There are two possibilities:

1. the current Earth Changes and Planet X indicators mean
something big is around the corner, and a pole shift will
happen in 2003.

2. it’s all nonsense and NASA tells the truth and the White
House loves you and you should just go back to shopping
until you drop.

There’s been lots of discussion about haha on Nancy when it does NOT
happen, speculation on whose going to sue who, etc., but what about the
flip side of the coin? At what point to you turn to those who have been
working so hard to keep you from even THINKING about the possibility, or
even READING ZetaTalk sci.astro postings without endless deliberate
clutter, or being able to go to your local observatorys and LOOK THERE
without a firm lipped refusal, or being able to GET what the Hubble sees
off the reel instead of once a year like a Christmas present, or being
able to get the newscasters to TALK ABOUT WHY islands in the Pacific are
going under the rising sea level or the weather is so weird instead of
endlessly hearing about Monika Lewinsky or the Middle East, and hold
them responsible for their role in the coverup?

- When a red object is viewed in the sky, 7 weeks before
May 15, 2003, right along the path outlined by the Zetas
since 1995?
- When the earth stops rotating a week before the shift?
- When there’s a pole shift and the phones don’t work and
travel is impossible?

And what do you suppose you’ll encounter? Those responsible in bunkers
with guns pointed at YOU, never mind that your tax dollars probably paid
for this. The wealthy in enclaves well stocked with food stuffs no
longer available to YOU, as you don’t count. Chemtrails overhead to
make YOU sick, so you can’t pester those who don’t think YOU count,
should you manage to survive the shift, uninformed as you were. The NASA
elite on their way to Mars, or so they hope. No phones working and
bridges and transporation down, so you can’t locate those responsible in
any case, much less do something about it. Just the public end of any
debunking and disinfo operation, the clerks and paid lackeys,
potentially available to take your rage. But then they’ll whin and say
that they were only doing what they were told, were assured there was
nothing to it, didn’t know, etc.

The ZetaTalk message is not without validity. ZetaTalk has a prediction
accuracy track record. Those who are trying to prevent you from even
thinking for yourselves, debating the issues, being aware so YOU can
make the choices YOU might want to make for YOURSELF and your family,
are not doing you a favor. They’ve chosen themselves, their comfort,
their paycheck, their place in the Good ‘Ol Boy system, over YOU. It’s
pretty safe. Anyone posting in support of ZetaTalk can anticipate
getting flooded with nasy email, their employer getting contacted, their
ISP getting demands that they no long have contact on the Internet, any
and every action to prevent YOU from being able to make your own choices
as to what you want to read, and to sort it all out for yourself.
Preventing you from doing this is not benign, not just undemocratic, not
just unfair, not just arrogant or with dark motives.

If ZetaTalk were KookTalk, then why is it considered such a danger? Nut
cases get ignored. The fact that sci.astro has become a shambles of
frothing noise, deliberately, is not an accident. This is telling you
something. WHY do your Shepherds, and their masters, not want you to
read a few posting by ZetaTalk?

This cuts both ways.

Nancy Lieder wrote:
(snip)
> If ZetaTalk were KookTalk, then why is it considered such a danger? Nut
> cases get ignored. The fact that sci.astro has become a shambles of
> frothing noise, deliberately, is not an accident. This is telling you
> something. WHY do your Shepherds, and their masters, not want you to
> read a few posting by ZetaTalk?
>
> This cuts both ways.

This whining and sniveling is very sad to watch. If you want people
everywhere to take you seriously, give them simple instructions that
will allow them to individually verify that what you claim is true.
Instead you spin fantastic misunderstandings of ordinary physics and
astronomy into self contradictory tangles.

And, do you really expect us to believe that powers that can create
such a conspiracy of silence over a whole planet, across political
boundaries are unable to simply prevent you from posting messages to
sci.astro, and to prevent you from having a web site on the internet?
The very existence of your presence on the web disproves your thesis.
You rant about abuse of power, but ignore the fact that you are not
being overpowered ruthlessly. Your blather is freely flowing,
therefore you are wrong.

