OK! Nanzeta was asked about PX speed on IRC. Answer was, in part:
----
"(NancyL) ZT: During math discussions on sci.astro, it has been
distilled that the speed of Planet X is some 4 times the speed of
light during its most rapid approach. Why is it assumed that light is
the FASTEST thing in the universe, re travel? Man thinks this because
it is something he can measure."
---
For the whole log-- http://www.zetatalk.com/index/cmar0902.htm
---
Basically, the only answer given was this vague comment about 4 times
the speed of light, supposedly coming from sci.astro, but not objected
to, as seen above. So, now we have an implication that PX will exceed
the speed of light, I guess. Was that kind of speed ever actually
formulated on sci.astro? The basic question was, for the most part,
dodged by Nanzeta-- no actual figures were given

Idon't wrote:

> OK! Nanzeta was asked about PX speed on IRC. Answer was, in part:
> ----
> "(NancyL) ZT: During math discussions on sci.astro, it has been
> distilled that the speed of Planet X is some 4 times the speed of
> light during its most rapid approach. Why is it assumed that light is
> the FASTEST thing in the universe, re travel? Man thinks this because
> it is something he can measure."
> ---
> For the whole log-- http://www.zetatalk.com/index/cmar0902.htm
> ---
> Basically, the only answer given was this vague comment about 4 times
> the speed of light, supposedly coming from sci.astro, but not objected
> to, as seen above. So, now we have an implication that PX will exceed
> the speed of light, I guess. Was that kind of speed ever actually
> formulated on sci.astro? The basic question was, for the most part,
> dodged by Nanzeta-- no actual figures were given
>
> I
>


Go to http://us.geocities.com/openmindxx/ and then down to Greg Neill's
"What about Nancy's gravuty" ... you will have to get the PDF file to
get his velocities ... the max is about 2800 km/s at closest approach
... so about 1% of c as Nancy's kooks tried to tell her ... she ignored
them and when with the voices in her head.

I M Openminded <openmind@telocity.com> wrote in message news:<3C8BF34D.2050809@telocity.com>...
> Idon't wrote:
>
> > OK! Nanzeta was asked about PX speed on IRC. Answer was, in part:
> > ----
> > "(NancyL) ZT: During math discussions on sci.astro, it has been
> > distilled that the speed of Planet X is some 4 times the speed of
> > light during its most rapid approach. Why is it assumed that light is
> > the FASTEST thing in the universe, re travel? Man thinks this because
> > it is something he can measure."
> > ---
> > For the whole log-- http://www.zetatalk.com/index/cmar0902.htm
> > ---
> > Basically, the only answer given was this vague comment about 4 times
> > the speed of light, supposedly coming from sci.astro, but not objected
> > to, as seen above. So, now we have an implication that PX will exceed
> > the speed of light, I guess. Was that kind of speed ever actually
> > formulated on sci.astro? The basic question was, for the most part,
> > dodged by Nanzeta-- no actual figures were given
> >
> > I
> >
>
>
> Go to http://us.geocities.com/openmindxx/ and then down to Greg Neill's
> "What about Nancy's gravuty" ... you will have to get the PDF file to
> get his velocities ... the max is about 2800 km/s at closest approach
> ... so about 1% of c as Nancy's kooks tried to tell her ... she ignored
> them and when with the voices in her head.

Well, now Nancy has posted this at tt:
----
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tt-watch/message/9100

"This was discussed on sci.astro and answered very well by Josh, I
quote "At this speed, it takes Planet-X appr. 34 hours and 47 minutes
to travel 1 AU, not all that impressive considering light does it in
some 8 minutes, 18 seconds (using the above simplified numbers)."
and this posting can be found at
http://www.zetatalk.com/usenet/use90432.htm with all the math by which
he arrived at that number.

There was speculation all over the map prior to his posting, well, I
should say disinfo, that the speed was greater than the speed of
light. Not."
-----
Now she is citing Jos as the resident expert. Of course he didn't
allow for any acceleration time or anything, so.... quite the expert.
Now she seems to decry any light speed figures as "disinfo", but she
didn't give any numbers of her own when asked and now points to Jos. I
give up.

