Imaging Planet X
Ricky Bennett
the planet was actually imaged or not. Whether there is only one dot
or two. Etc.
Why not just attempt to image it again and compare with the Palomar
image? Planet X will have moved to a new location and will have
gotten a little brighter since it's about a half billion miles closer
or so. Assuming it exists, of course. Is this a possibility?
da...@pebble.org
Ricky Bennett wrote:
> Why not just attempt to image it again and compare with the Palomar
> image? Planet X will have moved to a new location and will have
> gotten a little brighter since it's about a half billion miles closer
> or so. Assuming it exists, of course. Is this a possibility?
Because she'll just latch onto another patch of Mag. 20 sky fog and
call it Planet X.
- Dan
Ricky Bennett
> > image? Planet X will have moved to a new location and will have
> > gotten a little brighter since it's about a half billion miles closer
> > or so. Assuming it exists, of course. Is this a possibility?
>
> Because she'll just latch onto another patch of Mag. 20 sky fog and
> call it Planet X.
Then how about somebody reimages the same patch of sky and see if the
dot that she claims is Planet X is still there? That way at least
we'll know that it isn't Planet X.
I M Openminded
Because that does not answer the question of why this apparent object is
fainter than 20th magnitude while she has repeatedly claimed her planet
will be 11th magnitude (and that's the brightness of the claimed visual
sightings). For non-astronomers:
one magnitude fainter is about 2.5 times fainter
five mags fainter is 100 times fainter
nine mags fainter is about 4000 times fainter
ten mags fainter is 10,000 times fainter
Thus this patch of sky fog is between 4000 and 10,000 times fainter than
her prediction. If this really was her planet (it really was not) then
she needs to post that the visual sightings were all wrong.
Nancy Lieder
> I see a lot of argument about the pictures posted
> on ZetaTalk, whether the planet was actually
> imaged or not. Whether there is only one dot
> or two. Etc.
> compare with the Palomar image?
Because they’re scared to find out that it’s TRUE.
Sarah Mc
And yet once again, you won't answer the question put forth to you.
Were the three claimed visual sightings by Steve Havas and others
lies? Did you spread falsehoods (and continue to do so)? How could a
20 mag object (claimed by YOU to be in the CCD image) be seen a year
prior by "naked eye" observation?
Early in 2001 you claimed "naked eye" was without a telescope. Note
that you claimed "naked eye" meant "telescope assisted" in April 2001,
and then in November 2001 you claimed "naked eye" meant "computer
assisted". How were all those "observations" made without a CCD
imager, and infrared filter, and a computer to digitaly enhance the
"naked eye" sightings?
Which was it? Who's lying? Is it you, the Zetas or Steve Havas et al?
It isn't anyone here that made those claims, only you and they did.
You claim 3 people observed a 20 mag object naked eye, with no
infrared filters a year ago. Please take some time and explain the
inconsistencies in your reports. You obviously have time to cut and
paste your web pages to this newsgroup, and you have time to complain
about the members in your TT-watch group - why not take some time and
answer the questions you're asked?
And while you're at it, please post your 2001 Annual report, we're
waiting. Did your Internal Auditor, "no last name" Jan, up and run out
on you after it was noted here that he didn't have the guts to post
his last name on your annual report? Is this common for an auditor for
a non-profit organization to refuse to have his last name stated on
your balance sheet?
Why is it that everyone else on the board has their last name there,
but "Jan" does not? So, while you're explaining the naked eye
sightings of the 20 mag object, please explain this very shady
situation.
Fin Fahey
news:3c09ad3.02020...@posting.google.com...
Great reading - we can't say the TT lot have done *no* useful research now.
I'm relieved that their (extremely) dedicated volunteers reached the
conclusion:
'earthworms in food are best received if thoroughly chopped so their shape
is not visible'
Makes opening the cans a less scary experience for a start...
--
Fin
---------------------------------------
fin@albédo.demon.co.uk
---------------------------------------
(please Tippex out the acute accent to reply)
Steve Havas
image with a 40min or so exposure? Surely Dave Tholen or someone else could
do so so why all the talk and no action? He's one who has pooh poohed this
for so long so why not just get some more data out there so a comparison can
be made? If you pull the band-aid off quick and fast it won't hurt so much
hehe...
"Sarah Mc" <sara...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:3c09ad3.02020...@posting.google.com...
Greg Neill
news:ZdC98.7927$A44.4...@news2.calgary.shaw.ca...
> Why doesn't someone who has access to an observatory just post another CCD
> image with a 40min or so exposure? Surely Dave Tholen or someone else
could
> do so so why all the talk and no action? He's one who has pooh poohed this
> for so long so why not just get some more data out there so a comparison
can
> be made? If you pull the band-aid off quick and fast it won't hurt so much
> hehe...
Who's grant money do you propose to use to purchase the telescope time?
Steve Havas
"Greg Neill" <gnei...@MOVE.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:zhC98.873$NP4.3...@news20.bellglobal.com...
tho...@antispam.ham
> Why doesn't someone who has access to an observatory just post another CCD
> image with a 40min or so exposure? Surely Dave Tholen or someone else could
> do so so why all the talk and no action?
Why should I waste precious telescope time taking an image of something
that doesn't exist, Havas? I have real objects in need of observation.
> He's one who has pooh poohed this for so long so why not just get some
> more data out there so a comparison can be made?
Why should I waste precious telescope time taking an image of something
that doesn't exist, Havas?
> If you pull the band-aid off quick and fast it won't hurt so much hehe...
Irrelevant.
tho...@antispam.ham
> Greg Neill wrote:
>> Steve Havas wrote:
>>> Why doesn't someone who has access to an observatory just post another CCD
>>> image with a 40min or so exposure? Surely Dave Tholen or someone else could
>>> do so so why all the talk and no action? He's one who has pooh poohed this
>>> for so long so why not just get some more data out there so a comparison can
>>> be made? If you pull the band-aid off quick and fast it won't hurt so much
>>> hehe...
>> Who's grant money do you propose to use to purchase the telescope time?
> Why Dave's of course!
It's so easy to waste someone else's money.
jrla...@shell.golden.net
I'm sure Nancy and her minions would be more than happy to step forward
and once and for all solve this problem since they're so sure it'll be
solved in their favor.
--
john R. Latala
jrla...@golden.net
JTRIV
Your local observatory that you made such a big deal about
mysteriously closing for renovations has reopened. Have you gone
back for another look?
Or now that it's open is it a disappointment that you can't talk
about how upset the astronomers looked about their observatory
being shut down with you implying that it was because of the
sighting you made?
Jim
Steve Havas
"JTRIV" <JT...@home.com> wrote in message news:3C67433A...@home.com...
> Steve,
> Your local observatory that you made such a big deal about
> mysteriously closing for renovations has reopened. Have you gone
> back for another look?
>
hear it reopened? I'll go down and check again tomorrow if I get a chance.
Steve Havas
<tho...@AntiSpam.ham> wrote in message
news:xrE98.15062$dx6.2...@twister.socal.rr.com...
> Steve Havas writes:
>
> > Why doesn't someone who has access to an observatory just post another
CCD
> > image with a 40min or so exposure? Surely Dave Tholen or someone else
could
> > do so so why all the talk and no action?
>
> Why should I waste precious telescope time taking an image of something
> that doesn't exist, Havas? I have real objects in need of observation.
>
Nancy's posts and anything else related to Planet X over the years. Why
would you waste sooooo much of your precious time debunking an object that
you so adamently claim does not exist? If taking an image at those
coordinates would back up your debunking of the claimed existence of P-X
then how could you afford not to? Think of all the extra time you would have
on your hands to go out and make real observations of real objects and maybe
even soak some warm Hawain rays in!
>
> > He's one who has pooh poohed this for so long so why not just get some
> > more data out there so a comparison can be made?
>
> Why should I waste precious telescope time taking an image of something
> that doesn't exist, Havas?
>
> > If you pull the band-aid off quick and fast it won't hurt so much
hehe...
>
> Irrelevant.
>
>
Irrelevant.
>
Sorry, I pre-empted you.
JTRIV
Possibly you should go ahead and try to reserve some time for
viewing.
Since the other facilities have been open, no one could tell you
when the observatory would reopen?
http://www.hrmacmillanspacecentre.com/frameN.htm
Jim
Michael L. Cunningham
>
> Why doesn't someone who has access to an observatory just post another CCD
> image with a 40min or so exposure? Surely Dave Tholen or someone else could
> do so so why all the talk and no action? He's one who has pooh poohed this
> for so long so why not just get some more data out there so a comparison can
> be made? If you pull the band-aid off quick and fast it won't hurt so much
> hehe...
He Steve! Why should we? Nancy and you claim to have seen it at 11th
magnitude. Why is it now at 20th magnitude?
--
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
Steve Havas
"JTRIV" <JT...@home.com> wrote in message news:3C676336...@home.com...
> I just checked the web site. Looks like it will reopen this week.
> Possibly you should go ahead and try to reserve some time for
> viewing.
>
>
> Since the other facilities have been open, no one could tell you
> when the observatory would reopen?
>
months. Months after that when I asked the front staff at the space centre
they did not seem to be really sure when it would reopen although early 2002
has been sported on the website for a while now.
Steve Havas
"Michael L. Cunningham" <boge...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3C676716...@earthlink.net...
> Steve Havas wrote:
> >
> > Why doesn't someone who has access to an observatory just post another
CCD
> > image with a 40min or so exposure? Surely Dave Tholen or someone else
could
> > do so so why all the talk and no action? He's one who has pooh poohed
this
> > for so long so why not just get some more data out there so a comparison
can
> > be made? If you pull the band-aid off quick and fast it won't hurt so
much
> > hehe...
>
> He Steve! Why should we? Nancy and you claim to have seen it at 11th
> magnitude. Why is it now at 20th magnitude?
>
exist? This issue is not going to go away by wishing it so. How hard is it
for a newsgroup full of who knows how many astronomers to get an image of a
set of coordinates of the sky to add clarity to such a long standing debate?
tho...@antispam.ham
>>> Why doesn't someone who has access to an observatory just post another CCD
>>> image with a 40min or so exposure? Surely Dave Tholen or someone else could
>>> do so so why all the talk and no action?
>> Why should I waste precious telescope time taking an image of something
>> that doesn't exist, Havas? I have real objects in need of observation.
> Dave, you have probably spent easily thousands of hours responding to
> Nancy's posts and anything else related to Planet X over the years.
(a) What I do here on my own time and with my own computer is irrelevant
to what I do with precious telescope time that does not belong to me.
(b) Your "thousands of hours" is both unsubstantiated and erroneous.
> Why would you waste sooooo much of your precious time debunking an object
> that you so adamently claim does not exist?
What makes you think it's a waste of time, Havas? I'm not the only one
spending time, therefore I'm not the only one who does not regard it as
a waste of time. And, hypothetically speaking, suppose some group
comparable to Heaven's Gate decides to commit suicide just prior to the
alleged cataclysm? Is it still a waste of time?
> If taking an image at those coordinates would back up your debunking
> of the claimed existence of P-X then how could you afford not to?
Simple: it's unnecessary. I've already backed up my debunking with
the identification of all the contradictions. I can't possibly find
an object that is both 2nd magnitude and 11th magnitude. I can't
possibly find an object that is both reflecting 81 times less light
than Pluto and not reflecting any sunlight at all. I can't possible
find an object that is both diffuse and smaller than Pluto. And Nancy's
coordinates cannot be fit with an orbit.
> Think of all the extra time you would have on your hands to go out
> and make real observations of real objects and maybe even soak some
> warm Hawain rays in!
Classic illogic. Someone else took an image, and Nancy has embraced
it as supporting her claim. What makes you think another image would
not suffer the same fate? Of course, I predicted that that would happen.
>>> He's one who has pooh poohed this for so long so why not just get some
>>> more data out there so a comparison can be made?
>> Why should I waste precious telescope time taking an image of something
>> that doesn't exist, Havas?
>>> If you pull the band-aid off quick and fast it won't hurt so much
>>> hehe...
>> Irrelevant.
> But still good advice.
Irrelevant advice, Havas.
> Irrelevant.
Then why mention it, Havas?
> Sorry, I pre-empted you.
Obviously not.
Steve Havas
<tho...@AntiSpam.ham> wrote in message
news:qcK98.15230$dx6.3...@twister.socal.rr.com...
> Steve Havas writes:
>
> >>> Why doesn't someone who has access to an observatory just post another
CCD
> >>> image with a 40min or so exposure? Surely Dave Tholen or someone else
could
> >>> do so so why all the talk and no action?
>
> >> Why should I waste precious telescope time taking an image of something
> >> that doesn't exist, Havas? I have real objects in need of observation.
>
> > Dave, you have probably spent easily thousands of hours responding to
> > Nancy's posts and anything else related to Planet X over the years.
>
> (a) What I do here on my own time and with my own computer is irrelevant
> to what I do with precious telescope time that does not belong to me.
>
little image of the night sky? Even on a lunch break?
>
> (b) Your "thousands of hours" is both unsubstantiated and erroneous.
>
and that it takes a certain amount of time to make such posts probably
resulting in many, many hours. So I would guess thousands of hours more or
less... It's nothing to be ashamed of - I've spent a lot of time wrapped up
around this as well :)
>
> > Why would you waste sooooo much of your precious time debunking an
object
> > that you so adamently claim does not exist?
>
> What makes you think it's a waste of time, Havas? I'm not the only one
> spending time, therefore I'm not the only one who does not regard it as
> a waste of time. And, hypothetically speaking, suppose some group
> comparable to Heaven's Gate decides to commit suicide just prior to the
> alleged cataclysm? Is it still a waste of time?
>
definitively help prove this thing one way or another, besides your claimed
impeccable identification of all contradictions, is not being done. And
besides, where were you when Heaven's Gate was going down?
>
> > If taking an image at those coordinates would back up your debunking
> > of the claimed existence of P-X then how could you afford not to?
>
> Simple: it's unnecessary. I've already backed up my debunking with
> the identification of all the contradictions. I can't possibly find
> an object that is both 2nd magnitude and 11th magnitude. I can't
> possibly find an object that is both reflecting 81 times less light
> than Pluto and not reflecting any sunlight at all. I can't possible
> find an object that is both diffuse and smaller than Pluto. And Nancy's
> coordinates cannot be fit with an orbit.
>
>
> > Think of all the extra time you would have on your hands to go out
> > and make real observations of real objects and maybe even soak some
> > warm Hawain rays in!
>
> Classic illogic. Someone else took an image, and Nancy has embraced
> it as supporting her claim. What makes you think another image would
> not suffer the same fate? Of course, I predicted that that would happen.
>
tho...@antispam.ham
>>>>> Why doesn't someone who has access to an observatory just post another CCD
>>>>> image with a 40min or so exposure? Surely Dave Tholen or someone else could
>>>>> do so so why all the talk and no action?
>>>> Why should I waste precious telescope time taking an image of something
>>>> that doesn't exist, Havas? I have real objects in need of observation.
