ZetaTalk LIVE Chat May 15

Planet X appeared on SOHO C2 this week (see links below):

C2 image: [link to api.ning.com]

Zoomed: [link to api.ning.com]


PX has appeared on the SOHO C3 coronagraph in recent months, but the above link is the first sighting I've observed on the C2.

Below is a C3 image captured on February 26th:

C3 image: [link to api.ning.com]

Zoomed: [link to api.ning.com]


According to the SOHO website, the C3 captures the Sun's corona from 3.5 to 30 solar radii, but the C2 captures only 1.5 to 6 solar radii.

At first I thought this would suggest that PX is now closer to the sun than when the C3 image was taken. However, when I scaled PX's distance from the Sun, it is approximately 2 solar radii away from the Sun in both the C2 and the C3 image.

Is this a coincidence or will PX remain roughly 2 solar radii away from the Sun until it rises toward the ecliptic?

SOZT
Most of what you are seeing is NOT Planet X but various Moon Swirls, which wend in and out of view as the tail of Planet X wafts between the Earth and Sun. This is a 2D representation of a 3D situation, so distance cannot be surmised from SOHO images.
EOZT


Nice cosmic ray hits. Those type of artifacts have been appearing on SOHO LASCO C2 and C3 images since SOHO started sending images.

I've got examples from the late 1990's and early 2000's.

Nancy relies on the ignorance of basic science of her followers. This forum tonight is a perfect example.


I am 60+ years old. From my early childhood I have been interested in the Earth's inhabitants. I spent countless hours wondering through the nearby woods studying and marveling about the incredible abundance and variety of plant and insect life. I spent nearly as much time in the water as I did on dry land in the summer. My major in college was the "Natural Sciences". I still have my Botany and Marine Biology textbooks. My bookcases are filled with reference books about the Earth, plants, human behavior, pollution and pesticides, geology, gardening, plant diseases, etc.

I took a wonderful Astronomy course at a local college the summer before my senior year in HS. I enjoyed it so much that I took another Astronomy course (for credit this time) in college. Both were meant for non-math majors. I learned the basic astronomy that I needed to enjoy the view from Earth. No, I cannot follow most of the math that concerns Planet X, which seems to be the focus of so many who are determined to ridicule the Zetatalk material.

What many hecklers seem to forget is that there is plenty of material about Earth changes, changing human behavior, food shortages, etc. that has nothing to do with astronomy.

Throughout my lifetime I've followed curious trends that only made sense after reading Zetatalk. I was a voracious reader and, until recently, I puzzled about the actions (or lack of actions) of my government. I had suspicions and a bunch of clues in a variety of areas of MY interest, but I could not put the puzzle pieces together until Zetatalk helped.

I noticed the sun tracked differently over my location, but I couldn't figure out why. My daughter and I noticed the sun was brighter and whiter, but we didn't know why. I had never even heard of Zetatalk when we noticed the differences. My carefully laid out garden was responsible for us noticing a change in the sun. The hecklers directed me to read about Planet X.

Planet X's passing is a natural phenomena, like earthquakes, tornados and the like. Unlike the other natural occurences, Planet X will have a global affect.

I tend to focus on the events that have been happening in my lifetime here on Earth because they are more familiar. Just because we can't figure out the math involved in astronomical events doesn't make us stupid. We all can't be astrophysicists, now can we? Besides, I have no control over what's happening in the solar system. I prefer to pay attention to what's happening here at home (Earth), where I can do something. That's in MY best interest.

You are typical of many who ridicule others, who just want answers, and who have learned from experience that our government is the last place to look for the answers.

Nancy relies on the ignorance of basic science of her followers. This forum tonight is a perfect example.


I noticed the sun tracked differently over my location, but I couldn't figure out why.

Proving you're part of the paid debunker crowd by that statement. Here's the PROOF.

Who told you that there are no other stars closer to the NCP than Polaris? Polaris is the closest VISIBLE star.


So you are saying that brightest object is Polaris and that it's NOT MOVING with the rest of the sky? Really?

How could that be possible?

Nancy relies on the ignorance of basic science of her followers. This forum tonight is a perfect example.


I noticed the sun tracked differently over my location, but I couldn't figure out why.

My carefully laid out garden was responsible for us noticing a change in the sun.

Who told you that there are no other stars closer to the NCP than Polaris? Polaris is the closest VISIBLE star.


So you are saying that brightest object is Polaris and that it's NOT MOVING with the rest of the sky? Really?

How could that be possible?


Hi, Menow. No to both.

