|
|
Desperation is turning the
faithful to almost anything that might verify Nancy's scenario.
From:
Steve Havas <shavas@s...>
Date: Wed May 28, 2003 4:37 pm
Subject:
LA sunrise
A must see set of 14 new slides on ZT.
http://www.zetatalk.com/teams/tteam342.htm
------o------
From:
"queenvee59" <queenvee59@h...>
Date: Wed May 28, 2003 11:02 pm
Subject: Re: LA Sunrise Slides (from Mt. Wilson Observatory) are a Hoax
--- In tt-watch@yahoogroups.com, Steve Havas <shavas@s...> wrote:
A must see set of 14 new slides on ZT. http://www.zetatalk.com/teams/tteam342.htm<
It would appear that those anxious for pics of PX have been taken in
by yet another hoax. Someone on godlikeforums wrote to the UCLA
observatory to ask about the pics and received this reply (posted at
http://66.242.35.139/bbs/message.php?
page=60&topic=3&message=44483&mpage=)
---------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, everything pertaining to the supposed "Planet X" and our
towercam images it IS a hoax! The bright spots in all the pictures
are nothing more than images of the sun or moon, and their internal
lens reflections. This kind of Lunacy just wastes everyone´s
time . . . .
Larry Webster
Mount Wilson Observatory
---------------------------------------------------------------
And if you think the above message didn't REALLY come from the UCLA
Observatory, take a look at the pic they subsequently posted on their
webcam page -- a basketball hanging in front of the webcam
with "Planet-X" written on it:
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~obs/towercam.htm#imagetop
------o------
From:
"Mel Riser" <mriser@w...>
Date:
Wed May 28, 2003 8:50 pm
Subject:
14 slides
OK
I went and looked at the images.
so wtf was that object that rose BEFORE the sun?
was it the moon?
will the eclipse this weekend let us see whatever it was in the
daylight?
someone tell me EXACTLY what that was.
mel
------o------
From:
"Kevin W. Parker" <kwpcsoc@y...>
Date: Wed May 28, 2003 9:11 pm
Subject:
Re: 14 slides
I have every reason to believe that it's an overexposed Moon. That's
exactly where the Moon should be right now (close to the Sun, since
we're just a couple days from the eclipse), and the crescent lens
reflections show the phase.
------o------
From:
None of yer beeswax <dizme@y...>
Date:
Wed May 28, 2003 9:23 pm
Subject:
Re: [tt-watch] Re: 14 slides
we are moving into the new moon, so it would definitely not be the moon.
------o------
From: "alsmith1928" <alsmith1928@y...>
Date:
Wed May 28, 2003 9:35 pm
Subject:
Re: 14 slides
How do you figure? New moon occurs when the moon is
more or less in line with the Sun. (Obviously the moon
doesn't align perfectly with the Sun every month.)
------o------
From: jw <jw@w...>
Date:
Thu May 29, 2003 4:43 pm
Subject:
Re: [tt-watch] Re: 14 slides
If it was an overexposed moon one side would be much brighter. And if
that crescent is a reflection, why does in onlt reflect a crescent, and
why does it sometimes no appear even when the bright object is visible?
Why doesn't the reflection, which would be caused by lens flare,
change in angle or distance with relation to the bright object as the
bright object travels over 60% of the lens area?
Any rational, reasonable explanation will be accepted. Some of the
excuses I hear for these anomolies are more far out than the PX theoru
itself.
------o------
From:
"Kevin W. Parker" <kwpcsoc@y...>
Date:
Thu May 29, 2003 5:25 pm
Subject:
Re: 14 slides
--- In tt-watch@yahoogroups.com, jw <jw@w...> wrote:
> If it was an overexposed moon one side would be much brighter.<
Not if it's thoroughly overexposed.
> And if that crescent is a reflection, why does it only reflect a crescent,
and <
Because the reflection is much dimmer than the original and is
therefore not overexposed
> why does it sometimes no appear even when the bright object is
visible?<
So far as I can tell the lens reflection appears only when the Moon is
quite bright - when it's partially obscured by clouds, you don't see
the reflection.