>>> Dave, you have probably spent easily thousands of hours responding to
>>> Nancy's posts and anything else related to Planet X over the years.
>> (a) What I do here on my own time and with my own computer is irrelevant
>> to what I do with precious telescope time that does not belong to me.
> So in other words you don't have enough pull at the observatory to take a
> little image of the night sky?
You have no concept of how a professional observatory is run. Do you
know that the largest telescopes in the world have a policy in place
that requires approval from the Director if the observer wants to do
something that was not on the original proposal that received approval
from the time allocation committee?
However, the sky surveys that look for near-Earth objects have covered
Nancy's coordinates repeatedly. There's nothing there that is moving
according to Nancy's coordinates and with Nancy's predicted brightness.
> Even on a lunch break?
I don't eat lunch at night.
>> (b) Your "thousands of hours" is both unsubstantiated and erroneous.
> It's an observation that you have made many, many posts here regarding P-X
> and that it takes a certain amount of time to make such posts probably
> resulting in many, many hours.
There is a big difference between "many, many hours" and "thousands of
hours", Havas. Do make up your mind.
> So I would guess thousands of hours more or less...
Your guess is way off, which tells me something about your powers of
observation. Of course, your "siting" already told me something about
that.
> It's nothing to be ashamed of
You just finished calling it a waste of time, Havas. Do make up your
mind.
> - I've spent a lot of time wrapped up around this as well :)
And foolishly looked for the object. You should spend more time
developing critical thinking skills. Perhaps it would help you to
spend less time pursuing an untamed ornithoid.
>>> Why would you waste sooooo much of your precious time debunking an object
>>> that you so adamently claim does not exist?
>> What makes you think it's a waste of time, Havas? I'm not the only one
>> spending time, therefore I'm not the only one who does not regard it as
>> a waste of time. And, hypothetically speaking, suppose some group
>> comparable to Heaven's Gate decides to commit suicide just prior to the
>> alleged cataclysm? Is it still a waste of time?
> You are wasting your time because the one thing you could do that could
> definitively help prove this thing one way or another, besides your claimed
> impeccable identification of all contradictions, is not being done.
On the contrary, it was done by someone who posted here, and has been done
by the near-Earth object sky surveys repeatedly. Obviously the taking of
images is NOT "the one thing" that will definitively prove anything. I
fully expected Nancy to spin doctor her way around the evidence, and that's
exactly what has happened.
Besides, the telescopes to which I have access do not have magnitude
and zoom knobs.
> And besides, where were you when Heaven's Gate was going down?
Right here, arguing against the existence of any object following comet
Hale-Bopp, Havas. Where were you?
>>> If taking an image at those coordinates would back up your debunking
>>> of the claimed existence of P-X then how could you afford not to?
>> Simple: it's unnecessary. I've already backed up my debunking with
>> the identification of all the contradictions. I can't possibly find
>> an object that is both 2nd magnitude and 11th magnitude. I can't
>> possibly find an object that is both reflecting 81 times less light
>> than Pluto and not reflecting any sunlight at all. I can't possible
>> find an object that is both diffuse and smaller than Pluto. And Nancy's
>> coordinates cannot be fit with an orbit.
> Maybe spend some time studying Zen then.
How would that allegedly help any?
> Life is full of paradox's hehe...
What is the "hehe... of a paradox", Havas?
>>> Think of all the extra time you would have on your hands to go out
>>> and make real observations of real objects and maybe even soak some
>>> warm Hawain rays in!
>> Classic illogic. Someone else took an image, and Nancy has embraced
>> it as supporting her claim. What makes you think another image would
>> not suffer the same fate? Of course, I predicted that that would happen.
> I don't know, why not try? 45 minute exposure should clear things up?
Ever hear the phrase "throwing good money after bad"? Can you think of
how it might apply to the situation?
Wally Anglesea™
wrote:
>
>"Michael L. Cunningham" <boge...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:3C676716...@earthlink.net...
>> Steve Havas wrote:
>> >
>> > Why doesn't someone who has access to an observatory just post another
>CCD
>> > image with a 40min or so exposure? Surely Dave Tholen or someone else
>could
>> > do so so why all the talk and no action? He's one who has pooh poohed
>this
>> > for so long so why not just get some more data out there so a comparison
>can
>> > be made? If you pull the band-aid off quick and fast it won't hurt so
>much
>> > hehe...
>>
>> He Steve! Why should we? Nancy and you claim to have seen it at 11th
>> magnitude. Why is it now at 20th magnitude?
>>
>Then why waste your time endlessly arguing about an object that doesn't
>exist? This issue is not going to go away by wishing it so. How hard is it
>for a newsgroup full of who knows how many astronomers to get an image of a
>set of coordinates of the sky to add clarity to such a long standing debate?
Let me get this straight. Your position is that thousands of
Astronomers all over the world are part of some vast conspiracy to
hide the TRVTH from serious researchers like Nancy, and You, because
it's really there, and you know it.
So why should people jump through hoops to satisfy you? there are far
more important things to do than chase around to satisfy fools and
kooks.
If anyone spends money and time chasing this particular shadow, you
and nancy will be back 6 months later with a new shadow to chase.
Just wait a little bit, and you and Nancy will be shown up for the
fools you are.
The issue however, is what responsibility will you take if someone
decides to have a multiple suicide, brought on by the hysteria that
you promote, all of which is reliant on your inability to think
critically, chicken little?
--
Find out about Australia's most dangerous Doomsday Cult:
http://users.bigpond.net.au/wanglese/pebble.htm
"You can't fool me, it's turtles all the way down."
Michael L Cunningham
> > He Steve! Why should we? Nancy and you claim to have seen it at 11th
> > magnitude. Why is it now at 20th magnitude?
> >
> Then why waste your time endlessly arguing about an object that doesn't
> exist? This issue is not going to go away by wishing it so. How hard is it
> for a newsgroup full of who knows how many astronomers to get an image of a
> set of coordinates of the sky to add clarity to such a long standing debate?
Gee! Such a hard question for you to comprehend! Let me ask you one more
time.
Nancy and you claim to have seen it at 11th magnitude. Why is it now at 20th
magnitude?
Just answer the question and don't muddy the waters with some bullshit as to
why we need to devote resources to image Nancy's planet. Aren't you going
to stand behind your claim that you observed this object visually WITHOUT
any sort of filtering and it was about 11th magnitude?
Not a hard question to understand much less answer. That is of course unless
Nancy has you by the balls since she claims YOU were one of the official
sightings of her planet.
Just answer the question.
Michael L. Cunningham
So Cal SleeperS - 2001 Grand AM GT
da...@pebble.org
>> Who's grant money do you propose to use to purchase the telescope time?
> Why Dave's of course!
Steve, send me US$1000.00 to cover my expenses and I'll use an hour
of my telescope time to get your CCD exposure.
- Dan
Swelknelk
> >
> > Why doesn't someone who has access to an observatory just post another
CCD
> > image with a 40min or so exposure?
> He Steve! Why should we? Nancy and you claim to have seen it at 11th
> magnitude. Why is it now at 20th magnitude?
A telescope's magnification is determined by comparing the focal length (the
distance from the mirror/lens to the focus) of the eyepiece to the focal
length of the mirror or lens system. Since there is no eyepiece on the
telescope, magnification has no meaning. However, the size of an image on a
CCD is determined by the effective focal length of the mirror system. Since
there are several different mirror configurations possible, the focal length
depends on the observer's setup. The largest field of view (FOV) and,
consequently, the least detailed images occur when observing at prime focus,
at the top of the telescope.
Now, what the ZT info implies, if read very closely, is if viewing PX using
an instrument with sufficient FOV which implies sufficient size and focal
length (i.e. "magnification") then visually sighting PX through the
instrument will approximate viewing an 11th mag object with the naked eye
only. (you do know how to read don't you Mr. Cunningham? or do you prefer to
just yap away like some scared little terrier trying to pretend to be
something he is not?)
Sorry to say your deluxe K-mart setup isn't up to par as the mag of this
object is currently ~21 and will be until later this year though it was
indeed captured by openminded but not with sufficient resolution to declare
it a positive hit.
Steve Havas
my Canadian pesos.
<da...@pebble.org> wrote in message news:slrna6fprs...@pebble.org...
JTRIV
pretend to know what you are talking about using a few astronomy
terms, yet you are trying to explain why an object can be viewed
visually at magnitude 11 and yet was imaged at magnitude 20,
which is 10,000 times fainter.
Get a clue.
Jim
Greg Neill
news:wVS98.43542$Hu6.9...@typhoon.neo.rr.com...
>
> Now, what the ZT info implies, if read very closely,
[read: interpreted very loosly]
> is if viewing PX using
> an instrument with sufficient FOV which implies sufficient size and focal
> length (i.e. "magnification") then visually sighting PX through the
> instrument will approximate viewing an 11th mag object with the naked eye
> only.
Now you will kindly provide references which explain how a naked
eye can see down to magnitude 11.
> (you do know how to read don't you Mr. Cunningham? or do you prefer to
> just yap away like some scared little terrier trying to pretend to be
> something he is not?)
>
> Sorry to say your deluxe K-mart setup isn't up to par as the mag of this
> object is currently ~21 and will be until later this year though it was
> indeed captured by openminded but not with sufficient resolution to
declare
> it a positive hit.
Are you speaking for Nancy? Do we have yet another figure for the
ongoing saga of the magnitude of Planet X? Let's see now, it's
2nd, 11th, 20th, and now 21st magnitude, ALL AT THE SAME TIME!
Steve Havas
<tho...@AntiSpam.ham> wrote in message
news:ptL98.15261$dx6.3...@twister.socal.rr.com...
will continue to try to get the image myself.
>
> > Even on a lunch break?
>
> I don't eat lunch at night.
>
> >> (b) Your "thousands of hours" is both unsubstantiated and erroneous.
>
> > It's an observation that you have made many, many posts here regarding
P-X
> > and that it takes a certain amount of time to make such posts probably
> > resulting in many, many hours.
>
> There is a big difference between "many, many hours" and "thousands of
> hours", Havas. Do make up your mind.
>
> > So I would guess thousands of hours more or less...
>
> Your guess is way off, which tells me something about your powers of
> observation. Of course, your "siting" already told me something about
> that.
>
years that Nancy has been posting on sci.astro I think it would add up to a
couple thousand. Anyways, many, many hours.
>
> > It's nothing to be ashamed of
>
> You just finished calling it a waste of time, Havas. Do make up your
> mind.
>
disprove Planet X when you could theoretically deliver a Mike Tyson
knock-out punch to this business by posting a quality image of the
coordinates?
>
> > - I've spent a lot of time wrapped up around this as well :)
>
> And foolishly looked for the object. You should spend more time
> developing critical thinking skills. Perhaps it would help you to
> spend less time pursuing an untamed ornithoid.
>
notoriously speculated on objects? Even when the coordinates are given and
all one has to do is take and post an image so a comparison can be made with
some other images? In the meantime, I will work on developing my critical
thinking skills as you recommend lest I be too harshly judged before
spring/summer of next year...
>
> >>> Why would you waste sooooo much of your precious time debunking an
object
> >>> that you so adamently claim does not exist?
>
> >> What makes you think it's a waste of time, Havas? I'm not the only one
> >> spending time, therefore I'm not the only one who does not regard it as
> >> a waste of time. And, hypothetically speaking, suppose some group
> >> comparable to Heaven's Gate decides to commit suicide just prior to the
> >> alleged cataclysm? Is it still a waste of time?
>
> > You are wasting your time because the one thing you could do that could
> > definitively help prove this thing one way or another, besides your
claimed
> > impeccable identification of all contradictions, is not being done.
>
> On the contrary, it was done by someone who posted here, and has been done
> by the near-Earth object sky surveys repeatedly. Obviously the taking of
> images is NOT "the one thing" that will definitively prove anything. I
> fully expected Nancy to spin doctor her way around the evidence, and
that's
> exactly what has happened.
>
> Besides, the telescopes to which I have access do not have magnitude
> and zoom knobs.
>
>
> > And besides, where were you when Heaven's Gate was going down?
>
> Right here, arguing against the existence of any object following comet
> Hale-Bopp, Havas. Where were you?
>
their lives without heading your warnings. I just watched it on the news.
>
> >>> If taking an image at those coordinates would back up your debunking
> >>> of the claimed existence of P-X then how could you afford not to?
>
> >> Simple: it's unnecessary. I've already backed up my debunking with
> >> the identification of all the contradictions. I can't possibly find
> >> an object that is both 2nd magnitude and 11th magnitude. I can't
> >> possibly find an object that is both reflecting 81 times less light
> >> than Pluto and not reflecting any sunlight at all. I can't possible
> >> find an object that is both diffuse and smaller than Pluto. And
Nancy's
> >> coordinates cannot be fit with an orbit.
>
> > Maybe spend some time studying Zen then.
>
> How would that allegedly help any?
>
Just think, if it's there you could name it after yourself - "Comet Tholen"
hehe.
>
> > Life is full of paradox's hehe...
>
> What is the "hehe... of a paradox", Havas?
>
your apparent confusion as to finding an object that you have deduced
through unflappable logic does not exist.
>
The part that doesn't make any sense but yet somehow is true.
Michael L Cunningham
> A telescope's magnification is determined by comparing the focal length (the
> distance from the mirror/lens to the focus) of the eyepiece to the focal
> length of the mirror or lens system. Since there is no eyepiece on the
> telescope, magnification has no meaning. However, the size of an image on a
> CCD is determined by the effective focal length of the mirror system. Since
> there are several different mirror configurations possible, the focal length
> depends on the observer's setup. The largest field of view (FOV) and,
> consequently, the least detailed images occur when observing at prime focus,
> at the top of the telescope.
>
> Now, what the ZT info implies, if read very closely, is if viewing PX using
> an instrument with sufficient FOV which implies sufficient size and focal
> length (i.e. "magnification") then visually sighting PX through the
> instrument will approximate viewing an 11th mag object with the naked eye
> only. (you do know how to read don't you Mr. Cunningham? or do you prefer to
> just yap away like some scared little terrier trying to pretend to be
> something he is not?)
>
> Sorry to say your deluxe K-mart setup isn't up to par as the mag of this
> object is currently ~21 and will be until later this year though it was
> indeed captured by openminded but not with sufficient resolution to declare
> it a positive hit.
Gee! Another inbred, ignorant asshole spun off by Zetatalk!
What ever rock you crawled out from under, crawl back because Nancy eat
you alive for stealing her thunder.
You'd better go back to night school and stay awake during science as your
ignorance is showing badly.
--
Michael L. Cunningham
So Cal SleeperS - 2001 Grand AM GT
Swelknelk
"Michael L Cunningham" wrote:
> Cry Havoc! ...and let slip the dogs of war!
Yap, yap........yap yap yap.
tho...@antispam.ham
> $1000 US/hour, wow, that's steep.
