OK Nancy, Where Is It?
Nancy Lieder
> We have obtained a CCD exposure of the coordinates
> posted by Nancy for her planet. Although the CCD
> image was taken with the requisite R filter and an
> observatory grade telescope, and it shows objects fainter
> than 18th magnitude (and hence more than 1000 times
> fainter than Nancy specifies for her planet), there is no
> sign of any unexpected object. All is available for
> examination at
> http://us.geocities.com/openmindxx/CCDimages.htm
> Nancy, please explain.
You CAUGHT it! I've marked the spot with a red circle. With your
permission, Idon't, I've made a copy of the pertinent images and put
them on my web site as this posting of mine, which I web, will want to
refer to them going forward. For absolute purity of truth, one should
look to IDON'T's web site, however, not my copies. Certianly the copy
with a red circle has been bastardized, as my PC Paintbrush program only
works in 256 colors and damages what it touches, etc. Here is the Zeta
comments about your wonderful efforts, Idon't!
Given that the Jan 2, 2002 exposure in the red
spectrum was 20 minutes vs the comparison chart
of 45 minutes, the planet you are seeking is NOT
as visible in the comparison as one would like, but
is there. Our emissary, Nancy, has circled the spot
where you captured the inbound planet, barely
larger than Pluto in at its center and with a swirl
of dust and moons about this center, not yet
reflecting sunlight as does Pluto but giving an
even diffuse spread of light from its surface, and
certainly without any intensity of light as stars or
star clusters. Our instructions, in that the RA and
Dec given are to suffice for the whole world, are to
look AROUND the spot for something not on the
star charts. Thus, the EXACT RA and Dec are
not the guidelines, in any given search. Visibility
in a magnitude range area affected by the SIZE of
the spot being observed, and the SPREAD that the
object takes over an area, as in the M31 example
where it is considered a magnitude 3.7 but can
scarcely be seen, as it is spread about a large area.
Thus, Planet X, being a magnitude 11 but this
light coming from its entire surface, does not take
on an image as starlight or objects reflecting
sunlight. Take another CCD, given greater
exposure time, and come again.
ZetaTalk
The pertinent coordinates, again, for this time period:
RA 4.45623 Dec 12.13873 on Jan 17, 2002
RA 4.45631 Dec 12.14997 on Jan 08, 2002
RA 4.45657 Dec 12.15692 on Jan 03, 2002
My red circled SPOT:
http://www.zetatalk.com/usenet/jan05cir.gif
which by the way shows up on an inverted JPG image that a Troubled Times
member made:
http://www.zetatalk.com/usenet/jan04inv.jpg
To compare with Idon't images:
Palomar Survey (45 Minute) in red spectrum
http://www.zetatalk.com/usenet/jan05pss.jpg
Jan 05, 2002 (20 Minute) in red spectrum
http://www.zetatalk.com/usenet/jan05zzz.jpg
Zeta Coordinates on above, identified as X
http://www.zetatalk.com/usenet/jan05xxx.jpg
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Nancy Lieder
Inverted JPG image that a Troubled Times member made:
http://www.zetatalk.com/usenet/jan05inv.jpg
I M Openminded
How can Idon't give you permission to post? These images have nothing
to do with Idon't. You do not have my permission to post copies of my
images unless you include the statement that you are doing so without
permission.
The fact is, there is no 11th magnitude or even 19th magnitude object at
the point where Nancy has put her red circle on this image. This
response shows exactly why no one has been willing to post an image for
Nancy. It was inevitable that she would take any image and imagine that
she had found her planet on it. Her talk about the RA and DEC having to
suffice for the "whole world" is spurious. In fact she gave us specific
coordinates to use for our observing location and her red circle lies
well away from those specific coordinates. Our web site has now had
those ccordinates added to them as well as Nancy's red circle so all can
see for themselves.
Bill Foley
Nancy, why not just peddle building sites along the Colorado River?
That con has already worked VERY well before, and by now most of the
suckers have forgotten about it.
Steve Havas
this picture contains the infamous Planet X so who thinks they can be
the first to get a better picture so that comparisons can be made??
Waiting for clear skies in Vancouver...
Nancy Lieder <zeta...@zetatalk.com> wrote in message news:<3C3871E3...@zetatalk.com>...
I M Openminded
The trouble is that it moves and she says that where you should look
depends on where you are located. At first she said it was a
triangulation effect
(see http://us.geocities.com/openmindxx/lookaround.htm and
http://us.geocities.com/openmindxx/variance.htm )
but I showed her that her stated distance to the planet did not fit with
the shift she stated so she came up with a refraction effect that we
Earth scientists were simply not equipped to understand.
In my case, she did tell me where to look for my location and as my web
page http://us.geocities.com/openmindxx/CCDimages.htm now shows, it was
NOT where she drew the red circle. Of course, she did not know it was
me that she told the place to look from the southeast or I am sure she
would have drawn the red circle better. The key is to get her to tell
you the correction for your location first. Then (and this holds for
every one making images) send the images to me so I can post them
without her knowing who took them ... that keeps her from correcting the
mistake she made with me.
tho...@antispam.ham
> Idon't wrote:
>> We have obtained a CCD exposure of the coordinates
>> posted by Nancy for her planet. Although the CCD
>> image was taken with the requisite R filter and an
>> observatory grade telescope, and it shows objects fainter
>> than 18th magnitude (and hence more than 1000 times
>> fainter than Nancy specifies for her planet), there is no
>> sign of any unexpected object. All is available for
>> examination at
>> http://us.geocities.com/openmindxx/CCDimages.htm
>> Nancy, please explain.
> You CAUGHT it!
He caught blank sky?
> I've marked the spot with a red circle.
You marked blank sky with a red circle, Nancy.
> With your
> permission, Idon't, I've made a copy of the pertinent images and put
> them on my web site as this posting of mine, which I web, will want to
> refer to them going forward. For absolute purity of truth, one should
> look to IDON'T's web site, however, not my copies. Certianly the copy
> with a red circle has been bastardized, as my PC Paintbrush program only
> works in 256 colors and damages what it touches, etc. Here is the Zeta
> comments about your wonderful efforts, Idon't!
>
> Given that the Jan 2, 2002 exposure in the red
> spectrum was 20 minutes vs the comparison chart
> of 45 minutes,
Irrelevant, Nancy; the limiting magnitude is the relevant factor.
Certainly you must know that speed 400 film is faster than speed
64 film, therefore to capture the same amount of light, a
photographer can use shutter speeds about one-sixth as long as
would be necessary with the slower film, thereby producing less
smear on fast-moving objects, like race cars. The same situation
applies here. The use of a bigger telescope will also permit the
use of shorter exposures, all other things being equal. The use
of a wider filter will also permit the use of shorter exposures,
all other things being equal. The use of a more sensitive camera
will also permit the use of shorter exposures, all other things
being equal. What matters in the end is how much light was
captured, and you can determine that by comparing the brightnesses
of the stars. As was noted, the limiting magnitude is at least
18 in those images, about 1000 times deeper than necessary to
reveal an object of 11th magnitude. An 11th magnitude object
would be one of the brightest objects in the image.
> the planet you are seeking is NOT
> as visible in the comparison as one would like,
You mean as you would like, Nancy. The fact remains that there
is no 11th magnitude object inside your red circle.
> but is there.
Blank sky is there?
> Our emissary, Nancy, has circled the spot
> where you captured the inbound planet,
You circled blank sky, Nancy.
> barely larger than Pluto in at its center
Pluto is unresolved, Nancy. You could just as easily refer to any
star, all of which are also unresolved.
> and with a swirl of dust and moons about this center,
You're hallucinating, Nancy.
> not yet reflecting sunlight
Illogical, Nancy; how could the object be 11th magnitude? The light
has to come from somewhere!
> as does Pluto but giving an
> even diffuse spread of light from its surface, and
> certainly without any intensity of light as stars or
> star clusters.
You just finished saying that it was "barely larger than Pluto",
Nancy. So you just contradicted yourself.
> Our instructions, in that the RA and
> Dec given are to suffice for the whole world, are to
> look AROUND the spot for something not on the
> star charts.
Irrelevant, given that you just finished claiming that he caught it,
Nancy, and you even circled the allegedly relevant spot in red,
therefore he "looked around" enough.
> Thus, the EXACT RA and Dec are
> not the guidelines, in any given search.
You can do the astrometry on the object you're imagining inside your
red circle, Nancy, and produce an exact RA and Dec.
> Visibility in a magnitude range area affected by the SIZE
> of the spot being observed, and the SPREAD that the
> object takes over an area, as in the M31 example
> where it is considered a magnitude 3.7 but can
> scarcely be seen, as it is spread about a large area.
That "large area" in the case of M31 is several degrees, Nancy,
and I don't have any trouble seeing it. Given that you just
admitted that the visibility is affected by the size, go ahead
and spread your 11th magnitude light over an area "barely larger
than Pluto" and tell us the actual brightness in the appropriate
units. Do the math right and you'll discover that there is no
11th magnitude object inside your red circle.
> Thus, Planet X, being a magnitude 11 but this
> light coming from its entire surface, does not take
> on an image as starlight or objects reflecting
> sunlight.
Why not, Nancy? After all, it's "barely larger than Pluto". An
object could be ten times larger than Pluto and still "take on an
image of starlight".
> Take another CCD, given greater exposure time,
Unnecessary, as the limiting magnitude was more than enough, and
you claim to see it, Nancy.
> and come again.
Only to have you spin doctor your failed predictions again.
tho...@antispam.ham
> Oops, my errror,
One of several, Nancy.
Bob May
she didn't get is centered on. I used Irfanview to invert and then gamma
correct, brightness and contrast enhance the image and found a splotch of a
slightly brighter image in the area of her circle. The splotch is of an
extended area and is irregular and the difference between it and the
surrounding region is only 1 count in difference making it problaby about 20
or 21 for a mag intensity and due to the area, about 1 mag less for total
intensity. That's a long way from the supposed 11th mag that is claimed.
--
Bob May
Imagine the terrorist's fun when they realize that their 72 "nubile virgins"
are all lesbians and cranky from it being that time of the month!
I M Openminded
> Actually, Nancy did find a very faint piece of noise to encircle although
> she didn't get is centered on. I used Irfanview to invert and then gamma
> correct, brightness and contrast enhance the image and found a splotch of a
> slightly brighter image in the area of her circle. The splotch is of an
> extended area and is irregular and the difference between it and the
> surrounding region is only 1 count in difference making it problaby about 20
> or 21 for a mag intensity and due to the area, about 1 mag less for total
> intensity. That's a long way from the supposed 11th mag that is claimed.
>
> --
> Bob May
In fact there is something at that location on both the PSS-1 and PSS-2
red images. It is down at about 20th magnitude, well past what I was
willing to consider reliable detection (remember, 1 magnitude is a
factor of 2.5 in brightness)*. Nancy will of course accept anything
that fits her notions. If Nancy is willing to accept that noise splotch
on my image fine, its been there for 5 decades ... and I now can claim I
get down past 20th magnitude in 20 minutes instead of 18th or 19th.
* watch for Tholen to point out that 1 magnitude is not exactly 2.5 in
brightness but rather 2.51188643150958011108503206779933
Fred Garvin
> In Article <3C37825E...@telocity.com> Idon't wrote:
> > We have obtained a CCD exposure of the coordinates
> > posted by Nancy for her planet. Although the CCD
> > image was taken with the requisite R filter and an
> > observatory grade telescope, and it shows objects fainter
> > than 18th magnitude (and hence more than 1000 times
> > fainter than Nancy specifies for her planet), there is no
> > sign of any unexpected object. All is available for
> > examination at
> > http://us.geocities.com/openmindxx/CCDimages.htm
> > Nancy, please explain.
>
> You CAUGHT it!
Nahhh. You need to catch the next wacky wagon to the nearest mental
hospital though!