I

idont1@hotmail.com (Idon't) wrote in message news:<fc8f94e.0203101821.705ccbc3@posting.google.com>...
> I M Openminded <openmind@telocity.com> wrote in message news:<3C8BF34D.2050809@telocity.com>...
> > Idon't wrote:
> >
> > > OK! Nanzeta was asked about PX speed on IRC. Answer was, in part:
> > > ----
> > > "(NancyL) ZT: During math discussions on sci.astro, it has been
> > > distilled that the speed of Planet X is some 4 times the speed of
> > > light during its most rapid approach. Why is it assumed that light is
> > > the FASTEST thing in the universe, re travel? Man thinks this because
> > > it is something he can measure."
> > > ---
> > > For the whole log-- http://www.zetatalk.com/index/cmar0902.htm
> > > ---
> > > Basically, the only answer given was this vague comment about 4 times
> > > the speed of light, supposedly coming from sci.astro, but not objected
> > > to, as seen above. So, now we have an implication that PX will exceed
> > > the speed of light, I guess. Was that kind of speed ever actually
> > > formulated on sci.astro? The basic question was, for the most part,
> > > dodged by Nanzeta-- no actual figures were given
> > >
> > > I
> > >
> >
> >
> > Go to http://us.geocities.com/openmindxx/ and then down to Greg Neill's
> > "What about Nancy's gravuty" ... you will have to get the PDF file to
> > get his velocities ... the max is about 2800 km/s at closest approach
> > ... so about 1% of c as Nancy's kooks tried to tell her ... she ignored
> > them and when with the voices in her head.
>
> Well, now Nancy has posted this at tt:
> ----
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tt-watch/message/9100
>
> "This was discussed on sci.astro and answered very well by Josh, I
> quote "At this speed, it takes Planet-X appr. 34 hours and 47 minutes
> to travel 1 AU, not all that impressive considering light does it in
> some 8 minutes, 18 seconds (using the above simplified numbers)."
> and this posting can be found at
> http://www.zetatalk.com/usenet/use90432.htm with all the math by which
> he arrived at that number.
>
> There was speculation all over the map prior to his posting, well, I
> should say disinfo, that the speed was greater than the speed of
> light. Not."
> -----
> Now she is citing Jos as the resident expert. Of course he didn't
> allow for any acceleration time or anything, so.... quite the expert.
> Now she seems to decry any light speed figures as "disinfo", but she
> didn't give any numbers of her own when asked and now points to Jos. I
> give up.
>
> I

Isn't it interesting that she also claimed someone here said "4 times
the speed of light"? I tried searching for that, and came up empty
handed. All I could find was one reference to "close to the speed of
light" (which was stated in a sarcastic manner).

It's also interesting that when put to the test by members of TT-watch
to answer the question she was asked (which she never did) she left
the TT-watch group, leaving all the cult members to rely on her
"written word" since she won't be there to "answer" questions anymore.

From TT-watch:

---------------------------------------
"From: "nancylieder" <zetatalk@z...>
Date: Mon Mar 11, 2002 11:09 pm
Subject: Removing a Disrupter

Namely, ME. What do I mean by that? I've noticed that for the past
several months, tt-forum just cooks along, doing its job, with no
disruption. I has occurred to me increasingly that tt-watch is in
chaos because folks think:
1. they can tie me up in argument there (remember Cunninham's
insistence that I answer arguments HERE, and not on sci.astro, and
inviting everyone into tt-watch FROM sci.astro for that purpose, etc?)
2. they can argue with the messenger if they are uncomfortable with
the message

Thus, by NOT having the messenger here, this reason for disruption is
removed. I'm too busy to all but read a sampling, anyway, and am
getting busier.

Thus, I am today unsubscribing myself from tt-watch, tt-forum and hope
this allows this poor list to settle down after awhile.

Ta Ta."
-------------------------------------

Of course, Nancy never answers any question here either. All she does
is post her cult web pages and try to trash Hazelwood, Tholen,
Cunningham and a few other's she's selected by tossing the dice.

The reason she won't answer the questions is because it puts light on
the fact that it's all a hoax, a con game, a way to take money from
unsuspecting cult members. That's why she left TT-watch also, she was
put to the test, and found her answers are no longer capable of
supporting her claims. The cult members are waking up to the scam, day
by day.

