There are new pics on zetatalk, the one from yesterday looks, interesting to say the least. I mean, im no believer, but there is definitly something, thats for sure.heres the link http://www.zetatalk.com/teams/rogue/naji23.htm
tell me what you think!

Oh, by the way let me introduce myself. im big k from b.c. and ive read this board every day for about a month now so i decided it was time to put my 2 cents in [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]
planet x is a very interesting topic to say the least

Hmmm, some sort of nebula, loks like. I'll see if I can figure out the coordinates of the image to see what's there.

Ya, thats what i thought too, but there is supposed to be a massive dust cloud and of course, a rediculas amount of debris and moons ("moon swirl" [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]). all im saying is this picture actually looks some what believable. (assuming the co-ordinates are correct)

The coordinates listed at Zetatalk put that picture near the tip of the Hyades, a cluster of stars that makes up the head and horns of Taurus the bull. My star map doesn't show any nebula there, but that doesn't mean much; the people who have been taking these images know very little about how to properly make images. I bet the folks on sci.astro are already all over this though!

If I wanted to show a picture of something that looked LEAST like a brown dwarf, then that is the picture I would choose. What are they trying to pull over our eyes now?

More bollocks from the best at the game.

__________________
Does earth plug a hole in Heaven or Heaven plug a hole in Earth? -Peter Gabriel

Cunningham says it's "sky fog."

OK. I'm no expert on photographing the heavens, but the image doesn't make any sense. At least not as it's portrayed by ZetaBabble.

In other words, if you photographed a section of the sky and caught the usual grouping of stars in a given area, and an additional, previously not present object like a planet or brown dwarf, wouldn't the planet/brown dwarf look more like the other stars and less like, well, a cloud?

If I put ten oranges on top of a table and photograph them from above, I'll get ten oranges and the surface of the table in the image. If I then add an apple and rephotograph the table top with the oranges and the apple, I get an image of ten oranges and one apple, as opposed to ten oranges and a cloud. This is an analogy in oversimplified terms to be sure, but is the rationale behind it sound? If we're talking about rogue planets in the vicinity of known stars, it seems to me it would be sound and that this latest image is more incompetence on the part of the photographer than anything else. That or it's "fun with Photoshop".

__________________
Who is the more foolish? The fool, or the fool who follows?

It is definitely a nebula. I took the image, put into Photoshop, inverted it so the stars are white, and flipped it upside down, sideways, etc. to see which nebula it looks like (it has to be one we all know already).

It looks sort of like the Orion Nebula, but it doesn't have a bright "star" in the center of it. Maybe they altered it. They lie about everything else. Why not this?

If I could post what I have on my desktop ... you'd all be able to see it.

Looking at it again, (mere seconds) after I sent my last post (as it is still on my desktop) I am positive it's the Orion Nebula.

I get things like this all the time from readers.

I may not be able to post the pic ... but I can e-mail my "corrected" image to anyone who wants it.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Val Trottan on 2003-03-07 09:31 ]</font>

I just spent 10 seconds on google and found a picture of the Orion Nebula. I placed both pictures in Paint (not having photoshop at work) and was able to corelate several points on the two pictures that match exactly. It's definately the Orion Nebula, and I can't tell from my quick observations, but I'm not even sure it's doctored. I think the PXers are getting lazy.

LOL! let this be a lesson then. If you're going to fake a photo, at least pick something a little obscure to base it on. Choosing the most well-known nebula of all is just asking to be found out. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

OTOH, the whole thing is pretty sad. They've now gone from deceiving themselves over image imperfections to deliberate fakery. The house of cards just keeps on crumbling down.

__________________
...And that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped. --Sir Bedevere

I agree that it's the Orion Nebula. I compared it with this picture:

http://www.seds.org/messier/Jpg/m42.jpg

and they seem to agree. However, there does seem to be some stars missing or added so maybe I have the wrong picture.

__________________
Old laser physicists never die, they just become incoherent.
These days, every Tom, Dick, and Harry thinks he knows what a photon is, but he is wrong. - Albert Einstein

Here's the address to a proper analysis of the pics:

http://m1.aol.com/deepspacegirl/march6.html

Explains everything pretty clearly to me.

I don't see what the big fuss is about. That ZT picture is the Orion Nebula inverted, with some freaky-deaky-Zeta Photoshop editing.