--
Why is the alphabet in that order? Is it because of that
song? - George Carlin
tho...@antispam.ham
> * watch for Tholen to point out that 1 magnitude is not exactly 2.5 in
> brightness but rather 2.51188643150958011108503206779933
You'll be watching and waiting for a long time. I've never computed
the ratio to that number of digits of precision.
Idon't
I have no idea whatsoever why she mentions me in relation to this.
I
jrla...@shell.golden.net
I M Openminded <open...@telocity.com> wrote:
>Nancy Lieder wrote:
>>
>> You CAUGHT it! I've marked the spot with a red circle.
>The fact is, there is no 11th magnitude or even 19th magnitude object at
>the point where Nancy has put her red circle on this image. This
>response shows exactly why no one has been willing to post an image for
>Nancy. It was inevitable that she would take any image and imagine that
>she had found her planet on it. Her talk about the RA and DEC having to
>suffice for the "whole world" is spurious. In fact she gave us specific
>coordinates to use for our observing location and her red circle lies
>well away from those specific coordinates. Our web site has now had
>those ccordinates added to them as well as Nancy's red circle so all can
>see for themselves.
I think you should have posted an image of a completely different part of
the sky! It would have been funny to see her claim it as a sighting of
Planet-X only to be told the image was taken 180 degrees from her
specified co-ordinates! :-)
I think it's interesting that Nancy and her cult followers aren't posting
their own images. I guess none of them know how to use a telescope ...
--
john R. Latala
jrla...@golden.net
Stig Bull
> Nancy Lieder wrote:
>> In Article <3C37825E...@telocity.com> Idon't wrote:
> How can Idon't give you permission to post? These images have nothing
> to do with Idon't. You do not have my permission to post copies of my
> images unless you include the statement that you are doing so without
> permission.
Don't think Nancy confused your name/nick with Idon'ts. If she just hit
reply to your message, the first line in her reply would be 'In Article
<3C37825E...@telocity.com> I M Openminded wrote:'
Instead, your nick/name is replaced with Idon't, and that can't happen
unless she *on purpose* replaced your nick with Idon'ts.
See, all Nancy are, is just another liar and a fraud.
Note to her minions and cult followers: your leader did once again expose
herself. How sad on your behalf.
--
Stig Bull
No animals were hurt or killed in the process of creating this electronic
message. To reduce download time, this message is made of 100% recycled
bytes.
Bill Nelson
> You CAUGHT it! I've marked the spot with a red circle. With your
OK. Now that we at least have the proper field, would someone post
the straightforward coordinates - rather than the rather silly ones
used by Nancy? It would be nice to have RA in hours and decimal minutes
or hours, minutes, seconds and Dec in in degrees and decimal minutes or
degrees, minutes, seconds.
--
Bill Nelson (bi...@peak.org)
I M Openminded
That would have been dishonest. The best I could do was to neglect to
let her know that she had given us coordinates specially adjusted for
our location. Her circle misses those coords by even more than it
misses her posted coords and she explained that by saying that the
posted coords were for the world in general, not fpr specific locations.
I M Openminded
Posted elsewhere but an astrometric solution of our image shows its
center at 04 27 26 +12 09 10
Her posted coords, transformed to HMS/DMS are:
3-Jan-02 4:27:24 12:09:25
8-Jan-02 4:27:23 12:09:00
I M Openminded
Although, as has been pointed out elsewhere in this thread, your planet
is not visible on this image, your enthusiastic acceptance of a 20th
magnitude star as your planet does serve one useful purpose. It clearly
establishes that claims of visual sightings that you have on your pages
are clearly spurious. Even you can not seriously maintain that visual
observation through moderate aperture telescopes could see 20th
magnitude. I assume, since you have repeatedly stated your search for
truth, that you will now modify your pages to admit the errors there.
Anders Eklöf
You could probably do it with a little fortran/c/pascal snippet in less
than 10 lines using quad precision (REAL*16 in fortran). ;-9
I guess that's about what Openminded did.
--
* Anders Eklöf * Phone: + 46 8581 74712 * "I blame you for *
* Glimmerstigen 46 * ae at radfysdotksdotse * the moonlit sky" *
* S-196 33 KUNGSÄNGEN * or andekl at saafdotse * ---- *
* SWEDEN * (sorry - had to garble) * Tasmin Archer *
tho...@antispam.ham
>> I M Openminded writes:
>>> * watch for Tholen to point out that 1 magnitude is not exactly 2.5 in
>>> brightness but rather 2.51188643150958011108503206779933
>> You'll be watching and waiting for a long time. I've never computed
>> the ratio to that number of digits of precision.
> You could probably do it with a little fortran/c/pascal snippet in less
> than 10 lines using quad precision (REAL*16 in fortran). ;-9
> I guess that's about what Openminded did.
I'm not interested in how I could do it. The point is that I have not
done it, and I have no motivation to do it, therefore anyone choosing
to follow the suggestion that they watch for me to point that out will
Bob May
than anything else, to me at the least.
Roger Hamlett
"Anders Eklöf" <andekl_no@saaf_spam.se> wrote in message
news:1f5ng3i.1r4b8mw1kdo7h0N%andekl_no@saaf_spam.se...
> <tho...@AntiSpam.ham> wrote:
>
> > I M Openminded writes:
> >
> > > * watch for Tholen to point out that 1 magnitude is not exactly 2.5
in
> > > brightness but rather 2.51188643150958011108503206779933
> >
> > You'll be watching and waiting for a long time. I've never computed
> > the ratio to that number of digits of precision.
>
> You could probably do it with a little fortran/c/pascal snippet in less
> than 10 lines using quad precision (REAL*16 in fortran). ;-9
> I guess that's about what Openminded did.
versions of the calculator application in Windows!. The assumption that
this is giving a _correct_ answer, worries me!...
Best Wishes
Mathias Homann
says...
> Due to the size of the image, here is what she circled.
For me, looks like the kind of stuff one uses a dark frame to get rid of
:)
bye
[L]
jrla...@shell.golden.net
You're no fun! :-)
It would have been great fun watching her trying to squirm her way out of
that if it had happened ...
Brian Chmiel
Has any attempt been made to take a longer 45 minute CCD exposure like
Nancy has asked?
da...@pebble.org
> Has any attempt been made to take a longer 45 minute CCD exposure like
> Nancy has asked?
To what end? To go maybe a magnitude or so deeper at most?
Actually, it would probably just increase the sky fog level.
I thought she asked for a 45 minute old style film exposure.
A 20 minute CCD exposure is equivilent to many, many hours with film.
I M Openminded
Not by me ... telescope time is a precious resource. My imaging has
been made using engineering time when the systems are being tested and
it does not matter what target is used. Unfortunately (or fortunately
:) the systems seem to be stating to jell nicely so we are shifting over
to science operations.
Note: Nancy says the object is 10th or 11th magnitude. The 20 minute
image shows objects down to 20th magnitude (10,000 times fainter than
10th magnitude) and there is no object there that was not in the same
location 45 years ago (this includes the spot Nancy circled). Because
the limit is set by sky brightness, going to a 45 minute exposure would
not look significatly deeper.
Michael L Cunningham
> >Nancy Lieder wrote:
> >
> >You CAUGHT it! I've marked the spot with a red circle.
>
> Note: Nancy says the object is 10th or 11th magnitude. The 20 minute
> image shows objects down to 20th magnitude (10,000 times fainter than
> 10th magnitude) and there is no object there that was not in the same
> location 45 years ago (this includes the spot Nancy circled). Because
> the limit is set by sky brightness, going to a 45 minute exposure would
> not look significatly deeper.
Now I'm waiting for one of two things from Nancy. Either she prints a
retraction stating she and her Zeta masters jumped the gun since they
also commented through her on the image OR she spin doctors her way
around this one.
She's been AWFULLY quiet since it was noted there was nothing in the red
circle except her imagination!
--
Michael L. Cunningham
So Cal SleeperS - 2001 Grand AM GT
e-mail boge...@earthlink.net
web site http://home.earthlink.net/~bogeystar/
Remembering the World Trade Center Massacre
Sept. 11, 2001
Cry Havoc! ...and let slip the dogs of war!
Visit the LX50 Web Site and join in our Discussion Forum!
"If you want to be counted... stand up!
If you want to be heard... speak up!
If you want to be appreciated... shut up!"
We've been notified by Building Security that there
have been 4 suspected terrorists working at our office.
Three of the four have been apprehended. Bin Sleepin,
Bin Loafin, and Bin Drinkin have been taken into
custody. Security advised us that they could find no
one fitting the description of the fourth cell member,
Bin Workin, in our office.
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an
invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write
a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort
the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone,
solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program
a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die
gallantly. Specialization is for insects." Robert Heinlein
Jeff Root
> You CAUGHT it! I've marked the spot with a red circle.
> 20 minutes vs the comparison chart of 45 minutes, the planet
> you are seeking is NOT as visible in the comparison as one would
> like, but is there. Our emissary, Nancy, has circled the spot
> where you captured the inbound planet, barely larger than Pluto
> in at its center and with a swirl of dust and moons about this
> center, not yet reflecting sunlight as does Pluto but giving an
> even diffuse spread of light from its surface, and certainly
> without any intensity of light as stars or star clusters.
> Actually, Nancy did find a very faint piece of noise to
> encircle although she didn't get is centered on. I used
> Irfanview to invert and then gamma correct, brightness and
> contrast enhance the image and found a splotch of a slightly
> brighter image in the area of her circle. The splotch is of
> an extended area and is irregular and the difference between
> it and the surrounding region is only 1 count in difference
> making it problaby about 20 or 21 for a mag intensity and due
> to the area, about 1 mag less for total intensity. That's a
> long way from the supposed 11th mag that is claimed.
"I M Openminded" replied:
> In fact there is something at that location on both the PSS-1
> and PSS-2 red images. It is down at about 20th magnitude, well
> past what I was willing to consider reliable detection (remember,
> 1 magnitude is a factor of 2.5 in brightness)*. Nancy will of
> course accept anything that fits her notions. If Nancy is willing
> to accept that noise splotch on my image fine, its been there for
> 5 decades ... and I now can claim I get down past 20th magnitude
> in 20 minutes instead of 18th or 19th.
I've examined the image in detail.
The circle Nancy drew has an inside diameter of 20 pixels and
a border 3 pixels wide. It encloses 292 pixels. I'm examining
the corresponding area on the image from the website of
"I M Openminded", since Nancy's image is degraded.
A rectangle of pixels which are mostly slightly brighter than
most of the surrounding pixels in that area extends from about
12 pixels above the top, outside edge of the circle, down to
about the bottom, outside edge. A pattern of alternating dark
and light stripes continues the rectangle a few pixels farther
down. This rectangle is 8 pixels wide. There may be hundreds
of such rectangles in the image, all 8 pixels wide. I'm quite
sure that they are JPEG artifacts, not part of the original
CCD image.
The brightest part of this rectangle is its right edge.
Starting at the bottom edge of the circle, and extending
downward, the column of pixels immediately to the left of
the rectangle is also brighter than average. This is the
right edge of the next rectangle to the left, reflecting a
tendency for slightly-brighter vertical columns of pixels
to repeat every 8 pixels.
For a short vertical distance inside the circle, the pixels
in this column are brighter, but just above and below, they
are not. This results in a section 9 pixels wide and about
9 pixels high which is slightly brighter than most nearby
pixels. It also has darker pixels at the corners, giving a
nearly circular shape. This shape is almost certainly an
artifact of the JPEG encoding, and would not be present on
the original CCD image. The shape is centered in the circle
Nancy drew, to within 2 pixels, so I believe it to be what
she was seeing.
There is a small area of slightly brighter pixels at the left
edge of the circle. However, it is completely covered by the
3-pixel wide border of the circle, and does not extend into
the circle at all. This brighter area could be an actual,
very faint object, and may be the object which "I M Openminded"
said is present on the Palomar Survey plates.
