Re: Dec 27/28 Image Analysis JWD

To: Greg Hennessy;
Jan 07 2002

Greg Hennessey writes;
Hey Dell, how come the "object" you claim is the white personna
(whatever that is supposed to be) only appears on one of the three
frames? If it were a real object, it would be visible on all three
frames.
You can easily spot the faint stars even in the frames with the bad
tracking. 

JWD
I would contend that the object I refer to (PX White) does appear on
all 3 frames. In Frame 1 it shows clearly and is Avis Viewer
recognized. In the second and third it is not an Avis recognized.
   
Why?

1) The object has moved across the image slightly during the 1 hour of
   imaging.
   I would contend that PX White is showing on Sum of 3 in 2 different
   locations approx 6 pixels apart, with the Frame 1 position being the
   brightest.

2) Over the previous sets of images it has been noted that the light
   coming from PX is split between PX and its red projection. Also noted
   is that when PX Red is bright, PX White isn't, or the reverse.
   With only a finite amount of light from the PX object, it would appear
   that when the PX White is dull, the light has been diverted in some
   manner to its refracted PX Red. This has been noted on the different
   sets of images.

For the Dec 28 shoot

Frame 1
  White PX is bright and recognized
  Red PX is dim and possibly moves from up/left arcing down to Frame 2
  PX red position leaving 3 intensity spots in a line.

Frame 2
  White PX is very dim
  Red PX is very bright at my Sum of 3 Red PX location.

Frame 3
  White PX is brighter than Frame 2 White (nowhere near the intensity of
  Frame 1) and stretched due to tracking error. 
  Red PX is noted as split (lower and right of PX Red on Frame 2) 
  with Avis recognition on both halves.

Sum of 3
  White PX 
  no Avis recognition on Summary
  Brightest spot showing at Frame 1 position
  another higher intensity object right 6 pixels.

Red PX
  Brightest showing at Frame 2 position - Avis recognized
  Split at Frame 3 position - Avis recognized

To Summarize;
a) I use the term "redshift" defined as the shifting of wave length
   frequency of light.Either through gravitational factors or through the
   medium around Planet X.There appears to be a shifting of light
   wavelength to the red area of the light spectrum.
   While not fully understanding the mechanism of this "redshift", it
   would appear that at most times the "redshift" creates a dominance of
   red light in the light from Planet X.

b) The Red light from Planet X has the characteristic of appearing on
   our camera as a separate object from Planet X. Camera function may
   have something to do with this as well.

I would contend that the finite light of Planet X shifts between PX
White and PX Red.On the Dec 28 set of images we see the dominant PX
as;
Frame 1 - PX White
Frame 2 - PX Red
Frame 3 - PX Red   

J.William Dell




Greg Hennessy wrote in message <avaqk6$ih9$1@tantalus.no-ip.org>
> In article <b18a2f40.0301051824.22c661f4@posting.google.com>,J.William Dell wrote:
> > To: Those researching Planet X and the Steve Havas images,
> > and to Sarah MacIntyre of Saratoga and her group;
> 
> Hey Dell, how come the "object" you claim is the white personna
> (whatever that is supposed to be) only appears on one of the three
> frames?
> 
> If it were a real object, it would be visible on all three frames.
> You can easily spot the faint stars even in the frames with the bad
> tracking. 
>