Re: Planet X : NEW Coordinates to Feb 9, 2003

Sarah McSilk and the few remaining Nattering Nabobs;

Ignoring irrelevant comments.

Sarah McSilk says;
  "Dell, for once and for all - if you continue to refer to digital
  images as 'film', you make yourself look like a fool who has no
  concept of the matter at hand.

  Secondly, your conclusion is known to be flawed, and holds no water.
  The spots ypou pick out have not once appeared at the proper
  coordinates. Your spots are the equivalent of pointing to New York
  City on a map of North America, and calling it Houston."

  "No, the strategy that you've taken is to pick any spot, anywhere, that
  randomly appears on any single frame, at any given time, and call it
  'Planet X'. Not once have you provided a set of images that show
  movement between frames, nor have you shown the same object at
  different coordinates with the images taken of the same coordinates on
  different days."

JWD
1) Oh really !! 
   Proper coordinates?
     http://www.zetatalk.com/theword/tword03m.htm
   Plotted course? 
   Movement between frames? Nov 11 2002
   Same coordinates / different days? 
     

2) The use of the word "film" may be archaic to you young pups, but it
   has meaning to us older ones. That it ruffles your feathers indicates
   a stress problem on your part ;o)
   I do much prefer the opportunities with digital analysis compared to
   old "film" analysis.


Sarah McSilk says;
  "According to Nancy, this object is magnitude 11 or brighter, by human
  observation. You call that low intensity? The spots of noise you've
  pointed to are not diffuse by any recognizable translation of the
  word. A 20 minute CCD image will show objects down to magnitude 20,
  and will show the objects consistently from frame to frame. Fast
  objects will streak while stars remain round on single images, slow
  moving objects can be determined through a blink comparator over
  multiple images."

JWD
On issues of magnitude.
  When the projected "Red" component and Planet X/Niburu light merges
  you will see a much brighter object than when it is split as it
  presently is. Your magnitude estimates at this time should include
  both to give an accurate magnitude. When the two components are taken
  separately it is low intensity because of the split light.
  The separate components are each above Mag 20 based on your comment
  above.


Sarah McSilk says;
  "Please provide the orbital elements for this 'course understandable by
  human science', if it so exists. If it does, an ephemeris can be
  determined that will predict the positions on any day and time, to
  precise coordinates. 

  Planets, asteroids and comets do not have 'flight paths'. If you have
  calculated orbital elements for your so-called object, provide them.
  Your claimed 'red and white personas' on the Dec 27 and 28th images
  are a full day off the projected coordinates. Havas is almost 4 days
  off, and pointed to a known star.

JWD
Orbital Elements:
  I am sure Astronomers are in the process of doing that.
  I have not claimed to be an Astronomer and will not take the time to
  learn this process, as others schooled in orbital elements can
  provide.
  If I have any definition it would be a General Scientist but I prefer
  to consider this work as Image processing and Analysis.

On the coordinates for Dec 29 2002, I suggest you go back and review.
  RA 4.36743 Dec 12.12001 Dec 29, 2002

On "Flight paths" and "film" I skipped the terminology course, but you
understand my meaning ;o)
 

Sarah McSilk says;
  "Can't wait for the next set of images  Dell. My 12 year old daughter
  is going to do the analysis, but nothing will be posted until Nancy
  states the Zetas have confirmed one your 'spots'. Why haven't the
  Zetas confirmed the spots you've already picked Dell? A whole week
  now, and they've been slient."

JWD
I'm going to leave my children and grandchildren out of this.
I've answered this "official confirmation" query in another post, 
but this point sure has got your curiosity up ;o) 

I am looking forward to the next set of images as well. The continuing
brightening of PX, the merging of the two light components, and the
Moon swirls have definitely increased my curiosity.

J.William Dell