Question for you: if the crescent isn't a lens reflection, then what
is it, particularly considering it appears in front of the clouds in
at least two of the frames?
> Why doesn't the reflection, which would be caused by lens flare, change in angle or distance with relation to the bright object as the bright object travels over 60% of the lens area?<
A fair point - I hope someone who knows more about cameras will be
able to respond.
> Any rational, reasonable explanation will be accepted. Some of the excuses I hear for these anomolies are more far out than the PX theoru itself.<
I'll accept quirky camera optics ahead of a planet that defies the
known laws of physics and evidently can only be seen from a webcam on
a mountain in California (at least that's the only recent photographic
evidence that has been presented).
------o------
From: jw <jw@w...>
Date: Thu May 29, 2003 7:14 pm
Subject:
Re: [tt-watch] Re: 14 slides
Kevin W. Parker wrote:
Not if it's thoroughly overexposed. Because the reflection is much dimmer than the original and is therefore not overexposed<
and considerably smaller, which could be attributed to a reflection of a
wide angle lens, but then that would contribute to an angle change in
reflection as the bright object moved.
> So far as I can tell the lens reflection appears only when the Moon is quite bright - when it's partially obscured by clouds, you don't see the reflection.<
Slide 7 is certainly as bright, and very little obscured, as are others
(with only slightly more obscurity, with no refection.
> Question for you: if the crescent isn't a lens reflection, then what is it, particularly considering it appears in front of the clouds in at least two of the frames?<
Well, that is a very good question. I do not know, but based on this
set of pictures
I can only conclude it is another heavenly body. The
fact that I can't go and see it myself just adds confusion. The opnly
places it appears 'in front' of the clouds is on the edge of the clouds,
which means it could very well be visible. One frame (slide 7) does
show it is slightly obscurred by the coulds, which would also supprt the
not-a-reflection theory.
> A fair point - I hope someone who knows more about cameras will be able to respond. I'll accept quirky camera optics ahead of a planet that defies the known laws of physics and evidently can only be seen from a webcam on a mountain in California (at least that's the only recent photographic evidence that has been presented).<
As is happens, I was a professional photograper, holographer and adjunct
professor of applied optics at U of San Fran, where I tought optics.
However, I could be wrong... just need better arguements.
------o------
From:
"Kevin W. Parker" <kwpcsoc@y...>
Date: Fri May 30, 2003 1:21 am
Subject:
Re: 14 slides
--- In tt-watch@yahoogroups.com, jw <jw@w...> wrote:
As is happens, I was a professional photograper, holographer and
adjunct professor of applied optics at U of San Fran, where I tought optics. However, I could be wrong... just need better arguements.<
Well, I do appreciate your keeping this discussion civil. Your questions
are
reasonable, and I have confidence in my explanations mostly because I
have
no confidence in the Planet X explanation. But for what it's worth, the
folks at
the observatory seem to agree with me:
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~obs/images/no_planet_x.jpg
------o------
From:
"John Frick" <byrd65@h...>
Date:
Fri May 30, 2003 9:58 pm
Subject:
Re: 14 slides
So what do you think this is? If it's not the moon or venus it would
have to be some sort of air or space craft, right? If it were a
celestial body (PX?), wouldn't people be easily seeing this with the
naked eye?
Why is it that PX only shows up in photos, but never to the naked
eye? Would someone that believes that this is PX explain that?
------o------
From:
jw <jw@w...>
Date:
Sat May 31, 2003 4:32 am
Subject:
Re: [tt-watch] Re: 14 slides
Well, none of the professional photographers (I know a few) I showed the
picture to thought it was reflection. I even tried to convince them it
was and they thought I was being rediculous.
------o------
From:
Michael L Cunningham <bogeystar@e...>
Date:
Sat May 31, 2003 6:23 am
Subject:
Re: [tt-watch] Re: 14 slides
You'll either have to name the names of quit postulating. All the CCD
imagers I know of who've viewed Nancy's claims (including those
gentlemen at Mt. Wilson and UCLA) agree it's the moon's reflection. All of us have
over 150 years of imaging experience with such systems.