Sarah Mc wrote:

> idont1@hotmail.com (Idon't) wrote in message news:<fc8f94e.0203101821.705ccbc3@posting.google.com>...
>
>>I M Openminded <openmind@telocity.com> wrote in message news:<3C8BF34D.2050809@telocity.com>...
>>
>>>Idon't wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>OK! Nanzeta was asked about PX speed on IRC. Answer was, in part:
>>>>----
>>>>"(NancyL) ZT: During math discussions on sci.astro, it has been
>>>>distilled that the speed of Planet X is some 4 times the speed of
>>>>light during its most rapid approach. Why is it assumed that light is
>>>>the FASTEST thing in the universe, re travel? Man thinks this because
>>>>it is something he can measure."
>>>>---
>>>>For the whole log-- http://www.zetatalk.com/index/cmar0902.htm
>>>>---
>>>>Basically, the only answer given was this vague comment about 4 times
>>>>the speed of light, supposedly coming from sci.astro, but not objected
>>>>to, as seen above. So, now we have an implication that PX will exceed
>>>>the speed of light, I guess. Was that kind of speed ever actually
>>>>formulated on sci.astro? The basic question was, for the most part,
>>>>dodged by Nanzeta-- no actual figures were given
>>>>
>>>>I
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>Go to http://us.geocities.com/openmindxx/ and then down to Greg Neill's
>>>"What about Nancy's gravuty" ... you will have to get the PDF file to
>>>get his velocities ... the max is about 2800 km/s at closest approach
>>>... so about 1% of c as Nancy's kooks tried to tell her ... she ignored
>>>them and when with the voices in her head.
>>>
>>Well, now Nancy has posted this at tt:
>>----
>>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tt-watch/message/9100
>>
>>"This was discussed on sci.astro and answered very well by Josh, I
>>quote "At this speed, it takes Planet-X appr. 34 hours and 47 minutes
>>to travel 1 AU, not all that impressive considering light does it in
>>some 8 minutes, 18 seconds (using the above simplified numbers)."
>>and this posting can be found at
>>http://www.zetatalk.com/usenet/use90432.htm with all the math by which
>>he arrived at that number.
>>
>>There was speculation all over the map prior to his posting, well, I
>>should say disinfo, that the speed was greater than the speed of
>>light. Not."
>>-----
>>Now she is citing Jos as the resident expert. Of course he didn't
>>allow for any acceleration time or anything, so.... quite the expert.
>>Now she seems to decry any light speed figures as "disinfo", but she
>>didn't give any numbers of her own when asked and now points to Jos. I
>>give up.
>>
>>I
>>
>
> Isn't it interesting that she also claimed someone here said "4 times
> the speed of light"? I tried searching for that, and came up empty
> handed. All I could find was one reference to "close to the speed of
> light" (which was stated in a sarcastic manner).
>
> It's also interesting that when put to the test by members of TT-watch
> to answer the question she was asked (which she never did) she left
> the TT-watch group, leaving all the cult members to rely on her
> "written word" since she won't be there to "answer" questions anymore.
>
> From TT-watch:
>
> ---------------------------------------
> "From: "nancylieder" <zetatalk@z...>
> Date: Mon Mar 11, 2002 11:09 pm
> Subject: Removing a Disrupter
>
> Namely, ME. What do I mean by that? I've noticed that for the past
> several months, tt-forum just cooks along, doing its job, with no
> disruption. I has occurred to me increasingly that tt-watch is in
> chaos because folks think:
> 1. they can tie me up in argument there (remember Cunninham's
> insistence that I answer arguments HERE, and not on sci.astro, and
> inviting everyone into tt-watch FROM sci.astro for that purpose, etc?)
> 2. they can argue with the messenger if they are uncomfortable with
> the message
>
> Thus, by NOT having the messenger here, this reason for disruption is
> removed. I'm too busy to all but read a sampling, anyway, and am
> getting busier.
>
> Thus, I am today unsubscribing myself from tt-watch, tt-forum and hope
> this allows this poor list to settle down after awhile.
>
> Ta Ta."
> -------------------------------------
>
> Of course, Nancy never answers any question here either. All she does
> is post her cult web pages and try to trash Hazelwood, Tholen,
> Cunningham and a few other's she's selected by tossing the dice.
>
> The reason she won't answer the questions is because it puts light on
> the fact that it's all a hoax, a con game, a way to take money from
> unsuspecting cult members. That's why she left TT-watch also, she was
> put to the test, and found her answers are no longer capable of
> supporting her claims. The cult members are waking up to the scam, day
> by day.
>

I assume you have looked at the last chat logs at
http://www.zetatalk.com/index/cmar0902.htm
there she says that the voices in her head travel that fast:
"(NancyL) ZT: Our space travel, in 4th density and even 3rd density, is
faster than light, and we do not melt."

She is being challenged in this chat group as well and I predict that
very soon she will find herself "so busy" that she no longer can take
the time for her on-line chats.

Incidently, Sarah, you are mentioned several times by name in that chat ...

