ZetaTalk: Pole Shift
Page 30
http://www.zetatalk2.com/poleshft/p183.htm[2/5/2012 9:56:25 AM]
ZetaTalk: Visibility Factors
Mail this Pageto a Friend.
ZetaTalk: Visibility Factors
Note: written on Jun 15, 2001 during the 2001 sci.astro debates.
Starlight versus Brown Dwarf
Starlight is more than a highly intense pinpoint of light, it is light at the periphery, spreading outward from the
center. The whole of this display is considered the star, expanding the size of the viewable object. The intensity
of light spreading from the pinpoint that represents the actual star is also high, diminishing from the center
rapidly, but nevertheless of a high intensity. Starlight viewed from Earth captures the center pinpoint and all
light rays moving at an angle that can still be captured by the imaging device, be this the human eye or
equipment. This greater viewing area makes distant stars appear larger than Planet X appears at the present time.
Planet X emits light evenly from its surface, and being a lower magnitude than stars visible from Earth, light at
the periphery disappears in the noise that dilutes and confuses equipment. Thus, its viewable size cannot compete
with stars.
Infrared Sighting
When comparing the Magnitude of objects that can be viewed from Earth, our intent in the general-public
statement made in 1995, we considered all visible light. The IRAS team went looking for Planet X in the early
1980's with infra-red because they understood that the spectrum was almost exclusively red, and thus the
imaging equipment used by observatories would falter. Infra-red, of course, is a visible light to some of us, and
there is some human equipment, night vision, that is attuned to this. Astronomy equipment, to sell, was designed
to locate and image stars and planets reflecting sunlight. Are they not in the business, wishing to stay profitable?
Infra-red equipment is in the hands of few, and very expensive, as it is not in general demand. It was built for
observatories, upon demand, and the price tag reflected this. We, the Zetas, with our equipment, see Planet X
from Earth is accordance with your math for a Magnitude 2.0 object. Should your equipment be calibrated to
give an almost exclusively red object the same advantage that the predominant light spectrum from starlight gets,
you'd see it.
Halo of Moons and Dust
As the story of Pluto's discovery tells, Moons can increase the size of a small object, creating the illusion of a
larger object. Indeed, Planet X‘s Moons do not circle it while out in space and moving, but trail behind. They do
not simply line up behind in a straight line, but twirl, moving about each other in the manner whirlwinds or
tornadoes do. Thus, viewing Planet X from the front, as it approaches, one would see not only Planet X but a
halo of moving Moons. In that Planet X also is surrounded by magnetic iron ore dust, there is reflection of light
from this dust. When Planet X becomes visible from Earth, to those gazing up from their yards weeks ahead of
the shift, it will be seen as a red object because of this dust. Light from Planet X is thus bounced from the dust
cloud, creating the illusion of a larger red object approaching. Thus, those looking for Planet X are seeing more
than Planet X in their sights. Until mid-year 2002, however, observatory scopes are needed because they are
designed to exclude noise, and magnify. Each pixel becomes many, and large, so objects can be seen and not
overlooked.
All rights reserved: ZetaTalk@ZetaTalk.com
http://www.zetatalk2.com/poleshft/p126.htm[2/5/2012 9:56:26 AM]
ZetaTalk: Not a Star
Mail this Pageto a Friend.
ZetaTalk: Not a Star
Note: written on Sep 15, 2001 during the sci.astro debates.
Stars are nowhere the size, at the distance they are from Earth, that they appear in your scopes or to your eye when
gazing skyward on a clear night. What you see is a diminishing light, from an intense center, to the periphery. Should
this circle, the star, have the light uniform, there would be very few stars visible. Why so? The light your eye or
scopes are registering is due to the extreme intensity in the very center. In discussions on how many pixels, a point-
source, Planet X or a star might assume during viewing, a star always floods more than a pixel with light, as this is
dependent more upon the circle that the eye or scope can encompass, not the source. Should this viewing area be
reduced to the star itself, and not scattering light, is would be infinitesimally smaller than a pixel. Such is the intensity
of light from stars that even at their distance, they flood the viewable area with scattered light that is still intense.
Comparing this setup with the diffuse light from a smoldering brown dwarf is akin to comparing the glow from a fire-
fly in the nearby bushes to a laser aimed at your eye from a few hundred feet away. If you still had an eye left, you'd
know the difference. Intensity matters.
All rights reserved: ZetaTalk@ZetaTalk.com
http://www.zetatalk2.com/poleshft/p132.htm[2/5/2012 9:56:26 AM]
ZetaTalk: Red Light
Mail this Pageto a Friend.
ZetaTalk: Red Light
Note: Dated Jan 19, 2002 for sci.astro debates. Planet X and the 12th Planet are one and the same.