The only quality which distinguishes the section of JPEG
artifacts from thousands of others in the image is the fact
that it makes an almost perfect circle, 9 pixels wide and
9 pixels high, although one could probably identify hundreds
of similar shapes having similar perfection. Nancy apparently
chose geometrical perfection as an indication that the splotch
was the image of a spherical planet, and failed to recognize
that real sources of light show up in the image as less than
perfect shapes.
Two means could have averted this particular misidentification
of JPEG artifacts as an object. Multiple images could have
been made and presented simultaneously. The JPEG artifacts
would be different in each. Or a better-quality compression
could have been used: either a less-compressed JPEG, or a PNG
or GIF format.
I'd like to see the image with higher-quality compression.
Can you provide that, "Openminded"?
-- Jeff, in Minneapolis
Bob May
Nancy has asked?
To what end? If there's nothing there at 20th mag, what are you planning on
seeing at something like 22th mag.?
Your question is not really an intelligent one and is probably because you
don't know what your talking about. I suggest that you go find out a whole
lot of stuff before you start doubting those who do know about the subject.
Nancy Lieder
Zeta Coordinates 20 Minute CCD, so one would assume that if SOMETHING
were within the red circle it should be twice as strong in the Palomar
as in the Zeta Coordinates CCD. But the opposite is the case. The
Palomar has nothing there, but the Zeta Coordinates has SOMETHING.
Nancy,
I took the original image, and made some simple photoshop
enhancements, that anybody can replicate if they want to.
All I did was change the:
1) Brightness
2) Contrast
3) and Inverted colors
I showed each step, on each picture, and you are dead
on correct! Check it out. I tried the same enhancements to
the Palomar sky scan taken decades earlier, and the pictures
resolution was as good, but the noise level of the granularity
was too much for a direct comparison.
Which I’ve on my web site at:
http://www.zetatalk.com/usenet/jun05bri.jpg
Note the dim objects in the Palomar 45 Minute CCD are SOMETHING in this
man’s product, which increased the contrast in the Zeta Coordinates 20
Minute CCD, and include no more or less than those Palomar dim objects
except for the additional SOMETHING, round in shape, at the spot the
Zetas identified!
So what is that SOMETHING? Or does noise come in round shapes?
Compare, again, the I’m Open Minded’s Palomar:
http://www.zetatalk.com/usenet/jun05pss.jpg
Nancy Lieder
jun05bri.jpg.
http://www.zetatalk.com/usenet/jun05bri.jpg
So, compare to:
http://www.zetatalk.com/usenet/jan05pss.jpg
I M Openminded
So you agree that your previous posted sightings are completely wrong
since it would be absolutely impossible for an object this faint to be
seen with the naked eye and the telescopes used for those false sightings?
Now explain why the red circled "object" is not at the coordinates you
prepared specifically for our observations.
I M Openminded
> The Palomar 45 Minute CCD shows dim objects about twice as strong as the
> Zeta Coordinates 20 Minute CCD, so one would assume that if SOMETHING
> were within the red circle it should be twice as strong in the Palomar
> as in the Zeta Coordinates CCD. But the opposite is the case. The
> Palomar has nothing there, but the Zeta Coordinates has SOMETHING.
Whoops ... not so fast Nancy. If you had processed the PSS image in the
same way you would have seen the same object. It was there 50 years ago
and also 10 years ago. See my updated web page:
http://us.geocities.com/openmindxx/CCDimages.htm
So again, what I stated originally continues to be true ... there is
nothing on the 05JAN02 image that was not there decades ago. I am
gratified that you agree that the 20 minute exposure shows objects that
took Palomar 45 minutes to show and I await your admission that the
planet can not be found even by images that show thing 10,000 times
fainter than the supposed planet.
I M Openminded
Note Nancy's usual selective reading of what others say. The quote
above does NOT say that there is nothing on the Palomar sky scan! It
says "but the noise level of the granularity was too much for a direct
comparison". I actually agree ... normally I would not even be debating
about details in images down at the noise limit like this,but since
Nancy has insisted, please all ... look at my web page, not Nancy's
unauthorized reproductions, and decide for yourselves:
http://us.geocities.com/openmindxx/CCDimages.htm
Stig Bull
> The Palomar 45 Minute CCD shows dim objects about twice as strong as the
> Zeta Coordinates 20 Minute CCD, so one would assume that if SOMETHING
> were within the red circle it should be twice as strong in the Palomar
> as in the Zeta Coordinates CCD. But the opposite is the case. The
> Palomar has nothing there, but the Zeta Coordinates has SOMETHING.
>
> Nancy,
> I took the original image, and made some simple photoshop
> enhancements, that anybody can replicate if they want to.
> All I did was change the:
> 1) Brightness
> 2) Contrast
> 3) and Inverted colors
> I showed each step, on each picture, and you are dead
> on correct! Check it out. I tried the same enhancements to
> the Palomar sky scan taken decades earlier, and the pictures
> resolution was as good, but the noise level of the granularity
> was too much for a direct comparison.
Amazing. Nancy is 'quoting' someone and does not even include the name of
the person she's quoting. Are her cultmembers too _dumb_ to see she's a
liar and a fraud and most likely did this herself?
Another nail in Nancy the cultleaders coffin noted.
Sarah Mc
> Oops, my bad. I put Jun not Jan, but the jpg is UP there as
> jun05bri.jpg.
> http://www.zetatalk.com/usenet/jun05bri.jpg
> So, compare to:
> http://www.zetatalk.com/usenet/jan05pss.jpg
Not only does the cult leader hear things that no one else can, now
she see's things that no one else can. Pretty soon we'll have her
telling us she can smell and taste Planet X too.
Note that the Cult Leader has not answered any of the other questions
asked of her, like:
1) How did Steve Havras "see" this object a year ago, when a 20 minute
CCD exposure, properly equiped per her instructions, could not a year
later?
Maybe:
a) Steve Havras is really Superman
b) Steve Havras caught Planet X during a brief moment when it was
reflecting sunlight.
c) The telescope at that observatory was an experimental,
security-sensitive instrument that the government had shut down
because it was capable of seeing brown dwarfs with the "unaided eye";
it was threat to national security.
d) Steve Havras didn't really see anything celestial and is really
a "disinformation artist" (like "Charlane", remember her?)
2) What about the "other" observations without the "required"
equipment?
Maybe:
a) They're also super-human beings, able to see 20th mag objects
("unaided eye").
b) They saw planet X during Planet X's "nighttime" and saw
planet-based artificial lighting.
c) They didn't really see anything either, and are part of the
"Steve Havras disinformation conspiracy".
3) Why is it her mag 11 object is now mag 20 (or less)?
Maybe:
a) Because the Zeta's have found a way to "move" Planet X away from
Earth.
b) Because the inhabitants of this "smoldering brown dwarf" with
"deep oceans" have turned off all their artificial lights from growing
complaints about light pollution.
c) The inhabitants have technologicly made Planet X into a light
speed capable craft, and they're now piloting it elsewhere.
c) It doesn't really exist at all.
4) Why has she not used some of that $50,000 she confiscated from cult
members to buy time at an "observatory grade" telescope?
Maybe:
a) It's more important to grow earthworms for dinner.
b) It's more important to play with "back yard" hydroponics.
c) It's more important to buy servers to promote her book, before
its too late and Planet X's passage date blows by (rendering it a
cheap, 50 cent, sci-fi novela)
d) It's more important to build a "bermed structure" to see if it
could be built.
e) It doesn't exist, and she can't make false claims if it can't be
found.
Note also that recently, the cult leader was brought to the light of
truth ("dished" in her terms) by Mitch Battros of "Earth Changes TV".
A person formerly held in high regards (because he allowed her to
promote her nonsense on his show) is now a "NASA lacky".....probably
because he refered to a "cult" in his "dishing"......
"From: Nancy Lieder <zetatalk@z...>
Date: Tue Jan 8, 2002 11:10 pm
Subject: Re: [tt-watch] FW: Earth Changes TV/Article - Rumors of
Planet X Abound
During the last appearance 3-4 weeks ago, I found I did NOT advertise
on
tt-news. He is a lacky, for sure. The Zetas managed to insert that he
was WRONG in his statement that the sun was in a mega cycle, asking
him
what proof he or anyone had that such a thing existed. None. They
challenenged him to a longer session. This was all live. I heard
shortly afterwards that he was dishing me, etc. :-) Sore looser, and a
NASA lacky."
As if the cult leader has any proof of her own far-fetched statements,
she attacks someone else on their assertions (sounds vaguely
familiar). Then she demands a longer show, and takes the "no" answer
as if it means they refused the challenge of proof. Note also that
Mike Hazelwood (another ousted cult member "dished" by the Zeta cult
leader, and who also has a book) has also now disconnected himself
from Earth Changes TV. Mike Hazelwood was the one who came up with the
"Russian Scientist" rumour. He may also appear on the infamous Art
Bell show soon (that alone speaks paragraphs about the quality of
*his* information).
Here's the whole "dishing" (love that word) by Mitch Battros:
"Rumors of Planet X Abound...01/08/02
by Mitch Battros (ECTV)
There have been rumors flying around the internet that a group of
Russian
Scientist have announced they have been tracking an unknown mystical
planet
that is coming into our solar system. I am sorry to tell you, but no
such
group of Russian scientist exist. It turns out to be an article
written by
some clone who supports the tall story of the "Zetas".
The 'Zetas' are nothing more than "channeled" garble spouted by a
grandiose personality named Nancy Lieder. Ms. Lieder espouses to have
some
highly positioned connection with an alien entity from the planet
"Zeta".
Once you get through all the fancy dancing smoke and mirrors, what you
have
is some alter ego who thinks she has special magical insight that no
one
else has. Whatever!!!
This reminds me of the same type fiasco that happened in the year
2000.
Again there was an article running around the internet claiming they
too had
special secret information about the famous Third Secret of Fatima.
What it
turned out to be was yet another "channelor" who claimed magical
mystical
information that no one else had. The source was from a "cult" calling
themselves "The Little Pebble". Article:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4009350,00.html
I bring this up for only one reason. It is a reminder for us all to
remember our gift of 'discernment'. During these times of fast paced
changes, many will be coming forward yelling "follow me...follow me"
as if
they have some magical special information which we must adhere to be
saved.
Let me remind us all, now more than ever we must maintain our internal
insight and intuition. As events heat up, the natural reaction is to
find
the answers. Worse yet, many will be vulnerable to seek spiritual
guidance
sensing something truly is about to happen. This is were it gets
dangerous.
Why? because something is about to happen and has been for sometime.
What could be more confusing than half truths and double messages? So
once
again I bring this message to you. Follow your truth, not mine or
anyone
else. Seek and you shall find. Find what? Your Truth!
I have no doubt we will see additional personalities coming forward
with
their "mystical" articles scurrying about the internet. Spiritual
seekers
beware! One sure sign a false prophet is lurking around the corner, is
when
you see something which resembles a 'secret connection, mystical
insight,
"channeling", something that cannot be verified i.e. alien from zeta,
beta,
theta, potata, broccoli, asparagus, ham sandwich...whatever!!!! :-)
Now, although I may have gone further that I usually do with a bit of
cynicism, I must say we are probably in for a few surprises. I will
continue
to keep an open mind and sound heart. But I will stay close to, and
adhere
to, my gift of 'discernment' and ever growing gift of intuition.
Blessings
to all !"
I M Openminded
> Nancy Lieder wrote:
>
>
>>The Palomar 45 Minute CCD shows dim objects about twice as strong as the
>>Zeta Coordinates 20 Minute CCD, so one would assume that if SOMETHING
>>were within the red circle it should be twice as strong in the Palomar
>>as in the Zeta Coordinates CCD. But the opposite is the case. The
>>Palomar has nothing there, but the Zeta Coordinates has SOMETHING.
>>
>> Nancy,
>> I took the original image, and made some simple photoshop
>> enhancements, that anybody can replicate if they want to.
