Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!

Yes. But since i know what you are going to say. What was photgraphed back then wasn't noise.

There you have my answer mennow.

Too bad for you that the man Nancy tasked with that project disagrees with you. And he knows more about imaging than you do. What do you have to say about that? Let me guess...you don't believe him.


To be honest. I think he (JWD) is angry or should i rather say
P*ss*d *ff cause 2003 didn't occur (because of the white lie) And this is why he act this way.

Better take a look at this page

Sightings Archive of 2002 thru Early 2003
[link to zetatalk.com]

Better take a look at this page

Sightings Archive of 2002 thru Early 2003
[link to zetatalk.com]

Unconfirmed


Gerard
[link to poleshift.ning.com]

I would not call myself an "imaging expert" then or now.
But as someone who worked with those fits files in 2002/2003, I will say that those telescope images did not capture anything that can be realistically called proof.

We captured a lot of "noise", any piece of which could be pointed to as PX.

But the best evidence is;
If it wasn’t where it was supposed to be in May 2003, how could it have been where we were pointing the telescope in 2002?

Planets don’t vanish. The planet wasn’t there to begin with.

That IS the only logical explanation.
Kindest Regards
J.William Dell

I have a thesis regarding the appeal of ZetaTalk. ZetaTalk appeals to many people at first take because it ties up reality in a nice neat bundle. That is, most people wonder what the answer to all the unknowns in the world are. They look at religion, politics, science, business, and social malfunction and wonder what the heck is going on. All the old philosophies and ‘Truth’ they were told doesn’t seem to answer their questions. So ZetaTalk connects the dots because they are not constrained by traditional logic or science. They use semi-plausible explanations referring to highly technical areas of endeavor and it many times takes knowledge and research to debunk their statements. It is very hard for most people to imagine the three dimensional alignments of the heavens and recognize Orbital Mechanics and the like unless they have done it most of their lives. Most people are not aware of the position of the planets or constellations based on season, time, date and their position on the earth. You mix in optical diffractions that cause photographic artifacts and you get more confusion.
Often people see what they are told they are suppose to see and pile on to a theory when a more logical and reasoned approach is warranted. So the following I have not seen debunked so please show me your answers:
The supposed SOHO images of Planet X? Is this Venus, Mars, other, etc.? [link to www.youtube.com] [link to www.youtube.com]

Better take a look at this page

Sightings Archive of 2002 thru Early 2003
[link to zetatalk.com]


All of which are lens flare, sun dogs or artifacts produced from pointing a camera at the sun. Even Nancy has admitted they aren't really "Planet X." Where have you been?

Better take a look at this page

Sightings Archive of 2002 thru Early 2003
[link to zetatalk.com]


All of which are lens flare, sun dogs or artifacts produced from pointing a camera at the sun. Even Nancy has admitted they aren't really "Planet X." Where have you been?



I know what she said yes. That there are pictures that are not really "Planet X".

I know what she said yes. That there are pictures that are not really "Planet X".

That's a good question, but with a very simple answer. SOHO's camera is a CCD, or Charge Coupled Device. These cameras come in two flavors...blooming and anti-blooming. What this means is that very bright objects cause electrons to bleed over from one pixel to the next and from row to row...that's the winged shape you see. While this can be mitigated with "anti-blooming gates" built into the imaging chip, it results in a non-linear response in coverting photons to electrons. This is OK for a non-scientific application such as comsumer cameras where non-linearity is not an issue, but for a camera used for scientific measurements, linearity is very important, and so the imager used in SOHO is subject to blooming when bright stars or planets are in its field of view.

Here are some references:

[link to sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov]

[link to www.badastronomy.com]

[link to yowcrooks.wordpress.com]

And how does JWD explain this

To: Nancy Leider
From: J.William Dell
Subject: SHAVAS 3-R, 4-R, 5-R

Greetings and to the point;

(snip)

With red light bending,

(snip)

Kindest regards
J.William Dell

[link to zetatalk.com] ?

And how does JWD explain this

To: Nancy Leider
From: J.William Dell
Subject: SHAVAS 3-R, 4-R, 5-R

Greetings and to the point;

I have had an opportunity to look at all the SHAVAS R Filter pictures individually.
These were loaded in freeware Cadet Calibration Fits software using all 6 dark plates.

I would like to point out anomolies in Frames 3-R, 4-R, 5-R

In frame 3-R, is an object just above the circle known as Steve's candidate.
In frame 4-R, is an anomolie in the exact coordinates that were given.
In frame 5-R, is the object that has been given by the Zetas as Planet X.

These pictures were taken, so I am to understand, as 2 minute exposures.

With red light bending, are we seeing the actual Planet X in different locations in the
different 2 minute pictures? In frame 4-R specifically, have we captured the red light
shifting within this one picture (which has created what looks like a moving object on the
exposure)?

I am using the freeware Avis Fits Viewer program, which is quite good, and it includes
as part of its features an ability to recognize stars and indicate pixel intensity. When
passing the cross hairs over objects in Fits files it recognizes the objects in 4-R and 5-R
as filmed objects on the picture. It ignores the object in 3-R as it also ignores pixel noise
or Hot? pixels on all pictures. (Hope that makes sense, in essence, Avis Fits viewer considers
the objects in 4-R & 5-R as real.)

With the red shifting occuring, when doing a summary stacked image, especially median, any
object not appearing on different pictures in the same place would probably be removed.
Only in Sum, or with an object with high enough intensity in one picture, would an object
appear.

