well isnt this interesting. after a 2 week hiatus, they returned to taking pictures and claiming sightings. so heres the link, what do you think?


http://www.zetatalk.com/teams/tteam342.htm

look at the march 24 pics and the naked eye sighting

I realize that when you look at something head on, your eye might not see dim stars because of damage done by bright light, watching tv, etc etc has done to your retina, and where the cones and rods are located, the explanation on this page has to be the most obtuse i've ever heard...

http://www.zetatalk.com/theword/tword03s.htm

Can't they explain anything simply?

__________________
"Ignorance has caused more calamity than malignity" H.G. Wells

"Getting lost is part of exploring." Uniqua in "Backyardigans-Heart of the Jungle"

Nah, The Zeta's are good at confusing people. That way nobody can argue with what they are saying!

Get this from J William Dell, the master observer of the zetas....

<jwilliam> Those bright lights on March 23/24 are individual moons then? or swirls?

He has absolutely no idea what he is looking at or what he is doing....this remark came after a long, long explaination by Nancy of why you cant really see PX.....

http://www.skepticalmind.com/zetatal....20030329.html

I note in the chat that she claims this image is actually Planet X. (She also claims that no coordinates were give, but she didn't look very hard.

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

Do ya ever stop to think, "I wonder if that special X-date will pass and all the conspiracy people will yell 'HA HA! Made ya look!'"

I'm not sure if that would irritate me or make me smirk...

I do look forward to the passing of that date though, just to see what my boss (who believes) has to say about the earth's lack of any major event.

While it is true that the macula lutena - in particular the central fovea (the area of the retina responsible for central vision) is (naturally) markedly less sensitive than paracentral areas - I regard NL's discussion of her "side of the eye technique" as yet another of many attempts at obfuscation & manipulation via admixture of irrelevant fact with myth in an attempt to legitimize the latter --- (Case in point: Ocular physiology Vs. spurious bloated doomsday 'comets'...) --- GAWD! To think she's at 'work' in *MY* home state (WI) now :,(

Best regards
D. Sarandon

__________________
My formula for success is never to talk about a successful formula, because it's bound to go wrong!

Someone pointed out on sci.astro that if Nancy is using the "side of eye" technique, she
should not be able to see planet X as very red in color. If it's only visable using the
structures in the eye that detect light vs dark (rather than the color receptors) it
should not be seen as red.

Check out the high tech equipment that some of the 'seeing eye' viewers are using...

http://www.zetatalk.com/teams/rogue/nancy16.htm

I believe these are the pictures that turned out to be those of SL9 comet, if I am not mistaken.....

Damn right it's high tech. Look at the fabric weave on that deck chair. Phew, musta cost a fortune! Damn the telescopes, I'm getting my binos out!

Well, EXTREMELY generally speaking, the physiology of the 'Side Of The Eye' technique is correct. Astronomers call the technique 'averted vision'. Go out some night to a dark area (no streetlights polluting the sky) and experiment a little. Find a star, and look straight at it (you can do this naked eye). Now, look off to one side of it a little, and it should become noticeably brighter. Using this technique, you should become aware of stars that virtually disappear when you look straight at them. The technique also works with binoculars and telescopes -- anywhere there's sufficient field of view to put the object in question off-center of the back of your eyeball. It doesn't take much offset to work - you're only looking a few degrees off, not trying to look into your own ear...

I've heard that this is the second cousin to the 'blind spot' we all have on the back of the eye, where there's no photo receptors - it's where the optic nerve is attached to the eyeball.

In any event, he's sorta kinda right...the elements in the eye that detect light/motion are much more sensitive (work better in low light) than the elements that detect color. Exactly where in the eye there are greater concentrations of which one, I'm not sure.

And about those binoculars jammed in the lawn chair? Funny looking to be sure, but, hey, if it gives a steady view...I have much more heartburn with the interpretation of what they see...

__________________
"If a tree is cut down in the rainforest, and is used to make paper to print a book, and the book is really bad, and there's nobody that will read it, do you still hear a sucking sound?"
Charlie in Dayton, A.AsC.

That dude is a *HOOT* --- you've gotta read his posts!!! First he takes a 'clue' from a poster named Lara in Uruguay (while rifling a pyramid perchance?) claiming that "PX is visible from her location - So he (Helios), convulsing in the bitter cold of the desert southwest, ups and offs with his binoculars, claims to see "something" and proceeds to photograph same - only problem is, by HIS OWN admission he had no idea what area of the sky to study (celestial 'cartography' being beyond his grasp) - then, after posting the images, and receiving some well earned abuse from a fellow poster Re: his "stupidity, etc." Helios conceded he must have imaged dust specks after all --- But wait! It gets better!!! He proceeded to make more images, then, upon reflection (pun intended , decided (amidst a veritable hail of consolation, affirmation and back patting) that all his images were faulty and probably featured no more than 'dust specks' and 'ordinary' red stars) --- BUT NOT BEFORE LIEDER & COMPANY (A.K.A. THE 'ZETAKOOKS') had, *MUCH* to his chagrin, co-opted his images!!! LOLOLOL!!!!