Michael
------o------
From:
"mlistman" <mlistman@i...>
Date:
Sat May 31, 2003 8:44 pm
Subject: Re: 14 slides
Compare slide 10 (May 26) with slide 21 (May 27), both shot at
approximately the same time. Note where the objects are in relation
to the mountians below. The moon rises later each day (consistant
with the cam pics) If this is PX, then it's orbit is in lock step
with the moon (if you are asserting that the crescent is the moon.)
Michael Listman
------o------
From:
REGINA FINDLAY <regfindnow@y...>
Date:
Mon Jun 2, 2003 2:18 am
Subject: Re: [tt-watch] Re: 14, 15, 16............
Micheal, Micheal, Micheal. "Me thinks thou dost protest too much." I'm
afraid that I cannot accept your "expertise" on this matter but thanks for
forwarding the sites. My momma always told me that an X is an unknown quantity and
a spurt is a drop under pressure. :) The pictures, as a group from all over the
world, speak for themselves. Of course we could pick each one apart
until hell freezes over and probably still never agree. I will concede to the calls
for mercy on the subject.
I'm sure you know your science thoroughly. But what about the phemomena
whereby everyone has their own point of view? We all bring our own prejudices
and biases to every situation, even scientists. It cannot be avoided. These
prejudices and biases can severely affect our perceptions like the blind
men looking at the elephant. Yes, yes. I am guilty too. And maybe you're
right and I'm wrong. But you beating dead horses and avoiding issues you don't
like doesn't help me have any confidence in your opinion.
You seem to be very angry with Nancy. Personally, I think it took a lot
of courage to stick her neck out like that whether she is right or wrong.
She obviously believes what she has been saying. I find her message backed
up by everything I have believed all my life, or at least complimenting it.
This is why I believe, Micheal. Not because some woman I never met says so. This
is much bigger than one poor, old woman.
So you trust the feds, but not the locals. I am in no position to judge
but I see things quite differently. My information comes from Discovery
Channel, Times, National Geographic, Macleans, every newspaper around, not just
one, museums, art galleries, Canadian news, American news, satellite
pictures, web sites like "Operation Censored" and underground newspapers and
newsletters and even commedians as well as books like the Celestine Prophecies,
Forbidden Archeology, and High Treason, a book about the Kennedy assination to
name a few. I also have a lot of personal experience from living on the shadier
side of the tracks all my life and dancing to my own tune. All this input
boils around in my brain, gets filtered through, mixed up with and sorted, and
I come to my own conclusions. Yes, I reject what I don't like, agree with or
understand, as does everyone else. Sometimes one simple fact brings
years of wondering to an end. This may be my last and greatest pleasure in this
dream we call life, so please quit trying to convert me. People have been trying
for 40 years and still I insist on making up my own mind. Stuborn, eh?
I had to look twice when you mentioned "internal reflection". I thought
for a second you had gone all emotional and spiritual on us and were
recommending the bible or some such. Silly me. I was not calling you arrogant. Sorry if I
hit a nerve. I was referring to the general status of the average human and
human ego in general. I hope that you do not take it personally that I don't agree
with you. I have been having such arguments all my life with teachers,
principals, doctors, ministers. Unfortunately, my parents instilled an urge to think
for myself instead of sending me to college, which I am sure they regretted
from time to time. My way still works best for me.
On Discovery Channel I also saw a completely new view of sperm which
changed my opinion of the human race. Apparently, sperm are much more organized and
agressive than previously thought. So if even sperm are agressive, how
can humans not be? Maybe I haven't explained myself well but the final
result is that I'm thinking, even if there is a conspiracy, maybe they think they
are working in the
human race's best interest. Maybe, just maybe, they are
as scared as everyone else and just trying to do the best they can. Maybe
the chem trails are replacing ozone? I can certainly understand why they would be
afraid of panicing the population.
