Re: Dec 27/28 Image Analysis JWD
Your response to the Dec 27/28 image findings is lacking in any
comment on the plotted course of Planet X/Niburu. You continue to
debate individual frames and dates and methods, which are addressed
What is most noticeable in the Course Plot is Planet X/Niburu has
followed a path consistent with objects travelling across the sky. The
argument put forward that random noise has been used to confirm PX on
each set of images is shown to be Bullshit. Random noise does not line
up on a path such as this.
Further, the coordinates given by the Zeta have proved to be accurate.
Further, Planet X/Niburu has certain characteristics that have been
identified and have remained throughout the 3 months or from the time
first seen on the images.
Original Fits files available at
Addressing the points you raise;
1) The use of Dec 28 Frames 1 & 2 to create a 40 minute Summary.
(same Summary time as 20 X 2 minute taken Sept 21 2002 )
a) For the presentation of Planet X/Niburu and its red projection, it
is the best image showing both.
b) If Steve Havas had taken 10 X 20 minute images, would you insist on
a Summary of 10?
c) Frame 3 has the worst tracking alignment problems. All frames are
reviewed as well as Summaries of 2X and 3X.
d) If you look, you will find the "PX White" on Frame 3 over from
Frame 1 location. Tracking, atmospherics and movement cause shift of
its light over a number of pixels.
2) Did you read my comments on Total light emitted?
a) With the refraction/reflection/diffusion ("red light bending") of
light through the Red dust cloud, the image of PX on a given frame
does wander between the "Red" projection and PX source. This
projection of "red" does meet certain rules when it occurs on each set
of images. ie: Distance from PX, Location relative to Planet X/Niburu,
and slight movement towards or away from PX "White" due to scope
position relative to earth atmosphere.
b) There is only so much light from Planet X/Niburu and it is split
between the source and the red reflection. Sometimes the majority of
light stays at the source, sometimes the majority is in the Red image.
3) Sarah McSilk says;
"J William, why is the Zetas haven't verified your "choices"? Why
have they taken a whole week and still not verified them? Why can't
Nancy just ask them to "draw the circle"? Is it because the "Zetas"
need to web browse a few AOL pages before they can decide which pixels
to circle with their crayons?"
Planet X/Niburu has now reached the position where it is identifiable
on the images without "official confirmation". This set of images
provides the opportunity to present the findings without the Zeta
pointing it out. These findings
represent the work I have done on the images.
When reviewing previous dates images and including Dec 29 2002
coordinates, its pretty obvious where Planet X/Niburu should be. And
it is there.
4) Sarah McSilk says;
"Why did Nancy pull an image and rewrite a web page after Havas picked
a known star as his 'red persona'? Any idea of how he found out that
it was a known star? I certainly do."
Our methods of collaboration and analysis during preliminary review of
the images is done in public.
a) That does not mean that any of us will not change our minds on
candidates. It is a process of logic and elimination. To suggest that
once someone picks a candidate during the review and then must not
change it is ridiculous.
b) Re: Steve Havas finding a known star.
The star you speak of appears on the course plot (Pierre-Eric location
I'm sure it is on a number of DSS maps ;o)
c) On our knowing Steves thought processes.
Is it important to the issue of Planet X/Niburu?
5) Sarah McSilk says;
"And don't worry J William, the next set of images, you're on your own.
That is, until you state your findings. I'm going to wait next time
before posting any pages or images - so that Nancy, you and Havas
can't change your mind every other day, rewrite your findings and web
pages, and pull images off the site - while you patiently wait for the
Zetas to 'confirm' your guesses."
You are welcome to wait or not wait, it is a free world ;o)
a) On this set of images my suggested Planet X/Niburu has not changed
from the moment I identified it. The amount of other objects in the
vicinity caused me to be cautious in identifying the projected PX Red.
b) Your review of the Dec 27/28 images was done in haste and with an
agenda. You have attempted to prove a predetermined result. The images
c) On the next set of images, I expect we will follow a similar method
of review and provide our findings when ready. I consider 4 days
(considering New Years Eve got in the way ;o) to be a reasonable
amount of time for careful review of Dec 27/28 sets of images.
d) I believe we have reached the point, where Planet X/Niburu is
becoming so obvious that Zeta 'official confirmation' is not as
critical. That is not to suggest that their comments are not
important, as they have proved very helpful. I am not able to get 'up
close and personal' with PX and it appears they do ;o)
Why haven't you rented Arnie Rosners telescope and using proper
filters provided the raw data for our review?
Where are your findings for the images from Sept 2002 to Dec 2002?
Your review of my findings and questions asked regarding those
findings, in this post, lead me to believe you are not serious about
the discussion underway. Your comments about our method of
collaboration and petulant comments of "not playing by the rules" are
the work of a child.
> J.William Dell wrote in message <email@example.com>
>> Having completed Dec 27/28 2002 Image analysis the findings are available
>> Course Plot Oct 11 2002 to Jan 13 2003
>> J.William Dell
> And once again, J William Dell points to pixels that appear only on
> single frames. "Red" on frame 2 not appearing with "white" on frame 1,
> and neither appearing on frame 3.
> (quoting SpaceGirl)
> J William, why is the Zetas haven't verified your "choices"? Why have
> they taken a whole week and still not verified them? Why can't Nancy
> just ask them to "draw the circle"? Is it because the "Zetas" need to
> web browse a few AOL pages before they can decide which pixels to
> circle with their crayons?
> Why did Nancy pull an image and rewrite a web page after Havas picked
> a known star as his "red persona"? Any idea of how he found out that
> it was a known star? I certainly do.
> And don't worry J William, the next set of images, you're on your own.
> That is, until you state your findings. I'm going to wait next time
> before posting any pages or images - so that Nancy, you and Havas
> can't change your mind every other day, rewrite your findings and web
> pages, and pull images off the site - while you patiently wait for the
> Zetas to "confirm" your guesses.