Re: Zetas RIGHT Again!

In Article 3BF4AE48.B2DE6083@home.com Jim wrote:
> A quick search of Google of your past post 
> shows your lies. How about these quotes 
> from 12/22/1995

Lies?  Lies from 1995.  What Jim is doing here is taking statements from
1995 and comparing them to 2001, and calling any failure to be
word-for-word identical, in his eyes, a "lie". There was discussions
here in sci.astro this past year when the difference between Mag 2 and
Mag 11 was identified to be IF ALL RED SPECTRUM, INCLUDING INFRARED, WAS
INCLUDED.  Also, naked eye meaning able to be seen with your eye, AT
ALL, when assisted by telescopic equipment or when not so assisted.  Your
naked eye, for instance, cannot see a high colesterol reading in a drop
of blood.

In Article 3BF4AE48.B2DE6083@home.com Jim wrote:
>>> Your suggested "12th planet" would thus be 
>>> easily visible to the naked eye.
>>> pausch@electra.saaf.se (Paul Schlyter)
>
>> Yes, that's what the Zetas have been saying 
>> all along.  A partial quote from their Comet 
>> Visible topic, in the Pole Shift section off
>> The ZetaTalk home page at
>> http://www.zetatalk.com

"Naked eye" to the Zetas means visible WITH YOUR EYE, which the IRAS
team was able to do in 1983 with their infra-red equipment. No change.
They also said, in the same Comet Visible piece, the same statements:

    Where its size at present is akin to a star, and
    the diffuse light across its surface would indeed
    have the spread and consistency that your 
    reflecting planets do, there are significant 
    differences that cause you to pass over it rather 
    than explore it in depth. The composition is not
    the composition of reflecting sunlight, but is 
    almost exclusively in the spectrum you would 
    call red light. Thus you will do best if you filter
    for red light, and by this we mean filtering out 
    all but red light. Though a large planet, 4 times
    as large as Earth and thus larger than Mars or 
    Pluto, it is at this time at a much greater 
    distance and thus its visibility is not equivalent
    to Mars or Pluto.
        ZetaTalk™, Comet Visible

In Article 3BF4AE48.B2DE6083@home.com Jim wrote:
>> 1. Your'e object is 2nd magnitude (You're 
>>    statement)
>> 2. It is starlike but diffuse (You're statement) 

2nd Magnitdude if INFRARED and RED SPECTRUM is taken into consideration,
as the IRAS Team in 1983 was able to discover it.  STARLIKE as in tiny. 
And diffuse, giving an EVEN light not the high intensity in the very
center that star's give, has also been beaten to death this past year. 
No change.  

In Article 3BF4AE48.B2DE6083@home.com Jim wrote:
>>> 3. Astronomers with telescopes capable of at 
>>>    least 13th mag have looked and seen nothing. 
>>>    (Mine and several other astronomers statement)
>>> 4. To make the light to faint to be been at 
>>>    13th mag (I'm being very very generous here) 
>>>    the object must be very large indeed.
>>> 5. To be that large it must cover up several 
>>>    background stars.
>>> 6. Since stars are stilll seen at your plotted
>>>    positions it must mean 
>>> 7. The 12th planet does not exist.
>>> scopedr@fn1.freenet.edmonton.ab.ca ()
>
>> (Begin ZetaTalk™)
>> You do well on your points 1 and 2, but then 
>> you run amuck.  It is YOUR statement that the 
>> 12th Planet is not visible as you and others
>> have "seen nothing".  It was OUR statement 
>> that with the RA and Dec given,the 12th 
>> Planet would be "within your scopes".  Was 
>> the sky utterly black?  Were there no objects, 
>> no lights, whatsoever?  Next we will hear that
>> there were not objects not known stars, but 
>> this would be a falsehood.  We'll save the 
>> readership a round by cutting to the chase,
>> here.  
>
> in 1995 telling an amateur that it should be 
> visible "within your scopes" and in 2001 it 
> takes an observatory to see it? I guess you 
> figured out that you couldn't keep claiming 
> it was visible but everyone was missing it.

WITHIN YOUR SCOPES means in the field of vision, when looking into a
scope.  And in 1995 the Zetas were calling the DISINFORMATION ARTISTS
and liars on their statements that they HAD looked, which they hadn't,
when they were challening "was the sky utterly black", ala what The
Small Kahuna was stating in insisting that "I saw nothing" would not be
acceptable.  An image capture, that could be compared to others or to
star maps or to later images, was required.  We've still got
disinformation artists, so no change.

In Article 3BF4AE48.B2DE6083@home.com Jim wrote:
> Or from 7/2/1996
>
>>(Begin ZetaTalk™)
>> are the specs which will put the 12th Planet
>> in your scope - RA 6  16 15, Dec  8  39  37.6.
>> Look around this spot, and do not be 
>> discouraged, as these specs were compiled by 
>> a helpful human, and are not our numbers, 
>> though they are exact enough.  At the current
>> time the 12th Planet is approximately 
>> magnitude 2.0 in brightness, and appears
>> as large as a star as viewed by the naked eye.

Do they say amateur scope?  Size of scope?  At an observatory or not? 
They have always stressed going FOR the red spectrum, by the way.  No
change.  Indeed, the pinpoint in the center of a star, taking up less
than a pixtel, and the size of Planet X at that time, likewise filling
little more than a pixtel, are the same size. No change. And they do
clarify WHEN they mean something other than being able to be captured by
your "naked eye", as below.  The naked eye in 1995, or even today,
cannot caputure MOTION or INCREASED BRIGHTNESS as repeated images
require this and will require this until 7 weeks before the shift. No
change.

    The naked eye will not see motion in this 12th Planet 
    until well into the year of the cataclysms, just a few 
    weeks ahead. At that time its motion will give it 
    away as being of a comet's nature. During the last 
    few weeks, back yard astronomers will be able to 
    detect motion of the comet across the skies, something
    a distant star would not do. Those with telescopes 
    and computer software capable of comparing 
    captured and stored images will know otherwise, but 
    will be silenced or discredited in the usual 
    establishment protective manner. ... This 12th Planet 
    will, however, get consistently brighter, so that an 
    image taken now, compared with an image taken a 
    year from now, would show an increased brightness 
    not expected from a distant star. The naked eye would
    not capture this. The naked eye will begin to register
    increased brightness approximately 1 year 7 months
    before the cataclysms, or late in the year 2001. ... 
    Increased brightness will occur gradually, so that 
    without the capacity to register brightness over time, 
    and compare closely the changes, this cannot be
    proved or even, until close to the end, mentally
    registered by the observer. High powered equipment 
    can and has registered this increased brightness.
        ZetaTalk™, Comet Visible