ALMA Astronomers Publish Planet X Papers Before USA Can Suppress

| December 17, 2015

ALMA Astronomers Publish Planet X Papers Before USA Can SuppressOn December 10, 2015 ALMA astronomers published two Planet X scientific abstracts in which they report initial observations of two very large objects at the edge of our solar system.

Located in Northern Chile, the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA) is the largest single telescope in the world and is located at an altitude of 5,000 meters.

Because this observatory is not under full or majority financial control of the United States government, the USA was unable to suppress the publication of these papers.

American resentment of this legitimization of Planet X theory was clearly evidenced on December 11, 2015 in a Washington Post article by Sarah Kaplan titled Scientists claimed they found elusive ‘Planet X.’ Doubting astronomers are in an uproar.

Planet X Smear Team - Brown and KaplanIn this vitriolic response, Sarah Kaplan of The Washington Post and astronomer Mike Brown of Caltech clearly intend to smear astronomers looking for Planet X.

Notably, the ALMA astronomers who posted their findings, Percival Lowell, founder of the Lowell Observatory in Flagstaff, Arizona, and Clyde Tombaugh of the Lowell Observatory, who is credited with the discovery of Pluto.

At one level, this is a disappointing character assassination by The Washington Post, but on another, it portends a more serious agenda.

Perhaps to warn other astronomers that Planet X is a death topic, and should they collaborate with the ALMA astronomers in conducting further observations of these two distant objects, they will do so at the risk of their own careers, and perhaps even at their own peril.

Therefore I am asking my readers to evaluate the following information regarding this Washington Post article with a specific request in mind.

After reading this article and the full text of the Washington Post article, should you have reason to believe that Sarah Kaplan has shown unprofessional conduct in the authoring of this December 11, 2015 article, then I implore you to contact The Washington Post.

Select “Journalism” from the drop-down list, then select “Comments About Articles” from the second drop down list. Paste the URL for the article into the box. Then in your message demand that they retract Sarah Kaplan’s article and immediately terminate her for unprofessional conduct. If you believe be heard!

A Veiled Death Threat?

In the very first paragraph of Sarah Kaplan’s article she writes:

“For centuries, it [Planet X] has eluded some of the most brilliant minds in astronomy — some say it even destroyed one. It’s the subject of endless calculations and rampant speculation, crackpot theories and countless hours spent gazing, fruitlessly, at the night sky.”

To those outside the field of Planet X research, there is nothing usual in these typically cynical statements, however for the few who know, there are six chilling words: “some say it even destroyed one.”

They are chilling because the subtext clearly refers to Dr. Robert S. Harrington, whom many in the field believe was assassinated for his work on Planet X, as noted in our May 2008 article.

YOWUSA.COM, 22-May-2008
Planet X and the Mysterious Death of Dr. Robert Harrington

Planet X and the Mysterious Death of Dr. Robert HarringtonDr. Robert S. Harrington, the chief astronomer of the U.S. Naval Observatory, died before he could publicize the fact that Planet X is approaching our Solar System.

Many feel his death was part of a cover-up, one in which government agencies quickly moved to conceal the most earth-shaking discovery in history. If so, the search for truth begins in New Zealand. Read more…

Our March 2012 article regarding media coverage of Planet X shows a clear correlation between Harrington’s death and the complete collapse in Planet X research at that time, along with the complete collapse of Planet X reporting by the mainstream media following Harrington’s death in 1993. In other words, this is not coincidental.

Yowusa.com, 18-March-2012
The Planet X Cover-up in the Mainstream Media

The Planet X Cover-up in the Mainstream MediaOn December 30th, 1983, NASA’s Chief Scientist of the Infra-Red Astronomical Satellite telescope (IRAS) announced that NASA had discovered Planet X.

Just one week after the story of Planet X was released, the magazine US News and World Report ran a story retracting the announcement and NASA has been silent ever since.

That didn’t stop Dr. Robert S. Harrington who was the chief astronomer of the US Naval Observatory until his mysterious death in 1993.

