Planet X / Barbarossa

[andyschlei]

I am posting this in Conspiracy Theories because of the claims made that no professional astronomers will listen.

I received the following e-mail at an account that is openly linkable from my website. (Yes, it attracts a fair amount of spam.) It alleges that there is a large planet observable, but the author of the e-mail has been unable to get any astronomers to look for it. A Google search on "Joseph Keller Barbarossa" did not turn up any interesting links.

I was wondering what the group here thought. Here is the e-mail.

Subject: Be the first to image big new solar planet!
Date: Wed, March 21, 2007 7:53 pm
Priority: Normal

Dear Amateur Astronomers:




Below is the letter I sent to the Lowell Observatory Friday and the addendum sent
Saturday (no response yet, after four days - professional astronomers "don't do
email"!). It contains my best estimates of the position of the new planet which
I've named Barbarossa. (I made a lengthy but futile long-distance call to the Iowa
State Univ. observatory director trying to convince him to look for this. This is
your chance.)

"By great-circle extrapolation, with a rough correction for Earth parallax,
Barbarossa's March 10, 2007 position is

RA 11h 27m 10s Decl -9deg 18' 58".

Alternatively, my statistically-derived greatest-likelihood great circle, estimates
the Declination at this RA as

Decl -9deg 05' 46" (for RA 11h 27m 10s)

The greatest-likelihood great circle goes through this point with slope -7.35
arcminutes Decl per minute of RA."


The only telescope to which I have access is my brother's 5" Newtonian, otherwise I
would have looked myself. The three main points in these letters are:

1. I've found Barbarossa on at least one, probably two sky survey plates. It has
Red photographic magnitude +17.3 (by comparison with four nearest cataloged stars).

2. The trajectory from #1 aligns Barbarossa accurately with one of the slowly
shifting 5:2 Jupiter:Saturn mean resonance points, both in phase and period
(accurate agreeement of *two* numbers).

3. Ian McDiarmid, one of the world's top cosmic ray researchers, is on record
saying that one doesn't get cosmic ray artifacts on ordinary photographic film at,
say, 7800 ft (La Silla Observatory, where the plates in #1 were made).

4. Barbarossa's track is too short for an asteroid or centaur, and if it's a Kuiper
Belt Object, the magnitude implies it's bigger than Pluto.

5. #2 implies it's even farther away & as big as Jupiter.

Sincerely,

Joseph C. Keller, M. D.



To: Dr. Robert L Millis, Director, Lowell Observatory, and Principal Investigator,
Lowell Deep Ecliptic Survey

c/o Dr. Marc W. Buie, Astronomer, Lowell Observatory (with readily found email
address!), and Investigator, Lowell Deep Ecliptic Survey

cc: *********; and, messageboard, Dr. Tom Van Flandern (www.metaresearch.org)



Roland, Iowa March 16, 2007


Open letter to the Director of the Lowell Observatory

Dear Sir:

Like Prof. Lowell, I studied Mathematics at Harvard College (B. A., cumlaude,
Mathematics, 1977). The essential details of my recent work on Prof. Lowell's
Planet X are posted, to Dr. Tom Van Flandern's "www.metaresearch.org" messageboard,
under the name, "Joe Keller", in the thread "Requiem for Relativity". (I use Dr.
Van
Flandern's messageboard as an alternative to "ArXiv.org".)

Planet X, which I have named Barbarossa, appears at

RA 11h 18m 03.2s Decl -7deg 58' 46" on the La Silla sky survey Red plate
SERC.ER.DSS2.713 dated January 31, 1987. Possibly there is a second appearance of
Barbarossa at

RA 11h 14m 36.0s -7deg 32' 17.5" on the Blue plate SERC.J.DSS1.713 dated May 8, 1983.

Assuming a circular orbit and making first order approximations to correct for Earth
parallax, Barbarossa has period 2640 yr. and is 191 AU from the sun. Accordingly,
the resonances of the orbital periods of the outer planets have discrepancies which
advance prograde with periods

Jupiter:Saturn 5:2 2780 yr
Saturn:Neptune 6:1 2180 yr
Jupiter:Uranus 7:1 -5970 = -2985 * 2 yr (retrograde)
Uranus:Neptune 2:1 4380 = 2190 * 2 yr

Saturn:Uranus 3:1 1190 = 2380 / 2 yr.

I discovered Barbarossa on February 15, 2007 as a sequence of statistical artifacts
in the USNO-B1.0 catalog. I informed the U. S. Naval Observatory on February 21.