I M Openminded <openmind@telocity.com> wrote in message news:<3C8DE539.2090208@telocity.com>...
>
> I assume you have looked at the last chat logs at
> http://www.zetatalk.com/index/cmar0902.htm
> there she says that the voices in her head travel that fast:
> "(NancyL) ZT: Our space travel, in 4th density and even 3rd density, is
> faster than light, and we do not melt."
>
> She is being challenged in this chat group as well and I predict that
> very soon she will find herself "so busy" that she no longer can take
> the time for her on-line chats.
>
> Incidently, Sarah, you are mentioned several times by name in that chat ...


lol thanks - I hadn't looked at them, since they were posted
partially here. But now that you've pointed them out to me, it was
most amusing reading them. :o)

All Nancy has done there is to prove to me that she knows less than I
actually thought she did. Her credibility falls lower and lower
everytime she opens her mouth. For a while I thought she actually
believed the stuff she writes - but now it's obvious as hell that
she's just spewing it forth to make a few bucks and to gather
attention. Must be a sad thing to see someone so lonely as to rely on
a scam to garner friendships and associations.

Apparently I've become a threat to her cult income, so it was deemed
neccesary to attack me personally. Too bad she missed the mark by a
few thousand light years. Maybe she'd be better off attacking me on
some other grounds than my religion, since I don't have one - I'm an
agnostic.

Obviously we're causing some fear and unrest within the cult, if not
with Nancy herself. Must be she doesn't like it when the truth is
brought to light. As usual, she had to make an accusation of personal
nature rather than answer the questions I've asked. STS at its finest,
once again.

I agree that she'll slowly dissappear from sight as the days grow
closer to her failed prediction; after all, more people will start
looking for her when the time comes to start legal proceedings against
her. After all, she knows better than anyone that her Planet X doesn't
exist.... and I believe she's known it all along now.

Speaking of legal proceedings...I wonder if anyone that has property
in their possesion that was purchased with ZetaCult donations
(servers, ham radios, antennas, seeds, tools, etc) could be held
liable after Planet X doesn't appear? I mean, if property was
purchased with cult money, and it's in the hands of someone after the
fact - could they be liable in a lawsuit against Troubled Times?
Might be time to ask my attorney friends a few "what ifs". Like, what
if I was conned out of $1,000, what are my chances of recouping that
loss? Almost makes one want to make a "donation" just to see the
outcome of a lawsuit, eh? Of course, there would other possible
charges as well, loss of home and property, livelyhood, retirement
savings etc. I guess it could add up to pretty hefty sum for those
that ever sat on the Troubled Times board. I wonder if they have any
idea how many people have donated just to file a lawsuit when the time
comes?

Hell, they wouldn't even have to donate. All they'd have to do is to
move based on Nancy's recomendations. I would think that's enough to
file suit against the board, if there's a loss of income or savings.
lol, Maybe that's why Jan doesn't have a last name :o) He may be the
smartest one on the board, now that I think about it.

sarahmac@hotpop.com (Sarah Mc) wrote in message
[snippage]
> > Well, now Nancy has posted this at tt:
> > ----
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tt-watch/message/9100
> >
> > "This was discussed on sci.astro and answered very well by Josh, I
> > quote "At this speed, it takes Planet-X appr. 34 hours and 47 minutes
> > to travel 1 AU, not all that impressive considering light does it in
> > some 8 minutes, 18 seconds (using the above simplified numbers)."
> > and this posting can be found at
> > http://www.zetatalk.com/usenet/use90432.htm with all the math by which
> > he arrived at that number.
> >
> > There was speculation all over the map prior to his posting, well, I
> > should say disinfo, that the speed was greater than the speed of
> > light. Not."
> > -----
> > Now she is citing Jos as the resident expert. Of course he didn't
> > allow for any acceleration time or anything, so.... quite the expert.
> > Now she seems to decry any light speed figures as "disinfo", but she
> > didn't give any numbers of her own when asked and now points to Jos. I
> > give up.
> >
> > I
>
> Isn't it interesting that she also claimed someone here said "4 times
> the speed of light"? I tried searching for that, and came up empty
> handed. All I could find was one reference to "close to the speed of
> light" (which was stated in a sarcastic manner).
>
> It's also interesting that when put to the test by members of TT-watch
> to answer the question she was asked (which she never did) she left
> the TT-watch group, leaving all the cult members to rely on her
> "written word" since she won't be there to "answer" questions anymore.
>
> From TT-watch:
>
> ---------------------------------------
> "From: "nancylieder" <zetatalk@z...>
> Date: Mon Mar 11, 2002 11:09 pm
> Subject: Removing a Disrupter
>
> Namely, ME. What do I mean by that? I've noticed that for the past
> several months, tt-forum just cooks along, doing its job, with no
> disruption. I has occurred to me increasingly that tt-watch is in
> chaos because folks think:
> 1. they can tie me up in argument there (remember Cunninham's
> insistence that I answer arguments HERE, and not on sci.astro, and
> inviting everyone into tt-watch FROM sci.astro for that purpose, etc?)
> 2. they can argue with the messenger if they are uncomfortable with
> the message
>
> Thus, by NOT having the messenger here, this reason for disruption is
> removed. I'm too busy to all but read a sampling, anyway, and am
> getting busier.
>
> Thus, I am today unsubscribing myself from tt-watch, tt-forum and hope
> this allows this poor list to settle down after awhile.
>
> Ta Ta."
> -------------------------------------
>
> Of course, Nancy never answers any question here either. All she does
> is post her cult web pages and try to trash Hazelwood, Tholen,
> Cunningham and a few other's she's selected by tossing the dice.
>
> The reason she won't answer the questions is because it puts light on
> the fact that it's all a hoax, a con game, a way to take money from
> unsuspecting cult members. That's why she left TT-watch also, she was
> put to the test, and found her answers are no longer capable of
> supporting her claims. The cult members are waking up to the scam, day
> by day.