Depends on the telescope. Do you know what the annual operating budget
is for a telescope like Subaru? Now, divide that by the number of
observing hours.
Greg Neill
>
> Yap, yap........yap yap yap.
>
Your Morse Code needs some improvement.
tho...@antispam.ham
>>>>>>> Why doesn't someone who has access to an observatory just post another CCD
>>>>>>> image with a 40min or so exposure? Surely Dave Tholen or someone else could
>>>>>>> do so so why all the talk and no action?
>>>>>> Why should I waste precious telescope time taking an image of something
>>>>>> that doesn't exist, Havas? I have real objects in need of observation.
>>>>> Dave, you have probably spent easily thousands of hours responding to
>>>>> Nancy's posts and anything else related to Planet X over the years.
>>>> (a) What I do here on my own time and with my own computer is irrelevant
>>>> to what I do with precious telescope time that does not belong to me.
>>> So in other words you don't have enough pull at the observatory to take a
>>> little image of the night sky?
>> You have no concept of how a professional observatory is run. Do you
>> know that the largest telescopes in the world have a policy in place
>> that requires approval from the Director if the observer wants to do
>> something that was not on the original proposal that received approval
>> from the time allocation committee?
>>
>> However, the sky surveys that look for near-Earth objects have covered
>> Nancy's coordinates repeatedly. There's nothing there that is moving
>> according to Nancy's coordinates and with Nancy's predicted brightness.
> Have they posted an image of Nancy's coordinates lately?
They've "posted" everything moving. Notice how Nancy's coordinates are
not represented.
> In the meantime, I will continue to try to get the image myself.
Why? A little bit of critical thinking can save you a lot of wasted
effort.
>>> Even on a lunch break?
>> I don't eat lunch at night.
Note: no response.
>>>> (b) Your "thousands of hours" is both unsubstantiated and erroneous.
>>> It's an observation that you have made many, many posts here regarding P-X
>>> and that it takes a certain amount of time to make such posts probably
>>> resulting in many, many hours.
>> There is a big difference between "many, many hours" and "thousands of
>> hours", Havas. Do make up your mind.
Note: no response.
>>> So I would guess thousands of hours more or less...
>> Your guess is way off, which tells me something about your powers of
>> observation. Of course, your "siting" already told me something about
>> that.
> If you have spent a conservative average of one or two hours a day over the
> years that Nancy has been posting on sci.astro I think it would add up to a
> couple thousand.
The key word here is "if", Havas. I have not.
> Anyways, many, many hours.
There is a big difference between "many, many hours" and "thousands of
hours", Havas. Do make up your mind.
>>> It's nothing to be ashamed of
>> You just finished calling it a waste of time, Havas. Do make up your
>> mind.
> I'm saying why would you spend so much time debating on sci.astro to
> disprove Planet X when you could theoretically deliver a Mike Tyson
> knock-out punch to this business by posting a quality image of the
> coordinates?
Havas, have you even bothered to comprehend what I've already written?
An image WAS posted, and it did NOT deliver a knock-out punch. Indeed,
Nancy spin doctored the image to claim that it SUPPORTED her claim,
which is what I expected to happen.
>>> - I've spent a lot of time wrapped up around this as well :)
>> And foolishly looked for the object. You should spend more time
>> developing critical thinking skills. Perhaps it would help you to
>> spend less time pursuing an untamed ornithoid.
> So in astronomy is it widely considered foolish to look for undiscovered but
> notoriously speculated on objects?
We're not dealing with such a case here, Havas. We're dealing with an
object that cannot exist.
> Even when the coordinates are given and
> all one has to do is take and post an image so a comparison can be made with
> some other images?
Providing coordinates doesn't suddenly make the object any less
imaginary, Havas. Furthermore, we still have the problem with
Nancy's treatment of the coordinates as being in degrees.
> In the meantime, I will work on developing my critical
> thinking skills as you recommend lest I be too harshly judged before
> spring/summer of next year...
Try learning some celestial mechanics while you're at it, then try to
do an orbit solution on Nancy's coordinates. Get back to me when you
find an orbit that actually works.
>>>>> Why would you waste sooooo much of your precious time debunking an object
>>>>> that you so adamently claim does not exist?
>>>> What makes you think it's a waste of time, Havas? I'm not the only one
>>>> spending time, therefore I'm not the only one who does not regard it as
>>>> a waste of time. And, hypothetically speaking, suppose some group
>>>> comparable to Heaven's Gate decides to commit suicide just prior to the
>>>> alleged cataclysm? Is it still a waste of time?
>>> You are wasting your time because the one thing you could do that could
>>> definitively help prove this thing one way or another, besides your claimed
>>> impeccable identification of all contradictions, is not being done.
>> On the contrary, it was done by someone who posted here, and has been done
>> by the near-Earth object sky surveys repeatedly. Obviously the taking of
>> images is NOT "the one thing" that will definitively prove anything. I
>> fully expected Nancy to spin doctor her way around the evidence, and that's
>> exactly what has happened.
>>
>> Besides, the telescopes to which I have access do not have magnitude
>> and zoom knobs.
> Yeah, but they can get good magnification and clarity right?
Too "good magnification" and the field of view is too small, then Nancy
could claim that the object was outside the field.
>>> And besides, where were you when Heaven's Gate was going down?
>> Right here, arguing against the existence of any object following comet
>> Hale-Bopp, Havas. Where were you?
> Good for you Dave.
So why did you ask the question about where I was, Havas?
> It must have been tough to bear when those cultist's took
> their lives without heading your warnings.
I have no information as to whether they even saw my "warnings", Havas.
Not everybody reads this newsgroup.
> I just watched it on the news.
"It must have been tough to bear when those cultist's took
their lives" without you lifting a finger to warn them, Havas.
>>>>> If taking an image at those coordinates would back up your debunking
>>>>> of the claimed existence of P-X then how could you afford not to?
>>>> Simple: it's unnecessary. I've already backed up my debunking with
>>>> the identification of all the contradictions. I can't possibly find
>>>> an object that is both 2nd magnitude and 11th magnitude. I can't
>>>> possibly find an object that is both reflecting 81 times less light
>>>> than Pluto and not reflecting any sunlight at all. I can't possible
>>>> find an object that is both diffuse and smaller than Pluto. And Nancy's
>>>> coordinates cannot be fit with an orbit.
>>> Maybe spend some time studying Zen then.
>> How would that allegedly help any?
> I don't know, maybe it would help you post an image of those coordinates.
Maybe not.
> Just think, if it's there you could name it after yourself - "Comet Tholen"
> hehe.
The key word here is "if", Havas. It cannot be there. How long will it
take for that simple fact to sink in?
>>> Life is full of paradox's hehe...
>> What is the "hehe... of a paradox", Havas?
> In this case the "hehe" refers to a chuckle.
What is the "chuckle of a paradox", Havas?
> And the "paradox" refers to your apparent confusion as to finding an
> object that you have deduced through unflappable logic does not exist.
What alleged finding of an object, Havas? It hasn't happened. It won't
happen.
And that still doesn't explain your use of the possessive.
> The part that doesn't make any sense but yet somehow is true.
On what basis do you call it "true", Havas?
>>>>> Think of all the extra time you would have on your hands to go out
>>>>> and make real observations of real objects and maybe even soak some
>>>>> warm Hawain rays in!
>>>> Classic illogic. Someone else took an image, and Nancy has embraced
>>>> it as supporting her claim. What makes you think another image would
>>>> not suffer the same fate? Of course, I predicted that that would happen.
>>> I don't know, why not try? 45 minute exposure should clear things up?
>> Ever hear the phrase "throwing good money after bad"? Can you think of
>> how it might apply to the situation?
Note: no response.
By the way, a 45 minute exposure with our equipment would saturate the
detector. Apparently both you and Nancy have no concept of quantum
efficiency. It was ludicrous to suggest that a CCD exposure had to be
as long as a photographic exposure.
Steve Havas
"Michael L Cunningham" <boge...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3C67DC1F...@earthlink.net...
> Steve Havas wrote:
>
> > > He Steve! Why should we? Nancy and you claim to have seen it at 11th
> > > magnitude. Why is it now at 20th magnitude?
> > >
> > Then why waste your time endlessly arguing about an object that doesn't
> > exist? This issue is not going to go away by wishing it so. How hard is
it
> > for a newsgroup full of who knows how many astronomers to get an image
of a
> > set of coordinates of the sky to add clarity to such a long standing
debate?
>
> Gee! Such a hard question for you to comprehend! Let me ask you one more
> time.
>
> Nancy and you claim to have seen it at 11th magnitude. Why is it now at
20th
> magnitude?
>
am not an astronomer and would not know how to properly classify the
magnitude of any object. Also, from what I gather on sci.astro, there seems
to be a wide discrepancy between apparent magnitude, absolute magnitude,
whether it is from a star or planet, whether it is pinpoint or diffuse, the
color of the light etc. and the fact that the CCD image was only 20 minutes
when Nancy has asked for 45 minutes.
>
> Just answer the question and don't muddy the waters with some bullshit as
to
> why we need to devote resources to image Nancy's planet. Aren't you going
> to stand behind your claim that you observed this object visually WITHOUT
> any sort of filtering and it was about 11th magnitude?
>
and no, my claim has not changed as to whether I saw an object at Nancy's
coordinates.
>
> Not a hard question to understand much less answer. That is of course
unless
> Nancy has you by the balls since she claims YOU were one of the official
> sightings of her planet.
>
Michael L Cunningham
Nancy and the Zetas don't communicate by Morse Code although
it would improve their communications ten fold!
--
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!
Sarah Mc
> Why doesn't someone who has access to an observatory just post another CCD
> image with a 40min or so exposure? Surely Dave Tholen or someone else could
> for so long so why not just get some more data out there so a comparison can
> hehe...
>
Hey Steve...did you see the object that you identified as "Planet X"
in the CCD image?
And why don't you ask the cult leader why she didn't spend some of
that $50,000 she took from cult members to rent time on an
"observatory telescope" and get the images herself? Ask her how much
monet she took in last year (she hasn't posted it yet) and why none of
that was allocated to telescope time? She won't tell you, because she
knows there's nothing there. Why look through a telescope for
something that doesn't exist?
You say "all talk and no action", well that sounds like the cult
leader to me. Tens of thousands of dollars come into her hands, and
she spends the money on web servers and worms, rather than spend it on
getting the images herself. Doesn't that say something to you?
Instead, she wants us amateurs to image it for her. Problem is,
there's nothing there to image. Don't think we haven't looked.
Everytime her "predictions" of when it will be visible fall short, she
changes the story to a new magnitude, or naked eye becomes "telescope
assisted" or "telescope assisted" becomes "computer assisted".
Wake up and see the light. You people have been scammed, and you don't
even realize it.
The only way anyone will ever see her Planet X is when we all have
either the same psychological disorder as her, take the same drugs as
her, or all get those nifty Zeta implants that allow us to see things
that don't exist.
Greg Neill
> >
> Michael, I have never claimed that the object I sighted was magnitude 11.
I
> am not an astronomer and would not know how to properly classify the
> magnitude of any object. Also, from what I gather on sci.astro, there
seems
> to be a wide discrepancy between apparent magnitude, absolute magnitude,
> whether it is from a star or planet, whether it is pinpoint or diffuse,
the
> color of the light etc. and the fact that the CCD image was only 20
minutes
> when Nancy has asked for 45 minutes.
Nancy did not ask for a 45 minute CCD exposure until after the 20 minute
one was posted and showed no P-X. She read of the photographer's
comparison of the depth of the 20 minute CCD image with that of the
Palomar 45 minute plate exposure (very favorable comparison by the way)
and jumped on the time difference as an excuse. The fact of the matter is
that CCDs are more sensitive than film emulsion and can reach as deep with
much less exposure. Her latching onto the exposure time difference is
a desperate and uninformed tactic.
In the usual manner of the fanatical kook, she then claimed that the
image *does* include her P-X pointing to what could be an image artifact,
background noise, or perhaps a faint object at magnitude 20+. She was not
smart enough to realize that if what she claimed was indeed her P-X, that
it contradicted (again) all previous claims of magnitude and visual
sightings. She's just not smart enough to carry off a hoax in a scientific
vein. Heck, she's not even smart enough to correctly convey the information
she looks up in her Encyclopoedia.
Michael L Cunningham
> Michael, I have never claimed that the object I sighted was magnitude 11. I
> am not an astronomer and would not know how to properly classify the
> magnitude of any object. Also, from what I gather on sci.astro, there seems
> to be a wide discrepancy between apparent magnitude, absolute magnitude,
> whether it is from a star or planet, whether it is pinpoint or diffuse, the
> color of the light etc. and the fact that the CCD image was only 20 minutes
> when Nancy has asked for 45 minutes.
Object? Would you care to restate that comment since you blantly implied
you observed "something" at Nancy's coordinates for her planet on that date.
She has shrilled you observed her planet to which you have yet to publicly
deny that it was her planet. What do you really believe you saw Steve? Failure
to state you don't know what you saw only lends favor to Nancy's opinion
that you visually observed her planet. Ask her and she'll quote you as proof
for observing it.
Given the observation visually, WITHOUT filtering as she specified, using a
telescope incapable of seeing to the 20th magnitude, and you continually
implying that you observed her planet during that evening, how do you explain
the difference in magnitudes?
> You make it sound as if asking for a CCD image is like asking for the world
> and no, my claim has not changed as to whether I saw an object at Nancy's
> coordinates.
What exactly DID you see Steve? Are you still implying you saw Nancy's planet
at those coordinates or do you wish to state a retraction that you have no idea
of
what you observed so Nancy will quit shrilling you as proof? I'll bet you won't
go out on that limb.
> Only my girlfriend has me by the balls Michael hehe.
If you fail to state a retraction, Nancy has your balls in a death grip. <g>
--
tho...@antispam.ham
> Michael L Cunningham wrote:
>> Nancy and you claim to have seen it at 11th magnitude. Why is it now at
>> 20th magnitude?
> Michael, I have never claimed that the object I sighted was magnitude 11.
Then how can you be sure that you saw Nancy's object?
> I am not an astronomer and would not know how to properly classify the
> magnitude of any object.
Then how can you be sure that you saw Nancy's object?
> Also, from what I gather on sci.astro, there seems to be a wide
> discrepancy between apparent magnitude, absolute magnitude,
Absolute magnitude is irrelevant to what you see with your eye,
Havas.
> whether it is from a star or planet,
What difference does that make? 11th magnitude is 11th magnitude,
whether it's from a star or planet, just like red light is red light,
whether it's from a star or planet.
> whether it is pinpoint or diffuse,
In the case of a diffuse object, the correct units to use are magnitudes
per unit area. Of course, Nancy hasn't provided such units.
> the color of the light etc.
What difference does that make? See above.
> and the fact that the CCD image was only 20 minutes
> when Nancy has asked for 45 minutes.