Just as electrons are not a single particle, but composed of some 387 particles, light is likewise not composed of a
single particle, as hundreds of particles are involved in the phenomenon called light. This should be obvious to man, as
light spreads into the colors of the rainbow, and as his scientists describe the behavior of red light as Red Shift, where
no such behavior is ascribed to other colors in the light spectrum. How does this affect viewing the inbound Planet X,
which emits light primarily in the red spectrum due to the cloud of red dust around it though which any light escaping
from the planet must pass. Red light, and light close in the spectrum to red light, bends more readily than other
particles in the light group. This can quickly be determined by the common man if he compares the rising and setting
sun to other objects he sees in the sky.
The rising and setting sun are huge, compared to their appearance at mid-
day. This is due to the light rays which have been bent and would
otherwise escape to the side, being bent back by the atmosphere so they
enter the viewers eye as though coming from a large orange sun. Do these
rays not get bent in this manner at mid-day? They do, but there are several
factors which make the phenomena apparent at dawn and dusk.
1. the angle between the viewer and the Sun at dawn and dusk are such
that more atmosphere is passed through, thus more of bending of the
red spectrum rays is done.
2. competition from other light rays is reduced so the red spectrum rays
are predominant, and the eye thus registers them rather and having
them drown out and supplanted by a different image.
3. at mid-day, when the Sun is overhead, red spectrum light from the
Sun is bent to the side so that any reaching the eye of the viewer
seems to be coming from another object, not the Sun, and is thus
discounted.
Thus, in viewing Planet X, especially when
the inbound planet is faint and small due to
being at a distance, viewing is best when
the spot in the sky is at either horizon, not
overhead. Like the rising or setting sun,
/> allowing the red spectrum light to pass at
an angle through the atmosphere, thus
passing through more atmosphere, makes
Planet X seem larger, too. Light rays in the red spectrum that are bending to the side as they approach Earth are bent
back, thus seeming to come from the side of Planet X, an illusion that makes it seem larger. Viewing Planet X from a
distance is also affected by red light being bent by other factors in the solar system, and thus the RA and Dec given
seem to vary in an irrational manner. We give coordinates that will best allow man to locate this red planet, as
depending on:
the viewers location on Earth, as to latitude, as distance from the equator affects the thickness of the atmosphere
pooled at the equator and also is affected by factors in the solar system to the north or south, which can differ.
the time of night when they are seeking a peek or to take an image, thus affecting the amount of atmosphere red
light must pass through as it will be either traveling through more atmosphere if at an angle or less if overhead.
http://www.zetatalk2.com/poleshft/p141.htm[2/5/2012 9:56:27 AM]
ZetaTalk: Red Light
competition from other light sources, so that the normal requirement to seek to view on a dark, clear night and
eliminate light scatter from cloud cover or pollution or nearby city lights applies in viewing Planet X to a
greater degree, as red light can more easily be bend and become something other to the eye or camera than what
it would be if registered as coming from the source.
The advise for those seeking a peek are to look around the spot given, filtering only for light in the red spectrum, in
particular infrared, and comparing what they see against established and published star charts. The RA and Dec given
are close enough that this practice will bring success, and giving specialized coordinates to this and that viewer, for
this or that day, will not much improve this effort as so many other factors are at play. Thus, we will cease the practice
of giving special coordinates from this date forward, as the viewing public is going to increase in numbers during 2002
and these requests will overwhelm an already exhausted Nancy. Follow the guidelines given, and spend your efforts
there, rather than making demands of Nancy.
All rights reserved: ZetaTalk@ZetaTalk.com
http://www.zetatalk2.com/poleshft/p141.htm[2/5/2012 9:56:27 AM]
ZetaTalk: Lattitude
Mail this Pageto a Friend.
ZetaTalk: Latitude
Note: written during the April, 2002 sci.astro debates.
Why would latitude matter? Mankind is aware that the waters of the oceans mass more at the Equator than at the poles,
due to centrifugal force caused by rotation. The water is pulled outward, creating a drop in pressure there relative to the
water pressure at the poles, thus creating more water at the Equator when the oceans equalize their water pressure.
How does this affect the viewing of the inbound Planet X, when viewing is through the atmosphere not the waters of
the oceans? The atmosphere, being lighter than the oceans, likewise attempts to equalize its air pressure differences.
High pressure areas push into low pressure areas, and where mountain tops have less pressure than the surface of the
Earth, this is measured from the surface of the Earth, not from the dead center of the globe. The reason for this is that
the atmosphere takes the surface as its low point, the point where it cannot drop further, during equalization of air
pressure.