To be blunt, the fact that you to live proves even more conclusively
that you are wrong. People are murdered in public view every day for
lots smaller reasons than to prevent world wide conspiracies among the
most powerful from being exposed. Such a conspiracy would have little
trouble quietly staging your natural or accidental death. Your
delusions of grandeur are showing. Get over yourself.

--
John Popelish

"Nancy Lieder" <zetatalk@zetatalk.com> wrote in message
news:3CBEF3B4.69D395A8@zetatalk.com...
> There are two possibilities:
>
> 1. the current Earth Changes and Planet X indicators mean
> something big is around the corner, and a pole shift will
> happen in 2003.
>
> 2. it's all nonsense and NASA tells the truth and the White
> House loves you and you should just go back to shopping
> until you drop.

No, there's only one possibility: It's all nonsense. Planet X
doesn't exist and CAN"T exist as you imaginary zeta friends have
described.


>
> There's been lots of discussion about haha on Nancy when it
does NOT
> happen, speculation on whose going to sue who, etc., but what
about the
> flip side of the coin? [snipped paranoid rantings]
>
> - When a red object is viewed in the sky, 7 weeks before
> May 15, 2003, right along the path outlined by the Zetas
> since 1995?
> - When the earth stops rotating a week before the shift?
> - When there's a pole shift and the phones don't work and
> travel is impossible?

If all this happens, you may stick your thumbs in your ears and
wag your fingers at all your detractors.

>
[snipped typical cultish fear-mongering]
>
> The ZetaTalk message is not without validity.

Aliens communicating via telepathy/trance to you at great length
on subjects neither you nor they understand? Sounds valid to
me... BWAHAHAHAHAHA!


> ZetaTalk has a prediction
> accuracy track record.

Yep. It's right at 0% for non-trivial predictions.

[more KookTalk snipped]
>
> If ZetaTalk were KookTalk, then why is it considered such a
danger?

Well, some simple-minded/gullible folks might decide to do
something rash based on the babblings of you and your imaginary
zeta friends

> Nut
> cases get ignored.

Marshall Applewhite
Jim Jones


> The fact that sci.astro has become a shambles of
> frothing noise, deliberately, is not an accident.

So you admit you are deliberately disruptive?


> This is telling you
> something. WHY do your Shepherds, and their masters, not want
you to
> read a few posting by ZetaTalk?

Personally, I come here just to see the replies to your zetatalk
madness. It's been pointed out many times that people have
learned more astronomy by seeing your bullshit debunked than the
learned in school.

So post away, kook. I've been laughing at this zeta stuff since
1997. I just can't wait to see what happens when May, 2003 comes
and goes with no pole shift.

>
> This cuts both ways.

On Thu, 18 Apr 2002 11:26:28 -0500, Nancy Lieder <zetatalk@zetatalk.com>
in sci.astro wrote:

>There are two possibilities:
>
>1. the current Earth Changes and Planet X indicators mean
> something big is around the corner, and a pole shift will
> happen in 2003.
>
>2. it’s all nonsense and NASA tells the truth and the White
> House loves you and you should just go back to shopping
> until you drop.

There is always Lots of other possibility:

3> NASA is not a clearing house for Science and information.
4> Maybe all ZetaTalk is all nonsense, and dreamed up by a little lady
with mental problems in Wisconsin. She has shopped he "story around to
various movie productions houses, trying to make a fast buck. Nancy Does
(as demonstrated by EVIDENCE) Play very loose with the truth, often
ignores the errors in basic science and Nancy has to create a
non-standard special never observer set of forces to make her whole
fantasy seem to work.

You can not have a planet that is Mag 11 visually, Mag 2 in infa-red,
and shows as mag 20+ noise in a CCD photo. A Mag 20 object can not be
seen visually using a telescope, But Nancy has claimed several people
have seen her fantasy planet visually. Nancy has stated a bit of mag 20+
noise on a CCD image is her fantasy planet. Which is true. which is
false...

Logic tells us they both can't be true, and one has to be false or the
other must be false or both are false.
The thinking person leans to both are false.