What Nancy has asked for is irrelevant. She has no concept of quantum
efficiency. Surely you must realize that the correct exposure for ASA 64
film is way too long for ASA 400 film. All that really matters here is
getting deep enough to detect a magnitude 11 object, and 20 minutes was
more than enough to do so.
Michael L Cunningham
> Have they posted an image of Nancy's coordinates lately? In the meantime, I
> will continue to try to get the image myself.
Why should they? Nancy is only important to herself and about 10 other
individuals who actually believe her swill.
> So in astronomy is it widely considered foolish to look for undiscovered but
> notoriously speculated on objects? Even when the coordinates are given and
> all one has to do is take and post an image so a comparison can be made with
> some other images? In the meantime, I will work on developing my critical
> thinking skills as you recommend lest I be too harshly judged before
> spring/summer of next year...
Notorious object? I haven't seen any bulletins from NASA about an inbound
object. No alerts on the six o'clock news. It's only notorious to you, Nancy,
and her small group of follows. We counter those posts in this group ONLY
because Nancy posts here to try and get some sort of credibility for herself.
> Good for you Dave. It must have been tough to bear when those cultist's took
> their lives without heading your warnings. I just watched it on the news.
You are on the tt-watch forum as well as a few others here Steve. How many
people are planning on selling their homes and property to move to what you
and Nancy claim is safe ground? Are you selling your possessions and planning
to move to "higher ground"? Is Nancy going to just say "Sorry" if nothing
happens?
You are adding to this situation by claiming to have seen an object at Nancy's
coordinates. If nothing happens come May of 2003, there are going to be some
irate people who have packed up and sold everything based on Nancy's claims.
They'll also be pointing fingers at you for leading them to believe in a pole
shift.
Are you going to just shrug your shoulders and tell those who have lost their
life
savings they shouldn't have believed you in the first place? You people are
playing
a very dangerous game.
Jeff Root
> I don't eat lunch at night.
-- Jeff, in Minneapolis
.
Swelknelk
"Greg Neill" wrote
> Now you will kindly provide references which explain how a naked
> eye can see down to magnitude 11.
Excuse me, where did I say a naked eye could see down to mag 11? Under best
conditions and using the best naked eye observer, it may be possible to view
mag 10 maybe, as some have claimed. So how many have ever made naked eye
observations under best conditions and perfect visual acuity to be able to
comprehend what the comparison would be? None that I know. There is no
contradiction here with the ZT info given. The overall point is just that:
Though the object is viewable at this time it is not likely to be viewed
confirmationally and certainly not with amateur equipment even if
theoretically possible. If this object is to be detected at this time it
will likely be through a directed professional effort utilizing time lapse.
Of course there is no professional effort doing this now that would go
public with any finding. The alternative is to wait another year or so and
all the while continue to be entertained with Nancy vs sci.astro and then
either it is there for all to see or it is not. If it is there a year or so
from now for all to see then Nancy's other info would indicate most will be
too preoccupied with other problems to be concerned about viewing the object
then. Makes no difference to me one way or the other but please do continue
to provide the entertainment.
Michael L Cunningham
Easy for Nancy's followers such as yourself to say. What about those fools who
believe in this crap and invest their life savings, dragging their families to
god
knows where, all based on Nancy's bunk about alien's in her head.
What will you say to them if nothing happens? It was just entertainment?
You had better be right... dead right.
Greg Neill
>
> "Greg Neill" wrote
>
> > Now you will kindly provide references which explain how a naked
> > eye can see down to magnitude 11.
>
> Excuse me, where did I say a naked eye could see down to mag 11?
You said, and I quote:
> Now, what the ZT info implies, if read very closely, is if viewing PX
using
> an instrument with sufficient FOV which implies sufficient size and focal
> length (i.e. "magnification") then visually sighting PX through the
> instrument will approximate viewing an 11th mag object with the naked eye
> only.
> Under best
> conditions and using the best naked eye observer, it may be possible to
view
> mag 10 maybe, as some have claimed.
Very doubtfull. The usually accepted limiting magnitude for naked eye
under the darkest skies and ideal conditions is about 7. I'd be willing
to stretch it to 8 and a fraction on the say so of an accomplished and
published observer. I wouldn't be willing to stretch it to magnitude 11,
some 40 times dimmer.
> So how many have ever made naked eye
> observations under best conditions and perfect visual acuity to be able to
> comprehend what the comparison would be? None that I know.
What comparison? What needs to be comprehended about it?
> There is no
> contradiction here with the ZT info given.
It is nearly impossible to contradict ZT info, since the ZT info
itself is so full of contradictions. Adding yet another contradiction
is barely noticable.
> The overall point is just that:
> Though the object is viewable at this time it is not likely to be viewed
> confirmationally and certainly not with amateur equipment even if
> theoretically possible.
What does "confirmationally" mean? You are stating that individuals with
qualified equipment (nearly every amateur on the planet has binocculars
or a telescope which can easily see magnitude 11 objects -- even diffuse
ones)?
Is there some other reason why this is unlikely? Or is it that since
there's
nothing to be seen, the ZetaCult has to keep moving the mark and defining
away the possibility of exposure of their hoax?
> If this object is to be detected at this time it
> will likely be through a directed professional effort utilizing time
lapse.
Why? Mag 11 is child's play in amateur equipment. A recent CCD image of
the area going to 20+ magnitude was taken and posted. Guess what? No
11th magnitude object.
> Of course there is no professional effort doing this now that would go
> public with any finding.
Are you saying that you know of "professional effort" ongoing?
References please. Or are you making this up too?
> The alternative is to wait another year or so and
> all the while continue to be entertained with Nancy vs sci.astro and then
> either it is there for all to see or it is not. If it is there a year or
so
> from now for all to see then Nancy's other info would indicate most will
be
> too preoccupied with other problems to be concerned about viewing the
object
> then. Makes no difference to me one way or the other but please do
continue
> to provide the entertainment.
Ah yes, the entertainment value. You think she'll plead entertainment
value when she appears in court to face those who took her advice?
Michael L Cunningham
> Ah yes, the entertainment value. You think she'll plead entertainment
> value when she appears in court to face those who took her advice?
Watch, you'll see Nancy put a disclaimer on her web site now that the
content is for entertainment purposes only. At least when I watch Miss
Cleo on TV I'm much more amused than I am by Nancy.
JTRIV
magnitude 11 object should be visible to most amateur
astronomers. Nancy has claimed her object is 2 or 10 or 11th
magnitude. She also says that only an observatory scope can see
it. (She has also talked of "magnitude", "near" and "far" knobs
on telescopes so we know she doesn't have a clue)
Of course most recently Nancy has claimed a 20th magnitude spot
on pictures of her coordinates is her fantasy planet. This is
10,000 times fainter that 11th magnitude.
Not much of what Nancy says is not a contradiction of some sort.
One of my favorites is the claim that her planet would be visible
to the naked eye 1 year 7 months before the May 2003 date. Before
October 2001 came the definition of "naked eye" was changed to
include telescopes!
Jim
http://www.planet-x.150m.com/
tho...@antispam.ham
>> I don't eat lunch at night.
> I do. Sometimes.
Well, the next time you're working on a large telescope (you know,
the observatory grade ones with magnitude and zoom knobs) and decide
to let it sit idle while you're having lunch, let me know and we'll
take a picture of the blank sky at Nancy's coordinates.
Steve Havas
> Steve Havas wrote:
>
> > Michael, I have never claimed that the object I sighted was magnitude
11. I
> > am not an astronomer and would not know how to properly classify the
> > magnitude of any object. Also, from what I gather on sci.astro, there
seems
> > to be a wide discrepancy between apparent magnitude, absolute magnitude,
> > whether it is from a star or planet, whether it is pinpoint or diffuse,
the
> > color of the light etc. and the fact that the CCD image was only 20
minutes
> > when Nancy has asked for 45 minutes.
>
> Object? Would you care to restate that comment since you blantly implied
> you observed "something" at Nancy's coordinates for her planet on that
date.
> She has shrilled you observed her planet to which you have yet to publicly
> deny that it was her planet. What do you really believe you saw Steve?
Failure
> to state you don't know what you saw only lends favor to Nancy's opinion
> that you visually observed her planet. Ask her and she'll quote you as
proof
> for observing it.
>
impossibility of the "something" I reported to have seen last April and
discussed to length on these threads? Besides, who cares what I may or may
not have seen when the posting of quality images can add the necessary data
so that people can form better opinions as to whether this is something they
should be concerned about or not. Surely someone can take an image and post
it for all to see...
Steve Havas
<tho...@AntiSpam.ham> wrote in message
news:a9W98.15317$dx6.3...@twister.socal.rr.com...
> Steve Havas writes:
>
> > Michael L Cunningham wrote:
>
> >> Nancy and you claim to have seen it at 11th magnitude. Why is it now at
> >> 20th magnitude?
>
> > Michael, I have never claimed that the object I sighted was magnitude
11.
>
> Then how can you be sure that you saw Nancy's object?
>
> > I am not an astronomer and would not know how to properly classify the
> > magnitude of any object.
>
> Then how can you be sure that you saw Nancy's object?
>
> > Also, from what I gather on sci.astro, there seems to be a wide
> > discrepancy between apparent magnitude, absolute magnitude,
>
> Absolute magnitude is irrelevant to what you see with your eye,
> Havas.
>
> > whether it is from a star or planet,
>
> What difference does that make? 11th magnitude is 11th magnitude,
> whether it's from a star or planet, just like red light is red light,
> whether it's from a star or planet.
>
not look the same when looking with naked eye through a telescope or on a
CCD image right? One is pinpoint and the other diffuse? I think even I was
able to garner that much from all the magnitude discussions...
>
> > whether it is pinpoint or diffuse,
>
> In the case of a diffuse object, the correct units to use are magnitudes
> per unit area. Of course, Nancy hasn't provided such units.
>
> > the color of the light etc.
>
> What difference does that make? See above.
>
be more difficult to see? Is that why the military uses little red light
flashlights so the soldiers eyes do not lose their night vision at night?
Jeff Root
> A telescope's magnification is determined by comparing the focal
> length (the distance from the mirror/lens to the focus) of the
> eyepiece to the focal length of the mirror or lens system. Since
> there is no eyepiece on the telescope, magnification has no meaning.
> However, the size of an image on a CCD is determined by the
> effective focal length of the mirror system. Since there are
> several different mirror configurations possible, the focal
> length depends on the observer's setup.
something which they know all about, and you know almost
nothing about?
> The largest field of view (FOV) and, consequently, the least
> detailed images occur when observing at prime focus, at the top
> of the telescope.
obviously read something about one telescope, and assumed that
it was true of all telescopes.
> Now, what the ZT info implies, if read very closely, is if viewing
> PX using an instrument with sufficient FOV which implies sufficient
> size and focal length (i.e. "magnification") then visually sighting
> PX through the instrument will approximate viewing an 11th mag
> object with the naked eye only.
So you think the Zetans were giving true but completely useless
and pointless information: how bright the planet looks when it
cannot be seen.
You know, "Swelknelk", field of view and magnification have
no effect whatsoever on an object's magnitude.
> (you do know how to read don't you Mr. Cunningham? or do you prefer
> to just yap away like some scared little terrier trying to pretend
> to be something he is not?)
Like you are pretending to know anything about telescopes?
> Sorry to say your deluxe K-mart setup isn't up to par as the mag
> of this object is currently ~21 and will be until later this year
> though it was indeed captured by openminded but not with sufficient
> resolution to declare it a positive hit.
tell YOU? Are you Nancy Lieder?
Resolution is not the problem. Brightness (magnitude) is.
Greg Neill
>
> <tho...@AntiSpam.ham> wrote in message
> news:a9W98.15317$dx6.3...@twister.socal.rr.com...
> >
> > whether it's from a star or planet, just like red light is red light,
> > whether it's from a star or planet.
> >
> Yeah but 11th magnitude from a start and 11th magnitude from a planet will
> not look the same when looking with naked eye through a telescope or on a
> CCD image right? One is pinpoint and the other diffuse? I think even I was
> able to garner that much from all the magnitude discussions...
Then you garnered incorrectly. At the distance of the purported P-X,
it would appear as a point source, just like a star. Do the math.
> >
> > > whether it is pinpoint or diffuse,
> >
> > In the case of a diffuse object, the correct units to use are magnitudes
> > per unit area. Of course, Nancy hasn't provided such units.
> >
> > > the color of the light etc.
> >
> > What difference does that make? See above.
> >
> Red light is not as "bright" as light of a more white colour and hence may
> be more difficult to see? Is that why the military uses little red light
> flashlights so the soldiers eyes do not lose their night vision at night?
Here's a link that discusses vision and light sensitivity:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/vision/rodcone.html
Essentially, daylight vision relies on the response of "cone"
receptors which come in three types: red, green, and blue.
Night vision relies on the much more sensitive "rods". The
rods are also more sensitive to higher frequency (bluer) light.
If you want to retain your dark adapted vision while illuminating
something (like a document), you use the cones that are furthest
from the rod sensitivity: the red cones.
CCDs are quite sensitive in the red, more so than the eye.
tho...@antispam.ham
> Besides, who cares what I may or may not have seen when the posting
> of quality images can add the necessary data so that people can form
> better opinions as to whether this is something they should be
> concerned about or not. Surely someone can take an image and post
> it for all to see...
Someone already has. What happened? Nancy claimed her object
is visible inside some red circle. However, there's nothing in
the red circle anywhere close to magnitude 11.
tho...@antispam.ham
>>> Michael L Cunningham wrote:
>>>> Nancy and you claim to have seen it at 11th magnitude. Why is it now at
>>>> 20th magnitude?
>>> Michael, I have never claimed that the object I sighted was magnitude
>>> 11.
>> Then how can you be sure that you saw Nancy's object?
Note: no response.
>>> I am not an astronomer and would not know how to properly classify the
>>> magnitude of any object.
>> Then how can you be sure that you saw Nancy's object?
Note: no response.
>>> Also, from what I gather on sci.astro, there seems to be a wide
>>> discrepancy between apparent magnitude, absolute magnitude,
>> Absolute magnitude is irrelevant to what you see with your eye,
>> Havas.
Note: no response.
>>> whether it is from a star or planet,
>> What difference does that make? 11th magnitude is 11th magnitude,
>> whether it's from a star or planet, just like red light is red light,
>> whether it's from a star or planet.
> Yeah but 11th magnitude from a start and 11th magnitude from a planet will
> not look the same when looking with naked eye through a telescope or on a
> CCD image right?
On the contrary, they will look the same when the object is unresolved,
which is the case for Nancy's object.
> One is pinpoint and the other diffuse?
On the contrary, "the other" is smaller than Pluto, therefore it cannot
be diffuse. Amazing that you still don't recognize the contradiction.
> I think even I was able to garner that much from all the magnitude
> discussions...
Try garnering something from all the contradiction discussions.
>>> whether it is pinpoint or diffuse,
>> In the case of a diffuse object, the correct units to use are magnitudes
>> per unit area. Of course, Nancy hasn't provided such units.
