| |
|
Article: <[email protected]>
From: [email protected](Nancy)
Subject: Re: What the Zetas SAID re Hale-Bopp
Date: 2 Apr 1997 14:27:49 GMT
In article: <[email protected]> Lamont Graquist writes:
>> In 1995 they said is was a nova that was being pointed to.
>> [email protected](Nancy )
>
> And you've never posted a reason as to why it would be a nova
> other than there was no molecular emission lines that could be
> detected
> [email protected]
Lets turn that around. What reason was there to call it a COMET? Not only were there no comet emissions, it wasn't moving. The only motion noted was to be based upon the comet head, which all the observatories took to be something DIFFERENT as I've documented and posted repeated and just recently. A dark place, a bright spot, a dark place next to a bright spot, etc. Take away the IAU statements that it WAS a comet, and the single 1993 image of McNaught's, and you have a nova. Doesn't take much to perpetuate a fraud in the world of comets. In 1995, the object folks were being told was a comet was a nova.
In article: <[email protected]> Lamont Graquist writes:
>> In late 1995 they said the paper orbit was being sent into
>> the unmapped swamp of Sagittarius so that stars could be
>> mistaken for a comet.
>> [email protected](Nancy )
>
> You can't mistake stars for a comet. You've never looked
> through a telescope at a comet, so you wouldn't know this, but
> you simply can't.
> [email protected]
Not if you're a major observatory, but the general public and world of amateur astronomers most certainly CAN be confused. In fact, David Levy reports that over 98% of the observations to the IAU from amateur thinking they've found a NEW comet are false and this includes thinking stars are comets. On page 254 of The Quest for Comets, Levy writes "According to Marsden approximately 98 percent of comet discovery reports from unknown observers turn out to be false alarms. Just because an object is fuzzy does not mean it is a comet, and even if it is a comet, it may be a known one. Galaxies, nebulae, and ghost images of bright stars are often reported as new comets."
In article: <[email protected]> Lamont Graquist writes:
>> In June of 1996 they said the orbit manipulations, where
>> paper orbit took a leap AWAY from Jupiter of 3 arc mintues
>> under the ever watchful eye of JPL, was to line the orbit up
>> with a real comet.
>> [email protected](Nancy )
>
> This is a minescule correction
> [email protected]
JPL reported on May 28, 1996 that they have 936 observations that went into the Orbital Elements they just reported. On June 27, 1996 the count had gone up to 1008 observations. This was NOT being reported as some seldom observed object where a single observation would make a significant change. It was under the close eye of JPL, supposedly!
In article: <[email protected]> Lamont Graquist writes:
>> The eccentricity shortened at that time too, an UNEXPLAINED
>> change, much debated lately. That eccentricity change is now
>> explained, as the REAL comet the orbit was being prepared
>> for HAS a tighter eccentricity!
>> [email protected](Nancy )
>
> The eccentricity *estimate* was changed to fit the greater
> number of observations making it more accurate and lower.
> [email protected]
What observation occurred between May 28 and June 27, 1996 that would account for an eccentricity tightening? In particular, why would the eccentricity tighten when the orbit was WIDENED! If a real comet was being tracked, it took a leap AWAY from Jupiter of 3 arc minutes. As Jupiter was on the OUTSIDE of what was at that time a mythical comet, this leap would have if anything pulled the orbit wider. This would have broadened, not tightened, the eccentricity! These changes in the Orbital Elements are in fact contradictory.