None of the people that observed the object visually had any idea of
what they were seeing. One of the (Haas) has even admitted he still
doesn't know what he saw. Even though Nancy has assured him he saw the
planet.

>There’s been lots of discussion about haha on Nancy when it does NOT
>happen, speculation on whose going to sue who, etc., but what about the
>flip side of the coin? At what point to you turn to those who have been
>working so hard to keep you from even THINKING about the possibility, or
>even READING ZetaTalk sci.astro postings without endless deliberate
>clutter, or being able to go to your local observatorys and LOOK THERE
>without a firm lipped refusal, or being able to GET what the Hubble sees
>off the reel instead of once a year like a Christmas present, or being
>able to get the newscasters to TALK ABOUT WHY islands in the Pacific are
>going under the rising sea level or the weather is so weird instead of
>endlessly hearing about Monika Lewinsky or the Middle East, and hold
>them responsible for their role in the coverup?

Well The rules for the data off the hubble are very plain. I for one
wouldn't want any time wasted for your fantasy wild goose chases.

Even when you were given chances see for yourself, Back when your said
the fantasy planet 2nd magnitude, You refused to look.

>- When a red object is viewed in the sky, 7 weeks before
> May 15, 2003, right along the path outlined by the Zetas
> since 1995?

When horses fly and cows jump over the moon. Never.

>- When the earth stops rotating a week before the shift?
>- When there’s a pole shift and the phones don’t work and
> travel is impossible?

Nancy Have you followed the Discussion of Muncil and others. The energy
it would take to stop the Earth's crust from rotating would melt most of
the surface. The energy it would take to start it would Remelt the
surface.
Using phones and where would you travel?

[...]

>The ZetaTalk message is not without validity. ZetaTalk has a prediction

No your message is totally invalid.

>accuracy track record. Those who are trying to prevent you from even

0% is a perfect record too, that is the only one which applies to
NanZeta Talk.

>thinking for yourselves, debating the issues, being aware so YOU can

You don't allow people to think, nor do you allow debates. The whole
issue has been pointed out about the censorship of disruptions on Yahoo
Groups. Actually I think complaints are currently being filed with Yahoo
Groups.

>make the choices YOU might want to make for YOURSELF and your family,

Pitching the con, Nancy? Is this the Zeta's or you Talking, Nancy? This
is a action of a cult.

>are not doing you a favor. They’ve chosen themselves, their comfort,
>their paycheck, their place in the Good ‘Ol Boy system, over YOU. It’s
>pretty safe. Anyone posting in support of ZetaTalk can anticipate
>getting flooded with nasy email, their employer getting contacted, their
>ISP getting demands that they no long have contact on the Internet, any
>and every action to prevent YOU from being able to make your own choices
>as to what you want to read, and to sort it all out for yourself.

Actually I would be happy to see your web pages removed, you and the
other principle's in ZetaTalk Scam in jail.

>Preventing you from doing this is not benign, not just undemocratic, not
>just unfair, not just arrogant or with dark motives.
>
>If ZetaTalk were KookTalk, then why is it considered such a danger? Nut

How many kooktalk groups have turned to cult koolaid parties?

>cases get ignored. The fact that sci.astro has become a shambles of
>frothing noise, deliberately, is not an accident. This is telling you
>something. WHY do your Shepherds, and their masters, not want you to
>read a few posting by ZetaTalk?
>
>This cuts both ways.

No, Nancy, It cuts one way.

That is why you silenced critics on the Yahoo groups you control.

That is why you refuse to discuss in a reasonable and honest manner the
Visual, photographic, and CCD images you claim have caught pictures of
your fantasy planet.

That is why you refused to look when you were offered a chance to see
there wasn't a 2nd magnitude planet/object.


--
Nokwsi

"Bob Officer" <bobofficers@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:dqiubu0i8e4k4g8ajdkmkr0em94ih0ssgd@4ax.com...