1. What I was saying is that in a photo (unless special infrared or whatever) there would be no other stars VISIBLE.

(You happened upon this interpretation, by the time of your second question above). Of course there are other stars somewhere out there which are closer to true North, and maybe one would even be spot on! But in a norma time-lapse photo, or for navigation, Polaris sweeps around an "empty" circle near the centre of true North, thus it is the centre (center, for Americans) circle in the photo, and all other visible stars will become circle rings around that centre circle by Polaris, whose own centre is empty.

2. As to saying Polaris isn't moving? I never said that. I said that it moves, and because it is 1 degree off (or so) from true North, it sweeps its own little circle, but there are no other visible stars right on North, so its own circle defines true North, but has nothing AT true North in the centre. (Even a star hypothetically AT true North would be "moving with the sky" but on a vision-axis, so we would see a point, not a definable circle for it.)

The point here is that this photo (and one other) show polaris OFF SET from the rest of the circles forming (an not completed, by the way, because it is a partial-time lapse photo, not of the whole turning). Polaris is thus sweeping up, and so are the other stars, creating photo remnant streaks, but the other stars are sweeping in a circle, to the left of the sweep started by Polaris, and which Polaris too is following, INSTEAD OF BEING THE CENTRE OF ALL THE CIRCLES, which is what it should be.

This is clear -- per the photo, is all I'm saying -- that Polaris was off-set.

Oh...so you quote Nancy on how accurate she is. Tell you what...pick any one and show us any evidence NOT from Nancy's own words.

This ought to be good!


Well, well...I see that no one has accepted the challenge. How telling.


STILL no takers? I thought you idiots BELIEVED Nancy? But you can't even find independent proof of ONE example!

nancy, you need to get yourself another set of stooges...these are worthless!

The comment count is dropping.

Is Nancy actually going through the thread and deleting comments she doesn't like?

Figures.

I can't believe you people believe what this chick is selling.

[link to www.youtube.com]
[link to www.youtube.com]

16 irrefutable examples, for your convenience.

Who told you that there are no other stars closer to the NCP than Polaris? Polaris is the closest VISIBLE star.


So you are saying that brightest object is Polaris and that it's NOT MOVING with the rest of the sky? Really?

How could that be possible?


Hi, Menow. No to both.

1. What I was saying is that in a photo (unless special infrared or whatever) there would be no other stars VISIBLE. (You happened upon this interpretation, by the time of your second question above). Of course there are other stars somewhere out there which are closer to true North, and maybe one would even be spot on! But in a norma time-lapse photo, or for navigation, Polaris sweeps around an "empty" circle near the centre of true North, thus it is the centre (center, for Americans) circle in the photo, and all other visible stars will become circle rings around that centre circle by Polaris, whose own centre is empty.

2. As to saying Polaris isn't moving? I never said that. I said that it moves, and because it is 1 degree off (or so) from true North, it sweeps its own little circle, but there are no other visible stars right on North, so its own circle defines true North, but has nothing AT true North in the centre. (Even a star hypothetically AT true North would be "moving with the sky" but on a vision-axis, so we would see a point, not a definable circle for it.)

The point here is that this photo (and one other) show polaris OFF SET from the rest of the circles forming (an not completed, by the way, because it is a partial-time lapse photo, not of the whole turning). Polaris is thus sweeping up, and so are the other stars, creating photo remnant streaks, but the other stars are sweeping in a circle, to the left of the sweep started by Polaris, and which Polaris too is following, INSTEAD OF BEING THE CENTRE OF ALL THE CIRCLES, which is what it should be.

This is clear -- per the photo, is all I'm saying -- that Polaris was off-set.

The "accuracy" of Zetatalk

1) All of your claims can be and have been disproved by any one who takes your advice and actually checks for themselves, yet you still claim to have a perfect record on predictions and information.


As to the "all of your claims" claim, see [link to www.zetatalk.com] for some (some) extraodinary accuracies.

As to the star maps issue (which you also mentioned, but I removed from the quotation for the sake of brevity), you are genrally right, but the Pole Star is off, as I covered in a post replying to Menow a few minutes ago.

Best wishes. (Am not being sarcastic).


The pole star is "off"? How do you figure? By the way, if it was "off" that would be demonstrated by EVERY long-exposure shot taken of that region of the sky, and long-exposure astrophotography would be impossible.

Nancy, you've GOT to be kidding! Are you THAT stupid?

The "accuracy" of Zetatalk

1) All of your claims can be and have been disproved by any one who takes your advice and actually checks for themselves, yet you still claim to have a perfect record on predictions and information.


As to the "all of your claims" claim, see [link to www.zetatalk.com] for some (some) extraodinary accuracies.