In viewing Planet X, primarily emitting light in the red spectrum, including infrared light, the bending of red light
between the inbound Planet X and the viewer is affected by the following factors:
gravitational and other influences in the solar system between Planet X and Earth, such that if the light must pass
by another planet in its path it may bend toward this planet, diminishing the red light coming directly to the
viewer, and thus making Planet X appear to have a lower magnitude than expected.
the angle of viewing, such that if the red light passes over more of the Earth’s surface, it will tend to bend
toward the Earth and thus will drop into the viewing scope, where otherwise would pass overhead, and thus
viewing Planet X when at the horizon is more optimal than viewing it when directly overhead.
the amount of heavy atmosphere the red light must pass through to reach the viewer, such that if Planet X is
viewed while looking down past the Equator, due to the bulge there in the oceans, thus creating a thickened
atmosphere with its own bending influences.
If the viewer is looking toward a horizon during viewing, it is capturing light that will be bent toward the Earth more,
as it spends more time passing over the Earth than if it were an overhead view. The closer the viewer is to an overhead
shot, the less time is spend passing over the Earth, and thus the less bending that occurs. If the viewer is also looking
over the Equator during this sighting, the viewer is capturing light that must pass over the Equator, and thus the
bending influence that heavy vs. light atmosphere have come into play. Why would this be so? Where it is assumed
that the speed of light is a constant, it is hardly that in fact, but varies depending upon what it must pass through. Man
measures light that passes through space, and calculates the speed of light. In these calculations, any slowing that
might occur during passage through the atmosphere is insignificant, all being an educated guestimate in any case. Red
light passing through thick atmosphere is slowed, by attractions toward elements in the atmosphere and thus, like the
red light coming from a horizon, has more time to be drawn toward the Earth by gravity pull.
Thus, for a viewer on a high vantage point on land, looking south toward Orion from the Northern Hemisphere in the
winter, the Equator must be considered in an offset, making Planet X look further south that would otherwise be the
case. For a viewer in the Southern Hemisphere, no such change will occur. In giving Global Coordinates, we consider
all parts of the globe, giving coordinates that will put Planet X within the scope, thus almost all viewers find some
offset when they discover it.
All rights reserved: ZetaTalk@ZetaTalk.com
http://www.zetatalk2.com/poleshft/p151.htm[2/5/2012 9:56:27 AM]
ZetaTalk: Slowing Rotation
Mail this Pageto a Friend.
ZetaTalk: Slowing Rotation
Note: written on Jan 15, 2001 during the 2001 sci.astro debates.
Could the Earth be slowing in its rotation, as Planet X draws near, when the populace can go out at midnight on
December 21st and find the constellation Orion in the proper place, year after year? Oh, the populace could go out on
December 21st and find Orion in the proper position, this is not the issue. The issue is that December 21st would have
moved to be later than if all the clocks were ticking along as designed, 24 hours a day, and leap seconds only inserted
every few decades. Where the master clock is in the hands of the US Navy, which has been in the center of the secrecy
over Planet X and related matters for almost half a century, this is not a difficult feat. All network computers in the
world, ultimately, sync with the US Navy master clock, most by the networks dialing in during the night and adjusting.
A second here, a second there, and it is always assumed to be the peripheral computers that are off, a bit, when an
adjustment is made! Unless an individual is astute, and notices t
he increased adjustments required to their watches and
clocks, they assume they are the problem, not the master clocks that run the world. Where clocks can be tweaked, the
Moon is not so cooperative, and thus it takes longer and longer for the Earth to line up to where it can sight a full
moon from the same spot.
The existence of publications on the phases of the Moon and related Eclipse projections forced the Navy to make early
adjustments for the lagging rotation of the Earth. These publications rely on the Navy, the time-keeper of the world, in
practice if not officially. When Planet X was located in 1983 by the IRAS team, various scenarios were played out in
think-tanks, covering a multitude of aspects. As the time-keepers of the world, the Navy had already noticed a slowing
rotation, so slight as to pass notice by the general public. Tasked with keeping the public unaware of the approach of
Planet X for as long as possible, the Navy determined:
1. to inject leap-seconds surreptitiously via its master clock. Since the Internet and networking computer systems
synchronize with this master clock, most often on an automated basis, daily, these adjustments would be slight
and pass notice.
2. to defer scrutiny of this activity by setting aside the official leap-second insertion practice. This deferral was
requested by the Navy but did not get broad support from its member community.
3. to adjust predicted dates and times for the Moon and related Eclipses forward so that by the time alarm over the
potential of a Planet X approach was under discussion around the world, the relationship of the Moon to the
Earth would seem to dispel the notion that the Earth was slowing.
Thus, they changed their predicted data to assume a slowing Earth, and hoped their calculations on the rate of slowing
were correct. Of key importance were publications that put out 5 year or 1 year forward stats on phases of the moon
and eclipses. These publications plan their printed matter at least a full year ahead, updating with the very latest data
from the Navy projections during that year. Thus, when anticipating the worst of the slowing to occur in 2002, and