The Skeptical Mind : ZetaTalk, The Grand Conspiracy 1995

From: Sarah Mc (sarahmac@hotpop.com)
Subject: Re: Planet X: 3 Observatories PRESENT
Newsgroups: sci.astro , sci.astro.amateur

Date: 2001-11-29 10:53:47 PST

Cult Leader <nancy@zetatalk.com> wrote in message news:<3C062465.B7E116C8@zetatalk.com>...

> To share some of the experiences reported to me, the tack taken by
> observatories this Fall has been to:
> > 1. Refuse to look THERE. "We ain't gona look THERE,
> and never mind why."
> > This works as long as the refusal does not become
> too obvious. One has to wonder, why NOT? If there's
> nothing to hide, why NOT?

Please name the observatories, the operators and the person to whom such comments were made, otherwise, this information is useless hearsay.

> > 2. Refuse to look ANYWHERE. "We're closed for repairs,
> indefinitely. Go away."
> > This is what Steve is reporting in Vancouver.
> Observatories in the vicinity closing down too.
> All it takes for an observatory to close is for
> Steve Havas to glance it its direction. If there's
> nothing to hide, why CLOSE?

Ever heard of maintenance and upgrades? Oh yes - you maintain your website with "re-written" Zetababble when it's been found to be incorrect.

> > 3. Give extensive help, which does anything but.
> "Here, lets take a CCD image for 3 minutes or so,
> and compare to the star charts ... see, nothing
> there but the usual stars. Too cloudy for infrared
> today, though."

Most (if not all) observatories open to the public limit their nightly objectives to one or two objects a night. If everyone came in and wanted to see a certain thing (like the star they bought a name for), 80% of the people would never get to look through the telescope. By the way, thats something I hear you've never done, or at least refused to when it was offered to you.

> > Presented with an explanation that the object
> searched for is so tiny it may be a pixtel on
> an image, needs infrared or red spectrum search
> to stand out, and does not have the intensity of a
> star nor is it reflecting sunlight as Pluto does,
> infrared is refused and a short time CCD is
> proferred. If there's nothing there, why not
> LOOK?

Infrared and red are two different things - learn the difference. And how did Steve Havras see it without such aids as CCD and infrared filtering? Since when are observatories supposed to follow your whims and wishes? Don't make demands on the observatories like you make demands upon your sheep. And, what the hell is a "pixtel"? Is that something like what the Zetas call "RA degrees"?

> > So if you don't like a coverup, about a literal earth shaking event that
> is in your NEAR FUTURE, then check the VIEWING specs, restated next, and
> persist!

What coverup? The one that's raising havoc in your brain? Here's a coverup - rewritting a web page of supposed Zetababble to call "naked eye" "computer assisted" when it became obvious that your Planet X was NOT visible to the naked eye. Now that's a coverup that everyone on this newsgroup knows about, and it's documented here on the web by your own archived posts. On the contrary, nothing your've stated here (or ever) has even the slightest amount of proof that there's a coverup. As the cult leader's date gets closer, expect more bizarre and unbelievable Zetababble to emerge.


		Planet X: 3 Observatories PRESENT
		From: Nancy Lieder (nancy@zetatalk.com) Subject: Planet X: 3 Observatories PRESENT Newsgroups: sci.astro, sci.astro.amateur Date: 2001-11-29 04:01:39 PST To share some of the experiences reported to me, the tack taken by observatories this Fall has been to: 1. Refuse to look THERE. "We ain't gona look THERE, and never mind why." This works as long as the refusal does not become too obvious. One has to wonder, why NOT? If there's nothing to hide, why NOT? 2. Refuse to look ANYWHERE. "We're closed for repairs, indefinitely. Go away." This is what Steve is reporting in Vancouver. Observatories in the vicinity closing down too. All it takes for an observatory to close is for Steve Havas to glance it its direction. If there's nothing to hide, why CLOSE? 3. Give extensive help, which does anything but. "Here, lets take a CCD image for 3 minutes or so, and compare to the star charts ... see, nothing there but the usual stars. Too cloudy for infrared today, though." Presented with an explanation that the object searched for is so tiny it may be a pixtel on an image, needs infrared or red spectrum search to stand out, and does not have the intensity of a star nor is it reflecting sunlight as Pluto does, infrared is refused and a short time CCD is proferred. If there's nothing there, why not LOOK? So if you don't like a coverup, about a literal earth shaking event that is in your NEAR FUTURE, then check the VIEWING specs, restated next, and persist!

	From: Sarah Mc (sarahmac@hotpop.com) Subject: Re: Planet X: 3 Observatories PRESENT Newsgroups: sci.astro , sci.astro.amateur Date: 2001-11-29 10:53:47 PST Cult Leader <nancy@zetatalk.com> wrote in message news:<3C062465.B7E116C8@zetatalk.com>... > To share some of the experiences reported to me, the tack taken by > observatories this Fall has been to: > > 1. Refuse to look THERE. "We ain't gona look THERE, > and never mind why." > > This works as long as the refusal does not become > too obvious. One has to wonder, why NOT? If there's > nothing to hide, why NOT? Please name the observatories, the operators and the person to whom such comments were made, otherwise, this information is useless hearsay. > > 2. Refuse to look ANYWHERE. "We're closed for repairs, > indefinitely. Go away." > > This is what Steve is reporting in Vancouver. > Observatories in the vicinity closing down too. > All it takes for an observatory to close is for > Steve Havas to glance it its direction. If there's > nothing to hide, why CLOSE? Ever heard of maintenance and upgrades? Oh yes - you maintain your website with "re-written" Zetababble when it's been found to be incorrect. > > 3. Give extensive help, which does anything but. > "Here, lets take a CCD image for 3 minutes or so, > and compare to the star charts ... see, nothing > there but the usual stars. Too cloudy for infrared > today, though." Most (if not all) observatories open to the public limit their nightly objectives to one or two objects a night. If everyone came in and wanted to see a certain thing (like the star they bought a name for), 80% of the people would never get to look through the telescope. By the way, thats something I hear you've never done, or at least refused to when it was offered to you. > > Presented with an explanation that the object > searched for is so tiny it may be a pixtel on > an image, needs infrared or red spectrum search > to stand out, and does not have the intensity of a > star nor is it reflecting sunlight as Pluto does, > infrared is refused and a short time CCD is > proferred. If there's nothing there, why not > LOOK? Infrared and red are two different things - learn the difference. And how did Steve Havras see it without such aids as CCD and infrared filtering? Since when are observatories supposed to follow your whims and wishes? Don't make demands on the observatories like you make demands upon your sheep. And, what the hell is a "pixtel"? Is that something like what the Zetas call "RA degrees"? > > So if you don't like a coverup, about a literal earth shaking event that > is in your NEAR FUTURE, then check the VIEWING specs, restated next, and > persist! What coverup? The one that's raising havoc in your brain? Here's a coverup - rewritting a web page of supposed Zetababble to call "naked eye" "computer assisted" when it became obvious that your Planet X was NOT visible to the naked eye. Now that's a coverup that everyone on this newsgroup knows about, and it's documented here on the web by your own archived posts. On the contrary, nothing your've stated here (or ever) has even the slightest amount of proof that there's a coverup. As the cult leader's date gets closer, expect more bizarre and unbelievable Zetababble to emerge.

	BACK