Note: no response.
>>> the color of the light etc.
>> What difference does that make? See above.
> Red light is not as "bright" as light of a more white colour and hence may
> be more difficult to see?
Aren't you sure?
> Is that why the military uses little red light flashlights so the
> soldiers eyes do not lose their night vision at night?
Obviously you don't know what "as bright" means.
>>> and the fact that the CCD image was only 20 minutes
>>> when Nancy has asked for 45 minutes.
>> What Nancy has asked for is irrelevant. She has no concept of quantum
>> efficiency. Surely you must realize that the correct exposure for ASA 64
>> film is way too long for ASA 400 film. All that really matters here is
>> getting deep enough to detect a magnitude 11 object, and 20 minutes was
>> more than enough to do so.
Note: no response.
JTRIV
Even worse, many people believed Nancy. Those pictures are now on
several Planet X sites. They, of course, do not mention the
contradictions of claiming Planet X is in the picture. They
simply claim that Planet X has been imaged.
Another picture would simply be twisted into more dishonest proof
by Nancy.
You follow this group Steve, what do you think of the pictures?
I'm sure you've read about the substantial magnitude difference
of her PX and the 20th magnitude blip in the image.
Jim
Bill Nelson
>> Nancy and you claim to have seen it at 11th magnitude. Why is it now at
> 20th
>> magnitude?
>>
> Michael, I have never claimed that the object I sighted was magnitude 11. I
> am not an astronomer and would not know how to properly classify the
> magnitude of any object. Also, from what I gather on sci.astro, there seems
> to be a wide discrepancy between apparent magnitude, absolute magnitude,
> whether it is from a star or planet, whether it is pinpoint or diffuse, the
> color of the light etc. and the fact that the CCD image was only 20 minutes
> when Nancy has asked for 45 minutes.
This is all just more of your dodging and ducking. The simple fact is,
IF the spot that Nancy claims to be "Planet X", then there is no way that
you could have seen it - even if you had been using the 200 inch scope a
Palomar.
The rest of the stuff about the possible magnitude measurement differences
are immaterial - as they would not make that much difference.
The planet would appear as a pinpoint object in a telescope - if of the
size and distance that Nancy claimes. It does not matter if the object
is diffuse or solid.
The length of the CCD image is immaterial. A longer exposure would only
show dimmer objects, which would be even more impossible for you to have
seen.
In other words, we are faced with an inescapable fact - Either your claim
that you saw Px, or Nancy's claim that the blotch on the CCD image was the
planet, is wrong. That does not eliminate the probability that both claims
are wrong.
>> Just answer the question and don't muddy the waters with some bullshit as
> to
>> why we need to devote resources to image Nancy's planet. Aren't you going
>> to stand behind your claim that you observed this object visually WITHOUT
>> any sort of filtering and it was about 11th magnitude?
>>
> You make it sound as if asking for a CCD image is like asking for the world
> and no, my claim has not changed as to whether I saw an object at Nancy's
> coordinates.
The CCD image was provided. There is nothing new there - regardless of
what Nancy claims.
Then you cannot have seen the object that Nancy claims is Px. As noted
above, there is no way around that.
--
Bill Nelson (bi...@peak.org)
Bill Nelson
>> What difference does that make? 11th magnitude is 11th magnitude,
>> whether it's from a star or planet, just like red light is red light,
>> whether it's from a star or planet.
>>
> Yeah but 11th magnitude from a start and 11th magnitude from a planet will
> not look the same when looking with naked eye through a telescope or on a
> CCD image right? One is pinpoint and the other diffuse? I think even I was
> able to garner that much from all the magnitude discussions...
Only if the planet is close enough and large enough. For example, Pluto
only shows as a pinpoint. It looks exactly like a star in the telescope
and in a CCD image.
From Nancy's claims about the distance and size of Px, the angular size
of Px would have to be even smaller than Pluto. Thus, it would show as
a pinpoint as well - regardless of whether it were diffuse or not.
Why is this so hard to understand?
When you look at Mars, Saturn or Jupiter with your unaided eye, do they
look diffuse? Or do they just look like bright stars? The answer is that
they look like bright pinpoints in the sky - because the angular size is
too small for the unaided eye to resolve.
> Red light is not as "bright" as light of a more white colour and hence may
> be more difficult to see? Is that why the military uses little red light
> flashlights so the soldiers eyes do not lose their night vision at night?
No. It is because the red light does not deplete a chemical in the eye
that provides that "night vision".
It has next to nothing to do with the intensity of the light.
--
Bill Nelson (bi...@peak.org)
Bill Nelson
> "Greg Neill" wrote
>> Now you will kindly provide references which explain how a naked
>> eye can see down to magnitude 11.
> Excuse me, where did I say a naked eye could see down to mag 11? Under best
> conditions and using the best naked eye observer, it may be possible to view
> mag 10 maybe, as some have claimed. So how many have ever made naked eye
Nope. The person with the best night vision in the world is not able to see
anything dimmer than about Magnitude 7. Magnitude is almost 100 times
dimmer.
> observations under best conditions and perfect visual acuity to be able to
> comprehend what the comparison would be? None that I know. There is no
You don't need "visual acuity" - that is a red herring.
I have made many observations in what would be considered "ideal"
conditions. It turns out that I can only manage about Magnitude 6.5 or
slightly better. I have never met anyone who could manage Magnitude 7,
although they may exist.
> contradiction here with the ZT info given. The overall point is just that:
> Though the object is viewable at this time it is not likely to be viewed
> confirmationally and certainly not with amateur equipment even if
> theoretically possible. If this object is to be detected at this time it
Bull. Some amateur equipment is as good, or better, than many of the
so called "professional" scopes.
> will likely be through a directed professional effort utilizing time lapse.
So why have there been several claims of people claiming having seen this
reputed object? Why has Nancy not retracted her claims that they did see
such object - even though it is impossible for them to have done so?
> Of course there is no professional effort doing this now that would go
> public with any finding. The alternative is to wait another year or so and
> all the while continue to be entertained with Nancy vs sci.astro and then
> either it is there for all to see or it is not. If it is there a year or so
> from now for all to see then Nancy's other info would indicate most will be
> too preoccupied with other problems to be concerned about viewing the object
> then. Makes no difference to me one way or the other but please do continue
> to provide the entertainment.
If Nancy's claims were true, the the Earth would not have a moon. It would
have been stripped of by the passage of such an object - or at least thrown
into a highly eccentric orbit.
--
Bill Nelson (bi...@peak.org)
jrla...@shell.golden.net
Michael L Cunningham <boge...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Steve Havas wrote:
>
>> > He Steve! Why should we? Nancy and you claim to have seen it at 11th
>> > magnitude. Why is it now at 20th magnitude?
>> >
>> exist? This issue is not going to go away by wishing it so. How hard is it
>> for a newsgroup full of who knows how many astronomers to get an image of a
>> set of coordinates of the sky to add clarity to such a long standing debate?
>
>Gee! Such a hard question for you to comprehend! Let me ask you one more
>time.
>
>magnitude?
I'd guess it's because Planet-X, like Nancy and Steve, are all a little
dim! :-)
--
john R. Latala
jrla...@golden.net
jrla...@shell.golden.net
Bill Nelson <bi...@spock.peak.org> wrote:
>
>From Nancy's claims about the distance and size of Px, the angular size
>of Px would have to be even smaller than Pluto. Thus, it would show as
>a pinpoint as well - regardless of whether it were diffuse or not.
>
>Why is this so hard to understand?
You forget ... you're talking about Nancy here! :-)
jrla...@shell.golden.net
Sarah Mc <sara...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>
>And why don't you ask the cult leader why she didn't spend some of
>that $50,000 she took from cult members to rent time on an
>"observatory telescope" and get the images herself?
She didn't like the color of the ZOOM and MAGNITUDE knobs ...
Michael L. Cunningham
> Yeah but 11th magnitude from a start and 11th magnitude from a planet will
> not look the same when looking with naked eye through a telescope or on a
> CCD image right? One is pinpoint and the other diffuse? I think even I was
> able to garner that much from all the magnitude discussions...
Wrong. Go to my web site and view the image of Pluto I have there. It is
a pinpoint, same as a star. It looks the same visually too only fainter
since the human eye is not as sensitive as a CCD array.
> Red light is not as "bright" as light of a more white colour and hence may
> be more difficult to see? Is that why the military uses little red light
> flashlights so the soldiers eyes do not lose their night vision at night?
Wrong again. CCD arrays are very sensitive to red light. More so than
the
human eye therefore making red objects brighter than normal on CCD
images.
--
Michael L. Cunningham
So Cal SleeperS
2001 Grand Am GT
I M Openminded
...
I posted an image for all to see ... there was no object on it that you
or anyone else could have possibly seen and you and Nancy now claim that
it shows her planet. Small wonder that neither I nor anyone else will
risk another image for your misinterpretation.
I M Openminded
Then you garner wrong. 11th magnitude from a star or planet will mean
and look the same. Nancy has repeatedly said that her planet will look
smaller than Pluto and hence it will be unresolved with the telescopes
you and I have used. She has a weird idea that a small "diffuse" object
will appear different but that is her weird idea and not an accurate
statement. Face it ... the object you saw was not in any way related to
the star I imaged and that is also visible on both the PSS1 and PSS2
images as well.
> Red light is not as "bright" as light of a more white colour and hence may
> be more difficult to see? Is that why the military uses little red light
> flashlights so the soldiers eyes do not lose their night vision at night?
Not to a CCD ... we must turn off all red lights in our dome before
exposing since the CCD is more sensitive to red light than other colors.
I M Openminded
Indeed. I have now been contacted by three individuals who have found
either Nancy's web pages or those of Mark Hazlewood and wanted advice on
whether they should sell all of their belongings and move to a "safe"
location. They have all been very greatful when I have shown them my
image and pointed out the other problems with the Nancy/Hazlewood
material. I have several letters thanking me for helping them
understand that they need not panic. I can only assume that there are
hundreds of other folk out there who believe N/H and are, in fact,
selling their property and moving. The harm N/H are doing is real and
shameful.
I M Openminded
> "Michael L. Cunningham" <boge...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:3C676716...@earthlink.net...
>
>>Steve Havas wrote:
>>
>>>Why doesn't someone who has access to an observatory just post another
>>>
> CCD
>
>>>image with a 40min or so exposure?
>>>
>
>>He Steve! Why should we? Nancy and you claim to have seen it at 11th
>>magnitude. Why is it now at 20th magnitude?
>>
>
> A telescope's magnification is determined by comparing the focal length (the
> distance from the mirror/lens to the focus) of the eyepiece to the focal
> length of the mirror or lens system. Since there is no eyepiece on the
> telescope, magnification has no meaning. However, the size of an image on a
> CCD is determined by the effective focal length of the mirror system. Since
> there are several different mirror configurations possible, the focal length
> depends on the observer's setup. The largest field of view (FOV) and,
> consequently, the least detailed images occur when observing at prime focus,
> at the top of the telescope.
>
> Now, what the ZT info implies, if read very closely, is if viewing PX using
> an instrument with sufficient FOV which implies sufficient size and focal
> length (i.e. "magnification") then visually sighting PX through the
> instrument will approximate viewing an 11th mag object with the naked eye
> only. (you do know how to read don't you Mr. Cunningham? or do you prefer to
> just yap away like some scared little terrier trying to pretend to be
> something he is not?)
But the "naked eye only" can not see 11th magnitude ... Nancy herself has
pointed out that most people can not see the Andromeda galaxy which is
several hundred times brighter than this.
> Sorry to say your deluxe K-mart setup isn't up to par as the mag of this
> object is currently ~21 and will be until later this year though it was
> indeed captured by openminded but not with sufficient resolution to declare
> it a positive hit.
NO! It was not captured by me! The object claimed by Nancy is also
visible on the PSS1 image in 1955 and the PSS2 image in 1989. It is not
Nancy's planet.
josX
<lmri6u04klu821sht...@4ax.com>
>On Mon, 11 Feb 2002 23:12:11 GMT, JTRIV <JT...@home.com> in sci.astro wrote:
>
>>Are you new to all this? There are many obvious contradictions. A
>>magnitude 11 object should be visible to most amateur
>>astronomers. Nancy has claimed her object is 2 or 10 or 11th
>>magnitude. She also says that only an observatory scope can see
>>it. (She has also talked of "magnitude", "near" and "far" knobs
>>on telescopes so we know she doesn't have a clue)
>>
>>Of course most recently Nancy has claimed a 20th magnitude spot
>>on pictures of her coordinates is her fantasy planet. This is
>>10,000 times fainter that 11th magnitude.
>>
>>Not much of what Nancy says is not a contradiction of some sort.
>>One of my favorites is the claim that her planet would be visible
>>to the naked eye 1 year 7 months before the May 2003 date. Before
>>October 2001 came the definition of "naked eye" was changed to
>>include telescopes!
>
>for it to pass between the Sun and Earth on it's appointed day, it will be
>traveling at or near the speed of light... and will not be on a returning
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>orbit.
>
>Nancy builds a set of impossibilities, and weaves more lies to cover the 1st
>set, and then a second set of lies, and third, and fourth.
>
>I wonder, How does Steve Haas feels being called a liar by Nancy?
1 AU ~= 149,600,000 km
Pluto-Sun ~= 39.44 AU
PlanetX-Sun ~= 8 Pluto-Sun
,
"may 2003" - "feb 12 21:38:18 UTC 2002" ~= 15 month
1 month ~= 30.5 days
,
Speed of light ~= 1.08*10^9 km/h
For PlanetX to arrive here on may 2003, it will have to have an
average speed of:
(149,600,000 * 39.44 * 8) / (15 * 30.5 * 24) km/h
Which according to my casio fx-180PA is:
(4.7201792*10^10) / (10980) km/h --> 4298888.16 km/h
Which is (4298888.16 / 1.08*10^9) * 100% --> 0.398% of the speed
of light.
At this speed, it takes Planet-X appr. 34 hours and 47 minutes to
travel 1 AU, not all that impressive considdering light does it in
some 8 minutes, 18 seconds (using the above simplified numbers).
Who is the liar now, Bobbyboy ?
regards,
jos
--
The Small Kahuna
>
> Steve Havas writes:
>
> > do so so why all the talk and no action?
>
> Why should I waste precious telescope time taking an image of something
> that doesn't exist, Havas? I have real objects in need of observation.
>
> > He's one who has pooh poohed this for so long so why not just get some
> > more data out there so a comparison can be made?
>
> Why should I waste precious telescope time taking an image of something
> that doesn't exist, Havas?
Actually, tholen, it is you that does not exist. I have never seen you,
therefore you are impossible.
>
> > If you pull the band-aid off quick and fast it won't hurt so much hehe...
>
> Irrelevant.