>> All I did was change the:
>> 1) Brightness
>> 2) Contrast
>> 3) and Inverted colors
>> I showed each step, on each picture, and you are dead
>> on correct! Check it out. I tried the same enhancements to
>> the Palomar sky scan taken decades earlier, and the pictures
>> resolution was as good, but the noise level of the granularity
>> was too much for a direct comparison.
>>
>
> Amazing. Nancy is 'quoting' someone and does not even include the name of
> the person she's quoting. Are her cultmembers too _dumb_ to see she's a
> liar and a fraud and most likely did this herself?
>
> Another nail in Nancy the cultleaders coffin noted.
>
>
And note that her correspondant does not say that the is nothing there
on the Palomar image, only that the noise level is too high to be sure.
As I now show at http://us.geocities.com/openmindxx/CCDimages.htm the
star IS there on both the first generation and the second generation
Palomar images of the field.
As I told a colleague who inquired about this point: "My software
searches and lists all objects on a plate but it requires that to be
counted an object must be at least 2 sigma above the noise. ... This
avoids counting random fluctuations in the background as objects and
this kind of analysis is standard in science. Nothing showed up inside
Nancy's red circle. I forgot that we were not dealing scientists. In
fact there is a star inside her circle (but not at its center) and that
is what she is now talking about. That star is very faint and would not
be counted as detected in any peer reviewed publication because it is
not 2 sigma above the background."
tho...@antispam.ham
> The Palomar 45 Minute CCD shows dim objects about twice as strong as the
> Zeta Coordinates 20 Minute CCD,
You're erroneously presupposing that the Palomar image was obtained
with a CCD, Nancy. It was not. CCDs did not exist in the 1950s.
> so one would assume that if SOMETHING
> were within the red circle it should be twice as strong in the Palomar
> as in the Zeta Coordinates CCD. But the opposite is the case.
You're still erroneously presupposing that the Palomar image was obtained
with a CCD, Nancy. It was not. CCDs did not exist in the 1950s.
> The Palomar has nothing there, but the Zeta Coordinates has SOMETHING.
Like blank sky. Nothing there even close to magnitude 11.
> Note the dim objects in the Palomar 45 Minute CCD are SOMETHING in this
> man’s product,
You're still erroneously presupposing that the Palomar image was obtained
with a CCD, Nancy. It was not. CCDs did not exist in the 1950s.
> which increased the contrast in the Zeta Coordinates 20
> Minute CCD, and include no more or less than those Palomar dim objects
> except for the additional SOMETHING, round in shape, at the spot the
> Zetas identified!
That "spot" is blank sky, nancy. Nothing there even close to magnitude 11.
> So what is that SOMETHING?
Blank sky, Nancy.
> Or does noise come in round shapes?
Imperfect flat fielding can produce noise in round shapes, Nancy. That's
because out-of-focus dust specks tend to create images of the primary
mirror, which is round.
tho...@antispam.ham
> Oops, my bad.
Continuing a trend of yours, Nancy.
Jeff Root
>> The Palomar 45 Minute CCD shows dim objects about twice as strong
>> as the Zeta Coordinates 20 Minute CCD, so one would assume that if
>> SOMETHING were within the red circle it should be twice as strong
>> in the Palomar as in the Zeta Coordinates CCD. But the opposite
>> is the case. The Palomar has nothing there, but the Zeta
>> Coordinates has SOMETHING.
> Whoops ... not so fast Nancy. If you had processed the PSS image
> in the same way you would have seen the same object. It was there
> 50 years ago and also 10 years ago. See my updated web page:
> http://us.geocities.com/openmindxx/CCDimages.htm
>
> nothing on the 05JAN02 image that was not there decades ago.
(pointed to in your blow-ups) to the location of the red circle
in the image Nancy marked. The object is completely obscured
by the red outline. Also, Nancy called it "round in shape",
while the blob on the CCD image is definitely not round. She
says the object has low surface brightness, so she found a patch
of JPEG artifacts which is dim compared to the bright stars in
the image.
In addition to a better-quality reproduction of the CCD image,
could you put up a comparable CCD image of Pluto or an asteroid
or moon, so that we can see what the planet should look like if
it were actually in the image?
-- Jeff, in Minneapolis
.
Alfred A. Aburto Jr.
by that red circle we would see all kinds of objects there.
If one takes muliple images of that area, each image separated in time from
the other, and that little bright speck remains within the red circle area,
then you can have confidence that the detection is real and not some
artifact ...
Al
>"I M Openminded" <open...@telocity.com> wrote in message
news:3C3D5FA5...@telocity.com...
tho...@antispam.ham
> I'm sure that if Hubble did a high resolution image of the area emcompassed
> by that red circle we would see all kinds of objects there.
None of them magnitude 11.
> If one takes muliple images of that area, each image separated in time from
> the other, and that little bright speck remains within the red circle area,
> then you can have confidence that the detection is real and not some
> artifact ...
And you can also have confidence that it's not Nancy's object, given
that her object is supposed to move. Can't stay inside the red circle
forever.
I M Openminded
But look at http://us.geocities.com/openmindxx/CCDimages.htm
where you see that it was there 45+ years ago, it was there 10+ years
ago, its there now, all in the same place. Its a 20th magnitude star
that Nancy has now established as corresponding to the brightness she
expects of her planet, thus proving that the posted visual observations
are all spurious.
Alfred A. Aburto Jr.
Wow! Great!
Thanks!
Al
>
Nancy Lieder
> Nancy Lieder wrote:
>> The Palomar 45 Minute CCD shows dim objects about
>> twice as strong as the Zeta Coordinates 20 Minute CCD,
>> so one would assume that if SOMETHING were within
>> the red circle it should be twice as strong in the Palomar
>> as in the Zeta Coordinates CCD. But the opposite is the
>> case. The Palomar has nothing there, but the Zeta
>> Coordinates has SOMETHING.
>
> PSS image in the same way you would have seen the
> same object. It was there 50 years ago and also 10 years
> ago. See my updated web page:
> http://us.geocities.com/openmindxx/CCDimages.htm
Not so. I likewise did the same contrast and brightness changes done on
the Jan 5, 2002 images, and as I said, the object in the red circle is
NOT on the Palomar. This is laid side by side at:
http://www.zetatalk.com/usenet/use90375.htm
Nancy Lieder
> See my updated web page:
> http://us.geocities.com/openmindxx/CCDimages.htm
The Zetas object is NOT in your Palomar images. In the image called
“Nancy’s” there are TWO dots, one LARGER than the Palomar (and how could
that be, in that all other dim objects are SMALLER in the 20 minute CCD
than the 45 minute Palomar CCD), and one just above the Zeta object but
smaller.
Look closely. The Palomar dot your are pointing to is slightly lower
than the Zetas object, and there is a small dot AT that position above
the Zeta object.
Nancy Lieder
> See my updated web page:
> http://us.geocities.com/openmindxx/CCDimages.htm
My bad, the Palomar dot your are pointing to is slightly ABOVE the Zetas
Greg Neill
> In Article <3C3D03DF...@telocity.com> I'm Open Minded wrote:
> > See my updated web page:
> > http://us.geocities.com/openmindxx/CCDimages.htm
>
> My bad, the Palomar dot your are pointing to is slightly ABOVE the Zetas
> object, and there is a small dot AT that position above the Zeta object.
At what, magnitude 22?
jrla...@shell.golden.net
Sarah Mc <sara...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>
>3) Why is it her mag 11 object is now mag 20 (or less)?
>
>Maybe:
> a) Because the Zeta's have found a way to "move" Planet X away from
>Earth.
> b) Because the inhabitants of this "smoldering brown dwarf" with
>"deep oceans" have turned off all their artificial lights from growing
>complaints about light pollution.
> c) The inhabitants have technologicly made Planet X into a light
>speed capable craft, and they're now piloting it elsewhere.
e) Nancy is like Planet-X ... they're both dim?
--
john R. Latala
jrla...@golden.net
tc
"Jeff Root" <je...@freemars.org> wrote in message
news:f0b30c00.0201...@posting.google.com...
> Nancy Lieder wrote:
>
> > You CAUGHT it! I've marked the spot with a red circle.
> >
> I'd like to see the image with higher-quality compression.
> Can you provide that, "Openminded"?
>
> -- Jeff, in Minneapolis
Or just a bitmap with no compression.
tho...@antispam.ham
> I likewise did the same contrast and brightness changes done on
> the Jan 5, 2002 images, and as I said, the object in the red circle is
> NOT on the Palomar.
What alleged object in the red circle, Nancy? It's nothing but blank
sky. Certainly nothing 11th magnitude.
tho...@antispam.ham
> My bad,
A tradition like no other.
(With apologies to CBS and The Masters.)
I M Openminded
I'm not quite sure what you are saying here, Jeff. The third thumbnail
in the row of three small images at
http://us.geocities.com/openmindxx/CCDimages.htm
(go down to the three images with the caption
[PSS 1 E: ____PSS 2 red:______Nancy's])
IS Nancy's posted reprocessed version of my image. The blob there is in
the same location as the blobs in the Palomar images.
It IS true that she did not place her red circle accurately but
fortunately for us, she did post the reprocessed image thus allowing
confirmation that it did NOT show her planet but only a star.
Jeff Root
>>>> The Palomar 45 Minute CCD shows dim objects about twice as strong
>>>> as the Zeta Coordinates 20 Minute CCD, so one would assume that if
>>>> SOMETHING were within the red circle it should be twice as strong
>>>> in the Palomar as in the Zeta Coordinates CCD. But the opposite
>>>> is the case. The Palomar has nothing there, but the Zeta
>>>> Coordinates has SOMETHING.
"I M Openminded" replied:
>>> Whoops ... not so fast Nancy. If you had processed the PSS image
>>> in the same way you would have seen the same object. It was there
>>> 50 years ago and also 10 years ago. See my updated web page:
>>> http://us.geocities.com/openmindxx/CCDimages.htm
>>>
>>> So again, what I stated originally continues to be true ... there is
>>> nothing on the 05JAN02 image that was not there decades ago.
>> Compare the location of the object you are talking about
>> (pointed to in your blow-ups) to the location of the red circle
>> in the image Nancy marked. The object is completely obscured
>> by the red outline. Also, Nancy called it "round in shape",
>> while the blob on the CCD image is definitely not round. She
>> says the object has low surface brightness, so she found a patch
>> of JPEG artifacts which is dim compared to the bright stars in
>> the image.
>>
>> In addition to a better-quality reproduction of the CCD image,
>> could you put up a comparable CCD image of Pluto or an asteroid
>> or moon, so that we can see what the planet should look like if
>> it were actually in the image?
> I'm not quite sure what you are saying here, Jeff. The third
> thumbnail in the row of three small images at
> http://us.geocities.com/openmindxx/CCDimages.htm
> (go down to the three images with the caption
> [PSS 1 E: ____PSS 2 red:______Nancy's])
> IS Nancy's posted reprocessed version of my image. The blob
> there is in the same location as the blobs in the Palomar images.
>
> It IS true that she did not place her red circle accurately but
> fortunately for us, she did post the reprocessed image thus allowing
> confirmation that it did NOT show her planet but only a star.
obscured by the red outline Nancy drew. The object shows up
as three pixels wide in your CCD image, and the rightmost
column of pixels (about 4 pixels high) is inside the circle.
Second, (to be really picky) the red circle you drew is almost
exactly in the same place as Nancy's but it is just *slightly*
taller and narrower, so that the object you are looking at is
completely outside of (or covered up by) *your* circle.
You say that "she did not place her red circle accurately".
That fits what she is now claiming about the dot being just
below the dot you have identified. The PSS images show a
single dot, while the CDD image arguably shows two dots, one
above the other. Nancy's last message says her object is the
lower, larger dot, and that the upper, smaller dot is the one
that is also in the PSS images.
Because of the difficulty of comparing the positions exactly
between the images, it is possible, instead, that the lower,
larger dot is the one that is in all three images.