Well ... that site just a couple of post's above doesn't explain it all ... it makes it all more bunky.

I don't know why she doesn't say it's the Orion Nebula. It took me seconds (almost) to see this.

Ya, im not exactly sure what it is, they say px is coming from orion anyway, so thats already been established, but the reason for the cloud is obvious, if this object were traveling around the galaxy, it would pick up a lot of debris, planets and astroids. and scince it is supposed to have a dust cloud like the one in the pic, id say the pic is right on track, with the absence of i GIANT RED PLANET that is. Also, i think you guys think of nancy in the wrong light. Nutcase, maybey, but i think she really believes what shes saying is true. i dont think she doctors images, if she did, there would probobly be a big red planet in the middle of the pic.

Bigk, you weren't sent here by ZetaCult to try and convince anybody that was Planet X, weren't you?

I predict they'll use an image of Betalgeuse as Planet X in the coming weeks. Why? It's red. And naturally in Orion.

The reason for the cloud in the image is BECAUSE IT'S THE ORION NEBULA.

The BA located the coordinates available with this very pic to be in Taurus NOT Orion. There's a big difference.

So, although the image may be "unaltered" and that's stretching that definition to its hilt as it IS altered by filtering — and the coordinates are false for the true location of this EXTREMELY RECOGNIZABLE cloud — the Orion Nebula.

That's called "lying."

If PX is a truth — why do so many people feel they have to lie constantly about it?

(The CAPS are for Nancy ' cause I'm sure she's reading this.)

The Zeta talk picture is just a little more zoomed in than the pic on this link. you can definately match up some of the brightest stars. Also the zetatalk pic looks like they used the add noise filter in photoshop in an attempt to make it look like more "debris" but I don't think they added any stars or "Planets". they could at least point out which dot is supposed to be planet X.

Actually, I don't know for sure anymore if it is the Orion nebula. I tried, but I wasn't able to match star patterns myself to any satisfaction. Also, the deepspacegirl link seems to think it's just a poorly-shot image, saying this:

This version of the image doesn't look like Orion either:
http://www.zetatalk.com/teams/rogue/dell38.htm

But in any case, it still doesn't look like Nibiru to me. SaraMac's explanation sounds pretty reasonable to me.

__________________
...And that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped. --Sir Bedevere

I am really ignorant with astronomy, i don't know what that dust cloud means and i really don't understand what it has to do with a giant planet coming. Could someone explain this to me? And also , are you guys really sure this doesn't have anything to do with PX?

Just got an email back from Sarah Mc. She thinks it may be a "double-shot" (my interpretation of what she wrote), whereas the image we are looking at is a double exposure of both the Orion Nebula and some other star region.

It is definitely the Orion Nebula (using the image listed in the first link of this string) I am positive it is.
I have a poster of all the Messier objects on my cubicle wall here at the paper. I look at it every day. When I opened this picture in Photoshop, it displays a smaller version of it on the right hand side (where the image history is). This smaller image has greater "detail" in the light-dark areas ... and it IS the Orion Nebula. No doubts here.
I'm looking at the pic ...
I'm looking at the poster ...
Pic...
Poster.
Yep. They are the same.
Sarah's explaination of a double exposure (possibly made by shooting a second pic with a CCD camera BEFORE it had time to recoup seems very plausible to me).

Which means that they are lying anyway ...
My original point anyhow.

But I don't think anyone needs to point out Zeta Talk's errs on this board. They are doing a great job on their own.

I looked at Sarah's site also. I saw that there was a much clearer pic on there, in contrast to one that was labeled something like "Zetatalk image". Is that an image Sarah took herself?

Is there anyone here who can or did take a pic of the coordinates that Steve and Dell were supposedly taking their pics at? I would like to see that!

If there's anyway to prove that this is the Orion nebula - wow - that would be awesome. To have someone really point out why it is the nebula - well, then they would have zero argument left to them. The zetas couldn't be misleading Steve or Dell, since they only talk to Nancy, so she couldn't use that (idiotic) route anymore.

