link to Home Page

Re: Dec 27/28 Image Analysis JWD

Jan 06 2003

1) Fin Fahey writes;
   "Please explain the ZetaPhysics behind this blinker effect. (This is
   unlikely, since you can't explain the real physics of the original
   ridiculous 'persona' theory). According to cockeyed ZetaPhysics, 'red'
   light and 'white' light are separate components, differentially bent. If
   what you say is true, however, the ratio of  'red' to 'white' must be
   continually changing. Why is this?"

a) JWD
Based on the quote below, the statement of the Zeta does not indicate
separate components, but a spectrum of light, which we also recognize.
The Zeta state that Red light bends more readily than other colours. I
presume they are referring to the bending effect in the atmosphere as
the rest of the quote deals with Red light interaction with atmospherics.

On the double images;
The Sun is large and close to us. During Dawn/Dusk it is possible to
see a visual enlargement of the Sun and its colour does redden. And it
is possible to image an inferior mirage.
Planet X is small and far away. Applying the same principals of
observation as we see in the Suns image at Dawn/dusk, we could expect
to see 2 separate objects.

I suggest this is what the Zeta have been getting at.

   "Red light, and light close in the spectrum to red light, bends more
   readily than other particles in the light group. This can quickly be
   determined by the common man if he compares the rising and setting sun
   to other objects he sees in the sky. The rising and setting sun are
   huge, compared to their appearance at mid-day. This is due to the
   light rays which have been bent and would otherwise escape to the
   side, being bent back by the atmosphere so they enter the viewers eye
   as though coming from a large orange sun. ... The angle between the
   viewer and the Sun at dawn and dusk are such that more atmosphere is
   passed through, thus more of bending of the red spectrum rays is
        ZetaTalk™: Red Light

To summarize;
The PX object has its own light source and is followed or surrounded
by a red dust cloud. The cloud composition and the gravitational
effect of the brown dwarf (PX) can cause a "redshift " effect on light
wavelengths. Shifting the frequency of visible light more to the Red
and near Infrared portion of the spectrum.
Note: Applicable to all brown dwarfs?  (gravitational effect on
wavelengths to trend to red and the near infrared) I note that Brown
Dwarfs are imaged best in Infrared.

When the light gets to Earths atmosphere, bending of the red light
occurs similar to Dawn/Dusk Sun visual increasing in size.

In the case of Planet X/Niburu that light that has not been affected
by the "bending" effect appears separately.
b) Fin Fahey writes;
   "however, the ratio of  'red' to 'white' must be continually
   changing. Why is this?"

Yes, I expect the ratio is constantly changing. And I believe we are
seeing this on the images.
This would be due to the continually changing medium the light is
travelling through near the source. The Red dust cloud.
But predominately red due to gravitational redshifting effects and red
dust cloud.

2) Fin Fahey writes;
   JWD: '2) [...] A noted effect on Dec 13 images (20 minute exposures)
   was the gradual movement, over the shoot, of PX Red. This was caused by the
   angle of the telescope relative to Earths atmosphere and its core. [...]'

FIN: Please explain how the 'angle of the telescope relative to Earths
atmosphere' (?) is now a factor in the supposed differential light

  a) The atmosphere we are viewing through is a medium, more medium to
go through will cause a larger refractory angle. Causing a difference
in angle of light bending over time.
Not a new factor, but with the 20 minute exposures vs 2 minute
exposures, more apparent.

I have noted that the Dec 28 Red PX has followed a similar pattern as
Dec 13 Red PX which the Zeta have commented on. (these being the only
two sets of images with sets of 20 minute exposures) 

  b) Zeta comment on gravity being a factor;
   If the viewer is also looking over the Equator during this sighting,
   the viewer is capturing light that must pass over the Equator, and
   thus the bending ... the red light coming from a horizon, has more
   time to be drawn toward the Earth by gravity pull. ... In giving
   Global Coordinates, we consider all parts of the globe, giving
   coordinates that will put Planet X within the scope, thus almost all
   viewers find some offset.
        ZetaTalk™: Latitude

3) Fin Fahey writes;
   JWD '3) With the tracking errors on Dec 28 Frame 3, the point was
   raised that PX should also be effected by this tracking issue. I
   believe it has, in this case with PX Red rather than a stretch, a
   split. has occurred.'

   This is truly wacky. How does the telescopic apparatus know to 'split'
   an image rather than trail it, thereby making a special exception for
   your PX candidate?

The telescopic (CCD Camera) apparatus only "knows" how to record light
intensity. The tracking error is caused by the telescope tracking mechanism
adjusting quickly and incorrectly trying to compensate for the earths
As PX Red is only a very small refracted image (at 3 to 4 pixels) a
quick movement of 2 pixels extra on the tracking device can cause the
light intensity of an object to rebuild in a new location. Not as a
stretched object but, as what is visually seen on the images and by
Avis Viewer in recognition, as two separate objects.
When viewing at pixel level some light intensity building has occurred
in between the 2 halves. Enough to maybe call it a stretch, but not
noticeable when eyeballing the image.

Note: The gravitational lensing of stars has shown that 2 or more
images of a star can appear on an image. Only one is real, the others
"refracted" images. Do we have any of these images with tracking
errors, or have they all been thrown out? I suspect under similar
tracking errors, we may have similar result to what has occurred on
Dec 28 Frame 3 with PX red.

Fin Fahey writes;
   2) Moon Swirl cloud comparison Dec 28 2002 to Dec 04 2002

   Still summing frames, huh? Don't want to lose the tiniest little bit
   of noise, perhaps?

Perhaps you misunderstand what is presented ;o) 

The images presented on that page were taken at 1024 X 1024. Both
magnified 1600 %
Contrast and brightness adjusted to provide easier visual recognition.
The images present a comparison between size and shape of the moon
swirl cloud on Dec 04 and Dec 28 2002.
The Moon Swirl cloud has increased in size about 4 times, while having
a similar shape in both images.
Thats all.

I believe this provides answers to your questions,

J.William Dell