>
> Back on topic: One of the points that Nancy's fantasy planet does fit
> reality. Her Fictional Planets orbit doesn't sweep equal areas as
> required by every other orbiting body.
>
> IIRC this is stated thusly: A planets orbital speed varies in such a way
> that in equal intervals of time as it moves distances AB, BC, CD, (along
> the path of the orbit) and so on, so that regions swept out by the line
> connecting these points and the Sun are always the same in area.

To be fair to all sides, strictly speaking her planet is
supposed to be orbiting *two* "centers", that is, a binary
pair consisting of the Sun and it's supposed twin. In
such a case the orbit will not be Keplerian, and the equal
areas rule does not apply. Still, for it to swing around
the Sun in the manner she proposes, it must be almost
entirely in the Sun's sphere of influence during the
manoeuvre, a near parabolic orbit. In this case the equal
areas rule should be a very good approximation for this
part of the orbit.

Guess what? The velocities quoted on her website do not
admit such an interpretation. Are we surprised? I think
not.

I set up a three-body simulation to mimic the distances Nancy
provides for her orbit (spacing of the two "Suns", distance
of perihelions). The orbit is *exceedingly* sensitive to
initial conditions. In order to coax two or more "passages"
the initial conditions need to be specified to better than
eight decimal places. Each succeeding passage requires an
additional decimal place or two. The system is so unstable
that I doubt it could survive a single passage with the
influences of the other planets thrown in (perturbations).

This was a full three-body simulation, and included the
required mutual orbit of the two "Suns", with a period
of about 14240 years. Note that this orbit, if it existed,
would be revealed in parallax measurements of distant stars,
such as the Hipparcos data. It is not seen.

Oh, and the period of the planet's orbit would turn out to be
about half what she claims.

Greg Neill <gneillRE@move.sympatico.ca> wrote:

> I set up a three-body simulation to mimic the distances Nancy
> provides for her orbit (spacing of the two "Suns", distance
> of perihelions). The orbit is *exceedingly* sensitive to
> initial conditions. In order to coax two or more "passages"
> the initial conditions need to be specified to better than
> eight decimal places. Each succeeding passage requires an
> additional decimal place or two. The system is so unstable
> that I doubt it could survive a single passage with the
> influences of the other planets thrown in (perturbations).

> This was a full three-body simulation, and included the
> required mutual orbit of the two "Suns", with a period
> of about 14240 years. Note that this orbit, if it existed,
> would be revealed in parallax measurements of distant stars,
> such as the Hipparcos data. It is not seen.

Make the mutual orbit times of the two suns much longer, like
500,000 years, and the orbit is still unstable.

If I recall my celestial mechanics correctly, the planet would
want to orbit around the center of mass of the two suns - not
around the masses of the suns themselves. That means that the
suns would be perturbing influences on the orbit - so it cannot
remain stable.

--
Bill Nelson (billn@peak.org)

On Thu, 18 Apr 2002 19:27:39 -0400, "Greg Neill"
<gneillRE@MOVE.sympatico.ca> in sci.astro wrote:

>"Bob Officer" <bobofficers@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:dqiubu0i8e4k4g8ajdkmkr0em94ih0ssgd@4ax.com...
>
>>
>> Back on topic: One of the points that Nancy's fantasy planet does fit
>> reality. Her Fictional Planets orbit doesn't sweep equal areas as
>> required by every other orbiting body.
>>
>> IIRC this is stated thusly: A planets orbital speed varies in such a way
>> that in equal intervals of time as it moves distances AB, BC, CD, (along
>> the path of the orbit) and so on, so that regions swept out by the line
>> connecting these points and the Sun are always the same in area.
>
>To be fair to all sides, strictly speaking her planet is
>supposed to be orbiting *two* "centers", that is, a binary
>pair consisting of the Sun and it's supposed twin. In
>such a case the orbit will not be Keplerian, and the equal
>areas rule does not apply. Still, for it to swing around
>the Sun in the manner she proposes, it must be almost
>entirely in the Sun's sphere of influence during the
>manoeuvre, a near parabolic orbit. In this case the equal
>areas rule should be a very good approximation for this
>part of the orbit.
>
>Guess what? The velocities quoted on her website do not
>admit such an interpretation. Are we surprised? I think
>not.