In my earlier message, I treated the two dots as a single,
elongated blob. But neither dot particulary matches Nancy's
description of "round in shape". They are too small to really
have any shape. The JPEG artifacts just to the right of these
dots (in the center of Nancy's red circle) fits the description
much better.
A better-quality reproduction of the CCD image using lossless
compression or no compression might resolve the two dots, or
make the smaller one disappear, or show them to be a single,
extended object.
Bob May
very well. Then you will understand how far off the nitwit is for her
brightness.
Use the standard marking system of 1 decimal place without the decimal point
(looks like a star!) that is universally used for marking star brightness.
A 14.5mag star would be marked "145".
--
Bob May
Imagine the terrorist's fun when they realize that their 72 "nubile virgins"
are all lesbians and cranky from it being that time of the month!
Fred Garvin
> I M Openminded wrote:
>
> > >Nancy Lieder wrote:
> > >
> > >You CAUGHT it! I've marked the spot with a red circle.
> >
> > Note: Nancy says the object is 10th or 11th magnitude. The 20 minute
> > image shows objects down to 20th magnitude (10,000 times fainter than
> > 10th magnitude) and there is no object there that was not in the same
> > location 45 years ago (this includes the spot Nancy circled). Because
> > the limit is set by sky brightness, going to a 45 minute exposure would
> > not look significatly deeper.
>
> Now I'm waiting for one of two things from Nancy. Either she prints a
> retraction stating she and her Zeta masters jumped the gun since they
> also commented through her on the image OR she spin doctors her way
> around this one.
>
> She's been AWFULLY quiet since it was noted there was nothing in the red
> circle except her imagination!
>
> --
> Michael L. Cunningham
She'll be back, she's just dreaming up a clownish repsonce. It should
be hilarious!
--
What's the difference between light & hard?
You can sleep with a light on...
I M Openminded
So far she has not commented on the discrepancy between her folks
"seeing" the planet visually with no red filter at 11th magnitude and
her current assertion that it is a magnitude 20+ speck on my R image.
Although she is wrong about the speck ID ... her speck is seen on the
original Palomar images ... her acceptance of the speck ID would
normally require her to admit that the visual sightings were spurious.
I predict that she will soon say that her folks were "guided" in there
observations and hence were able to see what normally would not be seen.
Revenant
is - Does Nancy think that it's real? I mean, does she truly believe all of
the crap that she spews? Or do you think that she is a perfectly sane scam
artist(she's already made over $50,000 in donations not to mention her book
sales)?
She says that the donations have gone toward hydroponics and shelter for the
"pole shift", but no one besides herself and her inner circle claim to have
seen this. In fact, the one person that wasn't in her little clique and
lived with her was kicked out for absolutely no reason.
This just gets more fun every day. :)
Michael
"I M Openminded" <open...@telocity.com> wrote in message
news:3C405D16...@telocity.com...
I M Openminded
> Nancy Lieder wrote:
>
>
>>You CAUGHT it! I've marked the spot with a red circle.
>>
>
>
>>Here is the Zeta comments about your wonderful efforts,
>>
>
>
>> Given that the Jan 2, 2002 exposure in the red spectrum was
>> 20 minutes vs the comparison chart of 45 minutes, the planet
>> you are seeking is NOT as visible in the comparison as one would
>> like, but is there. Our emissary, Nancy, has circled the spot
>> where you captured the inbound planet, barely larger than Pluto
>> in at its center and with a swirl of dust and moons about this
>> center, not yet reflecting sunlight as does Pluto but giving an
>> even diffuse spread of light from its surface, and certainly
>> without any intensity of light as stars or star clusters.
>>
>
> Bob May commented:
>
>
>>Actually, Nancy did find a very faint piece of noise to
>>encircle although she didn't get is centered on. I used
>>Irfanview to invert and then gamma correct, brightness and
>>contrast enhance the image and found a splotch of a slightly
>>brighter image in the area of her circle. The splotch is of
>>an extended area and is irregular and the difference between
>>it and the surrounding region is only 1 count in difference
>>making it problaby about 20 or 21 for a mag intensity and due
>>to the area, about 1 mag less for total intensity. That's a
>>long way from the supposed 11th mag that is claimed.
>>
>
> "I M Openminded" replied:
>
>
>>In fact there is something at that location on both the PSS-1
>>and PSS-2 red images. It is down at about 20th magnitude, well
>>past what I was willing to consider reliable detection (remember,
>>1 magnitude is a factor of 2.5 in brightness)*. Nancy will of
>>course accept anything that fits her notions. If Nancy is willing
>>to accept that noise splotch on my image fine, its been there for
>>5 decades ... and I now can claim I get down past 20th magnitude
>>in 20 minutes instead of 18th or 19th.
>>
>
> I've examined the image in detail.
>
> The circle Nancy drew has an inside diameter of 20 pixels and
> a border 3 pixels wide. It encloses 292 pixels. I'm examining
> the corresponding area on the image from the website of
> "I M Openminded", since Nancy's image is degraded.
>
> A rectangle of pixels which are mostly slightly brighter than
> most of the surrounding pixels in that area extends from about
> 12 pixels above the top, outside edge of the circle, down to
> about the bottom, outside edge. A pattern of alternating dark
> and light stripes continues the rectangle a few pixels farther
> down. This rectangle is 8 pixels wide. There may be hundreds
> of such rectangles in the image, all 8 pixels wide. I'm quite
> sure that they are JPEG artifacts, not part of the original
> CCD image.
>
> The brightest part of this rectangle is its right edge.
> Starting at the bottom edge of the circle, and extending
> downward, the column of pixels immediately to the left of
> the rectangle is also brighter than average. This is the
> right edge of the next rectangle to the left, reflecting a
> tendency for slightly-brighter vertical columns of pixels
> to repeat every 8 pixels.
>
> For a short vertical distance inside the circle, the pixels
> in this column are brighter, but just above and below, they
> are not. This results in a section 9 pixels wide and about
> 9 pixels high which is slightly brighter than most nearby
> pixels. It also has darker pixels at the corners, giving a
> nearly circular shape. This shape is almost certainly an
> artifact of the JPEG encoding, and would not be present on
> the original CCD image. The shape is centered in the circle
> Nancy drew, to within 2 pixels, so I believe it to be what
> she was seeing.
>
> There is a small area of slightly brighter pixels at the left
> edge of the circle. However, it is completely covered by the
> 3-pixel wide border of the circle, and does not extend into
> the circle at all. This brighter area could be an actual,
> very faint object, and may be the object which "I M Openminded"
> said is present on the Palomar Survey plates.
>
> The only quality which distinguishes the section of JPEG
> artifacts from thousands of others in the image is the fact
> that it makes an almost perfect circle, 9 pixels wide and
> 9 pixels high, although one could probably identify hundreds
> of similar shapes having similar perfection. Nancy apparently
> chose geometrical perfection as an indication that the splotch
> was the image of a spherical planet, and failed to recognize
> that real sources of light show up in the image as less than
> perfect shapes.
>
> Two means could have averted this particular misidentification
> of JPEG artifacts as an object. Multiple images could have
> been made and presented simultaneously. The JPEG artifacts
> would be different in each. Or a better-quality compression
> could have been used: either a less-compressed JPEG, or a PNG
> or GIF format.
>
> I'd like to see the image with higher-quality compression.
> Can you provide that, "Openminded"?
>
> -- Jeff, in Minneapolis
>
I am reluctant to continue this ... is there really a point to debating
whether at magnitude 20+ bunch of pixels is in any way related to
Nancy's 11th magnitude prediction?
Fred Garvin
> Well, we all know that Planet X isn't real. I think that the true question
> is - Does Nancy think that it's real? I mean, does she truly believe all of
> the crap that she spews? Or do you think that she is a perfectly sane scam
> artist(she's already made over $50,000 in donations not to mention her book
> sales)?
>
> She says that the donations have gone toward hydroponics and shelter for the
> "pole shift", but no one besides herself and her inner circle claim to have
> seen this. In fact, the one person that wasn't in her little clique and
> lived with her was kicked out for absolutely no reason.
>
> This just gets more fun every day. :)
>
> Michael
You know I pictured Nancy as a kind of youngish dark haired woman but
I went to the Zetatalk site for goofs and was suprised to see she is a
much older woman. You'd think with age she'd know better but something
must be wrong with her to believe this nonsense. Sad really...
Bob May
really isn't an "Observatory Grade Telescope" according to her specs. There
is no magnification control on the scope, for one.
jrla...@shell.golden.net
Fred Garvin <Gar...@Truss.net> wrote:
> You know I pictured Nancy as a kind of youngish dark haired woman but
>I went to the Zetatalk site for goofs and was suprised to see she is a
>much older woman. You'd think with age she'd know better but something
>must be wrong with her to believe this nonsense. Sad really...
Hmmm ... maybe it's a case of PMS? Thinking about all the crap she's
posted that's the only thing it can be ... Planetary Mirage Syndrome.
jrla...@shell.golden.net
Bob May <bob...@nethere.com> wrote:
>Actually, the Palomar Schmidt camera that took the photos for the Sky Survey
>really isn't an "Observatory Grade Telescope" according to her specs. There
>is no magnification control on the scope, for one.
What? No MAGNITUDE and ZOOM knobs? What kind of rinky-dink observatory is
this Palomar place? <grin>
Bill Nelson
> I am reluctant to continue this ... is there really a point to debating
> whether at magnitude 20+ bunch of pixels is in any way related to
> Nancy's 11th magnitude prediction?
We know it cannot. If that is actually her object, then the observations
that she claims other have made cannot be correct. If that is her object,
then the statements by the reputed zetans cannot be correct.
But Nancy will keep claiming that it does show her object, and may do
so even with an uncompressed image.
--
Bill Nelson (bi...@peak.org)
Steve Havas
But even then it probably wasn't much trouble to change the eyepiece
and increase or decrease the magnification by numerous factors?
Jeff Root
> I am reluctant to continue this ... is there really a point to
> debating whether at magnitude 20+ bunch of pixels is in any way
> related to Nancy's 11th magnitude prediction?
your CCD image without the JPEG artifacts.
Also, can you tell me how you aligned the CCD image so well
with the PSS image? They appeared to be exactly on, with no
rotation that I could detect, despite being different sizes.
I M Openminded
What eyepiece? The focus of the Palomar 60in/48inch (primary/corrector
diameters) telescope used for the PSS is a curved surface 1/2 way up
inside the tube. You can't "look" through it, just take pictures with
it. [Yes, I know its recently been totally refurbished with a CCD array
but you still can't put an eyepiece in there and look through it.]
I M Openminded
The Palomar images come off the web at the URL that I have given in the
past. They come from scans of the original glass plates which were
intrinsically well aligned with the equator. My software tells me if my
CCD is aligned properly. If you measure stars at the far edges of the
two images you might find a slight difference as my CCD is currently
about 1.5 degrees off of exact alignment with the equator.
Alfred A. Aburto Jr.
news:1f5woko.1i5j8f51x2775lN%Gar...@Truss.net...
Not so sad really. She is doing fine making money! She is not so dumb either
as she certainly seems to have kept certain groups of people actively
considering her opinions and arguing with her (for many years) ...
I sort of admire her tenacity ...
I M Openminded
But she predicts widespread destructionin 16 months. Recall a few years
ago when David Shramek mistook an over exposed star on an image of
Hale-Bopp for a "saturn like object" which he decided was a UFO
controlling the comet. A small cult's leader announced that this was
the UFO he had predicted would come and take them away resulting in the
Heaven's Gate mass suicide in which 25 killed themselves or were
murdered. I do not feel Nancy is harmless or to be admired. I have been
contacted by ernest folks who are concerned that her planet may bring
the end of the world. Will Nancy take responsibility for any suicides
that she precipitates? David Shramek (and Art Bell) certainly did not
do so.
Alfred A. Aburto Jr.
