Re: Shepherds of the Sheep of sci.astro
In article <VnmB6.908$lO4.firstname.lastname@example.org> Greg Neill wrote:
> Anyone, with or without a telescope, can falsify the claim.
> According to the previous round of posts (two years ago?) the
> object in question was of second magnitude at that time, and
> located in a very convenient constellation for locating. By
> now, given the approach schedule provided by the Zeta fantasy,
> the object should now be *much* brighter and even more obvious.
My understanding based on something the Zetas said prior is that our
equipment is calibrated for STARS, which have an intense pinpoint of
light in the center. This is why they recommended requesting that
equipment be set to magnitude 10 during a search, and a filter FOR red
be used (not to filter out red). This is why, on the Troubled Times web
site, we state:
"Although the 12th Planet at present is a magnitude 2.0, astronomers
should include objects up to a magnitude 10 in their image capture.
The image capture results should be passed through a red filter, as
most equipment is calibrated to locate the pinpoint brightness of
stars, rather than a diffuse glow.
Zetas wish to jump in on this issue:
Distant stars, as viewed from Earth, appear to be a
pinpoint of light surrounded by a haze. What portion
of this is the magnitude measured against? Those with
powerful scopes see haze, where the light has entered
the field of vision on the periphery but scattered, over
a broader area. Is their field of vision imposed on less
powerful scopes when measuring magnitude? What
we are saying here is that equipment calibrated to
locate magnitude will be calibrated variously, based
on the scope expected to be used. Thus, equipment
sold to amateurs, or astronomers in all but the largest
observatories, are receiving equipment calibrated to
locate stars which have a pinpoint of light, or those
reflecting sunlight as your planets do. Like a radio
tuned to certain frequencies, all others are tuned OUT.
But regardless of this issue, which could be discussed
to the point of becoming a distraction, its size in the
past made sighting it difficult for all but those with
Infrared equipment or motion detecting capacity.
Now this has changed.
Beyond the way equipment is calibrated, they have also stated that our
expectations are a problem, in that we are scanning for something
bright. They have stated, in Comet Visible
[It] appears as large as a star as viewed by the naked eye.
It does not shine with the intensity of most stars, but has a
dull, diffuse, glow. It appears to be the last gasp of a dying
star, a faint, blurry, reddish glow. Your eye would pass
over it if attuned to the pin points that are the stars. A star
is intense in the center and rapidly diminishes in intensity
toward the edges of the spot you call a star. The light from
a star comes from a single point and fans out, the periphery
a bit less than the center, increasingly, but the center very
intense. The 12th Planet, being nearer, is giving you light
rays from its entire surface, so the light has an even quality
to it. Its distance cannot be measured, but one will notice
that as time passes, no other object passes before it.
Your nearby planets are throwing back at you a familiar
light, reflected sunlight, and thus your eyes recognize them
for what they are. Just as some insects camouflage
themselves from those who would prey on them by
adopting the coloration of the surrounding area, just so
the 12th Planet, to you, is camouflaged against the night
sky. Its appearance does not look like the familiar
objects you set out to identify when you scan the sky -
pin points with intense centers that are stars or the
scattered brilliance of an exploding star or the distinctive
elongated fantail of a passing comet. Where its size
at present is akin to a star, and the diffuse light across
its surface would indeed have the spread and consistency
that your reflecting planets do, there are significant
differences that cause you to pass over it rather than
explore it in depth.
1. the composition is not the composition of reflecting
sunlight, but is almost exclusively in the spectrum
you would call red light. Thus you will do best if
you filter for red light, and by this we mean filtering
out all but red light.
2. though a large planet, 4 times as large as Earth and
thus larger than Mars or Pluto, it is at this time at a
much greater distance and thus its visibility is not
equivalent to Mars or Pluto.