Sarah Mc
> In article <3c09ad3.02021...@posting.google.com>,
> Sarah Mc <sara...@hotpop.com> wrote:
> >
> >And why don't you ask the cult leader why she didn't spend some of
> >that $50,000 she took from cult members to rent time on an
> >"observatory telescope" and get the images herself?
>
> She didn't like the color of the ZOOM and MAGNITUDE knobs ...
You're probably correct - and she probably didn't like the Near and
Far knob's colors either. Possibly it wasn't graduated in degrees of
right acsention, therefore rendering it completely useless to the
Zetas and the cult leader.
Bill Nelson
> 1 AU ~= 149,600,000 km
> Pluto-Sun ~= 39.44 AU
> PlanetX-Sun ~= 8 Pluto-Sun
> ,
> "may 2003" - "feb 12 21:38:18 UTC 2002" ~= 15 month
> 1 month ~= 30.5 days
> ,
> Speed of light ~= 1.08*10^9 km/h
> For PlanetX to arrive here on may 2003, it will have to have an
> average speed of:
> (149,600,000 * 39.44 * 8) / (15 * 30.5 * 24) km/h
> Which according to my casio fx-180PA is:
> (4.7201792*10^10) / (10980) km/h --> 4298888.16 km/h
> Which is (4298888.16 / 1.08*10^9) * 100% --> 0.398% of the speed
> of light.
This would be true, assuming that all your calculations etc are
correct, if such an object was moving at a constant velocity all
the way from its present position until it arrives near the Sun.
This cannot be the case. It would be traveling rather slowly now,
and would accelerate all the way to the Sun. You need a different
formula to do this calculation.
For an object to stay in orbit around the Sun (yes, even if there
were another object out there that it also orbits), it's velocity
near the Sun cannot be higher than the Sun's escape velocity. That
is only a very small fraction of the speed of light.
Yes, I know you don't agree that there can be such a thing as an
escape velocity.
--
Bill Nelson (bi...@peak.org)
josX
<a4chsj$fjt$4...@quark.scn.rain.com>:
>josX <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote:
>
>> 1 AU ~= 149,600,000 km
>> Pluto-Sun ~= 39.44 AU
>> PlanetX-Sun ~= 8 Pluto-Sun
>> ,
>> "may 2003" - "feb 12 21:38:18 UTC 2002" ~= 15 month
>> 1 month ~= 30.5 days
>> ,
>> Speed of light ~= 1.08*10^9 km/h
>
>> For PlanetX to arrive here on may 2003, it will have to have an
>> average speed of:
>> (149,600,000 * 39.44 * 8) / (15 * 30.5 * 24) km/h
>
>> Which according to my casio fx-180PA is:
>
>> (4.7201792*10^10) / (10980) km/h --> 4298888.16 km/h
>
>> Which is (4298888.16 / 1.08*10^9) * 100% --> 0.398% of the speed
>> of light.
>
>This would be true, assuming that all your calculations etc are
>correct, if such an object was moving at a constant velocity all
>the way from its present position until it arrives near the Sun.
>
>This cannot be the case. It would be traveling rather slowly now,
>and would accelerate all the way to the Sun. You need a different
>formula to do this calculation.
>
>For an object to stay in orbit around the Sun (yes, even if there
>were another object out there that it also orbits), it's velocity
>near the Sun cannot be higher than the Sun's escape velocity. That
>is only a very small fraction of the speed of light.
>
>Yes, I know you don't agree that there can be such a thing as an
>escape velocity.
Given the taught law of gravity, it cannot exist.
Given escape velocity, the taught law of gravity cannot be adequate.
-
There has to be a stabelizing element in the solar system. What is it.
-
Since science has not figured this, how can science claim to be
advanced, and good enough to be taught to children who are below
the age where they are considdered to have a will of their own
(considdered human), iow, are forced to learn what science says.
What good does it do to children to learn things that are lies,
and being told these are the highest jewels of humanity (science).
Were not children taught under the nazi's by every teacher that
hitler was the greatest of all? Were not all the judges inforcing
the nazi laws? Not all the policeman following orders? Not the
bulk of the ppl in conspiracy against the jews, the gypsies,
the disabled, and the mentally distressed?
Was the news reported honestly? How could these ppl know they
were fooled, hitler had been in power since 1933, and the majority
loved him.
Is it not possible to have 1 billion people cheer for a cruel
and psychotic opressor like in China under Mao, destroy their
crops, destroy their pots and pans because he told them so?
When this is all possible, how is it impossible that science
is just one and the same with all of these.
tho...@antispam.ham
>> Steve Havas writes:
>>> Why doesn't someone who has access to an observatory just post another CCD
>>> image with a 40min or so exposure? Surely Dave Tholen or someone else could
>>> do so so why all the talk and no action?
>> Why should I waste precious telescope time taking an image of something
>> that doesn't exist, Havas? I have real objects in need of observation.
>>> He's one who has pooh poohed this for so long so why not just get some
>>> more data out there so a comparison can be made?
>> Why should I waste precious telescope time taking an image of something
>> that doesn't exist, Havas?
> Actually, tholen, it is you that does not exist. I have never seen you,
> therefore you are impossible.
Therefore you must have hallucinated about the item to which you
responded. Seek medical help.
Greg Neill
news:a4d9ga$46t$1...@news1.xs4all.nl...
> >escape velocity.
>
> Given the taught law of gravity, it cannot exist.
>
> Given escape velocity, the taught law of gravity cannot be adequate.
Which just goes to show once again that when you don't know
what you're talking about, anything is possible.
Learn some math, get a grip on reality.
Jeff Lowe
> hitler was the greatest of all? Were not all the judges inforcing
> the nazi laws? Not all the policeman following orders? Not the
> bulk of the ppl in conspiracy against the jews, the gypsies,
> the disabled, and the mentally distressed?
I invoke Godwin's law.
josX loses.
The thread is dead.
Jeff Root
>> For an object to stay in orbit around the Sun (yes, even if there
>> were another object out there that it also orbits), it's velocity
>> near the Sun cannot be higher than the Sun's escape velocity. That
>> is only a very small fraction of the speed of light.
>>
>> Yes, I know you don't agree that there can be such a thing as an
>> escape velocity.
> Given the taught law of gravity, it cannot exist.
>
> Given escape velocity, the taught law of gravity cannot be adequate.
For all your discussion about it, you have never explained why
you think there is a contradiction between the Newtonian law of
gravity and the existence of escape velocity. What is the
contradiction that you see?
Many extremely brilliant people and ordinary, intelligent,
skeptical scientists, students, and interested laymen like
yourself have tried to find flaws in Newton's law of gravity
since the day Newton first told Edmund Hally about it. As far
as I know, none have previously found a contradiction with the
simple fact that for any specified distance from a specified
mass, there is a minimum velocity away from the mass which is
needed to continue moving away from it forever on an inertial
trajectory.
As an object moves away from the Earth, its speed becomes
steadily less as Earth's gravity slows it, and Earth's gravity
becomes steadily weaker with distance. When an object moves
away from Earth at greater than escape velocity, the gravity
weakens faster than the speed reduces: The farther the object
gets from Earth, the greater the difference between the
quickly-weakening gravity and the slowly-reducing speed.
Below escape velocity the speed reduces more quickly than
gravity reduces; above escape velocity, gravity reduces more
quickly than the speed reduces.
It seems intuitively obvious, to me.
> There has to be a stabelizing element in the solar system.
> What is it.
part of the same problem you have with gravity vs escape
velocity? Or something else having to do with the strange
"orbit" of planet X?
David Paterson
>Jos,
>
>For all your discussion about it, you have never explained why
>you think there is a contradiction between the Newtonian law of
>gravity and the existence of escape velocity. What is the
>contradiction that you see?
You're wasting your time here, as Jos has never yet come up with an
explanation of these so-called contradictions, or divulged the "true
laws of gravity". I've discussed this at length in another thread, and
he has been given several proofs, ranging from the verbal (as you also
re-stated) :-
>As an object moves away from the Earth, its speed becomes
>steadily less as Earth's gravity slows it, and Earth's gravity
>becomes steadily weaker with distance. When an object moves
>away from Earth at greater than escape velocity, the gravity
>weakens faster than the speed reduces: The farther the object
>gets from Earth, the greater the difference between the
>quickly-weakening gravity and the slowly-reducing speed.
>
>Below escape velocity the speed reduces more quickly than
>gravity reduces; above escape velocity, gravity reduces more
>quickly than the speed reduces.
to mathematical ones based on either conservation of energy, or
solutions of the equations of gravity and motion, and even computer
simulations which also show exactly the same thing. Despite all of
these, he still claims (based on a non-mathematical argument) that
escape velocity is a con, and the true laws are being kept secret from
us by some conspiracy.
His hypothesis, paraphrased from other postings, is that since the time
of Newton this global conspiracy has known the real laws of gravity, but
for reasons which are never explained, decided that they wouldn't be
safe in the hands of the ordinary public. They therefore concocted
another set of laws which, although giving the same results for all
calculations, has the addition of an escape velocity.
Exactly why this makes the laws more acceptable, or who these
conspirators who could have derived the new laws were is also never
really explained.
The "true laws" are of course known to anyone with launch capability
(NASA, Russia, China, ESA etc.) and somehow are given to new countries
and organisations all the time, even though we might prefer not to have
some of these countries capable of lobbing the odd missile around :-)
Why they're allowed in on the secret is also never explained. Amateur
rocketeers are also presumably visited by "the men from NASA" to make
sure they don't get confused by escape velocity too.
>> There has to be a stabelizing element in the solar system.
>> What is it.
>
>I have no idea what you are talking about, here. Is this
>part of the same problem you have with gravity vs escape
>velocity? Or something else having to do with the strange
>"orbit" of planet X?
It's also been explained that the solar system is not stable, and that
in the long term (i.e. billions of years) most of the planets will
either fall into the sun or be ejected into interstellar space. However
this also seems to be an unacceptable fact for him, and he seems to need
to have some extra magic which stabilises orbits (even though there's no
proof of its existence).
I wish you luck in your efforts to educate him, but as they say round my
way "there's none so blind as those that will not see".
DP
Steve Havas
"Michael L Cunningham" <boge...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3C68320D...@earthlink.net...
> Steve Havas wrote:
>
> > Have they posted an image of Nancy's coordinates lately? In the
meantime, I
> > will continue to try to get the image myself.
>
> Why should they? Nancy is only important to herself and about 10 other
> individuals who actually believe her swill.
>
> > So in astronomy is it widely considered foolish to look for undiscovered
but
> > notoriously speculated on objects? Even when the coordinates are given
and
> > all one has to do is take and post an image so a comparison can be made
with
> > some other images? In the meantime, I will work on developing my
critical
> > thinking skills as you recommend lest I be too harshly judged before
> > spring/summer of next year...
>
> Notorious object? I haven't seen any bulletins from NASA about an inbound
> object. No alerts on the six o'clock news. It's only notorious to you,
Nancy,
> and her small group of follows. We counter those posts in this group ONLY
> because Nancy posts here to try and get some sort of credibility for
herself.
>
> > Good for you Dave. It must have been tough to bear when those cultist's
took
> > their lives without heading your warnings. I just watched it on the
news.
>
> You are on the tt-watch forum as well as a few others here Steve. How many
> people are planning on selling their homes and property to move to what
you
> and Nancy claim is safe ground? Are you selling your possessions and
planning
> to move to "higher ground"? Is Nancy going to just say "Sorry" if nothing
> happens?
> You are adding to this situation by claiming to have seen an object at
Nancy's
> coordinates. If nothing happens come May of 2003, there are going to be
some
> irate people who have packed up and sold everything based on Nancy's
claims.
> They'll also be pointing fingers at you for leading them to believe in a
pole
> shift.
> Are you going to just shrug your shoulders and tell those who have lost
their
> life
> savings they shouldn't have believed you in the first place? You people
are
> playing
> a very dangerous game.
>
I would personally prefer to be safe than sorry Michael. I have little to no
doubt that this event will unfold as has been repeatedly warned and
explained by Nancy and her Zeta friends. I think the average reasonable
person can see that the earth is currently experiencing some pretty
accelerated changes with regards to weather, earthquake activity and
volcanic activity to list a few. Science to date has not been able to
satisfactorily address these changes in my opinion beyond the greenhouse
affect, el Nino and so forth and I think many people are beginning to sense
that the current scientific explanations may be lacking.
I sincerely hope that people who are currently investigating if there is
truth to this Planet X thing do so thoroughly, with a clear mind and open
eyes. I believe that the large, unheard public on this newsgroup have been
sombrely taking in the information as relayed by Nancy and that this can
cause them some anxiety as to what the future may hold. I think this public
would appreciate the information of someone posting additional CCD images of
Nancy's coordinates so that maybe they can put to rest some of their anxiety
and uncertainty one way or another.
>
> --
> Michael L. Cunningham
> So Cal SleeperS - 2001 Grand AM GT
Michael L. Cunningham
> I would personally prefer to be safe than sorry Michael. I have little to no
> doubt that this event will unfold as has been repeatedly warned and
> explained by Nancy and her Zeta friends. I think the average reasonable
> person can see that the earth is currently experiencing some pretty
> accelerated changes with regards to weather, earthquake activity and
> volcanic activity to list a few. Science to date has not been able to
> satisfactorily address these changes in my opinion beyond the greenhouse
> affect, el Nino and so forth and I think many people are beginning to sense
> that the current scientific explanations may be lacking.
You actually believe anything Nancy posts since she claims it's from
some
alien race NO ONE has ever seen. There is nothing scientific that
relates
to Nancy's "Zeta" friends.
I highly recommend you move to some far and distance place where no one
knows who you are. If you stay in Vancouver and Nancy's planet fails to
show up, I can imagine there will be a few folks wanting to talk to you
about their life savings.
Science has answered all the changes to date. Their explanations just
don't fit into you agenda. Do you think the world knows or cares what
Nancy thinks? Her hard core followers only number in the dozen as most
of the people who listen to her rants are only there to keep watch. You
think Nancy has gained credibility from posting her lunacy to this news
group? Think again. You'd be surprised how many think Nancy is mentally
unstable. You'd be surprised to know how close you are to being included
in that line of thought.
People like you and Nancy have come and gone before in the blink of an
eye. Doomsday soothsayers have dotted history and have been discounted
time after time. People like you hang onto their coat tails singing
their
praises until the shit hits the fan and then they claim they were duped.
It's still a very dangerous game you're playing and you're trying to
convince others on this newsgroup of your beliefs through fraud and
deceit. You still have no idea of what you observed through a telescope
in Vancouver. You still have no idea if it was pointed to the correct
coordinates, you have no idea of what the object was nor at what
magnitude
it was at. You STILL have no idea to this day as to what you viewed and
yet you stand idly by and let Nancy announce to the world that you
observed her planet. Yes, it is a very dangerous game you and Nancy
play.