I hope it never comes to that! I didn't even consider that possibility! I
don't know anything for certain but I don't think she has evil intent. If
anything happened it would be tragic. The tragedy, I suppose, would be that
there are those who really believe what is published at the ZETA web site
and written and spoken by "Nancy". How does one defeat that? I don't think
anything is gained by arguing extensively with Nancy because it gives her
some sort of recognition or notoriety and makes her more 'visible' to the
public. Education ... it's our only hope ... perhaps that is what is going
on here, but it is painfully slow and seemingly ineffective ...
>
JTRIV
material from the Zetatalk website) and will be on Art Bell next
week. It is a genuine concern what some may do if they believe
these silly end of the world stories. We saw what happened when
the supposed "UFO" with Hale Bopp was reported on the Art Bell
show.
I would encourage everyone to write Art Bell about these
concerns. He may not have taken responsibility for Heavens Gate,
but he certainly must be aware the role his show played in the
tragedy. Hopefully he will hesitate to spread dangerous
speculation again.
Jim
http://www.planet-x.150m.com/
JTRIV
She actually looks kind of scary.
http://www.planet-x.150m.com/nancy.rm
Jim
http://www.planet-x.150m.com/
Fred Garvin
> >"I M Openminded" <open...@telocity.com> wrote in message
> > But she predicts widespread destructionin 16 months. Recall a few years
> > ago when David Shramek mistook an over exposed star on an image of
> > Hale-Bopp for a "saturn like object" which he decided was a UFO
> > controlling the comet. A small cult's leader announced that this was
> > the UFO he had predicted would come and take them away resulting in the
> > Heaven's Gate mass suicide in which 25 killed themselves or were
> > murdered. I do not feel Nancy is harmless or to be admired. I have been
> > contacted by ernest folks who are concerned that her planet may bring
> > the end of the world. Will Nancy take responsibility for any suicides
> > that she precipitates? David Shramek (and Art Bell) certainly did not
> > do so.
>
> I hope it never comes to that! I didn't even consider that possibility! I
> don't know anything for certain but I don't think she has evil intent. If
> anything happened it would be tragic. The tragedy, I suppose, would be that
> there are those who really believe what is published at the ZETA web site
> and written and spoken by "Nancy". How does one defeat that?
It's called education. Those with even half a brain know she's full of
nothing but nonsense.
>I don't think
> anything is gained by arguing extensively with Nancy because it gives her
> some sort of recognition or notoriety and makes her more 'visible' to the
> public. Education ... it's our only hope ... perhaps that is what is going
> on here, but it is painfully slow and seemingly ineffective ...
The best way to handle her is to post relevant URLs refuting her
garbage and not argueing with her at all. Some people just like to argue
though I guess.
Fred Garvin
Yes, off of the gullible. She's a shark.
>She is not so dumb either
> as she certainly seems to have kept certain groups of people actively
> considering her opinions and arguing with her (for many years) ...
We do it for goofs and hopefully to educate those who don't know any
better. As for me, I mostly killfile her threads but occassional check
in to see if she's still at it and of coarse she is.
Remember Hale-Bopp? After it came and went without incident so did she
for awhile. Strange huh?!
Bob May
Sky Survey! There's no provision for an eyepiece anywhere but the finder
scope which doesn't use the main scope optics.
Michael L. Cunningham
> > What? No MAGNITUDE and ZOOM knobs? What kind of rinky-dink observatory is
> > this Palomar place? <grin>
>
> But even then it probably wasn't much trouble to change the eyepiece
> and increase or decrease the magnification by numerous factors?
Hey Steve! Care to venture how you could visually "see" Nancy's planet
which she now says was imaged by one of the contributors here on
sci.astro? Care to explain the difference in magnitudes of your 11th
magnitude sighting (non filtered of course) as opposed to the image she
now claims as verification of her planet at magnitude 20?
--
Michael L. Cunningham
So Cal SleeperS
2001 Grand Am GT
e-mail boge...@earthlink.net
web site http://home.earthlink.net/~bogeystar/
Remembering the World Trade Center Massacre
Sept. 11, 2001
Cry Havoc! ...and let slip the dogs of war!
Visit the LX50 Web Site and join in our Discussion Forum!
"If you want to be counted... stand up!
If you want to be heard... speak up!
If you want to be appreciated... shut up!"
We've been notified by Building Security that there
have been 4 suspected terrorists working at our office.
Three of the four have been apprehended. Bin Sleepin,
Bin Loafin, and Bin Drinkin have been taken into
custody. Security advised us that they could find no
one fitting the description of the fourth cell member,
Bin Workin, in our office.
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an
invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write
a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort
the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone,
solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program
a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die
gallantly. Specialization is for insects." Robert Heinlein
Stig Bull
> But she predicts widespread destructionin 16 months. Recall a few years
> ago when David Shramek mistook an over exposed star on an image of
> Hale-Bopp for a "saturn like object" which he decided was a UFO
> controlling the comet. A small cult's leader announced that this was
> the UFO he had predicted would come and take them away resulting in the
> Heaven's Gate mass suicide in which 25 killed themselves or were
> murdered. I do not feel Nancy is harmless or to be admired. I have been
> contacted by ernest folks who are concerned that her planet may bring
> the end of the world. Will Nancy take responsibility for any suicides
> that she precipitates? David Shramek (and Art Bell) certainly did not
> do so.
Exactly and that's what makes she and her cult so dangerous. Who knows what
she might be able to do once she's cornered because her fantasy planet
never showed up and no pole shift occured.
A few years ago, some cult leaders in Uganda (I think, at least it was in
an African country) locked all the members in a building, set fire to it
and killed them all because the predictions of the cult leaders failed.
And as you say, IMO, don't forget Heaven's Gate.
--
Stig Bull
No animals were hurt or killed in the process of creating this electronic
message. To reduce download time, this message is made of 100% recycled
bytes.
jrla...@shell.golden.net
Michael L. Cunningham <boge...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Steve Havas wrote:
>
>> > What? No MAGNITUDE and ZOOM knobs? What kind of rinky-dink observatory is
>> > this Palomar place? <grin>
>>
>> But even then it probably wasn't much trouble to change the eyepiece
>> and increase or decrease the magnification by numerous factors?
>
>Hey Steve! Care to venture how you could visually "see" Nancy's planet
>which she now says was imaged by one of the contributors here on
>sci.astro? Care to explain the difference in magnitudes of your 11th
>magnitude sighting (non filtered of course) as opposed to the image she
>now claims as verification of her planet at magnitude 20?
Really, really, really (and I mean REALLY) good eyes ...
josX
>I M Openminded wrote:
>> But she predicts widespread destructionin 16 months. Recall a few
>> years ago when David Shramek mistook an over exposed star on an image
>> of Hale-Bopp for a "saturn like object" which he decided was a UFO
>> controlling the comet. A small cult's leader announced that this
>> was the UFO he had predicted would come and take them away resulting
>> in the Heaven's Gate mass suicide in which 25 killed themselves or
>> were murdered. I do not feel Nancy is harmless or to be admired. I
>> have been contacted by ernest folks who are concerned that her planet
>> may bring the end of the world. Will Nancy take responsibility for
>> any suicides that she precipitates? David Shramek (and Art Bell)
>> certainly did not do so.
>
> Mark Hazelwood has also written a book on Planet X (taking his material
> from the Zetatalk website) and will be on Art Bell next week. It is
> a genuine concern what some may do if they believe these silly end
> of the world stories. We saw what happened when the supposed "UFO"
> with Hale Bopp was reported on the Art Bell show.
>
> I would encourage everyone to write Art Bell about these concerns. He
> may not have taken responsibility for Heavens Gate, but he certainly
> must be aware the role his show played in the tragedy. Hopefully he
> will hesitate to spread dangerous speculation again.
>
> Jim
> http://www.planet-x.150m.com/
To be concerned would be the right reaction, because "Mike Hazelwood"
is afaics /really/ conning some ppl, and using zetatalk.com information
in the proces. So this guy really is dangerous, if not to your
life/health, at least to your money.
On another matter:
Supose there really /is/ this disaster coming, saying that it isn't
going to come has the potential of killing many lives also, maybe
something to think about when you say it is "silly". Zetatalk is
just a website, it orgenizes absolutely nothing in get-togethers,
and even distances itself from it completely. I have never been asked
any money, nor given one cent.
The zetatalk.com arguments are not dealt with on this forum, they
are just obfuscated enough to become elligable for ridicule, there
is not the same ""scruteny"" towards the other (ZT=wrong) side of
the argument: The guy who posted the image, posted an image that
lacked objects that were on the old image (as far as i could tell by
blinking). That means that his image was not equal in depth (which
he sayd it was). He has a website that looks like it was made for
the occaision, yet, he claims to be 50+ and has worked with computers
and done other debunking activities: doesn't that sound a little-bit
suspicious? He redrew Nancy's circle differently, just excluding
some object. He doesn't want to post the image in another format
than jpeg when asked (by Jeff), why. He refuses to give his name.
regards,
jos
ps
- I don't see that image as a positive contact either, any information
is too unclear to distuingish it from noise.
- (As everybody knows,) an object of 11th magnitude that extends some
angle will be fainter compared to 11th magnitude starlight. (I'm not
sure of the exact mathematics involved here though.)
- I don't understand why the crosses of the coordinates don't match
the circle in some way.
--
I M Openminded
a) I never said that my image was as deep as the Palomar image, I said
that all objects on my image were also on the Palomar image ... a very
different statement.
b) What is suspicious about my web site and age, etc.? I am openminded
(note that I am the only one so far who has actually posted an image)
but skeptical of unproven speculation.
c) Nancy did not tell us the position at which she drew her circle so I
missed her center slightly when I drew it.
d) All this arguing over objects at the limit of both my image and the
Palomar images (Nancy ignores the fact that her planet is clearly seen
on the PSS-2 red image taken more than 10 years ago) ignores the factor
of nearly 10,000 discrepancy in brightness between Nancy's oft repeated
11th magnitude, the Steve Havas obervation at 11th magnitude, and
Nancy's assertion that something fainter than 20th magnitude is somehow
confirmation of her planet.
josX
<3C42AD80...@telocity.com>
If I remember correctly, you were claiming that 20minutes CCD is equal
to 45 minutes older film. If you blink the image (in a windo-manager
or something at reverse color), you can see the old film shows more
objects, for instance in the lower left corner, additionally, all
objects are brighter on the old image. It would have been great if
you made an equally deep image so we had something standard to compare
it to.
> b) What is suspicious about my web site and age, etc.? I am openminded
> (note that I am the only one so far who has actually posted an image)
> but skeptical of unproven speculation.
I take it that you are also skeptical about the speculation that it is
not P-X then, good. If you think you disprooved it, i don't agree
because it's a wider angle source and you refuse to post different
formats, which i don't see why not.
About your website, it's just one small intro fitting on one screen,
and the rest is a lot of links and info about Nancy. I see that as
"made for the occasion most likely", accompanied with the fact that
you claim to be old and working in software, and refuse to give your
name for some as of yet mysterious reason, i would say this is extremely
uncredable. Nancy gives her name, i give my name (when asked), everybody
else does. Now, suddenly the first person to show up with an image has
this quick hack of a website, refuses to give his name, and refuses to
post different formats for this image. You will forgive me that i think
D E B U N K E R, don't you. You even admit to be as much on your website
btw. It is ofcourse a total coincidence that your scope is not available
for a longer image as well now....
At some point here, i decided that you are not credible enough, can you
blame me?
> c) Nancy did not tell us the position at which she drew her circle
> so I missed her center slightly when I drew it.
ok, could be
> d) All this arguing over objects at the limit of both my image and
> the Palomar images (Nancy ignores the fact that her planet is clearly
> seen on the PSS-2 red image taken more than 10 years ago) ignores the
> factor of nearly 10,000 discrepancy in brightness between Nancy's oft
> repeated 11th magnitude, the Steve Havas obervation at 11th magnitude,
> and Nancy's assertion that something fainter than 20th magnitude is
> somehow confirmation of her planet.
Maybe if you give us different formats for the image that will help.
