Re: Jan 25th Havas Images

Sarah Mc wrote in message <[email protected]>
> Steve Havas took another three images early this morning. The first of
> which was a wash, the second two were fairly good images, recording as
> deep as mag 19.2.
>
> Nothing new to report at the ZetaTalk coordinates except hot pixels
> and cosmic ray hits.
>

I didn't realize you were so closely monitoring my yahoo briefcase as I had yet 
to announce that new images were taken. I briefly dropped in on the IRC chat 
yesterday and was surprised to find out that you already had the images, had 
processed them and put them on your website with the noise/cosmic ray hit 
explanations. Now that's what I call on-the-ball debunking!

On your enlarged median BMP image it looks like you have within your large 
circle an existing object which can be seen on the DSS2 comparison image which is 
just a above and to the right of the Jan 21 coordinates. It appears to just barely 
show up on your median image. So not everything within that circle is noise/ 
cosmic ray hits. I think "px white" is probably the object that shows up on the 3
frames that are just below and left of that existing object and "px red" may be 
the larger, more diffuse object which appears below the Jan 21 coordinates and 
can be seen moving to the right over the images and also shows up on your median 
image.

Either way, I find it interesting that something new is showing up at the predicted 
coordinates and whether anyone here believes it is noise or something else will 
obviously be a matter held in contention.

>
> I also note that as of this writing, there has been no analysis of the
> Jan 18th images provided by any of the Zetatalk "team".  I fully
> expect the reasoning to be that they were taken at during the near
> full moon, and are therefore unacceptable images. I've managed to get
> them to reveal stars as faint as 17.9 magnitude, and yet nothing shows
> up at the coordinates provided by ZetaTalk.
>
>
> It's also worthy to note, that back on Oct 5, 2002, the "Zetas" stated
> quite clearly that the full moon has no bearing on images of planet X,
> unless it's at the threshold of the images. Since J William Dell (and
> Nancy/Zetas) claim it's has increased in "brightness" since October,
> that should have no effect on the recent images.
>
> ZetaTalk 10-05-02
> http://www.zetatalk.com/index/coct0502.htm
>
> (NancyL) LIGHT
> (NancyL) 1. Can the position of the moon affect the bending of the
>    light from PX?
> (NancyL) ZT: Light being imaged from Planet X is not subject to light
>    pollution from the Sun, when taken well before dawn, even when the
>    Moon is full.
> (NancyL) ZT: Moon light, where strong enough to reflect BACK to Earth
>    so that man can walk paths without a beacon light in his hands,
>    nonetheless is not reflecting OUT to affect objects in space.
> (NancyL) ZT: Does this Moon light affect a camera, such that dim
>    objects might be blurred by Moon light?
> (NancyL) ZT: No, as it is diffuse in the camera, affected perhaps only
>    5% of the available light from other objects in space.
> (NancyL) ZT: Unless an object is at the threshold of visibility, to be
>    affected by that 5% into not registering at all, it would not be
>    affected by a full Moon.
> (NancyL) End ZT to this portion, going on to next portion ...
>
> The excuses continue to roll in, as nothing appears at the Zeta
> coordinates now for more than four months running. Still not visible
> in amateur telecopes, nor on CCD images. Recent posts on the TT-watch
> group indicate backpedaling now to begin claims of a non-physical
> event, and instead the views are becoming religious, blind faith
> "feelings". Physical evidence is no longer needed by the ZetaCult
> faithful, as it's now a religious experience rather than a physical
> one.
>

So I guess what it comes down to is the:

"ZT: Unless an object is at the threshold of visibility, to be affected by that 5% into not
registering at all, it would not be affected by a full Moon."

I didn't spend very much time looking at the Jan 18 images because some of the fainter magnitude
17.9 or so stars are just barely visible on the individual frames so I figured something of the
nature of px would be much more difficult to find in there.

You did point out on your site that I had circled a real object which showed up below and left of
the Jan 21 coordinates and just below that existing star and can be seen tracking to the right over
the 3 images.