Planet X transformed from almost certain existence to the evaporation of Planet X evidence in a mere six months and immediately following the death of Harrington.

There is no other explanation for the stunning reversal of Planet X reporting in the mainstream media than NASA, the US Naval Observatory, and ultimately the US Government launching an all-out cover up and disinformation campaign. Read more…

Sarah Kaplan - The Washington PostThe point here is that when Sarah Kaplan states in the very first paragraph of her Washington Post article, “some say it even destroyed one,” it is logical to those who are intimately familiar with Planet X research to assume that she is sending a coded message to the astronomical community at large. A veiled death threat if you will. That if you know what’s good for you, you’ll treat Planet X like a “third rail” topic, or risk becoming the next Harrington.

For those of who are less familiar, this may seem a bit presumptuous, the logic being, “while snakes are found under rocks, not all rocks have snakes lying under them.” With this in mind, let’s turn over the rocks in Sarah Kaplan’s December 11, 2015 Washington Post attack article, Scientists claimed they found elusive ‘Planet X.’ Doubting astronomers are in an uproar.

Attack Phrases by Author, Sarah Kaplan

According to The Washington Post, “Sarah Kaplan is a reporter-of-all-trades for Morning Mix, The Post’s overnight news blog” and is based in Washington, D.C.

In a January 16, 2015 announcement, The Washington Post tells us, “Sarah is a 2014 graduate of Georgetown with a degree in International Culture and Politics. She previously interned at NPR and Washington City Paper.

In other words, it can be argued that this young reporter is looking to ingratiate herself into Washington, DC power circles. It could likewise be argued that when presented with a “we’ll owe you one,” opportunity contingent on smearing the reputations of a few dead astronomers, why not?

After all, she has no background in the field she is reporting on in this article, as we can clearly infer from the January 16, 2015 announcement where the The Washington Post lists her degree and her previous work experience.

With this in mind, let’s view some snippets from her own article:

SARAH KAPLAN: “Though both studies were submitted to the prestigious journal Astronomy & Astrophysics, neither has been peer-reviewed or formally published.”

YOWUSA: This statement by Sarah Kaplan shows her ignorance regarding how the astronomical community actually works. The papers published by the ALMA observatory astronomers announcing their observations are:

What the ALMA observatory astronomers are doing is publishing the information as a way of asking their colleagues in the field to make their own observations. They are not presenting these observations as a fait-accompli, as Sarah Kaplan’s article wrongly implies.

SARAH KAPLAN: “They’re both based on limited observations — just two spottings apiece for each odd object. And even after just 48 hours online, they have garnered a great deal of skepticism within the astronomy community.”

YOWUSA: Instead of reporting that other astronomers have responded skeptically after having used the coordinates in the papers to observe the same area of space, she’s reporting that, “they have garnered a great deal of skepticism within the astronomy community.”

This vague, unsubstantiated statement begs the question, where did Sarah do her reportage garnering? At lunch at a restaurant in Washington D.C.? This is not a joke. If you’re meeting with someone who is offering you that “we’ll owe you one,” opportunity contingent on smearing the reputations of a few dead astronomers, it’s exactly where you meet them — at a restaurant, or somewhere similar.

Next comes a sly bit of wordcraft:

SARAH KAPLAN: “ ‘We specifically wanted to reach the community that could tell us if we overlooked something, in which case we fully intend to withdraw the papers,’ Wouter Vlemmings, an astronomer at Chalmers University of Technology in Sweden and co-author on both studies”

YOWUSA: What Vlemmings is saying is actually good science. That is, if someone can respond to him with real science invalidating these discoveries, he’ll withdraw the papers. However, what most readers will clue in on is, “we fully intend to withdraw the papers.”

Why readers will clue in on that becomes clear with the introduction of Cal Tech astronomer Mike Brown, the other half of this Planet X suppression tag team.

SARAH KAPLAN: “All of which sounds pretty cool — unless you’re Mike Brown, a Caltech astronomer who has spent the majority of his career scanning the farthest reaches of the solar system for just these kinds of objects.