Anyway, I'm not trying to anger you, Micheal. I respect your convictions
as much as I do Nancy's but I reserve the right to disagree. If it makes
you feel any better, I HOPE you are right. Please know that I bear you no ill
will and recognize and respect your position as one of God's beloved children in
this great adventure, as is every soul on the planet (and those off-planet as
well).
Shalom.............Reggie
------o------
From:
"mlistman" <mlistman@i...>
Date:
Mon Jun 2, 2003 2:19 pm
Subject: Re: 14, 15, 16............
Regina, Regina, Regina...
It would appear as though you've confused me with Cunningham (please
don't) It was my post that you replied to, yet I resemble little of
what you've thrown out here.
I've been here a long time and dare say that I've made more
substantial preparations than most (the archives of these groups will
reveal the detail) so being labeled in the various ways you've done
here is almost hard to interpret.
But I am a rather tolerant sort and believe that you've just made a
simple mistake of assuming who the post was from instead of actually
reading it.
As to the actual content of my post, I've never stated that I believe
that PX is real, nor have I ever stated that it is a hoax... I am
simply open to the possibility. And until a 'debunker' or 'scientist'
can disprove that probability with 100% certainty (practically
impossible except for the purely subjective,) I will entertain the
idea.
Personally, I believe that the slides are as the 'debunkers' say, and
not PX. Comparing both days' worth of slides yields a progression
that one expects of the moon. Nancy has posted charts that show where
PX should be and its movement as time goes on. If it is not where she
says it is, then there is additional deception going on (besides the
date issue.)
I understand that people really want, or even expect to see PX in
photos, but try not to make every questionable or 'strange' pic out
to be PX (a mistake that even Nancy chooses to make over and over.)
Instead, wouldn't it be better to follow the Zetas' projections and
find it where they say it's going to be (and the size it's going to
be?) Only then will you be able to lend credence to their accuracy,
and no
longer will we (used loosely as those seeking evidence of PX)
seem like a bunch of chicken littles as we have lately.
Michael Listman
------o------
From:
solkra@a...
Date:
Mon Jun 2, 2003 6:35 am
Subject:
Re: [tt-watch] Re: 14, 15, 16............
I have to agree with reggie, there is a lot of wantta-be "scientists",
who
some, nancy referred to, as the debunkers. She was'nt big on michael.
But the
point that might not be getting through here is the bad date by nancy. I
fully
understand why an other worlds people could'nt give us that precise
data, it
would alter the natural course of events. It would be like going back in
time
and making alterations. Without zeta help, we would'nt know to be
preparing at
all, but look how many are not anyway, even with all the strange weather
and
such. Maybe some forget that nancy predicted this type of weather, for
this
time, this year, 8 years ago... Solon----vermont.
------o------
From:
"Jamie Eckles" <jamieeckles@h...>
Date:
Mon Jun 2, 2003 11:18 am
Subject: Re: 14, 15, 16............
Climatologists have been predicting worsening weather for even
longer, so Nancy just picked up on that. Are you actualy agreeing
that no one knew about the solar eclipse until a few weeks ago?
I can't believe you really do. As far as the lie, this isn't
the first time she claims that the Zeta's have lied. You would
prefer a lie that streatches out a prediction for who knows how
long over scientists who spend their entire lives learning and
studying what they know?
Has anyone on this group heard of Sheldon Nidle? You guys would
do well to see how his predictions went, and what happened after
the dates passed. Nancy seems to be following his playbook.
Jamie
------o------
From:
Michael L Cunningham <bogeystar@e...>
Date:
Tue Jun 3, 2003 2:50 am
Subject:
Re: [tt-watch] Re: 14, 15, 16............
I wasn't big on Nancy either and our mutual love/hate relation has been
goingon since 1995.
I do believe a lot of people fear scientists. For what reason, that
remains
to be seen.
[Insults deleted.]
[Note the moderator has edited, but also
categorised what he considers comments made to be "insults" although we
have only Jan's word for it.]
The climate has been predicted to get worse with global warming and
green house gases (that's not clean air your car spews out it's tail pipe).
[Further insults deleted.]
[And again]
Michael
------o------
Next
|