> I sincerely hope that people who are currently investigating if there is
> truth to this Planet X thing do so thoroughly, with a clear mind and open
> eyes. I believe that the large, unheard public on this newsgroup have been
> sombrely taking in the information as relayed by Nancy and that this can
> cause them some anxiety as to what the future may hold. I think this public
> would appreciate the information of someone posting additional CCD images of
> Nancy's coordinates so that maybe they can put to rest some of their anxiety
> and uncertainty one way or another.
Sincerely? I do believe you're hoping for a major disaster to strike
mankind
so you can claim you were right as to backing Nancy's lunacy. I do hope
you
have a Plan "B" should Nancy be wrong and right now the odds are running
way
in our favor that you'll be the laughing stock of sci.astro along with
Nancy.
Duping people into taking unwarranted actions can make you legally
responsible
for their actions. I sincerely hope you have plenty of money to fend off
the
lawsuits that will surely come your way and Nancy's. It should be rather
easy
to collect since the proof is posted all over her web site and archived
through Google.
Yes, it's a dangerous game you have chosen to play.
--
Michael L. Cunningham
So Cal SleeperS
2001 Grand Am GT
Wally Anglesea™
wrote:
<SNIP>
>>
>I would personally prefer to be safe than sorry Michael. I have little to no
>doubt that this event will unfold as has been repeatedly warned and
>explained by Nancy and her Zeta friends. I think the average reasonable
>person can see that the earth is currently experiencing some pretty
>accelerated changes with regards to weather, earthquake activity and
>volcanic activity to list a few.
Actually you are wrong. According to Tom Simkin at the Smithsonian
Institute, a very nice and helpful guy, and co-author of Volcanoes of
the world, makes it abundantly clear in his book, that Volcanic
activity is NOT on the increase. It's a perception thing. Because of
the ability to pass news along more quickly, because of the ability to
monitor these things, we find out about them more quickly.
Otherwise, you would have to claim that volcanic activity in the
pacific decreased during WW2. When in fact, it was pretty much
constant as it is now. It's just that volcanic activity wasn't
uppermost in peoples minds at the time.
There *is* no demonstrable upswing in the amount of volcanic activity.
> Science to date has not been able to
>satisfactorily address these changes in my opinion beyond the greenhouse
>affect, el Nino and so forth and I think many people are beginning to sense
>that the current scientific explanations may be lacking.
>
>I sincerely hope that people who are currently investigating if there is
>truth to this Planet X thing do so thoroughly, with a clear mind and open
>eyes. I believe that the large, unheard public on this newsgroup have been
>sombrely taking in the information as relayed by Nancy and that this can
>cause them some anxiety as to what the future may hold. I think this public
>would appreciate the information of someone posting additional CCD images of
>Nancy's coordinates so that maybe they can put to rest some of their anxiety
>and uncertainty one way or another.
There *is* no need for anxiety. It's just that woo0woos get off on
running around crying "the sky is falling".
You are going to look damn silly having supported a demonstrable fraud
and con-artist (Nancy), in a few short months. Please have your
excuses ready.
--
Find out about Australia's most dangerous Doomsday Cult:
http://users.bigpond.net.au/wanglese/pebble.htm
"You can't fool me, it's turtles all the way down."
Bill Nelson
> I would personally prefer to be safe than sorry Michael. I have little to no
> doubt that this event will unfold as has been repeatedly warned and
> explained by Nancy and her Zeta friends. I think the average reasonable
> person can see that the earth is currently experiencing some pretty
> accelerated changes with regards to weather, earthquake activity and
> volcanic activity to list a few. Science to date has not been able to
> satisfactorily address these changes in my opinion beyond the greenhouse
> affect, el Nino and so forth and I think many people are beginning to sense
> that the current scientific explanations may be lacking.
Even if such an object existed, how much effect do you think that it would
have on the Earth? Hint - it is claimed to be far less massive that
Jupiter, and many times further away from the Earth. That means that any
gravitational effects will be minute - even compared to the minute effect
that Jupiter has on the Earth.
> I sincerely hope that people who are currently investigating if there is
> truth to this Planet X thing do so thoroughly, with a clear mind and open
> eyes. I believe that the large, unheard public on this newsgroup have been
> sombrely taking in the information as relayed by Nancy and that this can
> cause them some anxiety as to what the future may hold. I think this public
> would appreciate the information of someone posting additional CCD images of
> Nancy's coordinates so that maybe they can put to rest some of their anxiety
> and uncertainty one way or another.
Oh, we have clear minds and open eyes. The people that don't are those
that believe the physics that Nancy claims to be true.
Why would another image be needed? It is impossible for an object to have
the characteristics that Nancy claims - at the distance that she claims.
That should be sufficient, all by itself.
--
Bill Nelson (bi...@peak.org)
Steve Havas
"Wally AngleseaT" <wang...@spbigpondam.net.au> wrote in message
news:bbap6u05j0n1hofjn...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 15 Feb 2002 04:39:14 GMT, "Steve Havas" <sha...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> <SNIP>
> >>
> >I would personally prefer to be safe than sorry Michael. I have little to
no
> >doubt that this event will unfold as has been repeatedly warned and
> >explained by Nancy and her Zeta friends. I think the average reasonable
> >person can see that the earth is currently experiencing some pretty
> >accelerated changes with regards to weather, earthquake activity and
> >volcanic activity to list a few.
>
> Actually you are wrong. According to Tom Simkin at the Smithsonian
> Institute, a very nice and helpful guy, and co-author of Volcanoes of
> the world, makes it abundantly clear in his book, that Volcanic
> activity is NOT on the increase. It's a perception thing. Because of
> the ability to pass news along more quickly, because of the ability to
> monitor these things, we find out about them more quickly.
>
> Otherwise, you would have to claim that volcanic activity in the
> pacific decreased during WW2. When in fact, it was pretty much
> constant as it is now. It's just that volcanic activity wasn't
> uppermost in peoples minds at the time.
>
>
> There *is* no demonstrable upswing in the amount of volcanic activity.
>
Steve Havas
"Bill Nelson" <bi...@spock.peak.org> wrote in message
news:a4ik65$cr6$6...@quark.scn.rain.com...
repulsion force several years ago which was categorically denied existing
only to which now is being generally considered as a force which does exist
by NASA although little understood?
How do explain someone who has so accurately described and predicted the
bizarre weather changes, crop failures etc. the world is experiencing now
at a time when any sort of "global warming" was only beginning to be
observed with no accurate predictions of the severity of the changes today?
How do explain someone who has so systematically pointed out irregularities
in the orbit, behaviour etc. of the comet Hale-Bopp without any astronomy
education? I do not understand how a comet can perturb away from a planet
like Jupiter. I do not understand how a comet can outgas, then stop
outgassing as it nears the sun and then begin outgassing again at some later
time all the while when images are being withheld by NASA or the object is
claimed to be not visible due to being hidden in background galaxies.
I do understand that the governments of the world have a penchant for lying
to their populace time and time again. The rhetoric and policy the Bush
administration pumps out clearly indicates to me that the helm is not being
properly steered. When I look out my window over the skies of Vancouver and
see "contrails" of enormous girth criss-crossing the sky with the aircraft
often times flying in close formation, and hearing the official government
explanation, this indicates to me that something is being withheld from the
general population and that whatever it is must be pretty major.
You have come to some different conclusions and I respect that and everyone
else who has come to similiar conclusions based on the evidence and
arguements of both and all sides. I just do not feel they are the right
conclusions...
>
> --
> Bill Nelson (bi...@peak.org)
>
Greg Neill
news:fTbb8.44259$Cg5.2...@news1.calgary.shaw.ca...
> >
> How do you explain a person with no astro-physics education describing a
> repulsion force several years ago which was categorically denied existing
> only to which now is being generally considered as a force which does
exist
> by NASA although little understood?
Which repulsion force would that be?
The detected change in velocity seems to imply an extra slowing,
not a speeding up. It's directed towards us, not away.
Anyone can make a series of predictions which are bizzare or
contravercial. Just read a few current popular science expositions
(preferably from mediocre magazines or newspapers), and then
posit the opposite of some of the more vague or speculative
results. Velikovski was a master of this, and lucked out on
several choices.
>
> How do explain someone who has so accurately described and predicted the
> bizarre weather changes, crop failures etc. the world is experiencing now
> at a time when any sort of "global warming" was only beginning to be
> observed with no accurate predictions of the severity of the changes
today?
There are no weather changes or crop failures which are unexplained.
If you've been at all aware of the news over the years you'd know that
there's almost *always* a crop failure *somewhere* on the planet every
year. If you think otherwise, please provide the references which
shows a marked increase.
>
> How do explain someone who has so systematically pointed out
irregularities
> in the orbit, behaviour etc. of the comet Hale-Bopp without any astronomy
> education? I do not understand how a comet can perturb away from a planet
> like Jupiter. I do not understand how a comet can outgas, then stop
> outgassing as it nears the sun and then begin outgassing again at some
later
> time all the while when images are being withheld by NASA or the object is
> claimed to be not visible due to being hidden in background galaxies.
Nancy was entirely, completely, and utterly wrong, wrong, wrong, about
her pontifications on Hale-Bopp. Did I say that strongly enough?
It is not worth dredging this up again. If you have an interest look it
up in the Google archives. She looked like a raving fool spouting
conspiracy theories and changing her story as she went.
>
> I do understand that the governments of the world have a penchant for
lying
> to their populace time and time again. The rhetoric and policy the Bush
> administration pumps out clearly indicates to me that the helm is not
being
> properly steered. When I look out my window over the skies of Vancouver
and
> see "contrails" of enormous girth criss-crossing the sky with the aircraft
> often times flying in close formation, and hearing the official
government
> explanation, this indicates to me that something is being withheld from
the
> general population and that whatever it is must be pretty major.
If you live near a busy airport with fixed runways, you can expect
regular patterns in the contrails (on the days that they are visible).
>
> You have come to some different conclusions and I respect that and
everyone
> else who has come to similiar conclusions based on the evidence and
> arguements of both and all sides. I just do not feel they are the right
> conclusions...
Since you'll have no further need of money after May 2003, would you please
arrange to send all yours to me.
John Popelish
(snip)
>...I do not understand how a comet can outgas, then stop
> outgassing as it nears the sun and then begin outgassing again at some later
> time all the while when images are being withheld by NASA or the object is
> claimed to be not visible due to being hidden in background galaxies.
Why would you expect cometary out gassing to be smooth and continuous,
instead of sporadic and chaotic? After all, comets are not balls of
pure ice that just evaporates away into space, but are dirty layered
structures that go through all sorts of changes as they decompose and
vent, much like volcanism does on rocky planets. How does NASA or any
government keep you from observing comets with your own telescope? I
watched comet Hale Bopp go through all sorts of interesting changes
through my own scope as it put on a show for all who wanted to watch.
The pin wheel effect of a big out gas point combined with its rotation
was especially nice to watch (while it lasted).
You use your lack of imagination and understanding of physics as an
excuse to blame others for not sharing your over simplified views of
the universe. Yet you are quite comfortable imagining telepathic
aliens as a means of gaining knowledge.
You are full of contradictions.
--
John Popelish
Jonathan Silverlight
<boge...@earthlink.net> writes
>Steve Havas wrote:
>
>> I would personally prefer to be safe than sorry Michael. I have little to no
>> doubt that this event will unfold as has been repeatedly warned and
>> explained by Nancy and her Zeta friends. I think the average reasonable
>> person can see that the earth is currently experiencing some pretty
>> accelerated changes with regards to weather, earthquake activity and
>> volcanic activity to list a few. Science to date has not been able to
>> satisfactorily address these changes in my opinion beyond the greenhouse
>> affect, el Nino and so forth and I think many people are beginning to sense
>> that the current scientific explanations may be lacking.
>
>You actually believe anything Nancy posts since she claims it's from
>some
>alien race NO ONE has ever seen. There is nothing scientific that
>relates
>to Nancy's "Zeta" friends.
>
>I highly recommend you move to some far and distance place where no one
>knows who you are. If you stay in Vancouver and Nancy's planet fails to
>show up, I can imagine there will be a few folks wanting to talk to you
>about their life savings.
It's also quite possible that neither Nancy nor her followers will be in
a position to worry about awkward questions. I'll leave Steve and co. to
ponder why.
Personally, I'm quite looking forward to 2004. A project I'm currently
working on will be coming to an end, I hope to watch the transit of
Venus (something no-one now alive has seen), and Cassini will arrive at
Saturn, just to name three events I hope to see :-)
Bill Nelson
> Personally, I'm quite looking forward to 2004. A project I'm currently
> working on will be coming to an end, I hope to watch the transit of
> Venus (something no-one now alive has seen), and Cassini will arrive at
> Saturn, just to name three events I hope to see :-)
Is the Venus transit going to be central enough that it will be visible
from anywhere on the sunlit side of the Earth, or will we have to be at
the right latitude?
--
Bill Nelson (bi...@peak.org)
Michael L Cunningham
> "Wally AngleseaT" <wang...@spbigpondam.net.au> wrote in message
> > There *is* no demonstrable upswing in the amount of volcanic activity.
> >
> Well, all the recent "perceived" volcanic activity has got my attention.
That's because you "wanted" the activity. Otherwise, it wouldn't fit with
your train of thought. It's called self manipulation. You make yourself
believe those events are actually connected to Nancy's planet, no matter
what proof is presented to you. You are hopeless.
Bill Nelson
>> Why would another image be needed? It is impossible for an object to have
>> the characteristics that Nancy claims - at the distance that she claims.
>> That should be sufficient, all by itself.
>>
> How do you explain a person with no astro-physics education describing a
> repulsion force several years ago which was categorically denied existing
> only to which now is being generally considered as a force which does exist
> by NASA although little understood?
Repulsive forces are nothing new. They have been proposed by quite a few
people. I think even Nancy's favorite author did so.
NASA does not know of a repulsive force. I assume that you are talking
about the space probes. We don't even know if there is an anomaly in
the acceleration. If there is, it is extremely slight - probably less
than the force exerted by a piece of typewriter paper lying on a desktop.
> How do explain someone who has so accurately described and predicted the
> bizarre weather changes, crop failures etc. the world is experiencing now
> at a time when any sort of "global warming" was only beginning to be
> observed with no accurate predictions of the severity of the changes today?
There is nothing "bizarre" about any of the various weather patterns and
crop failures. They occur all the time - in various parts of the world.
Nor are they any more severe that many such crop failures etc in the past.
> How do explain someone who has so systematically pointed out irregularities
> in the orbit, behaviour etc. of the comet Hale-Bopp without any astronomy
> education? I do not understand how a comet can perturb away from a planet
> like Jupiter. I do not understand how a comet can outgas, then stop
> outgassing as it nears the sun and then begin outgassing again at some later
> time all the while when images are being withheld by NASA or the object is
> claimed to be not visible due to being hidden in background galaxies.
The only "irregularity" in the orbit of Hale-Bopp was in Nancy's mind.
No comet has "perturbed away from any planet". Comets often have gassing
outbursts or times when the outgassing decreases drastically.