YOWUSA: Vlemmings is not attempting to sound “pretty cool,” as Kaplan phrases it. Vlemmings is asking colleagues in the astronomical community to view the reported data with a critical and impartial review. “All of which sounds pretty cool” is unfairly demeaning, and at this point in the article, Kaplan is only clearing her throat, so to speak.

Before delving into what Mike Brown has to say, let’s jump ahead in the article to Kaplan’s remarks about astronomers Percival Lowell and Clyde Tombaugh:

SARAH KAPLAN: “…no Planet X researcher was more beleaguered than Percival Lowell, who launched into the search for the distant object in an attempt to redeem himself after he became a laughing stock for suggesting that aliens might be building canals on Mars.”

“Lowell spent years photographing the night sky with nothing more than a primitive camera and borrowed telescope, searching for evidence of a planet whose existence was still only a theory. He died of a stroke in 1916, his search unsuccessful. A lifelong friend said that the failure ‘virtually killed him.’ ”

YOWUSA: Lowell actually imaged Pluto in 1915, but failed to recognize it as a planet. However, Clyde Tombaugh of the Lowell Observatory correctly observed it in 1930.

Sarah Kaplan offers the reader smoking-gun proof of not only her ignorance of astronomy, but also of her disregard for ethical journalism, with the smear, “Lowell spent years photographing the night sky with nothing more than a primitive camera and borrowed telescope.”

For the record, Lowell was a wealthy Bostonian who had no need to borrow anything. In fact, Lowell funded and established the Lowell Observatory in 1894 in Flagstaff, Arizona. Lowell also funded the observatory’s original telescope, a custom-made 24-inch Alvan Clark & Sons Telescope, one of several still in use today.

But more to the point, the ALMA astronomers are reporting on observations of objects at the far edge of our own solar system, not on Mars. So how does a man who died in 1916 become part of this story and what is the point of needlessly smearing him?

It is because Lowell is the American father of Planet X research, and because he is an easy, cheap shot for a scientifically illiterate reporter looking to feather her own nest by besmirching him.

Ergo, Kaplan’s article is not about what has happened in Chile. It’s about what has been happening since the discovery of Uranus — the search for Planet X. What the ALMA papers have done is to remove the tarnish smeared all over the field of Planet X research by the American government. For this the astronomers of ALMA are smeared by Sarah Kaplan, as is Clyde Tombaugh.

SARAH KAPLAN: “Pluto would become ‘Planet X’ a decade later, when a farm kid named Clyde Tombaugh working at the Flagstaff, Ariz., laboratory that Lowell founded came across a small moving speck in his own photos of the sky.”

YOWUSA: For the record. Tombaugh discovered a planet using a 13 inch telescope and was no “kid” when he did it. Calling him “a farm kid” is unwarranted and demeaning, but that is to be expected of someone who has no respect for achievement.

Even so, Kapan’s dismissive disrespect of dedicated astronomers who spent their lives in the pursuit of truth pales in comparison to that of Caltech astronomer, Mike Brown.

Mike Brown, Caltech‘s “Pluto killer”

In the movie Gladiator (2000) the character Juba tells Maximus (Played by Russell Crowe), “You have a great name. He [Emperor Commodus] must kill your name before he kills you.”

In the same vein, when it comes to Planet X our government has long used a simple propaganda attack strategy that I call “The Three D’s” — deny, dismiss and demean.

In order for this strategy to work you need an egotistical “expert” to carry it out, as those who are kind and ethical experts are unwilling to participate in such attacks.

In this case, Sarah Kaplan of The Washington Post found Caltech astronomer Mike Brown to be the perfect egotistical “expert” for her smear article. Brown is not known as the father of anything, but rather as the “Pluto Killer.” A designation he so admires that he uses it for his Twitter handle (@plutokiller).