I first saw the La Silla Red image of Barbarossa on March 4, and realized on March 5
that it is Barbarossa. By comparison with the four nearest cataloged stars,
Barbarossa's Red magnitude is about +17.3. A 6% Red albedo would imply 46,000 mi
diameter. Barbarossa might be either a giant planet or a cold brown dwarf.

I realized yesterday, March 15, that the above La Silla Blue image is Barbarossa,
which is dim in Blue. The pattern seen on this Univ. of Strasbourg "Aladin" image
depends on one's monitor setting. At its best, it shows Barbarossa as a lean-to
adjoining a nearby star with a separate USNO-B catalog
number. It shows a moon of Barbarossa's (I've named the largest & next-largest
moons, Frey & Freya) as a disjoint dark pixel 3" toward azimuth 245. From my
drawing of the best image obtained (Prof. Lowell drew lines on Mars; I draw pixel
boxes), I estimate this moon to be 1.7 magnitudes dimmer than Barbarossa.

The Red La Silla image shows no disjoint moon, nor any star near enough to confuse.
Thorough computer search found the best fit for three points of light, was to have a
moon 1.2 magnitudes dimmer than Barbarossa, 2.5" away at azimuth 275; and another
moon 1.6 magnitudes dimmer 2" away at azimuth 75. Thus the Barbarossa system
consistently appears parallel to the ecliptic. Furthermore the best fit for one
point of light, lay outside the darkest pixel box, indicating either multiple
sources or quickly varying magnitude. As a
gravitationally bound body subject to Poincare instability, Barbarossa hardly can
rotate appreciably during these 1 hr exposures.

In 2002 at a Physics and Astronomy conference, cosmic ray expert Ian McDiarmid
disparaged the statement that cosmic rays would be readily detected by ordinary
photographic materials onboard airplanes [let alone at 7800 ft at La Silla]. A
Kuiper Belt Object would leave a streak of this length, but even then, the magnitude
would suggest another Pluto or Sedna.

By great-circle extrapolation, with a rough correction for Earth parallax,
Barbarossa's March 10, 2007 position is

RA 11h 27m 10s Decl -9deg 18' 58".

Alternatively, my statistically-derived greatest-likelihood great circle, estimates
the Declination at this RA as

Decl -9deg 05' 46" (for RA 11h 27m 10s)

The greatest-likelihood great circle
goes through this point with slope -7.35 arcminutes Decl per minute of RA.

Sincerely,
Joseph C. Keller, M. D.




Addendum: to Dr. Millis, Director, Lowell Observatory

in care of Dr. Buie, Lowell Observatory

(posted today to Dr. Van Flandern's messageboard)


Barbarossa and the Pentagon

Obtaining more recent estimates of the orbital periods of Jupiter and Saturn, I
found that the discrepancy in the 5:2 resonance, progresses one cycle in 2696 yr.
This is practically equal to the approximate 2643 yr period calculated above for
Barbarossa, from its sightings as Object #7 & Object #3, assuming a circular
orbit. Barbarossa shepherds one point of the Pentagon formed by the five recurring
conjunctions of Jupiter and Saturn around the ecliptic.

On April 17.5, 1981, such a conjunction occurred at 187.15deg heliocentric ecliptic
longitude. (If the alternate criterion, closest three-dimensional approach, is
used,
this becomes 186.65.) By extrapolating the Barbarossa positions associated with
Object #7 and Object #3, I found that Barbarossa was at heliocentric ecliptic
longitude 172.5 then.

The difference, 187.15-172.5=14.65deg (14.15deg by the alternate criterion), is
explained by the orbital eccentricities of Jupiter and Saturn. Roughly, Jupiter is
180deg from perihelion & Saturn 90deg from it. A somewhat more precise
first-order calculation shows Saturn a net 8.0deg ahead of Jupiter, when a "mean
Saturn" and "mean Jupiter" reach heliocentric ecliptic longitude 172.5. Jupiter has
extra catching-up to do.

On the average, with 5:2 resonance, this would occur over 5/3 of the catch-up angle,
but Jupiter also is about 9% slow here, Saturn 1% fast, and Jupiter's average speed
really is 0.7% too low for 5:2 resonance anyway. So, Jupiter needs 14.3deg to
catch up.