Well I'll say this for him, he recognizes Nan' for the nut she is (talk about taking one to know one heh!) *AND* he is *comically* slow to anger in the face of verbal abuse LOL! --- Now I'm thinking he's *GOTTA* be a covert debunker? ;-) Anyway, for a *GOOD LAUGH* do give that thread a read!!!

As for Nancy swiping *HIS* images GAWD she must be getting desperate what with six weeks to go - Well she said she'd be autodaféd should Nibiru fail to show up - In point of fact she offered to strike the match --- I'll bring the marshmallows who'll bring the sticks? ;-)

Best regards and apologizes for the verbosity
Dan Sarandon

__________________
My formula for success is never to talk about a successful formula, because it's bound to go wrong!

I'm ashamed to admit it but I have looked in the last few weeks in the region of the night sky suggested by False Prophetess Leider. My findings are as follows: I haven't -repeat, have not- seen jack sh** resembling the alleged object in question. I'm no astronomer. Not even close. 'Professional stargazer', yes. (30 years of experience makes one a professional, theoretically, right?) I'm fascinated by astronomy and other hard sciences, but have no background proper in any of them. However, I have been blessed by God with 20/20 vision and have always enjoyed staring into the heavens and, well, there's nothing there currently that I haven't observed literally thousands of times before. (But what is there is more beautiful in my eyes now than it was a year ago...seems status quo as I get older...)

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

I have to admit I've ben looking for an object that shouldn't be there... not that I know exactly what should be there (a problem that afflicts many of the ZetaDrones)! But I haven't seen anything that even resembles Nancys PX.

If anything has come of this, I am now fascinated by astronomy: I'm even thinking of investing in a telescope one day. Its great fun!

I have yet to look for Planet X.
I think the biggest reason I haven't looked is because I am positive it's not there to be seen.
:roll:

Yea, that's how I saw it too. In the end, curiosity got the better of me I felt well stupid straining my eyes to see something that isn't there! :roll:

I don't know who the original author of what I am about to paraphrase, so I don't know who to apologise to:

As I was looking in the air
I saw a planet that wasn't there
It wasn't there again today.
I wish I wish it would go away.

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

Apologies to Hughes Mearns then.

Well, he's dead, but I'm sure it's the thought that counts. :wink:

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

I sneezed a sneeze into the air
It fell to earth I know not where
But hard and cold were the looks of those
In whose vicinity I snoze...

...can't remember who wrote it, but it seemed classically applicable to this course of thought...

__________________
"If a tree is cut down in the rainforest, and is used to make paper to print a book, and the book is really bad, and there's nobody that will read it, do you still hear a sucking sound?"
Charlie in Dayton, A.AsC.

Let it never be said that something good can't be found in this synaptic flatulence...let's take a moment for an educational update.

Green, ol' buddy, this one's for you...

A suggestion from someone who's been there?

Start out with a decent pair of binoculars. You can see plenty, you're not blowing someone's inheritance, they're easy to use, they can be used for more than just stargazing, and you can do some good observing cheaply (there is more than one person with a comet named after them who only use binoculars...) while determining whether or not this is your cup of tea before investing a bit more heavily...

From our esteemed host's archives...
http://www.badastronomy.com/bitesize/scopefaq.html

Check out http://www.telescope.com/content/lea...19&CCNavIDs=19 and read through the various topics on why binoculars are better for the beginner.

(Yes, this applies to me...basically, my first year or so was binocular viewing -- and even if I'm going out to the dark sky site and its various available scopes ranging from 4" to 12" aperture, my 10x50 binoculars usually go with me. Could be for a quick check on where we're pointed, could be to help someone else line things up, could be just to kick back and relax with some low-power wide field views...)

I recommend the book Touring the Universe Through Binoculars by Philip Harrington. Great stuff, and while focused on binoculars (pun intended), the information is also valuable for the telescope viewer.

Want a BIG pair of binox? Go check this place out... www.bigbinoculars.com...we start out with 8x56's at the price of a Reds game, a couple of hot dogs, a beer, and parking/gas...and go to 150mm aperture pier-mounted specials with replaceable eyepieces and a high four-figure price tag...naturally, there's everything in between...if for no other reason than to exclaim in terms that would have gotten your mouth washed out with soap when you were younger, go check these monsters out...

Oh yeah...don't forget to check out your local astronomy society for extra opinions on all this...

...[/soap box]...