Re: Planet-X, Why "Look Around"

Bill Nelson <billn@spock.peak.org> wrote:
> Nancy Lieder <zetatalk@zetatalk.com> wrote:
>
>... deleted ...
>
> Nancy, the stuff you wrote above is all false, as has been
> pointed out to you many times before. 
>
>>     Infrared equipment is expensive, so is safely in the 
>>     hands of observatories which have been refusing to 
>
> This is not true. Most film is sensitive to infrared, and a
> reflector telescope (the kind most used for astronomy, both
> by amateurs and professionals) does fine recording IR light
> on film.

Film camera's (used to) have a setting for "infinity" and beyond
that, there is a setting for "infra red". This was for using
infra-red film, which is not used much anymore.

If the film you reference captures IR in addition to visible
light, that means all pictures are going to be blurry. IR comes
right after red, if you are talking about the /real near IR/,
then your answer is as invalid as how close you want to put that
IR to visible red.

I went to a shop and wanted to shoot P-X with an IR film, I was
told:
1. We don't sell this stuff anymore, if you want it you will have
   to buy an entire box (damn ;).
2. This IR film has single digits asa values.
3. The really good IR is brought in cooled trucks and must be used
   very soon, and handled specially, the shopkeeper told me nicely
   that was not something i could do myself.

Therefore i decided IR was not a viable option for me. This probably
includes everybody who cannot handle specially delivered (cooled) film
which has to be procesed rapidly and specially from normal film.

(Yes, this is a true anecdote.)

>>     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 
>
> Nancy. With the brightness of the "blob" on the image, NO
> eye is going to be able to see it - averted vision or not.
> That would even be true for the Palomar telescope.
>
> It is impossible that anyone could have seen it visually.
> That means they either saw something else - or just imagined
> seeing something.
>
>>     the scene in Vancouver.  Now, why did your CCD 
>>     capture Planet X?  Because:
>>     1. it was THERE
>
> It was also there on the Palomar survey plates - taken a few
> decades ago.
>
>>     accuracy of ZetaTalk, already the buzz around the 
>>     world in lunchrooms and coffee shops, though this
>
> Oh, it is a minor matter of some discussion. Unfortunately,
> it is derision. It is given about the same respect as those
> that claim they were abducted by aliens.

Perhaps the problem is in the respect, it's not in the evidence
at least, nor in the logicallness of the propositions (stupid 
english).

Josh