Averaging Jupiter & Saturn (their ascending nodes and orbital inclinations are
similar), gives 1.9deg inclination to the ecliptic, with ascending node at 107deg
ecliptic longitude. Therefore Jupiter's & Saturn's tracks are nearly parallel to
the ecliptic here. Barbarossa's projection onto this Jupiter-Saturn average
ecliptic, would change the above 14.65, to 14.85. (The difference between true
Jupiter-Saturn conjunction, and mere equality of ecliptic longitude, is negligible
in either ecliptic system.)

So, Barbarossa's position, extrapolated from its sightings as Object #7 and Object
#3, is only 0.55 deg (or 0.05deg by the alternate criterion) west of a mean shepherd
position for the 5:2 Jupiter:Saturn resonance. Because there are five such
positions, p=0.55*2/(360/5)=0.015 (p=0.0015 for the alternate criterion). More
precise calculations might enhance this agreement.

Sincerely,
Joseph C. Keller, M. D. Live Search Maps – find all the local information you need,
right when you need it.

[R.A.F.]

There is a "process" that must be followed when someone thinks they have discovered something. (you report it to the proper authorities, the discovery is confirmed, etc.)

Posting to Van Flandern's message board is not part of that process...

Color me skeptical...

[Grashtel]

There is a "process" that must be followed when someone thinks they have discovered something. (you report it to the proper authorities, the discovery is confirmed, etc.)

Posting to Van Flandern's message board is not part of that process...

Color me skeptical...

I second that, particularly as he is trying to claim the existence of a body large enough to have been easily detected by now (particularly as unless its extremely old a brown dwarf would be glowing brightly in the infrared).

[Serenitude]

Honestly, I would point him to Phil's page:

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/planetx/index.html

One of the things he discusses, in very understandable terms, are the observable and measurable effects that a planet that fit that description would have on our solar system. We do not observe those effects.

It wouldn't surprise anyone to find yet another KBO - but to see a Jupiter sized KBO in a 5 inch telescope?

[Count Zero]

Ian McDiarmid, one of the world's top cosmic ray researchers . . .

At first I thought this was a joke, because Ian McDiarmid is the name of the actor who played Emperor Palpatine in the Star Wars movies. In fact, there is a cosmic ray physicist by this name:

http://www.physics.uwo.ca/~drm/history/space/w_t3.html
(Scroll 3/4 of the way down this page.)

[andyschlei]

It wouldn't surprise anyone to find yet another KBO - but to see a Jupiter sized KBO in a 5 inch telescope?

He wanted us to look, and would have looked himself, but only had access to his brother's 5 inch newtonian. That would be a challenge: Finding a magnitude 17 object with a 5-inch scope.

[Serenitude]

He wanted us to look, and would have looked himself, but only had access to his brother's 5 inch newtonian. That would be a challenge: Finding a magnitude 17 object with a 5-inch scope.

Ah, misread that part. Thanks for clarifying that

[antoniseb]

I'm not sure this qualifies as a conspiracy theory, nor is it really a Planet X thread (in the impending crisis variety). Keller (if this is not a hoax) is talking about a large distant KBO that is no threat to life on Earth, and the only 'conspiracy' is that the few astronomers he's contacted about this haven't responded to this unlikely request.

Given that the reported object is quite a bit South of Leo, he does seem poorly informed to have asked someone in Iowa to take a look, though now that I think about it, preferring to post in TVF's forum as opposed to arXiv seems like a poorly informed choice too.

I think it belongs in the astronomy section. Any other opinions about this?

[Tog]

Since it's basically a request for observations to get confirmation, I'd say Astronomy, with a very outside chance of ATM (Jupiter size KBO?). Unless the thinking is that no one has yet responded because "we have 8 planets now and we're gonna keep it that way".

[Serenitude]

Astronomy, agreed. Reading over the post again, the only conspiracy is that it takes astronomers several days to answer email at their public adresses. It's likely to get the attention it needs in the Astronomy section.

[Blob]

By means of high-precision timing thanks to pulsars astronomers Nadia Zakamska, Scott Tremaine now know what the solar barycentre is doing with respect to the rest of the cosmos.
And it is not being pulled around by Planet X.