If not *why* not, what in the world is stopping you??
jos
--
Greg Neill
news:a1ugi2$scj$1...@news1.xs4all.nl...
> I M Openminded <open...@telocity.com> wrote in:
> >
> > a) I never said that my image was as deep as the Palomar image,
> > I said that all objects on my image were also on the Palomar image
> > ... a very different statement.
>
> If I remember correctly, you were claiming that 20minutes CCD is equal
> to 45 minutes older film. If you blink the image (in a windo-manager
> or something at reverse color), you can see the old film shows more
> objects, for instance in the lower left corner, additionally, all
> objects are brighter on the old image. It would have been great if
> you made an equally deep image so we had something standard to compare
> it to.
No! Read again what was claimed; things that appear on the new image
also appear on the old one. The reverse was not claimed, nor need it
have been. If P-X showed up on the new image but not on the old, then
it would be a new object.
The other salient point is that the new image clearly shows objects far
fainter than Nancy's claimed 11th magnitude for P-X, since such objects
show up on both images.
Just for fun, let's say an 11th magnitude extended onject was enclosed
by Nancy's red circle. The circle is about 30 arcseconds in diameter,
so it encloses an area of pi*30^2 or about 2827 square arcseconds.
Let's further suppose that an unresolvable point source on the image,
covering one pixel, is about 1 square arcsecond (most likely an
underestimate).
Then the difference in magnitude that we would expect for the extended
object would be:
dM = -2.5*log(1/2827) = 8.6
Nancy's P-X should light up the CCD image at a magnitude of (11 + 8.6) =
19.6
per pixel inside the circle, and that's if the planet's appearance is
uniformely diffuse, which is unlikely. More likely it would have a brighter
core surrounded by a diffuse shell.
Clearly, the circle contains no such object.
P. Edward Murray
It doesn't move, does it?
If it's in the solar system it should move!
Ed
Bob May
bother to recapitulate it on your own site where that info may become
"corrupted" for some reason or another. Besides, pointers are so much
better for those who actually bother to look - something you don't really
seem to be too interested in. I might note that nothing in those photos is
probably as bright as mag 11, even in just the red part of the spectrum so
if the planet really was in any of the images, it would have been the
brightest object in the image, not some subtle dim spot, all things that you
seem to not concern yourself with. You really should be ashamed with
yourself.
Jeff Root
> He redrew Nancy's circle differently, just excluding some object.
make too much of it. The difference is *very* slight. Here
is an attempt to illustrate the difference, with the position
of the asterisk indicating the disputed handful of slightly
brighter pixels. Nancy's version on the left, "Openminded"'s
on the right. Only four pixels of the spot peeked out from
under the edge of the Nancy's circle.
______ ______
/ ---- \ / ---- \
/ / \ \ / / \ \
| | | | | | | |
| * | | |*| | |
\ \ / / \ \ / /
\ ~~~~ / \ ~~~~ /
~~~~~~ ~~~~~~
"Openminded"'s circle was only moved over two pixels to the
right of where Nancy had it, and was taller than Nancy's.
Jeff Root
> d) All this arguing over objects at the limit of both my image and
> the Palomar images (Nancy ignores the fact that her planet is clearly
> seen on the PSS-2 red image taken more than 10 years ago) ignores the
> factor of nearly 10,000 discrepancy in brightness between Nancy's oft
> repeated 11th magnitude, the Steve Havas obervation at 11th magnitude,
> and Nancy's assertion that something fainter than 20th magnitude is
> somehow confirmation of her planet.
of gray "black" while others call it "white". They need more
direct, unambiguous arguments.
Bill Nelson
> Supose there really /is/ this disaster coming, saying that it isn't
> going to come has the potential of killing many lives also, maybe
> something to think about when you say it is "silly". Zetatalk is
> just a website, it orgenizes absolutely nothing in get-togethers,
> and even distances itself from it completely. I have never been asked
> any money, nor given one cent.
If such a disaster, of the magnitude Nancy claims, were to happen -
there is no way to prepare for it. Most forms of higher life on this
planet would be wiped out.
--
Bill Nelson (bi...@peak.org)
Stig Bull
> Yepper, I think we finally got her!
Most likely. There has been _no_ posts from her lately to defend herself. I
guess she has enough with defending herself to her minions.
I M Openminded
> P. Edward Murray wrote:
>
>
>>Yepper, I think we finally got her!
>>
>
> Most likely. There has been _no_ posts from her lately to defend herself. I
> guess she has enough with defending herself to her minions.
>
>
Unfortunately no ... she now states that her planet was imaged (by me)
Jan 5, 2002. It was not, of course, but saying that it was makes it true
in her eyes and those of her followers. This is exactly what I feared
would happen when I posted my image and I now greatly regret having done so.
josX
<a20bls$oe1$5...@quark.scn.rain.com>:
No, what do you think we are here for. You can very well survive this
thing, we are still here after lost civilizations, sudden ice ages
in locales and giant floods.
When you go camping without food, in a reagon the water might be
contaminated with lead, you buy a book about how to find food in
nature, and make sure you purify your water. If there's going to be
fish, you bring fishing-gear, if there's going to be the potential of
running out of tasty food to find, you learn what worm, insects and
larvae taste best.
You can die today in an accident, you can die then, i admit survival
chances aren't going up if this PS is really going to happen, but as
you can see in history (for instance jews-story that they escaped from
Egypt), it is possible. If you don't prepare, yeah, then you are pretty
much fucked, just as you would if you were going unprepared/untrained
into a survival-vacation.
IF it is going to happen..., we will ultimately will have to wait&see,
but my credibility meter regarding ZT has already reached "better
take action", we're more than a year out so... If it will happen,
i hope your credibility-meter will go up while there is still time.
Even in the final weeks you may still run to a location of relative
safety. If it comes to that, i say you should take with you a survival
guide (edibility of plant/animals), fishing-line/hooks, survival knive.
A great danger is lead-contamination in all water (from vulcanic-fallout
worldwide), so water-purification and lead-testing is no luxury (you
go insane from lead-poisening).
bye,
jos
--
Stig Bull
>
> No, what do you think we are here for. You can very well survive this
> thing, we are still here after lost civilizations, sudden ice ages
> in locales and giant floods.
Nonsense. This fantasy of hers is no sudden ice age or giant flood. Use
Google and search for what a richter 15 earthquake would do to this planet.
Not even the thougest bacteria or amoeba would survive it. Then, you'll
understand how little Nancy knows and how apparently little her minions
knows about the world around them.
> When you go camping without food, in a reagon the water might be
> contaminated with lead, you buy a book about how to find food in
> nature, and make sure you purify your water. If there's going to be
> fish, you bring fishing-gear, if there's going to be the potential of
> running out of tasty food to find, you learn what worm, insects and
> larvae taste best.
So this is one, huge camping trip in your eyes? Amusing.
> You can die today in an accident, you can die then, i admit survival
> chances aren't going up if this PS is really going to happen, but as
> you can see in history (for instance jews-story that they escaped from
> Egypt), it is possible. If you don't prepare, yeah, then you are pretty
> much fucked, just as you would if you were going unprepared/untrained
> into a survival-vacation.
If this BS happens, _every_ single creature on this planet *is* fucked.
> IF it is going to happen..., we will ultimately will have to wait&see,
> but my credibility meter regarding ZT has already reached "better
> take action", we're more than a year out so... If it will happen,
> i hope your credibility-meter will go up while there is still time.
> Even in the final weeks you may still run to a location of relative
> safety. If it comes to that, i say you should take with you a survival
> guide (edibility of plant/animals), fishing-line/hooks, survival knive.
> A great danger is lead-contamination in all water (from vulcanic-fallout
> worldwide), so water-purification and lead-testing is no luxury (you
> go insane from lead-poisening).
You go prepare. The rest of the world will go on as usual with or without
you. Even in June 2003 and after.
Stig Bull
> Unfortunately no ... she now states that her planet was imaged (by me)
> Jan 5, 2002. It was not, of course, but saying that it was makes it true
> in her eyes and those of her followers. This is exactly what I feared
> would happen when I posted my image and I now greatly regret having done
> so.
That's because she and her followers are uneducated kooks.
In April next year, she will claim planet x is clearly visible and near,
and will point at the moon when asked where it is.
josX
<a210lg$i9v$1...@oslo-nntp.eunet.no>:
>josX wrote:
>> No, what do you think we are here for. You can very well survive this
>> thing, we are still here after lost civilizations, sudden ice ages
>> in locales and giant floods.
>
> Nonsense. This fantasy of hers is no sudden ice age or giant
> flood. Use Google and search for what a richter 15 earthquake would
> do to this planet. Not even the thougest bacteria or amoeba would
> survive it. Then, you'll understand how little Nancy knows and how
> apparently little her minions knows about the world around them.
Found this on the web:
<quote http://www.zephryus.demon.co.uk/education/geog/tectonics/richt.html>
I. Instrumental Detected only by seismographs
II. Feeble Noticed only by sensitive people.
III. Slight Resembling vibrations caused by
heavy traffic.
IV. Moderate Felt by people walking; rocking
of free standing objects.
V. Rather strong Sleepers awakened and bells ring.
VI. Strong Trees sway, some damage from
overturning and falling objects.
VII. Very strong General alarm, cracking of walls.
VIII. Destructive Chimneys fall and there is some
damage to buildings.
IX. Ruinous Ground begins to crack, houses
begin to collapse and pipes break.
X.Disastrous Ground badly cracked and many
buildings are destroyed.
There are some landslides.
XI.Very Disastrous Few buildings remain standing;
bridges and railways destroyed;
water, gas, electricity and
telephones out of action.
XII.Catastrophic Total destruction; objects are
thrown into the air,much heaving,
shaking and distortion of the ground.
</quote>
I will have to admit, that i thought this (^) was the Richter-scale, and
that the numeric-scale was a postfit to this, and that this "15" number
was the result of taking this further. Obviously PoleShifts are not taken
into account above, so the earthquake severity of a PoleShift (the ground
will shift 10.000 kilometers) will get above XII, and you can give it some
arbitrary number, for instance 15.
This turns out false, because Richter is aparently already a numeric-scale.
<..quote..>
Whilst this scale is fine if you happen to experience an earthquake in
an inhabited area of a developed country, it is of no use whatsoever
in the middle of a desert or in any other place without trees, houses
and railways! Descriptions such as "Resembling vibrations caused by
heavy traffic." depend very much upon the observer having felt heavy
traffic in the past. Even then, what one person in a small town
considers to be 'heavy' will most certainly differ from what a person
living adjacent to a major urban road system would describe as 'heavy'.
Clearly this scale has advantages, but something else is required if
we are to be able to compare the magnitude of earthquakes wherever
they occur. The Intensity Scale differs from the Richter Magnitude
Scale in that the effects of any one earthquake vary greatly from
place to place, so there may be many Intensity values (e.g.: IV,
VII) measured for the same earthquake. Each earthquake, on the other
hand, should have only one Magnitude, although the various methods
of calculating it may give slightly different values (e.g.: 4.5, 4.6).
The Richter Scale is designed to allow easier comparison of earthquake
magnitudes, regardless of the location.
C.F.Richter was a geologist living and working in California, U.S.A, an
area subjected to hundreds of 'quakes every year. He took the existing
Mercalli scale and tried to add a 'scientific' scale based on accurate
measurements that could be recorded by seismographs ( instruments
used to measure vibration) regardless of their global location.
By measuring the speed, or acceleration, of the ground when it suddenly
moves, he devised a scale that reflects the 'magnitude' of the shock.
The Richter scale for earthquake measurements is logarithmic. This
means that each whole number step represents a ten-fold increase in
measured amplitude. Thus, a magnitude 7 earthquake is 10 times larger
than a 6, 100 times larger than a magnitude 5 and 1000 times as large
as a 4 magnitude.
This is an open ended scale since it is based on measurements not
descriptions.