Let me think for a second, If the planet used two foci, as in
constructing a oval in geometry, then the Planet should have to use the
barycenter of the two suns. In other words it if the "dark sun with
equal mass of our sun" was the other foci, then the two "suns" would
orbit a common Barycenter halfway between to suns. One of the reason we
know this idea isn't true because we would see effects in parallax
measurements and the orbital stability of the Ort cloud.

>I set up a three-body simulation to mimic the distances Nancy
>provides for her orbit (spacing of the two "Suns", distance
>of perihelions). The orbit is *exceedingly* sensitive to
>initial conditions. In order to coax two or more "passages"
>the initial conditions need to be specified to better than
>eight decimal places. Each succeeding passage requires an
>additional decimal place or two. The system is so unstable
>that I doubt it could survive a single passage with the
>influences of the other planets thrown in (perturbations).

Bingo.

>This was a full three-body simulation, and included the
>required mutual orbit of the two "Suns", with a period
>of about 14240 years. Note that this orbit, if it existed,
>would be revealed in parallax measurements of distant stars,
>such as the Hipparcos data. It is not seen.

As I stated above. More the reason for discarding Nancy's claim of a
dark sun companion for our sun.

>Oh, and the period of the planet's orbit would turn out to be
>about half what she claims.

See her planet can not possibly exist... as she/zetatalk claims.


--
Nokwsi

Nancy Lieder wrote:

>There are two possibilities:
>
>1. the current Earth Changes and Planet X indicators mean
> something big is around the corner, and a pole shift will
> happen in 2003.
>
>2. it's all nonsense and NASA tells the truth and the White
> House loves you and you should just go back to shopping
> until you drop.
>
<snip embarassing whine and flannelling>

Nancy,

Your 'Planet X', if it were really seen by Steve Havaas and others,
should be visible in the fall to amateur telescopes with decent CCD
cameras.

You may not be aware of it, but excellent amateur telescopes fully
capable of seeing your 'Planet X' at the last magnitude you gave for it
can easily be purchased on the open market for a small fraction of your
budget. An investment of $2000 for the telescope and necessary
accessories, and another $2000 for an adequate CCD camera system would
put you in the cat bird seat. If you didn't want to spend the money, you
could ask some of your folks to join their local amateur astronomy
societies, and attend viewing sessions. I bet you could find some
amateurs with excellent equipment that would be intriqued by the
observing project.

(In fact, the actual cost could be reduced substatially if you went
with, say, a scope like Meade's LXD 55 10" Schmidt-Newtonian, which
gives you a CCD-capable scope at a 10" aperture for about $1000. Also,
there are sub-$2000 CCDs that would be adequate for this work. You could
also save up to 40% by buying used. Most used telescopes and CCD cameras
are as capable as they were when new; and, if you shop carefully, you'll
be able to buy from someone who will give your money back if the scope
and/or CCD is not as advertised.)

You could image the coordinates for 'Planet X' every clear night that
the proper area of the sky was high enough above the horizon for
adequate imaging. You would be able then to put together your own series
of images, showing 'Planet X' and its movements on a nearly real-time
basis. You could put the series together into a little movie showing how
the object was moving over time. You could do your own enhancements of
the images to show things like its color, its increasing brightness as
it comes closer next winter and spring, and perhaps even the swirl of
moons in its wake. You would not then be dependent on NASA, or the
Hubble, or any of the suspect observatories around the world. You could
even put your raw image data online for anyone to download and see for
themselves. No more waiting for the Hubble's poky delivery.

You have until late this summer or early fall to get the cash together,
select the instruments you want to buy, purchase them, and become
familiar with their use. This is because the area of the sky in which
your 'Planet X' coordinates lie is now not readily observable in full
dark, and won't be until then.

I know you yourself are not likely to have the ability to do this, but
certainly there's one or more of your bunch who can. Or at least there
must be someone you trust that could learn to work the equipment in the
next four or five months.

