Planet X: SLOWING Rotation 1
In Article <firstname.lastname@example.org> Bill Nelson wrote:
> In sci.astro Nancy Lieder <email@example.com> wrote:
>> 2. as the slowing Earth takes more hours to position to
>> face a full moon, the database will get out of sync with
>> what the public is observing unless hours are added to
>> the data. Since the public is more likely to look to the
>> FUTURE for information, and scrutiny going into
>> 2003 could be anticipated, these changes were done
>> early so to avoid scrutiny of the manipulation.
> Won't work, Nancy. I just bought a calendar this year. It
> covers a two year period. All the full moons for
> 2001-2002 are printed on the calendar.
> There are other sources that list the full moons for years
> in advance. There are also sources that list the solar
> eclipses (new moons obviously) for at least 10 years into
> the future, and show the ground tracks that the eclipses
> will cover.
Boy, you've got a very valid point, Bill. I'm wondering why that Navy
guy called our attention to the fact that the Navy stats were out of
sync with the actual full moon, and why the Full Moon and Equinox graphs
were so out of sync with the Perihelion graph, all based on these same
Navy stats. Going to ask the Zetas, as they are pressing to address
Indeed, it is the existence of these very publications,
which likewise rely on the Navy (the offical time-keeper
of the world in practice) that forced the Navy to make
early adjustments for the lagging rotation of the Earth.
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 assuming a 5
year forward publication to be the most broadly accessed
after a yearly calendar, and adding that extra year for
publication preparation, and considering that 5 year
forward publications for 2002 would start at the first of
the year, they calculated that changes to their stats needed
to be done BY THE END OF 1994. These manipulations
did two very obvious things to their stats:
1. the actual phases of the Moon were out of sync with
their stats during 1995 and for the immediate years
following. However, since the public in general refers
to printed matter that had been printed much earlier,
and was based on Navy stats gathered prior to the
manipulation, this would likely not be noticed by the public.
2. the Navy stats related to the rotation of the Earth (the
phases of the Moon and Earth Seasons), would be out
of sync with past data, should someone run these
And someone DID!