The astronomers, Nadia Zakamska, Scott Tremaine, made use of the Australia Telescope National Facility pulsar database ( http://www.atnf.csiro.au/research/pulsar/psrcat/ )

Title; Constraints on the acceleration of the solar system from high-precision timing
Authors: Nadia L. Zakamska, Scott Tremaine (Princeton University)

Many astronomers have speculated that the solar system contains undiscovered massive planets or a distant stellar companion.
The acceleration of the solar system barycentre can constrain the mass and position of the putative companion. In this paper we use the most recent timing data on accurate astronomical clocks (millisecond pulsars, pulsars in binary systems and pulsating white dwarfs) to constrain this acceleration.
No evidence for non-zero acceleration has been found; the typical sensitivity achieved by our method is a/c=a few times 10^-19 s^-1, comparable to the acceleration due to a Jupiter-mass planet at 200 AU.
The acceleration method is limited by the uncertainties in the distances and by the timing precision for pulsars in binary systems, and by the intrinsic distribution of the period derivatives for millisecond pulsars.
Timing data provide stronger constraints than residuals in the motions of comets or planets if the distance to the companion exceeds a few hundred AU.
The acceleration method is also more sensitive to the presence of a distant companion (closer than 300-400 AU) than existing optical and infrared surveys. We outline the differences between the effects of the peculiar acceleration of the solar system and the background of gravitational waves on high-precision timing.

http://au.arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-p...06/0506548.pdf

[andyschlei]

I'm not sure this qualifies as a conspiracy theory, nor is it really a Planet X thread (in the impending crisis variety). Keller (if this is not a hoax) is talking about a large distant KBO that is no threat to life on Earth, and the only 'conspiracy' is that the few astronomers he's contacted about this haven't responded to this unlikely request.

Given that the reported object is quite a bit South of Leo, he does seem poorly informed to have asked someone in Iowa to take a look, though now that I think about it, preferring to post in TVF's forum as opposed to arXiv seems like a poorly informed choice too.

I think it belongs in the astronomy section. Any other opinions about this?

I concur -- Astronomy does make sense.

I put it in Conspiracy Theories because I received it as an unsolicited e-mail, which is even a stranger way to report it than to post it to a forum.

[tony873004]

May I make a suggestion? You have access to more than your brother's 5 inch telescope. Many universities have observatories that have large telescopes. They often hold public nights. I am one of the volunteer observatory operators at San Francisco State University. If you showed up on a clear Monday night with your RA and DEC, I'd be happy to point the 16 incher your way. But SF is a 6 hour drive from you. And you'll be facing a 50% chance of being clouded out too. However, I imagine that there are observatories in the LA area that have public nights as well. Just check with the local universities. Also, you could attend star parties. Someone will bring 18 inch dob.

[R.A.F.]

I think it belongs in the astronomy section. Any other opinions about this?

Just a question...

Assuming that (sooner or later) someone gets around to looking through a proper instrument at the supposed coordinates, and sees nothing, will this thread be moved back to the CT (or perhaps ATM) section??

Placing this in astronomy is, IMO, really giving it a "legitimacy" it does not deserve...at least not until evidence aquired through observation is presented.

[Tog]

But Andy got this as an unsolicited E mail and is only passing along the request for verification, not asserting the existence of it. I don't see anything that would call for an ATM or CT unless observations show nothing, but the claims persist.

I see this as being only slightly different than if someone were to come here asking if what they saw in their scope was a new comet. If the comet they think they found turns out to be M13, it's not a conspiracy, it's a mistake.

[R.A.F.]

Perhaps if it weren't for the TVF "factor", I would feel differently.

However, IMO, if someone is so "confused" that they think that taking their planetary discovery to Van Flandern is a reasonable idea, then I must seriously question everything else they have said.

(Can you tell that I'm not a "fan" of Tom Van Flandern??? :LOL: )

[R.A.F.]

The essential details of my recent work on Prof. Lowell's Planet X are posted, to Dr. Tom Van Flandern's "www.metaresearch.org" messageboard,
under the name, "Joe Keller", in the thread
"Requiem for Relativity". (I use Dr. Van
Flandern's messageboard as an alternative to "ArXiv.org".)

I got curious about Joe Keller, so I went to Van Flandern's message board to read the original post by him.

Turns out that he is no stranger to the TVF board, having posted there more than 200 times...

Anyone care to take a guess as to how "mainstream" Mr. Keller's ideas are??

[antoniseb]

Anyone care to take a guess as to how "mainstream" Mr. Keller's ideas are??

I would guess that they are not very maintream, and fairly naive about the scientific method... this is based on his seeming methodology for getting his idea published, and the fact that he's already named his 'planet'. None-the-less, this was neither an ATM post (Who would defend whatever there was to defend? Who would bother to look and dispute it?), nor was it a conspiracy theory.