As to the star maps issue (which you also mentioned, but I removed from the quotation for the sake of brevity), you are genrally right, but the Pole Star is off, as I covered in a post replying to Menow a few minutes ago.

Best wishes. (Am not being sarcastic).


The pole star is "off"? How do you figure? By the way, if it was "off" that would be demonstrated by EVERY long-exposure shot taken of that region of the sky, and long-exposure astrophotography would be impossible.


Not impossible, but skewed, not round.

[link to www.zetatalk.com]

The "accuracy" of Zetatalk

1) All of your claims can be and have been disproved by any one who takes your advice and actually checks for themselves, yet you still claim to have a perfect record on predictions and information.
Let us be clear on this point:
I can step outside, load up skymap (the program you recommended), set my location and time zone, and see for myself that the stars, constellations, and planets are all right where they should be. This is not something I am making up. Anyone can disprove one of your key claims by stepping outside at night with a laptop computer that has any number of astronomy programs installed on it. Your claims regarding astronomy, weather, earthquakes, and so called "debunkers" have been repeatedly shown to be false.
Based on all the available evidence, you leave us with two possibilities:
1. You are willfully and consciously lying.
or
2. You are suffering from some kind of delusion in which you are unable to distinguish between reality and fantasy.
Which one is it?


Actually, this is what we recommend people DO to see that things are NOT normal. In particular, track the Moon as to where it should be. This should, within the span of a month, prove without a doubt that something is amiss. And in addition, PROVES that the astronomy community has a silence imposed on them, national security not to cause panic.If NOT so, then why are they not talking about how tilted the Moon's orbit is? How can this NOT be news in the media?


Go outside right now and look at the crescent moon and Venus...right exactly where it's been predicted to be tonight for weeks.

Nancy wrong again.

The "accuracy" of Zetatalk

1) All of your claims can be and have been disproved by any one who takes your advice and actually checks for themselves, yet you still claim to have a perfect record on predictions and information.


As to the "all of your claims" claim, see [link to www.zetatalk.com] for some (some) extraodinary accuracies.

As to the star maps issue (which you also mentioned, but I removed from the quotation for the sake of brevity), you are genrally right, but the Pole Star is off, as I covered in a post replying to Menow a few minutes ago.

Best wishes. (Am not being sarcastic).


The pole star is "off"? How do you figure? By the way, if it was "off" that would be demonstrated by EVERY long-exposure shot taken of that region of the sky, and long-exposure astrophotography would be impossible.


Not impossible, but skewed, not round.

[link to www.zetatalk.com]

how is the oil spill remedied?

At Full and new Moon, will be positioned where expected, but between New and Full, way too far NORTH, and beween Full and New, way too far SOUTH. And watch the face of the Man on the Moon skew. It is only supposed to move 7 degrees for any given latitude. Watch that face MOVE over hours to 30-90 degrees, showing a highly tilted Moon orbit.
[link to www.zetatalk.com]

The "accuracy" of Zetatalk

1) All of your claims can be and have been disproved by any one who takes your advice and actually checks for themselves, yet you still claim to have a perfect record on predictions and information.
Let us be clear on this point:
I can step outside, load up skymap (the program you recommended), set my location and time zone, and see for myself that the stars, constellations, and planets are all right where they should be. This is not something I am making up. Anyone can disprove one of your key claims by stepping outside at night with a laptop computer that has any number of astronomy programs installed on it. Your claims regarding astronomy, weather, earthquakes, and so called "debunkers" have been repeatedly shown to be false.
Based on all the available evidence, you leave us with two possibilities:
1. You are willfully and consciously lying.
or
2. You are suffering from some kind of delusion in which you are unable to distinguish between reality and fantasy.
Which one is it?


Actually, this is what we recommend people DO to see that things are NOT normal. In particular, track the Moon as to where it should be. This should, within the span of a month, prove without a doubt that something is amiss. And in addition, PROVES that the astronomy community has a silence imposed on them, national security not to cause panic.If NOT so, then why are they not talking about how tilted the Moon's orbit is? How can this NOT be news in the media?


Go outside right now and look at the crescent moon and Venus...right exactly where it's been predicted to be tonight for weeks.

Nancy wrong again.


At Full and new Moon, will be positioned where expected, but between New and Full, way too far NORTH, and beween Full and New, way too far SOUTH. And watch the face of the Man on the Moon skew. It is only supposed to move 7 degrees for any given latitude. Watch that face MOVE over hours to 30-90 degrees, showing a highly tilted Moon orbit.
[link to www.zetatalk.com]

This is unbelievable BULLSHIT

the moon is definately off cycle

it is never where it should be

last 2 months especially