Выбрать главу

We have discussed the chemical qualities of the charged tail of Planet X, which includes not only debris such as gravel

and boulders but also petrochemical components gathered from the Asteroid Belt when it was pelted to pieces in the past. We have described how the moon swirls in the tail of Planet X form tubes that funnel light toward one end, thus

appearing as a light orb to those who see the moon swirl while peering down one end of the tube. Is there a relationship of these light towers and tornado shapes appearing on Earth now to the moon swirls in the tail of Planet

X? Indeed there is. Light is bent within the moon swirl by chemicals swirling there there to flow down the tube and

emerge at an end.

Light bends, a fact known to man as rainbows spread across the light spectrum bent only by the water in the clouds.

Light is bent by water, a fact known to any child who wonders why his feet are displaced when he stands in a pool of

water. Light bends when going through a prism, solid glass. An oil smear on the window will also create a rainbow in

the sunlight. Light also follows the flow of electrons, which anyone watching a lightning display understands. These

http://www.zetatalk2.com/index/zeta430.htm[2/5/2012 11:55:12 AM]

ZetaTalk: Light Towers

light particles were not generated from thin air by the flow of electrons. They were attracted to the charge and bent to

follow the flow, and thus emerged into view in the vicinity of the lightning path. The tail of Planet X is charged due to

the iron oxide dust particles disbursed throughout the tail. This charge has nowhere to go, as the tail is not grounded. It

is essentially static electricity. But when the red dust and petrochemical components in the tail waft into Earth's

atmosphere where there is free oxygen and nitrogen, chemical reactions not occurring out in space are possible.

Man is used to thinking of chemical reactions involving petrochemical components and

oxygen as an explosion, happening suddenly - boom! But where disbursed and present

in barely perceptible quantities, it is more akin to a slow swoosh, creating a spiral of

heat that starts a tornado effect in the atmosphere. Where a slow explosion has passed,

the smoke created can linger, looking like a dark tornado floating in the air. Where the

slow explosion occurs at night, the light can seem dramatic for the few minutes it lasts.

This is a chemical reaction in the atmosphere, as we stated earlier in response to the

initial report from Iraq. More such light towers can be anticipated, but beyond this,

more effects from the tail of Planet X can be anticipated as the tail components increase

in density in the atmosphere of Earth. What these effects will be we will not say, as we

prefer to have the establishment caught off guard so that the cover-up stumbles and the public learns the truth. The

establishment knows what is coming, but is keeping the truth from the public, who like the elite have a right to know.

I thought first it was a tornado, but then it started to glow and the stripe become brighter.

http://www.zetatalk2.com/index/zeta430.htm[2/5/2012 11:55:12 AM]

ZetaTalk: Light Towers

http://www.zetatalk2.com/index/zeta430.htm[2/5/2012 11:55:12 AM]

ZetaTalk: Planets

Mail this Pageto a Friend.

ZetaTalk: Planets

Note: written on Mar 15, 1996.

Some of the larger planets are assumed to be primarily gaseous, small Suns, perhaps, that didn't make the grade

because they were too small, their lack of bulk preventing them from either lighting or attracting planets themselves.

This concept is in the main correct, beyond the fundamental fact that suns and gaseous planets are not composed

entirely of light elements. Quite the contrary, and they invariably have heavy elements at their core, though large,

gaseous planets should be looked upon as no different than the small but more dense planets when contemplating their

influence on a solar system.

Planets find their niche, based on how crowded the solar system is and their relative mass. For instance, if Jupiter were

not in your Solar System, the planets close in to the Sun would have essentially the same orbits, though would fan out

a bit more. A planet's position is based primarily on the gravity attraction between it and its sun and the concurrent

repulsion force invoked. If the niche a planet would normally assume is already taken, as was the case when the

clobbered Earth wobbled out of the Asteroid Belt into her current orbit, then more than one planet may settle into the

same orbit, sharing this. Why then are smaller planets, such as Mars and Pluto, further out? Small planets may fail to

drift into a closer orbit due to the buffering action of larger planets closer in. Essentially a bumping occurs, where the

smaller planet is repulsed outward by a larger planet. Timing is everything in this matter, as twins in an orbit may

occur if they come into the orbit at a distance from each other, where a close passage at key points would produce

bumping.

All rights reserved: ZetaTalk@ZetaTalk.com

http://www.zetatalk2.com/science/s63.htm[2/5/2012 11:55:13 AM]

ZetaTalk: Orbits

Mail this Pageto a Friend.

ZetaTalk: Orbits

Note: written on Jan 15, 1996.

The orbit of planets is guided by several factors, only one of which is the gravitational influence of the Sun, though

that is, of course, the strongest. Humans ascribe an inordinate amount of weight, in orbits, to what they perceive as the

existing, or static, motion. They assume the orbit is constant, having been in place since the inception of the Solar

System. They assume the distance from the Sun is maintained by centrifugal force, pulling away from the Sun. They

assume the rotation of planets is a constant, and having no explanation for rotation ascribe it also to motion having

been in place since the inception of the Solar System. Humans view the result of many factors they do not understand,

and ascribe this result to inappropriate causes. They are wrong on all counts, but as the Solar System does not change

in its motion before their eyes, this is not often up for debate. Rigid minds have no reason to change. Comfortable

theories have no uncomfortable challenges.

The orbiting planets are indeed caught in the Sun's gravitational field, but there is more than gravity and motion at play

in maintaining the distance they do from the Sun. The orbits are scarcely fast enough to create a centrifugal force

strong enough to keep them at a distance from the Sun. Planets do not drift into the Sun, in the main, due to a

repulsion force generated in both bodies. Where the force of gravity is constant, and steadily pulls a smaller object

toward a larger, a repulsion force is generated between objects, and only becomes strong enough when the mass of the

two objects is sufficient. Do binary Sun's maintain their dance around each other, always at the same distance, by

accident? Tiny objects, such as comets or meteors which regularly crash into the Sun or the orbiting planets, do not