I don't know of any claims that HB was "not visible due to being hidden
in background galaxies". Are you sure this was not just one of Nancy's
claims - based on here acknowledged almost total lack of science knowledge?
> You have come to some different conclusions and I respect that and everyone
> else who has come to similiar conclusions based on the evidence and
> arguements of both and all sides. I just do not feel they are the right
> conclusions...
The difference is, my conclusions are based on what we know about the
workings of the universe. Apparently yours and Nancy's are totally based
on the voices she hears in her head.
--
Bill Nelson (bi...@peak.org)
Michael L Cunningham
> How do you explain a person with no astro-physics education describing a
> repulsion force several years ago which was categorically denied existing
> only to which now is being generally considered as a force which does exist
> by NASA although little understood?
Stupidity. Repulsion only works at a quantum level but you and Nancy are too
stupid to understand that.
> How do explain someone who has so accurately described and predicted the
> bizarre weather changes, crop failures etc. the world is experiencing now
> at a time when any sort of "global warming" was only beginning to be
> observed with no accurate predictions of the severity of the changes today?
Stupidity on your part for believing her. The effects of global warming were
well
known and predicted before Nancy decided to try and play clairvoyant. You do
very well convincing yourself without any proof that Nancy is correct.
> How do explain someone who has so systematically pointed out irregularities
> in the orbit, behaviour etc. of the comet Hale-Bopp without any astronomy
> education? I do not understand how a comet can perturb away from a planet
> like Jupiter. I do not understand how a comet can outgas, then stop
> outgassing as it nears the sun and then begin outgassing again at some later
> time all the while when images are being withheld by NASA or the object is
> claimed to be not visible due to being hidden in background galaxies.
Stupidity and a basic lack of knowledge on yours and Nancy's part. If you
had half a brain and stayed awake during math class you might understand the
do's and don'ts of defining orbits. Come back some other time when you can
discuss the math in a sensible manner.
> I do understand that the governments of the world have a penchant for lying
> to their populace time and time again. The rhetoric and policy the Bush
> administration pumps out clearly indicates to me that the helm is not being
> properly steered. When I look out my window over the skies of Vancouver and
> see "contrails" of enormous girth criss-crossing the sky with the aircraft
> often times flying in close formation, and hearing the official government
> explanation, this indicates to me that something is being withheld from the
> general population and that whatever it is must be pretty major.
I'm soooo happy your understand politics and believe all of them lie just as you
belief the media reports the truth. Ignorance is what drives your ego and
stupidity
sustains it.
> You have come to some different conclusions and I respect that and everyone
> else who has come to similiar conclusions based on the evidence and
> arguements of both and all sides. I just do not feel they are the right
> conclusions...
Ignorance is bliss and if you trust Nancy and her information, you're a bigger
fool than I thought.
BF11
jrla...@shell.golden.net
Steve Havas <sha...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I would personally prefer to be safe than sorry Michael. I have little to no
>doubt that this event will unfold as has been repeatedly warned and
>explained by Nancy and her Zeta friends.
Are you willing to bet on that? If you're so sure that it's going to
happen then I'm sure you'd even offer odds! Are you willing to put your
money where your mouth is?
I asked Nancy that question a few months back and she didn't take the
offer. What does that tell you?
--
john R. Latala
jrla...@golden.net
Jeff Root
> NASA does not know of a repulsive force. I assume that you are
> talking about the space probes. We don't even know if there is
> an anomaly in the acceleration. If there is, it is extremely
> slight - probably less than the force exerted by a piece of
> typewriter paper lying on a desktop.
force of the light from a 60-watt lightbulb directed in one
direction -- much less than the force exerted by a sheet of
typing paper. The cause of the anomaly is unknown, but is most
likely due to unequal heat radiation by the RTG power sources
in the direction toward the Sun and away from the Sun.
The Pioneer RTGs currently put out a total of about 2000 watts
of waste heat. If the difference between the heat radiated
toward the Sun and heat radiated away from the Sun is 60 watts,
the anomaly would be accounted for.
The magnitude of the anomaly is 0.0000000008 meter per
second, per second. Compare this to the acceleration of
gravity at Earth's surface, which is 9.8 meters per second,
per second. The anomaly has been essentially constant since
it became possible to detect it -- that is, since Pioneer
got far enough from the Sun that pressure from sunlight and
solar wind no longer mask it, beyond the orbit of Saturn.
Steve Havas
> Steve Havas wrote:
>
> > "Wally AngleseaT" <wang...@spbigpondam.net.au> wrote in message
> > > There *is* no demonstrable upswing in the amount of volcanic activity.
> > >
> > Well, all the recent "perceived" volcanic activity has got my attention.
>
> That's because you "wanted" the activity. Otherwise, it wouldn't fit with
> your train of thought. It's called self manipulation. You make yourself
> believe those events are actually connected to Nancy's planet, no matter
> what proof is presented to you. You are hopeless.
>
noticed more volcanic activity because I've been conscious of it but I think
the evidence clearly indicates that along with a dramatic increase in
earthquake activity, volcanoes are also spouting off with surprising
frequency.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0763388.html
http://volcano.und.nodak.edu/vwdocs/current_volcs/current.html
Steve Havas
"Greg Neill" <gnei...@OVE.netcom.ca> wrote in message
news:cecb8.7906$bS4.5...@weber.videotron.net...
> "Steve Havas" <sha...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:fTbb8.44259$Cg5.2...@news1.calgary.shaw.ca...
> > >
> > How do you explain a person with no astro-physics education describing a
> > repulsion force several years ago which was categorically denied
existing
> > only to which now is being generally considered as a force which does
> exist
> > by NASA although little understood?
>
> Which repulsion force would that be?
>
Hubble telescope of galaxies near the edge of the observable universe which
were found to be accelerating away from each other when it was expected that
they would be observing a deceleration. They had also observed other large
heavenly bodies (suns or planets, I can't remember) which were found to be
much closer than they "should" be. I heard these explanations straight from
the mouth of Ray Villard, director of public relations for the Hubble at a
presentation in Vancouver last April and it was described as a "repulsion
force".
>
> The detected change in velocity seems to imply an extra slowing,
> not a speeding up. It's directed towards us, not away.
>
the sun and not the repulsion force that was affecting the probes...
>
> Anyone can make a series of predictions which are bizzare or
> contravercial. Just read a few current popular science expositions
> (preferably from mediocre magazines or newspapers), and then
> posit the opposite of some of the more vague or speculative
> results. Velikovski was a master of this, and lucked out on
> several choices.
>
> >
> > How do explain someone who has so accurately described and predicted the
> > bizarre weather changes, crop failures etc. the world is experiencing
now
> > at a time when any sort of "global warming" was only beginning to be
> > observed with no accurate predictions of the severity of the changes
> today?
>
> There are no weather changes or crop failures which are unexplained.
> If you've been at all aware of the news over the years you'd know that
> there's almost *always* a crop failure *somewhere* on the planet every
> year. If you think otherwise, please provide the references which
> shows a marked increase.
>
location has ideal weather for crops all the time. I'm talking about large
scale world wide crop failures. I have also noticed some substantial
increases in the price of bread and vegetables in my local grocery stores
over the last year. Here are some sites which document crop failures:
http://www.zetatalk.com/theword/tword202.htm
http://www.fao.org/WAICENT/faoinfo/economic/giews/english/fs/fs0102/httoc.ht
m
> >
> > How do explain someone who has so systematically pointed out
> irregularities
> > in the orbit, behaviour etc. of the comet Hale-Bopp without any
astronomy
> > education? I do not understand how a comet can perturb away from a
planet
> > like Jupiter. I do not understand how a comet can outgas, then stop
> > outgassing as it nears the sun and then begin outgassing again at some
> later
> > time all the while when images are being withheld by NASA or the object
is
> > claimed to be not visible due to being hidden in background galaxies.
>
> Nancy was entirely, completely, and utterly wrong, wrong, wrong, about
> her pontifications on Hale-Bopp. Did I say that strongly enough?
>
> It is not worth dredging this up again. If you have an interest look it
> up in the Google archives. She looked like a raving fool spouting
> conspiracy theories and changing her story as she went.
>
Why would a comet perturb away from Jupiter? You're right, enough said.
> >
> > I do understand that the governments of the world have a penchant for
> lying
> > to their populace time and time again. The rhetoric and policy the Bush
> > administration pumps out clearly indicates to me that the helm is not
> being
> > properly steered. When I look out my window over the skies of Vancouver
> and
> > see "contrails" of enormous girth criss-crossing the sky with the
aircraft
> > often times flying in close formation, and hearing the official
> government
> > explanation, this indicates to me that something is being withheld from
> the
> > general population and that whatever it is must be pretty major.
>
> If you live near a busy airport with fixed runways, you can expect
> regular patterns in the contrails (on the days that they are visible).
>
No, these are not normal "contrails" from regular aircraft activity near
airports. I don't really need to go into it because one just has to do a web
search of "chemtrails" to get a good idea of what is going on in our skies
above or see some neat pictures anyways. The evidence is well documented and
overwhelming and should at least cause one to question what the hell is
going on.
> >
> > You have come to some different conclusions and I respect that and
> everyone
> > else who has come to similiar conclusions based on the evidence and
> > arguements of both and all sides. I just do not feel they are the
right
> > conclusions...
>
> Since you'll have no further need of money after May 2003, would you
please
> arrange to send all yours to me.
>
Yeah, that sounds like a good idea! Not.
>
>
>
Steve Havas
<jrla...@shell.golden.net> wrote in message
news:a4kbpe$p4$1...@shell.golden.net...
Michael L. Cunningham
> >
> Here's a couple links which show an uptick of volcanic activity. Maybe I've
> noticed more volcanic activity because I've been conscious of it but I think
> the evidence clearly indicates that along with a dramatic increase in
> earthquake activity, volcanoes are also spouting off with surprising
> frequency.
>
> http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0763388.html
> http://volcano.und.nodak.edu/vwdocs/current_volcs/current.html
Show me any where on those links you provided any facts that state
volcanic activity is on an upswing.
Are you so stupid that you have to make this stuff up as you go along?
Mt. Etna, one of the most active volcanos in the world cuts loose with
a lava flow and you people claim it's the end of the world coming!
Show us where it's stated that there has been a dramatic increase in
earthquake activity. I'll bet you can't find any. The same with any
authoritative account on an increase in volcanic activity.
Either get a life or get an education. The one you've got isn't cutting
it!
--
Michael L. Cunningham
So Cal SleeperS
2001 Grand Am GT
Michael L. Cunningham
> A repulsion force assumed to exist by NASA based on observations by the
> Hubble telescope of galaxies near the edge of the observable universe which
> were found to be accelerating away from each other when it was expected that
> they would be observing a deceleration. They had also observed other large
> heavenly bodies (suns or planets, I can't remember) which were found to be
> much closer than they "should" be. I heard these explanations straight from
> the mouth of Ray Villard, director of public relations for the Hubble at a
> presentation in Vancouver last April and it was described as a "repulsion
> force".
Sounds like you're confused about the Hubble Constant. Those galaxies
were
expected to be accelerating away from each other due to the expansion of
the
time/space fabric. Those galaxies at the edge of the observable universe
were
being measured for type Ia super novas to be used as a standard candle
to
measure the Hubble Constant. Sounds like you only heard what you wanted
to
hear from Ray Villard's explanations. It's pretty obvious you have no
idea
what you're talking about.
> The Zeta's had described it as being some sort of particle flow back from
> the sun and not the repulsion force that was affecting the probes...
Ever seen a Zeta? I haven't. Nancy hasn't either. She claims they only
communicate through her. Strange that you'd take her word as gospel over
learned scientists. Also funny how Zetatalk is mostly worded addressing
nothing but childish explanations such as you've described above. That's
as
technical as it gets. Pretty bad for such an "advanced" society. How do
the
Zeta's know it's "some sort of particle flow back from the sun"? Have
they
measured it? What instruments did they use? Where's the field
measurements?
> Of course there are always crop failures somewhere in the world. Not every
> location has ideal weather for crops all the time. I'm talking about large
> scale world wide crop failures. I have also noticed some substantial
> increases in the price of bread and vegetables in my local grocery stores
> over the last year. Here are some sites which document crop failures:
>
> http://www.zetatalk.com/theword/tword202.htm
> http://www.fao.org/WAICENT/faoinfo/economic/giews/english/fs/fs0102/httoc.ht
> m
You're quoting zetatalk like it was some authoritative standard for
information.
Show us on zetatalk where any research has been done to prove wide
spread
crop failures world wide. Where's the listings comparing year after year
to
show an increasing trend. If you're going to quote something it needs to
have
data proving it's explanations.
> Why would a comet perturb away from Jupiter? You're right, enough said.
Why don't you do yourself a favor and check a book out of the library on
orbital mechanics. That shouldn't be too hard for you or are you afraid
the
math might contradict that which Nancy has claimed. How do you know the
comet perturbed away from Jupiter? Just because Nancy said so? Do you
even
know what is involved in calculating orbits?
> No, these are not normal "contrails" from regular aircraft activity near
> airports. I don't really need to go into it because one just has to do a web
> search of "chemtrails" to get a good idea of what is going on in our skies
> above or see some neat pictures anyways. The evidence is well documented and
> overwhelming and should at least cause one to question what the hell is
> going on.
How do you know these are not normal contrails? Do you even know what a
contrail is? Do you know the conditions required to manifest a contrail?
I suppose the 8th Army Air force was spreading "chemtrails" over Germany
during World War II. I suppose you believe all the world's airlines are
in
on this? You really need to get a solid education.
> > Since you'll have no further need of money after May 2003, would you
> please
> > arrange to send all yours to me.
> >
> Yeah, that sounds like a good idea! Not.
Not is right. Hang on to your money. You'll need it for the lawyer fees
once those folks you helped dupe start suing your ass after May of next
year.
--
Michael L. Cunningham
So Cal SleeperS
2001 Grand Am GT
Paul Schlyter
is above the horizon. Since the apparent diameter of Venus is only
about 1/30 the apparent diameter of the Sun, only Venus transits very
near the edge of the solar disk will be visible only at certain
latitudes of the Earth, and neither the 2004 nor the 2012 Venus
transit are such a transit. Thus they'll both be visible all over
the sunlit parts of the Earth.
The beginnning of the 2004 June 8 transit of Venus (05:13-11:26 UT)
is visible in Australia, Asia, eastern Africa, Europe except the SE
part. The end is visible from Asia except the easternmost parts,
Africa, Europe, NE North America, NE South America.
The beginnning of the 2012 June 5-6 (22:09-04:49 UT) transit of Venus
is visible in North America, extrene NW South America, extreme NE
Asia, eastern Australia. THe end is visible in Alaska, Asia,
Australia, eastern Africa, Europe except the SE part.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Swedish Amateur Astronomer's Society (SAAF)
Grev Turegatan 40, S-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at saaf dot se
WWW: http://hem.passagen.se/pausch/index.html
http://home.tiscali.se/~pausch/