Re: Planet-X, Why "Look Around"

Openminded  (openmind@telocity.com) wrote:
> Nancy Lieder wrote:
>> Please note that:
>>  1. all dim object are SMALLER on the recent 20 
>>     minute CCD 
>>  2. except for the NEW object, which is LARGER
>>  3. the new 20 minute CCD also has the dim star 
>>     in the 45 minute Palomar
>>  4. so the NEW blob is ....
>> 
>> => NEW <=
>>
>> Hello! 
>> 
>> Palomar 45 Minute CCD
>> . <=dot
>> 
>< Recent 20 Minute CCD
>> . <= dot
>> * <= new blob
> 
> Give us a simple english languge explanation of 
> the reason that the blob you claim is your planet is 
> many 1000's of times fainter than your statement of 
> its brightness and far too faint to be visible to a human 
> looking through the eyepiece of a telescope.

Ah!  We’re beyond discussion of whether or not the blob is NEW, and into
discussion of magnitude.  Thank you, Dear Open Minded, for this
acknowledgement.  Zetas which to jump in here:

    Magnitude, as has been discussed endlessly on this 
    Usenet, does not equate to visibility when the scope  
    of the object is SMALL, as is scarsely larger than 
    Pluto, and DIFFUSE, as is not having the intense 
    pinpoint of light emitted by stars or planets reflecting 
    sunlight as even your dot Pluto does.  M31 is allowed 
    to be a Magnitude 3.7 but cannot be seen unless one 
    squints the eye and trusts that what they are seeing is
    M31, because it is scattered about and thus diffuse.  
    No such allowance is given to the inbound smoldering 
    brown dwarf, which is likewise diffuse.  Beyond the 
    many descriptions of magnitude, there is the issue of 
    what the eye can see and what equipment can capture, 
    what equipment has been DESIGNED to capture, 
    whether pronounced such or not.  The scopes and 
    imaging equipment sold to the little guy SELLS 
    because it images stars, the biggie on Star Parties.  
    Infrared equipment is expensive, so is safely in the 
    hands of observatories which have been refusing to 
    look THERE lately, with or without imaging 
    equipment, as has been documented here on this 
    Usenet.  Observatories are situated away from light 
    pollution and have long tubes insulating against this 
    so what is captured, and MAGNIFIED, can be 
    discerned.  The observers who found a blob, not on 
    the star charts, and essentially where our RA and Dec
    defined, last Spring, did to some degree by looking 
    out the side of their eyes, a technique also described 
    for seeing Pluto, by the way, by one astronomer on 
    the scene in Vancouver.  Now, why did your CCD 
    capture Planet X?  Because:
    1. it was THERE
    2. you used an infrared imaging device
    3. you allowed for a minimum amount of time to 
       capture it, no more no less, we suspect on purpose.

    Let’s imagine you had taken a full 45 minute CCD, 
    for a proper comparison to the Palomar.  Let’s 
    imagine the viewing in South Africa by Sonja Jordaan 
    had taken place, or Steve Havas allowed to use the 
    scopes in Vancouver, perpetually closed now.  Let’s
    imagine that this brown dwarf was DEFINITIVE, 
    not suggested by a bit of “noise” on your 20 minute
    CCD or by the odd behaviour of observatories.  
    What would your President Bush SAY to this proven
    accuracy of ZetaTalk, already the buzz around the 
    world in lunchrooms and coffee shops, though this
    not acknowledged by major media sources.  What 
    would he or any leader in government say to the 
    demands of those governed as to what will be 
    DONE if such a passage, as the world attests to in 
    its history, were to occur?  Trust me?  We’ll cross 
    that bridge when we come to it?  Just keep paying 
    your taxes and we’ll beef up defense spending?  
    They do not WISH for this to be proven, nor does 
    Open Minded wish to push what would essentially be 
    the red button, except cautiously, a bit by little bit.  
        ZetaTalk™