From: Sarah Mc (sarahmac@hotpop.com)
Subject: Re: Earth might go into 4th density
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Date: 2002-08-08 03:25:56 PST
ABC <none@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<ul3c5jcsni60d5@corp.supernews.com>...
> Something that Zetatalk discusses is 3rd and 4th density concepts. Right
> now, it says the earth is in 3rd density but that it will go into 4th
> density in the future, probably after the pole shift, not before.
>
> If it were to go into 4th density BEFORE Planet X arrives then there would
> be no pole shift because 3rd and 4th density interaction is very weak, if
> any. Zetatalk says this.
>
> The only way there won't be a pole shift is if earth goes in to 4th density
> before the pole shift but as Zetatalk says, this is highly unlikely,
> although I guess the conclusion one would have to make is it is not an
> impossibility.
That's the lamest excuse I've heard yet. Please, give us your best
cult appologist try and explain exactly how Nancy's 3rd and 4th
"densities" will prevent her fantasy planet from moving the Earth's
crust through a magnetic and/or gravitational interaction.
While you're at it, try explaining what the "photon belt" is as well.
Are you telling us that when everyone finds "true enlightenment",
their collective thoughts will move Nancy's planet by some unknown
force in the universe? Avoiding the inevitable catastrophe by communal
aura? How utterly new age can you get.
>
> It is something that will happen only if earth stays in 3rd density. The
> Planet X, which has a race of beings on it, is currently in 3rd density.
I really hope you aren't telling people things like this outside of
your web follies. If you are, you'd best start getting prepared for a
long stay at a mental institution. People that live in contrived
realities are eventually discovered and re-introduced to the real
world - sometimes in a pretty harsh manner. And it doesn't matter what
"density" you think you're in.
>
> So many of you ask, what will you do if Planet X doesn't show up? Well, I
> will know that earth transformed in to 4th density. And if that's not the
> case, then if nancy was plainly wrong, I can admit it, no hard feelings, I
> don't religiously believe something that science can prove to be not the
> case. the harm that she caused is probably nominal. if someone sold their
> house in florida and moved to somewhere safer, well they can move back I
> guess. if they're eating insects, hey, you eat animals too, right?
The question is "when" not "if" it doesn't show up. Nancy is quite
specific on her May 15, 2003 date. By April 1st (April fool's day, a
perfect day to call an end to all this) It's supposed to be able to be
seen by everyone without the aid of optical assistance (as opposed to
"naked eye").
No harm done? You don't pay close attention, do you? Nancy's followers
have stated that they've lost their families, been estranged from
their children, gotten divorced, plan on taking their edlderly parents
to the wilderness with nothing but a water purifier and camping
equipment, have liquidated investments intended for their children's
education, etc. No harm done, you say?
Can you tell me at least one thing that Zetatalk has provided that has
resulted in a betterment of society or families? Please, name me one
thing that hasn't been done or tried before in the history of man.
Please, feel free to show me this new and wonderful revelation within
her website that will change the course of history and the human race.
>
> It's just that hundreds of years ago, men of the day, scientists, had wrong
> ideas, like the earth was flat, like the earth was the center of the
> universe or solar system. our science has evolved, it was not always
> correct so why does that mean everything is correct now? probably isn't.
> there is room for growth. we could be wrong. zetatalk could be more
> accurate. and so it goes!
>
No one in the scientific field claims that "everything" is correct
now. Science has *never* made that claim, your statement is patently
false. The only one making that claim is Nancy Lieder.
I suppose all the technological advances civilization has made over
the last millenium were the consequences of sheer luck. Show me one
"belief" or "religion" that has resulted in a significant
technological revolution or a single scientific discovery. Show me one
single thing that Nancy or her Zetas have brought into the scientific
community (other than psychology).
The difference is that science doesn't claim to have all the answers,
and readily accepts new discoveries as they're made - with verifiable,
repeatable tests and predicted observations based on that theory.
Hypothesis are tested and refined, and subjected to the scrutiny of
others within the field, and must show that they predict an
observational result with a high level of accuracy before being
accepted.
Nancy claims she has all the answers, and that she's 100% accurate -
without the benefit of observational predictions, repeatable tests and
without any mathematical proofs. Nancy has nothing that she can fall
back upon except her own stated theory. Where science evolves from
repeated observations and technological advances, Nancy stays her
course. The only difference is that Nancy makes up new, unproveable
"science" to back up her old statements as she goes along, none of
which pass the rigorous testing and review that science would have
demanded. Most of them fail against previously observed and explained
events.
> oh, except the harm to this newsgroup and people with short tempers and
> lots of letters after their names.
On the contrary, this newsgroup has been the testing ground for her
claims. Not once has she been able to prove the existence of her
planet, or provide any verifiable data to prove her "science". In
fact, she has been shot down on a regular basis, proven to be
incorrect, and has been shown to be lying and providing innaccurate
information on a regular basis. Once Nancy has been shown to be
incorrect, she retreats from the discussion, but retains her
statements on her website.
After six years of her drivel, the mainstays of this newsgroup are
still here, putting up with her constant demand for attention. I'd
hardly call that "short-tempered". Have you been here six years? Where
were you when she claimed Hale Bopp was a nova? Where were you when
she claimed no one could see it in their telescopes, that all the
amateurs were lying? Where were you when she claimed NASA found a
comet and changed Hale Bopp's orbital elements to match that of the
"new" comet, to cover up the "non-existant" Hale Bopp?
You don't find it odd, that out of all the billions of people on this
planet, Nancy is the only one that hs any contact with the "Zetas"?
Even though Nancy claims that millions of people have been contacted,
only Nancy is allowed to be their "emmisary"? Don't you see the
Messiah syndrome in that?
You're a poor excuse for a ZetaCult appologist. I'd suggest you let
Nancy speak for herself here - you aren't doing her any favors.