I was out last night looking (without telescope) to determine location.
Just at the horizon was the star above Orions belt (Ori_Alp_58, it has a common name, don't
know it off hand) which has a high red factor. Boy was it moving around in the atmosphere, it
made the point to me about shifting.

Kindest regards
J.William Dell

[link to zetatalk.com] ?

To be honest. I think he (JWD) is angry or should i rather say
P*ss*d *ff cause 2003 didn't occur (because of the white lie) And this is why he act this way.

It appears JWD has some explainin to do!
How can somebody make observations like these and then turn around and say he didn't see this?

Either he saw it, or he didn't see it. He can't have it both ways. He gives detailed observations, and then he takes it all back ... later ... I don't think so!

Credibility a big ZERO.

Somewhere out there, the PXers are looking at all these mentions of ZERO and are shaking their heads and saying "Wha?"

"As explained on Gentile last evening, but repeated here as many will not be able to hear this streaming audio, we have given the dates out because the US and Indonesian governments can no longer succeed with their plans. We had held the date close, to put these governments in the same position the common man they planned to murder are in, so that rotation stoppage would happen suddenly and prevent a smooth blockading of the city dwellers. As Nancy has been able to be interviewed in the US, the message of these plans replayed around the world, cooperation by the military or locale police in such blockades are unlikely to happen. Given such orders, they would object, refuse, allow escape, as they know the true agenda. Thus, the number of people injured by withholding the date outnumbered the number that would be murdered, the balance scale tipped."
ZetaTalk: Dates, Why Now?

I have a thesis regarding the appeal of ZetaTalk. ZetaTalk appeals to many people at first take because it ties up reality in a nice neat bundle. That is, most people wonder what the answer to all the unknowns in the world are. They look at religion, politics, science, business, and social malfunction and wonder what the heck is going on. All the old philosophies and ‘Truth’ they were told doesn’t seem to answer their questions. So ZetaTalk connects the dots because they are not constrained by traditional logic or science. They use semi-plausible explanations referring to highly technical areas of endeavor and it many times takes knowledge and research to debunk their statements. It is very hard for most people to imagine the three dimensional alignments of the heavens and recognize Orbital Mechanics and the like unless they have done it most of their lives. Most people are not aware of the position of the planets or constellations based on season, time, date and their position on the earth. You mix in optical diffractions that cause photographic artifacts and you get more confusion.
Often people see what they are told they are suppose to see and pile on to a theory when a more logical and reasoned approach is warranted. So the following I have not seen debunked so please show me your answers:
The supposed SOHO images of Planet X? Is this Venus, Mars, other, etc.? [link to www.youtube.com] [link to www.youtube.com]



That's a good question, but with a very simple answer. SOHO's camera is a CCD, or Charge Coupled Device. These cameras come in two flavors...blooming and anti-blooming. What this means is that very bright objects cause electrons to bleed over from one pixel to the next and from row to row...that's the winged shape you see. While this can be mitigated with "anti-blooming gates" built into the imaging chip, it results in a non-linear response in coverting photons to electrons. This is OK for a non-scientific application such as comsumer cameras where non-linearity is not an issue, but for a camera used for scientific measurements, linearity is very important, and so the imager used in SOHO is subject to blooming when bright stars or planets are in its field of view.

Here are some references:

[link to sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov]

[link to www.badastronomy.com]

[link to yowcrooks.wordpress.com]

And how does JWD explain this

To: Nancy Leider
From: J.William Dell
Subject: SHAVAS 3-R, 4-R, 5-R

Greetings and to the point;

I have had an opportunity to look at all the SHAVAS R Filter pictures individually.
These were loaded in freeware Cadet Calibration Fits software using all 6 dark plates.

I would like to point out anomolies in Frames 3-R, 4-R, 5-R

In frame 3-R, is an object just above the circle known as Steve's candidate.
In frame 4-R, is an anomolie in the exact coordinates that were given.
In frame 5-R, is the object that has been given by the Zetas as Planet X.

These pictures were taken, so I am to understand, as 2 minute exposures.

With red light bending, are we seeing the actual Planet X in different locations in the
different 2 minute pictures? In frame 4-R specifically, have we captured the red light
shifting within this one picture (which has created what looks like a moving object on the
exposure)?

I am using the freeware Avis Fits Viewer program, which is quite good, and it includes
as part of its features an ability to recognize stars and indicate pixel intensity. When
passing the cross hairs over objects in Fits files it recognizes the objects in 4-R and 5-R
as filmed objects on the picture. It ignores the object in 3-R as it also ignores pixel noise
or Hot? pixels on all pictures. (Hope that makes sense, in essence, Avis Fits viewer considers
the objects in 4-R & 5-R as real.)

With the red shifting occuring, when doing a summary stacked image, especially median, any
object not appearing on different pictures in the same place would probably be removed.
Only in Sum, or with an object with high enough intensity in one picture, would an object
appear.

I was out last night looking (without telescope) to determine location.
Just at the horizon was the star above Orions belt (Ori_Alp_58, it has a common name, don't
know it off hand) which has a high red factor. Boy was it moving around in the atmosphere, it
made the point to me about shifting.

Kindest regards
J.William Dell

[link to zetatalk.com] ?

It appears JWD has some explainin to do!
How can somebody make observations like these and then turn around and say he didn't see this?

Either he saw it, or he didn't see it. He can't have it both ways. He gives detailed observations, and then he takes it all back ... later ... I don't think so!

Credibility a big ZERO.

Based on the 05.25.09 SOHO datestamp what do we expect this image is . . . Venus, Mars, etc.?

Whats that story about Nancy and the candy wrapper btw. It was mentioned here several times ... what bogus stuff did she claim about it ?