Re: Recent Planet X Sighting???

In Article <9brguu$lbt$1@merope.saaf.se> Paul Schlyter wrote:
> A planet 5 times more distant than Pluto would have to be
> at least approximately 20 TIMES LARGER THAN OUR SUN,
> or else it will appear as a point source of light to the unaided eye.
> ... Therefore the claim that there is a planet 5 times more distant
>  than Pluto which is big enough to appear as an extended disk
> to the naked eye is nonsense.

Thank you Paul.  This again supports what the Zetas stated, that an
observatory scope is needed at this time.   Let us not be confused about
what “unaided eye” or “naked eye” mean.  I’m not sure what Paul means by
these terms, but ZetaTalk means “naked eye” to be looking through a
scope with your eyeball, with all the limitations that involves - the
range of light our eyes can perceive, the intensity of light before our
eye registers an object at all, etc..  This is versus using imagine
equipment to increase the range of light registered or to check for
motion over time, a change in position, etc.  Some information on
visibility and how this will change during the approach, from the
ZetaTalk and Troubled Times site:

    Planet X is about 9 Sun-Pluto distances away. Troubled
    Times members have computed the distance from Earth,
    based on ZetaTalk information given, as 9.012 Sun-Pluto
    multiples on May 7, 2001.

    It outweighs the Earth by some 23 times, but by size is not
    23 times as large as its weight is due to its makeup, having
    less silicon than the Earth, for instance.  Should one line
    these planets up side by side, the Earth would look to [Planet X]
    as the Moon does to the Earth. ... In the tug of war regarding
    magnetic alignment, the 12th Planet's mass gives it a 4-to-1
    advantage.  There is no contest.
        ZetaTalk™

    The problem is that the normal eye, even when scanning a
    photo, would miss it as it is a faint blurr, rather than the
    pin-point expected. Infrared works well, but requires
    equipment in the hands of few. Red filtering, aggressive red
    filtering, will bring it to the fore more than anything.
        ZetaTalk™

    Your hope for an early brightness will not be met, as the
    12th is too far away for reflected sunlight up until 6 months
    before passage. Likewise, it does not grow in size to where
    it is obvious that is not a fading nova at a great distance until
    it begins to reflect sunlight. Thus, up until these last few
    months, the excuse that this is a faded nova of sorts will be
    put forth, and even supported by doctored images.
        ZetaTalk™

    It was known that at this time, approximately Feb 1, 2001,
    [Planet X] would be visible without question to an observatory.
        ZetaTalk™

    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.

    The naked eye [i.e. not a computer] will begin to register
    increased brightness approximately 1 year 7 months before
    the cataclysms, or late in the year 2001.
        ZetaTalk™

    The comet will be visible to the [unaided] eye for
    approximately 7.3 weeks, certainly no less than 43 days,
    prior to [the shift]. ... During the last few weeks, back yard
    astronomers will be able to detect motion of the comet across
    the skies, something a distant star would not do.
        ZetaTalk™