Similarly, we have several very regular members who support some ATM viewpoints, but who do post reasonable and new things in our mainstream sections from time to time. Just because they are strongly motivated by observations that can suggest that the world is very different than most scientists think doesn't mean that everything they post is wrong. So Joe Keller's thing doesn't get tossed out.

[01101001]

I received the following e-mail at an account that is openly linkable from my website. (Yes, it attracts a fair amount of spam.) It alleges that there is a large planet observable, but the author of the e-mail has been unable to get any astronomers to look for it.

Perhaps you need to take this gift and weave a rejection-letter response similar in quality to the Internet-famous fake-but-funny reply of the Smithsonian Paleoanthropologist to the discoverer of a molded-plastic hominid skull in his backyard, near the clothesline. Snopes: Smithsonian Barbie:

Rather, it appears that what you have found is the head of a Barbie doll, of the variety one of our staff, who has small children, believes to be the "Malibu Barbie". It is evident that you have given a great deal of thought to the analysis of this specimen, and you may be quite certain that those of us who are familiar with your prior work in the field were loathe to come to contradiction with your findings.

[R.A.F.]

Antoniseb, I am trying to understand your reasoning on this matter...

quoted from this page of Tom Van Flandern's forum...4 posts down...(emphasis mine)

This new giant planet (or small star as the case may be) shall be named Barbarossa. Its largest moon shall be named Frey and its next-largest moon, Freya. The estimated diameter of Barbarossa is 83,000 miles...

Claiming that there is an undiscovered "Jupiter sized" planet beyond the orbit of Pluto is not considered ATM on this board??

[antoniseb]

Claiming that there is an undiscovered "Jupiter sized" planet beyond the orbit of Pluto is not considered ATM on this board??

The TVF page was not part of what was posted. The initial post was simply a request to observe a particular location in the sky looking for a particular type of moving object. Now, I'll grant that everything about this says that there is an ATM cast of characters here (no offense meant to our more serious ATM supporters), and no one expects the supposed planet to actually be there, but the original post was not ATM, and no one has picked up the ball to run in an ATM direction, except to provide reasons to think that it isn't worth looking (such as the pulsar data for the Solar System Barycenter).

[FarmerJeb]

After a couple google searches for our planet discover, I'm inclined to say it belongs in the ATM forum.

A few highlights,

A email apparently written by him on the "Vangaurd News Network" which is a very anti-semetic website.
(Operation Barbarossa was the codename for the german invasion of russia)

and some general 9/11 conspiracy stuff.

I'm interested to know what more mainstream astronomers can verify about this apparent object. I do doubt that the name Barbarossa would stick if it is confirmed.

Edit,

Also, his medical license was revoked in Missouri for failure to pay income tax in 2004, and i found a whole slew of stuff on various pro-nazi message boards

I'd rather not link to those sites, but if you want to see, search for "HighPlainsDrifter" "Joseph C. Keller, M. D.", "josephkeller100@hotmail.com" and "josephkeller100"

[higginsdj]

The name wouldn't stick as it has already been assigned to a Minor Planet (1860).
I've looked at the images he has been quoting and yes there are things there but they are a mix of image defects and asteroid or space junk trails. In all the posts I have read he has always quoted images that are years appart and only 3 points (well 1, 2 or 3 points). As far as I can tell you can fit ANY 3 points to an orbit (almost any orbit). Taking measurements from a single image from the 1950's, 1980's and 1990's does not make for sound science....in my humble opinion.

He's still posting on the iceinspace forum and he keeps re-iterating and trying to justify his position (as well as that of 2 moons) based on 3 points from the same 3 images. Given that he has been making preditions about the targets future position I suggested that he must have calculated an Orbit so asked for the orbit elements. So far no response!

He appears to ignore all posts (except those that cast 'doubt' on the 'quality' of his posts). I suggested that his posts we like those SPAM emails we get that contain a lot of text based on seemingly random word selection resulting in giberish. He took offence and accused me of 'Not telling the truth' and that 'I know the truth'! I guess he thinks that all astronomers (even us amateurs) are hiding the truth about this target from everyone......

Cheers

David

[Dubb]

For the sake of finding out more info so this post can be properly classified:

metaresearch.org

[Nereid]

Please note that as BAUT's ATM policy is for ATM threads older than 30 days to be closed automatically, and as this thread was started more than 30 days' ago, it will be automatically closed when the system does its daily update.

[Nereid]

I have created a new ATM thread - Kuiper Belt dynamics: evidence for Barbarossa - by splitting out the actual ATM claims by Joseph C. Keller and subsequent posts which respond to those claims.