Yes. I have recently spent quite a bit of time closely watching her
doings. It has given me a creepy feeling to witness the degree of
manipulation and disception that she wields with such abandon.
Recently, there has been more dissenting opinion expressed at
tt-watch. Now, just this morning, Jan has anounced that he has put
"disrupters" on moderation, so now alternate opinion cannot get
through. I agree that Nanzeta has gone into hiding so as to not have
to answer any more questions. She slickly mis-characterized that move
as something else, but her kingdom is beginning to crumble. She told
someone at tt that they "will not be sure" about PX until 7 weeks
before the poleshift- thus giving herself more time, but she is
rapidly backing up, fuming and spitting, and frantically flogging her
tracks.

I

"Sarah Mc" <sarahmac@hotpop.com> wrote in
>
> Isn't it interesting that she also claimed someone here said "4 times
> the speed of light"? I tried searching for that, and came up empty
> handed. All I could find was one reference to "close to the speed of
> light" (which was stated in a sarcastic manner).

I said that, a while back. I was not meaning to be sarcastic, just
pointing out that if
Planet X were real, and was so far away that it could not be seen in 2001
but will be here
in 2002, it would have to travel at near the speed of light in order to get
here at all.

I also tried to tell Nancy that if something was 2nd magnitude in 1997 and
20th magnitude in 2002,
then it is obvious that it is getting farther away, not closer. I have
other private e-mail from her that
she asked me not to divulge, as she wants the largest possible audience for
her rants^H^H^H^H^Hclaims.

"Chris Franks" <chris_franks@agilent.com> wrote in message news:<1016238292.945355@cswreg.cos.agilent.com>...
> "Sarah Mc" <sarahmac@hotpop.com> wrote in
> >
> > Isn't it interesting that she also claimed someone here said "4 times
> > the speed of light"? I tried searching for that, and came up empty
> > handed. All I could find was one reference to "close to the speed of
> > light" (which was stated in a sarcastic manner).
>
> I said that, a while back. I was not meaning to be sarcastic, just
> pointing out that if
> Planet X were real, and was so far away that it could not be seen in 2001
> but will be here
> in 2002, it would have to travel at near the speed of light in order to get
> here at all.
>
> I also tried to tell Nancy that if something was 2nd magnitude in 1997 and
> 20th magnitude in 2002,
> then it is obvious that it is getting farther away, not closer. I have
> other private e-mail from her that
> she asked me not to divulge, as she wants the largest possible audience for
> her rants^H^H^H^H^Hclaims.

Well, ain't that interesting. :) So much for sincerity and honesty
from Ms. Lieder. Maybe she's hoping her cult members will all assume
that mag 20 is "brighter" than mag 2. After all, 20º is warmer than
2º, right? <g>

Of course, we all know Ms. Lieder would *never* intentionally hide the
truth from someone, especially her beloved cult members. I guess full
disclosure is considered to be "disinformation" that prevents the
donations from coming in.

I wonder what the foundations that send her donations would think if
they saw her lies and the intentional hiding of the truth. After all,
that money could be used in education for impoverished kids, food for
the needy, a new new library or hospital addition somewehere, or other
more important funding for *real* non-profits.