The ESA-NASA Ulysses
Probe and Planet X / Nibiru

YOWUSA.COM, 13-October-08
Jacco van der Worp, MSc
Marshall Masters

…Continued

A September Epitaph for Ulysses

With the months of silence following the disappointment of the 2008 look-down North Pole flyby, there was a noticeable absence of real data until September 2008.

Then, on September 23, a bit of data finally made its way to the web. Although the name “Ulysses” did not appear until the third paragraph in this NASA press release, it caught our eye nonetheless, and it turns out to be more interesting than NASA could have foreseen (or probably intended.) 

NASA, 23-Sep-2008
Solar Wind Loses Power, Hits 50-year Low

In a briefing today at NASA headquarters, solar physicists announced that the solar wind is losing power.

"The average pressure of the solar wind has dropped more than 20% since the mid-1990s," says Dave McComas of the Southwest Research Institute in San Antonio, Texas. "This is the weakest it's been since we began monitoring solar wind almost 50 years ago."

Curiously, the speed of the million mph solar wind hasn't decreased much—only 3%. The change in pressure comes mainly from reductions in temperature and density. The solar wind is 13% cooler and 20% less dense.

In addition to weakened solar wind, "Ulysses also finds that the sun's underlying magnetic field has weakened by more than 30% since the mid-1990s," says Posner. "This reduces natural shielding even more."

Unpublished Ulysses cosmic ray data show that, indeed, high energy (GeV) electrons, a minor but telltale component of cosmic rays around Earth, have jumped in number by about 20%.

These extra particles pose no threat to people on Earth's surface. Our thick atmosphere and planetary magnetic field provide additional layers of protection that keep us safe.

As we pored over the article, we quickly became equally impressed with its formulation, as well as its content.  There is no past tense, only present tense formulation throughout the article. For example, Ulysses “finds”? Did they mean “found”, or “has found”?  This begs the question, how can a probe that is frozen in a deep sleep mode, according to mission controllers, be sending in this much ongoing data?  Ergo, are we looking at an error in semantics, or is someone trying to slip us information between the lines?  Interesting thoughts to consider, but of more importance is the data itself. 

As the old saying goes, “a picture is worth a thousand words” and the big picture is here.  In fact, it stands out like a sore thumb at the 8 o'clock position in the illustration that appears in the article.

A strong anomaly from both the 1998 and 2008 orbits (lower left quadrant) is clearly depicted in this illustration.  These flybys occurred 10 years apart, and at that position, the solar wind is shown to be nearly twice as strong as elsewhere on the Sun!  Furthermore, the point of the anomaly has to be at an angle anywhere between 10 and 45 degrees to the ecliptic plane.

Unanswered Questions

However, this illustration also raises other questions, because it does not offer a timescale. For example, the flyby over the Sun's North Pole took place less than 7 months before the end of the second period depicted, which would indicate that the graphs went counter-clockwise and started at the 9 o'clock position at the beginning of the upper left quadrant.

Keep in mind that the Sun rotates like Earth, only slower. Where the Earth takes 24 hours to complete one rotation, the Sun requires approximately 27 Earth days to complete one rotation on its axis. This means that during the first orbit in the picture, the Sun rotated 81 times, and during the second it rotated 61 times. This fact rules out any localized effect on the surface of our star, or the whole graph would look as ragged as the section near the 8 o'clock position.

Moreover, just how credible are two strong series of sunspots reoccurring exactly 10 years apart and with nearly equal durations? This is puzzling, given that there would be 5 years of no sunspot activity at all until the next round of spots. Solar spot counts of the last few solar cycles indicate otherwise.

Furthermore, the Sun has an 11-year period, not 10, so the cause of this anomaly has to come from beyond the Sun, as opposed to it originating within the Sun itself.  A likely causality would be a massive object entering the core of our solar system from below the ecliptic plane. 

This illustration published by NASA certainly offers the possibility of smoking-gun evidence for the existence of Planet X, which brings us back to the semantics of this article.  Is someone at NASA trying to feed us the information between the lines, and if so, what would be the logical disinformation spin to silence such a leak? 

Countering Potential Ulysses Disinformation Spin

Assuming a disinformation counter appears to refute our analysis of the NASA Sept. 23, 2008 press release discussed above, what could it look like?  A logical spin approach would be based on the position that pictures take by the SOHO solar space observatory were used to superimpose the data and were mistakenly presented upside down.  Ergo, since down is actually up, no worries folks.  Move along; there is nothing to see here. 

Granted, most will do exactly that, but a discerning few will know why this simplistic explanation is non-starter spin. This is because something (such as a natural process or object), has caused the solar winds to be more intense in one definite direction during the 10-year period depicted in the illustration show above. 

Worse yet, the 3rd orbit data shows that this disturbance actually moved away a little from the ecliptic plane. What this means is that whatever is causing this ongoing localized increase in solar wind has moved away from the Sun's equator.  Therefore, it could be in a polar orbit around the Sun, similar to the over-under orbit of the ESA-NASA Ulysses probe.

Still, there's more. The latest article quoted states that unpublished Ulysses cosmic ray data shows that high energy electrons have increased by 20%. Disinformation spin to counter concerns over this substantial increase in cosmic rays would be to point out that our “thick” atmosphere and magnetic field will keep us safe.

Normally, that would be the case, but these are not normal times, because Earth's magnetic fields have “thinned,” so to speak, by roughly 30% in the last few decades.  In other words, we've already seen a net decrease in our natural protection from increased cosmic rays by approximately 10%, and this trend is getting worse — not better. 

In other words, if an official assures you that the “fundamentals” of Earth's cosmic ray shield are sound, should you simply take them at their word and go merrily about your way?   Or, have you had enough of these “we know better” surprises?  That's for you to decide.