So, do the math. If you’re a power player in Washington DC and you want to discredit a Planet X story coming out of an observatory you do not control, what do you do? You find a scientifically illiterate reporter looking to feather her nest, match her up with an egotistical “expert,” and let them do your dirty work for you.

With this in mind, read the following excerpts from Sarah Kaplan and Mike Brown and as you do, test each against “The Three D’s” — deny, dismiss and demean.

  • “ ‘The logical leaps are sort of astounding,’ he [Brown] said. ‘What they really saw they saw is a little blip and then six months later another little blip.’ ”
  • “The evidence that the researchers offer for their findings is too scanty, Brown said, and the probability that they could have stumbled across a huge, planet-like object in a tiny patch of sky is too small.”
  • “Finding Planet X in the small field of vision they studied with the ALMA telescope, he said, ‘would be like scooping a cup full of water from the ocean and pulling out the white whale.’ ”
  • “ ‘There’s so many reasons why they can’t possibly be correct,’ Brown said. ‘It’s embarrassing to the field.’ ”
  • “That’s because of Planet X’s ‘long and sordid history,’ as Brown put it.”
  • “ ‘For those of us who actually work on this, it’s embarrassing to even say you might be looking for these sort of things in the outer solar system because there have been so many crazy theories,’ Brown said.”
  • “you worry that when someone finally finds something that’s not crazy, people are going to say, ‘Oh, I heard that story three months ago and it’s not real.’ ”

Of all the smears in this article the one that is pure propaganda is, “Finding Planet X in the small field of vision they studied with the ALMA telescope, he [Mike Brown] said, ‘would be like scooping a cup full of water from the ocean and pulling out the white whale.’ ”

Why is Brown’s white whale bombast pure propaganda? Because ALMA is not only the largest observatory in the world, it is one that America propagandists cannot suppress or compromise.

ALMA in Chile

When this story first broke we did the one thing that every independent Planet X researcher needs to do. We followed the money,  and here is what we found.

The Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA) is a radio telescope with an array of 66 antennas. It is situated on the Chajnantor plateau at an elevation of 5,000 meters in the high desert of northern Chile.

Presently the most powerful telescope on Earth, it is designed to further the search for our cosmic origins. Astronomers use it to study the universe in a range of wavelengths between infrared light and radio waves.

More importantly, it is a global collaboration and the international partners include:

  • European Southern Observatory (ESO)
  • U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF)
  • National Institutes of Natural Sciences (NINS) of Japan
  • National Research Council (NRC) (Canada)
  • NSC and ASIAA (Taiwan)
  • KASI (Republic of Korea)
  • Republic of Chile

What is patently obvious here is that American propagandists cannot suppress a telescope they do not own, nor for which they are the principal financiers. This is why the Planet X papers submitted by ALMA were demeaned and dismissed by the Planet X smear team of Sarah Kaplan and Mike Brown.

If you cannot kill it, smear it. Or as they say in Hollywood, “You have a great name. He [Emperor Commodus] must kill your name before he kills you.”

Summary

When it comes to publishing articles on the Internet we live in a 256-character world, and if you’ve made it this far, you’re that one in ten who really does care. Now the question is, do you care enough to make a difference?

It’s obvious that a rookie reporter looking to feather her nest is being used for a government propaganda smear campaign to crush a newsworthy story and to smear honest, dedicated astronomers, both living and dead. Unlike a more seasoned reporter with a reputation to protect, she’s been played for a stooge because of her own naive, blind ambition.

Dear reader, if you look the other way now that you know all this and do nothing, are you any better than Sarah Kaplan?

Again, after reading this article and the full text of the Washington Post article, should you have reason to believe that Sarah Kaplan has shown unprofessional conduct in the authoring of this December 11, 2015 article, then I implore you to contact The Washington Post.

Select “Journalism” from the drop-down list, then select “Comments About Articles” from the second drop down list. Paste the URL for the article into the box. Then in your message demand that they retract Sarah Kaplan’s article and immediately terminate her for unprofessional conduct. If you believe be heard!

Tags: , , , , ,

Category: Planet X

Comments are closed.