try to make ZetaTalk WRONG is to confuse the issue! In
response to the types of arguments posted during the various magnitude
discussions, here's what the Zetas replied.

In Article <3B1261E6.855D862B@zetatalk.com> 5/28/01
> The Zetas have stated that Planet X is a magnitude 2.0, 
> but in a search a lower magnitude (down to 10 or 11) 
> must be assumed due to equipment settings and the 
> light spectrum that this smoldering dwarf emits.  They
> have compared the viewing of Planet X to viewing of 
> distant stars, as follows:

    It does not shine with the intensity of most stars, but has a
    dull, diffuse, glow. It appears to be the last gasp of a dying
    star, a faint, blurry, reddish glow. Your eye would pass
    over it if attuned to the pin points that are the stars. A
    star is intense in the center and rapidly diminishes in
    intensity toward the edges of the spot you call a star. The
    light from a star comes from a single point and fans out,
    the periphery a bit less than the center, increasingly, but
    the center very intense. The 12th Planet, being nearer, is
    giving you light rays from its entire surface, so the light
    has an even quality to it.
       ZetaTalk™, Comet Visible
         (http://www.zetatalk.com/poleshft/p29.htm)

In Article <3B1261E6.855D862B@zetatalk.com> 5/28/01
> So how is it that we can see stars in the night sky, but 
> not Planet X? Being more distance, aren't they smaller 
> than Planet X?  They are probably a higher magnitude, 
> but are at a greater distance.  The Zetas wish to explain.

    Starlight is more than a highly intense pinpoint of light,
    it is light at the periphery, spreading outward from the
    center.  The WHOLE of this display is considered the star,
    expanding the size of the viewable object.  The intensity
    of light spreading from the pinpoint that represents the
    actual star is also high, diminishing from the center
    rapidly, but nevertheless of a high intensity.  Starlight
    viewed from Earth captures the center pinpoint and all
    light rays moving at an angle that can still be captured
    by the imaging device, be this the human eye or equipment.
    This greater viewing area makes distant stars appear
    LARGER than Planet X appears at the present time.
    Planet X emits light evenly from its surface, and being
    a lower magnitude than stars visible from Earth, light
    at the periphery disappears in the noise that dillutes and
    confuses equipment.  Thus, its VIEWABLE size cannot
    compete with stars.
        ZetaTalk™

In Article <3B1261E6.855D862B@zetatalk.com> 5/28/01
> So size, as well as magnitude, matter.  In addition, the 
> light spectrum is red, so unless a filter FOR red is used, 
> it cannot compete.  The Zetas have stated:

    The composition is not the composition of reflecting
    sunlight, but is almost exclusively in the spectrum you
    would call red light. Thus you will do best if you filter
    for red light, and by this we mean filtering out all but
    red light.
        ZetaTalk™, Comet Visible
            (http://www.zetatalk.com/poleshft/p29.htm)

In Article <3B87C2F8.80C935D7@zetatalk.com> 8/20/01
> The Zeta wish to repond.

    You're continuing to attempt to confuse the public by pointing
    to STARS and then claiming that the inbound Planet X, which
    is a smoldering brown dwarf, should be equivalent.  M31 is
    not a star, so that's why it can be excused from having an
    intense pinpoint of light MUCH more intense and thus
    registerable by the eye and imaging equipment, but Planet X
    cannot?  Why?  Because then Nancy will be taken seriously?
    Is this a science discussion or a pissing contest?
        ZetaTalk™

In Article <3B926FCF.96225589@zetatalk.com>  9/2/01
> The Zetas wish to comment.

    Stars are NOWHERE the size, at the distance they are
    from Earth, that they appear in your scopes or to your eye
    when gazing skyward on a clear night.  What you see is a
    diminishing light, from an intense center, to the periphery.
    Should this circle, the star, have the light UNIFORM, there
    would be very few stars visible.  Why so?  The light your eye
    or scopes are registering is due to the extreme intensity in
    the very center.  In discussions on how many pixels, a
    point-source, Planet X or a star might assume during
    viewing, a star ALWAYS floods more than a pixel with
    light, as this is dependent more upon the circle that the
    eye or scope can encompass, not the source.  Should this
    viewing area be reduced to the star itself, and not scattering
    light, is would be infintessimally smaller than a pixel.
    Such is the intensity of light from stars that even at their
    distance, they flood the viewable area with scattered light
    that is STILL intense.  Comparing this setup with the
    diffuse light from a smoldering brown dwarf is akin to
    comparing the glow from a fire-fly in the nearby bushes
    to a laser aimed at your eye from a few hundred feet away.
    If you still had an eye left, you'd KNOW the difference.
    Intensity matters.
        ZetaTalk™