And as for the post above where Phil Parent asked if there are Zeta followers now posting here, I think that is a definite possibility. It seems they (I actually think it is Nancy using a different name at least 50% of the time) always start out with, "I don't know much about this, can someone tell me more about PX" or "Can someone tell me why this isn't PX" kind of questions. (The ones I think are Nancy posting under a different name are the messages with that sort of question in it, then you never ever see that poster again - and there will be many such posts like that around a day or two. (At least that's how she operates on sci.astro)

I'd be sad if she's starting in here too! But if you are sincere with those questions, pardon me for being such a speculator. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

Well girl101 i am sincere. I just get a bad case of anxiety every time something new like this comes up and im looking for reassurance. My sane side tells me this is baloney but my irrational side still worries.

Unfortunately, this does have everything to do with NL's Planet X. Fortunately, it doesn't have any effect on the fact that planet X does not exist.

There are a bunch of theories out to explain exactly what we are seeing. These are subject to review and criticism by others and must stand up to the challenges presented.

The claim is that this is a Dust Cloud(TM) that surrounds Planet X(TM) similar to Pigpen(TM) from Charlie Brown(TM).
But since Planet X doesn't exist it's not a very good explaination.

The more reasonable explainations I've seen so far are that this is something associated with the telescope that has been overprocessed to make something appear.
Alternately, this is the Orion nebula, whether it was intentional or not remains to be determined. Additionally, it may or may not be overlaid on a star field from a completely different location.

Rich

On 2003-03-07 14:43, RichField wrote:
I agree. Improperly processed, at first glance the image seems to show M42/43 in the background. I think it's just coincidence. Let's not attribute a conspiracy to the poor image processing abilities of the ZetaTalk "team". It would seem quite foolish to use the most observed and imaged emmision/reflection nebula in the northern hemisphere to "fake" an image. There's literally thousands of other nebulae that are less well-known than M42/43, and would serve the "intended purpose" much better.

I've updated my page to show what's being discussed here. The bottom line is that the image *is* of the coordinates stated, and no new object was imaged at the coordinates - especially any object capable of becoming daytime visible within 3 weeks. The "dust cloud" is just the result of improper imaging techniques and calibration frames.

Properly calibrated, the image shows very little background, and stars down to magnitude 17.9 with reliability.

http://m1.aol.com/deepspacegirl

Good [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]. You passed my 2 most important sincerity test - coming back and defense. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

I worried about this too, but then started thinking about the main people who support this idea. They have no creditials, think everyone who isn't with them is paid by some agency to "disinform"... The main woman, Nancy, is a 60+ year old woman who gets her coordinates of where this planet x is supposed to be through alien implants in her brain, and the aliens talk to her through it. Do you trust that? Or do you trust people who actually look through telescopes (and know how to use them expertly) who have seen nothing?

She also lied about comet Hale-Bopp, so she has one huge tarnish on her record already.

It worried me at first too, like I said, but once you really start thinking about it, you know that this isn't going to happen. She has said in the past that this should be visible to the naked eye by now, but only these two people have seen it through high powered telescopes.

The end of the world has been predicted as immediate since the dawn of mankind, and we are still around. We will still be around next year.

Girl 101

Here's a new challenge.

Can anyone re-create the m42/zeta coordinates?

Can someone, maybe SarahMC (who I'm so glad to see here! She's like a hero to me!) who has the means to take the pics - take a pic of m42, and layer it with the coordinates of what the zetas gave? To basically re-create what people are thinking they may have done?

If someone could do that, show THAT to Nancy (who by the way has been all over sci.astro today, doing the "zetas-right-again" crud) and see what her zetas say - well, that would be the best way to let her know that we are all onto her...

Could anyone do this?

Girl 101

"She has said in the past that this should be visible to the naked eye by now, but only these two people have seen it through high powered telescopes. "

Actually, it isnt supposed to be visible for 3 or so weeks now, so i think weed still be seeing more of a difinitive body. Also, in response to asking if im "zetacult" member, i am most definatly not. I work at a cafe in north van, and didnt even know about this untill about september last year, but i have done alot of reading on the subject, and there IS DEFINATLY, people posting untrue and foolish things about zetatalk. Instead of focusing on ALL the things theve got wrong, people try and discredit nancy or steve or dell, but there is no point, we allready know there goofs, they dont claim to be anything but (as they shouldn't). however, at this time i am skeptical of the new pic, but still keeping an open mind.