Re: Planet X : NEW Coordinates to Feb 9, 2003

To: The Apprentice Shepherd of the few remaining Sci.Astro Sheep
aka Sarah McSilk.

Your strategy of "be first and be vocal" with image analysis is noted
on the Dec 27/28 images. It is a standard practice for someone trying
to push an agenda.

Being first and being loud does not equate to being correct ;o) 
I see your Chorus of Nattering Nabobs are in full howl as well ;o)

1) At this time, imaging evidence is mounting for the fact that a
   large object is incoming, meeting the description of those who have
   announced its arrival, the Zeta.
   Up to Sept. 21 2002, those who said that the Zeta were mythic, had an
   element of doubt to give validation to their case.
   Since Sept. 21 2002 the weight of evidence has shifted in favour of
   those who hold that a Planet is returning into the Solar system and
   imaging of this Planet is underway. And that a species of
   inter-density entities have provided the coordinates.

2) Continued investigation of the series of images has led me to
   conclude that an object on film has been appearing at the given
   coordinates of the Zeta. The strategy of the debunkers has been to
   deny Planet X/Niburu on each set of images. The continued suggestion
   that we are picking random noise on each set of images no longer holds
   water now that we have enough images to plot its course.
   Planet X/Niburu is following a course understandable to human science.
   To the result of finding it on the Dec 28 images by plotting its path,
   as tracking errors and movement had left it unrecognized on a Sum of 3 
   
3) I recall the Oct 04 images being a stack of 10 X 2 minute images
   creating a 20 minute summary. Now we are imaging 20 minutes in one
   frame.  The summaries the Shepherds maintain as their criteria are
   median summaries.
   How do you find a low intensity, diffuse, moving object in a 1 hour
   median summary? Any object not pegged to one spot and of a high enough
   intensity would be washed out by the median Summary. Throw in tracking
   errors and its easier to bullshit through this set.
   One thing for sure, Sarah McSilk, you know how to do the washing ;o)

I have searched for PX by following the flight path From Dec 14 to Dec
29 coordinates. I have viewed the images and based on course plot,
location and distance from the projected red image, found Planet
X/Niburu.


J.William Dell

Sarah Mc wrote in message <3c09ad3.0212212124.50e780ec@posting.google.com>
> Steve Havas wrote in message <_K1N9.262790$ka.6294937@news1.calgary.shaw.ca>
> <snip
>>
>> Despite the loud cries from the debunkers that the "blobs" showing up 
>> on the images are noise or pixel defects, that it is impossible for personas
>> to exist, that we can not account for everything new on the images etc., the 
>> facts remain that the images show a multitude of new objects near or at the 
>> predicted coordinates which the debunkers can not account for and only denounce.
> 
> No, the images show nothing near the coordinates provided by ZetaTalk.
> They show image artifacts a good distance away from the coordinates.
> Your idea of "near" or "at" is a far cry from the precision needed to
> report a new object. In fact, not once have either you, Dell or nancy
> provided astrometrics on these artifacts. If they were in Texas, you'd
> be saying they were "near" or "at" the United States.
> 
>>  
>> The Zeta's say Planet X has numerous dozens of rapidly swirling moons 
>> and a large dust cloud. 
> 
> Yep, and I'm the Queen of England. What evidence do you have that
> Zetas exist?
> 
>> I am only pointing this out because I think future images will continue
>> to become increasingly complicated as more becomes visible and that at 
>> some points it will be difficult to tell exactly what is what.
> 
> You mean you'll continue to provide images with the contrast and
> background so over-processed that nothing will be discernable? Or do
> you mean that you'll continue to post images that are smaller and
> smaller, with lower resolution than before (as your current images)?
> 
>>  
>>  If these images are indeed capturing Planet X, 
> 
> Indeed, they are not.
> 
>> which I believe is so, it is by no means a static event - it is a 
>> rapidly changing dynamic phenomena. I expect that at some point 
>> most of the image will l begin to look like a mass blob of objects. 
> 
> You have 100 days before your "object" is supposed to become a "naked
> eye" object. That means it will dominate any CCD image you take.
> You're already using the reduced focal length on the Mewlon. So far,
> since mid-2002, when it was supposed to visible in amateur telescopes,
> not one person has seen your object. You continue to point to image
> artifacts that are barely above the background of a 45 minute
> composite CCD image. Did Nancy mean that "visible in an amateur
> telescope" was supposed to be a 45 minute CCD image of noise and poor
> flat fielding? I stated back in July she would claim that a CCD image
> is the same as "visible".
> 
> 100 days from now, is "naked eye" (or mag 4-5), going to be a 45
> minute CCD image of readout noise, hot pixels and artifacts? Is the
> claim going to be "naked eye to the Zetas"? How long is she going to
> string you along Havas?
> 
>> And how else should the case be? If Planet X is rapidly approaching 
>> towing such a large entourage how else is it going to look on an image? 
>> It's going to look like an ever increasing mess!
> 
> No, by Nancy's claims it will become a mag 4-5 object in the next 100
> days. How are you planning on getting out of that one Havas? From mag
> 20 to mag 5 in 100 days. Or is "naked eye" going to be some flash back
> to 2001, when "naked eye" suddenly became "telescope assisted", then
> became "computer assisted", then disappeared altogether and became
> observatory grade telescopes with infrared filters and long exposure
> CCD images?
> 
> Is that what Nancy has planned? After all her object is supposed to be
> mag 11 or brighter right now, and you dingbats are circling artifacts
> that are barely above the background. Of course, you increase the
> contrast and adjust the threshold of the image to a point where
> everything is indistiguishable. Is that what you're trying for,
> indistinguishable images? Why not just post the darks?
> 
> Then you won't have to worry about the photometry or astrometry, just
> draw a circle on the dark and say "Zeta's RIGHT AGAIN!"
> 
> Hell of a lot cheaper too, you can buy more seeds and worms, and Nancy
> can throw a little into her Zeta retirement fund every now and then
> when no one's looking.