An earthquake detected only by very sensitive people registers as
3.5 on his scale, whilst the worst earthquake ever recorded reached
8.9 on the 'Richter Scale'.
When trying to understand the forces of an earthquake it can help
to concentrate just upon the upward movements. Gravity is a force
pulling things down towards the earth. This accelerates objects at
9.8 m/s. In other words, a falling object will travel 9.8m in every
second ( Not quite true because of air resistance etc, but that's
another story). To make something, such as a tin can, jump up into
the air requires a shock wave to hit it from underneath travelling
faster than 9.8m/s. This roughly corresponds to 11 (Very disasterous)
on the Mercalli Scale, and 8.1 or above on the Richter Scale. In
everyday terms, the tin can must be hit by a force that is greater
than that which you would experience if you drove your car into a
solid wall at 35 khp (22 mph).
Mercalli Scale, Acceleration and the Richter Scale
Mercalli Acceleration Richter Scale
I
1cm/s
II 3.5
2.5cm/s to
III 4.2
5cm/s
IV 4.3
10cm/s to
V 4.8
25cm/s
VI 4.9 to 5.4
50cm/s
VII 5.5 to 6.1
100cm/s
VIII 6.2
250cm/s to
IX 6.9
500cm/s
X 7.0 to 7.3
750cm/s
XI 7.4 to 8.1
980cm/s
XII over 8.1
</quote>
hmmm, it appears i am right after all :).
I note that "cm/s" ignores a "/s" btw. This pole-shift is going
to move ground in a couple of hours over a quarter of the earth,
that is 10.000 km in some hours, which would accelerate the ground
to some thousand kilometers per hour or so (maybe more, maybe less,
don't know) You know i am no math-wizz, but i don't see why a Richter
15 earthquake is an unreasonable number for something like this.
>> When you go camping without food, in a reagon the water might be
>> contaminated with lead, you buy a book about how to find food in
>> nature, and make sure you purify your water. If there's going to be
>> fish, you bring fishing-gear, if there's going to be the potential of
>> running out of tasty food to find, you learn what worm, insects and
>> larvae taste best.
>
>So this is one, huge camping trip in your eyes? Amusing.
Yeah, why not ?
>> You can die today in an accident, you can die then, i admit survival
>> chances aren't going up if this PS is really going to happen, but as
>> you can see in history (for instance jews-story that they escaped from
>> Egypt), it is possible. If you don't prepare, yeah, then you are pretty
>> much fucked, just as you would if you were going unprepared/untrained
>> into a survival-vacation.
>
>If this BS happens, _every_ single creature on this planet *is* fucked.
No need to get hysterious, just prepare and face it.
>> IF it is going to happen..., we will ultimately will have to wait&see,
>> but my credibility meter regarding ZT has already reached "better
>> take action", we're more than a year out so... If it will happen,
>> i hope your credibility-meter will go up while there is still time.
>> Even in the final weeks you may still run to a location of relative
>> safety. If it comes to that, i say you should take with you a survival
>> guide (edibility of plant/animals), fishing-line/hooks, survival knive.
>> A great danger is lead-contamination in all water (from vulcanic-fallout
>> worldwide), so water-purification and lead-testing is no luxury (you
>> go insane from lead-poisening).
>
>You go prepare. The rest of the world will go on as usual with or without
>you. Even in June 2003 and after.
"world will go on as usual", i take it that means we are an all-out
slave-planet in the year 2450 ?
jos
--
Stig Bull
[ snip ]
> I will have to admit, that i thought this (^) was the Richter-scale, and
> that the numeric-scale was a postfit to this, and that this "15" number
> was the result of taking this further. Obviously PoleShifts are not taken
> into account above, so the earthquake severity of a PoleShift (the ground
> will shift 10.000 kilometers) will get above XII, and you can give it some
> arbitrary number, for instance 15.
>
> This turns out false, because Richter is aparently already a
> numeric-scale.
Wrong. The Richter scale is a quantitative logarithmic scale. If an
earthquake on Richter 7 is 27 *million* times stronger than a mere tremble
on Richter 2, I'm sure you can do the math and figure out how much energy a
Richter 15 equals, when a Richter 9 equals to about a couple of hundred
gigatons of TNT.
> By measuring the speed, or acceleration, of the ground when it suddenly
> moves, he devised a scale that reflects the 'magnitude' of the shock.
> The Richter scale for earthquake measurements is logarithmic. This
> means that each whole number step represents a ten-fold increase in
> measured amplitude. Thus, a magnitude 7 earthquake is 10 times larger
> than a 6, 100 times larger than a magnitude 5 and 1000 times as large
> as a 4 magnitude.
>
> This is an open ended scale since it is based on measurements not
> descriptions.
> hmmm, it appears i am right after all :).
No, you weren't. You probably didn't even read what you quoted. You claim
the Richter scale is numeric. Your quotes say it is logarithmic.
To put it another way an earthquake of 7.3 - 8.9 is "Total destruction;
"waves" seen on ground surface; river courses altered; vision distorted.
Almost everything is destroyed. Objects are thrown into the air. The ground
moves in waves or ripples. Large amounts of rock may move" (quoted from
http://www.il-st-acad-sci.org/kingdom/geo1001.html ), and you know the
Richter scale is logarithmic, can you even possible imagine what a Richter
15 quake would do? It would almost tear the entire planet apart. For sure
it would boil all oceans and the entire surface, send the atmosphere out
into outer space. It would anyways be *way* above thank-you-and-goodbye
level for all of us.
>>So this is one, huge camping trip in your eyes? Amusing.
>
> Yeah, why not ?
We all have our twisted, perverted fantasies. I take it that must be yours,
then.
>>If this BS happens, _every_ single creature on this planet *is* fucked.
>
> No need to get hysterious, just prepare and face it.
Heh, are you calling *me* hysterious? *You* are the one who believes all
this mumbo-jumbo.
>>You go prepare. The rest of the world will go on as usual with or without
>>you. Even in June 2003 and after.
>
> "world will go on as usual", i take it that means we are an all-out
> slave-planet in the year 2450 ?
Relax. It's just one year and 4 Months left till you will understand what a
fool you made of yourself.
Jeff Root
> Unfortunately no ... she now states that her planet was imaged
> (by me) Jan 5, 2002. It was not, of course, but saying that it
> was makes it true in her eyes and those of her followers.
> This is exactly what I feared would happen when I posted my image
> and I now greatly regret having done so.
of JPEG artifacts in your image, and circled it. Then she read
your and Greg Neill's messages about the size planet X would
appear, and your and Bob May's messages about something actually
being in the circle. (Although I don't think you were looking
at the same thing. Bob called it "noise"; you found something
that was also on the PSS plates). Then she read my analysis,
saw that the splotch you had pointed out was only one splotch
on the PSS plates but *two* on the CCD image, and decided to
change planet X to the larger of those two splotches, even
though it was almost completely outside the circle she drew.
So, with a little help from Nancy et al, *you* chose the spot
of light to designate as "planet X"! Congratulations!
I think your mistake was in saying that you saw something, and
showing Nancy where that something was -- not in posting the
CCD image.
josX
>josX wrote:
>
>[ snip ]
>
>> I will have to admit, that i thought this (^) was the Richter-scale, and
>> that the numeric-scale was a postfit to this, and that this "15" number
>> was the result of taking this further. Obviously PoleShifts are not taken
>> into account above, so the earthquake severity of a PoleShift (the ground
>> will shift 10.000 kilometers) will get above XII, and you can give it some
>> arbitrary number, for instance 15.
>>
>> This turns out false, because Richter is aparently already a
>> numeric-scale.
>
>Wrong. The Richter scale is a quantitative logarithmic scale. If an
>earthquake on Richter 7 is 27 *million* times stronger than a mere tremble
>on Richter 2, I'm sure you can do the math and figure out how much energy a
>Richter 15 equals, when a Richter 9 equals to about a couple of hundred
>gigatons of TNT.
Well, turning the entire shell of the earth 90 degrees, will involve some
energy, wouldn't you think ?
>> By measuring the speed, or acceleration, of the ground when it suddenly
>> moves, he devised a scale that reflects the 'magnitude' of the shock.
>> The Richter scale for earthquake measurements is logarithmic. This
>> means that each whole number step represents a ten-fold increase in
>> measured amplitude. Thus, a magnitude 7 earthquake is 10 times larger
>> than a 6, 100 times larger than a magnitude 5 and 1000 times as large
>> as a 4 magnitude.
>>
>> This is an open ended scale since it is based on measurements not
>> descriptions.
>
>> hmmm, it appears i am right after all :).
>
>No, you weren't. You probably didn't even read what you quoted. You claim
>the Richter scale is numeric. Your quotes say it is logarithmic.
yeayeayea, numeric, algebraic, whatever. I mean it is mathematical, and not
word-like.
>To put it another way an earthquake of 7.3 - 8.9 is "Total destruction;
>"waves" seen on ground surface; river courses altered; vision distorted.
>Almost everything is destroyed. Objects are thrown into the air. The ground
>moves in waves or ripples. Large amounts of rock may move" (quoted from
>http://www.il-st-acad-sci.org/kingdom/geo1001.html ), and you know the
>Richter scale is logarithmic, can you even possible imagine what a Richter
>15 quake would do? It would almost tear the entire planet apart. For sure
>it would boil all oceans and the entire surface, send the atmosphere out
>into outer space. It would anyways be *way* above thank-you-and-goodbye
>level for all of us.
>
>>>So this is one, huge camping trip in your eyes? Amusing.
>>
>> Yeah, why not ?
>
>We all have our twisted, perverted fantasies. I take it that must be yours,
>then.
what is wrong
>>>If this BS happens, _every_ single creature on this planet *is* fucked.
>>
>> No need to get hysterious, just prepare and face it.
>
>Heh, are you calling *me* hysterious? *You* are the one who believes all
>this mumbo-jumbo.
>
>>>You go prepare. The rest of the world will go on as usual with or without
>>>you. Even in June 2003 and after.
>>
>> "world will go on as usual", i take it that means we are an all-out
>> slave-planet in the year 2450 ?
>
>Relax. It's just one year and 4 Months left till you will understand what a
>fool you made of yourself.
Possibly.
But what i really wanted to say in this post is:
A normal earthquake will get it's number from it's strength at it's centre,
away from the earthquake, the quake is progressively weaker:
1 ..... 2.2 .... 3.6 ..... 5.8 .... 4.2 ..... 1.3
^epi-center
This is something of a 5.8 earthquake, it's not a 4.2 or a 1.3 earthquake.
Point is, if they say there will be a Richter-15 earthquake, that may only
be so in the most severe reagons, like where plates get subducted beneath
eachother and the like. It does not need to mean that it is a Richter 15
/everywhere/. You can read for instance that in the centre of continents,
the earthquakes will be less severe.
And, India is predicted to move to the (axial) south-pole, that means that
some countries in Afrika for instance will merely twist around their center
more or less, while reagons on the India/north-pole-circle will move fastest.
So "global Richter 15" may mean the medium earth-quake strength, or the worst,
it is unlikely that it is the minimum strength though, for any given reagon.
OTOH, i don't know, maybe it is, it just doesn't seem too likely to me.
regards,
jos
--
Greg Neill
Look up moment of inertia. The crust can be modeled as a thin spherical
shell for back-of-the-envelope calculations. An approximate mass can be
assigned to the shell with a little more searching. About 3*10^22 kg sounds
about right.
I figure that the very least amount of energy required (which needs to
be dissipated as heat in the crust) is on the order of 10^11 Megatonnes
equivalent. Since there'll be friction involved between the crust and
outer mantle, this estimate is probably low by an order of magnitude.
What is termed a "Planet Buster" asteroid impact, one that would wipe
out most life on Earth, would release about 250 million megatonnes of
energy:
http://www.astro.virginia.edu/class/oconnell/astr121/guide22-s99.html
Our little crust maneuver will impart at least 4000 times as much
energy that has to be dissipated. I hope your row boat is magma
resistant.