I will make you this promise: if you or one of your associates wants to
learn how to use a telescope and a CCD camera, many people on this and
other newsgroups would be happy to help with answers to questions,
advice, and maybe even in-person tutoring. (Can't promise that last; but
if your scope person joins an amateur astronomy club, I can promise
honest, in-person help with honest questions and problems.)

Who knows? If your bunch tries this, maybe you can get to a few star
parties in September and later. (I recommend the star party held at the
Prude Ranch in western Texas in November at the time of the Leonid
meteor shower. Not as crowded as their spring event, and in wonderfully
clear skies, too.)

On the other hand, you might be happier just complaining about the
consipiracy to keep the truth from the people. How you would square
leaving the hapless billions at the mercy of the rapacious
powers-that-be, when a small investment of time and energy on your part
could blow the cover off the biggest story of the millenium, with your
oft-stated STO mission is your business.

But if you don't try, then you can't bitch with a straight face.

What do you say, Nancy? Are you willing to give it a try?

Tom McDonald

P.S.: I don't have a CCD, but my 8" SCT can easily see down to the 11th
or 12th magnitude you last gave for your object. If you would like, I'd
be prepared to bring my setup to you in the fall for a gander.

TSM

"Thomas McDonald" <tsmac@wwt.net> wrote

> P.S.: I don't have a CCD, but my 8" SCT can easily see down to the 11th
> or 12th magnitude you last gave for your object. If you would like, I'd
> be prepared to bring my setup to you in the fall for a gander.
>
> TSM
>
Tom, I may be in the Wisconsin Dells the last week in September for my
grandson's wedding. Nancy did not want to look thru my 8" Dob for a 2nd
magnitude planet 5 years ago in California, but I'll help you with the SCT
if you can get Nancy to agree. My ETX-60 travels easy and Planet X
ought to be close enough to Earth by the end of September to see with the
naked eye, if Planet X really exists.

On Thu, 18 Apr 2002 22:14:00 GMT, Michael L Cunningham
<bogeystar@earthlink.net> wrote:

><<apcray snipped>>
>>
>And the current magnitude of your object is...?
>
And, for that matter, what are the coordinates, Nancy? Let me guess:
PX is just some kind of symbol or archetype for something else. "You
thought PX was real? Silly man!! PX is the harrowing journey into
self-destruction that we all face if we do not get into the service to
others role....blah, blah, blah." There you go Nancy: I just gave you
an out. Although rest assured that I will lead the charge in 03 when
it comes time to lambaste you and your silly zetapuppets.
>--
>Michael L. Cunningham
>So Cal SleeperS - 2001 Grand AM GT
>e-mail bogeystar@earthlink.net
>web site http://home.earthlink.net/~bogeystar/
>
>Remembering the World Trade Center Massacre
>Sept. 11, 2001
>
>Cry Havoc! ...and let slip the dogs of war!
>
>Visit the LX50 Web Site and join in our Discussion Forum!
>
>"There are two infinite things: universe and human stupidity.
>And I'm not sure of the former".
>Albert.
>
>"If you want to be counted... stand up!
> If you want to be heard... speak up!
> If you want to be appreciated... shut up!"
>
>We've been notified by Building Security that there
>have been 4 suspected terrorists working at our office.
>Three of the four have been apprehended. Bin Sleepin,
>Bin Loafin, and Bin Drinkin have been taken into
>custody. Security advised us that they could find no
>one fitting the description of the fourth cell member,
>Bin Workin, in our office.
>
>"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an
> invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write
> a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort
> the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone,
> solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program
> a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die
> gallantly. Specialization is for insects." Robert Heinlein

All,

What's New in Zeta talk shows(http://www.zetatalk.com/poleshft/p148.htm)
that the crust of the planet will be moving antarctica to the equator in
one hour.

Now.......This would mean that the surface of the planet is effectively
going to drag through at 6000 miles per hour, which would simply scour the
entire planet.

And of course we all "know" that this scouring at 6000 miles takes place
every 3600 years.

ERIC

On Fri, 19 Apr 2002 01:08:13 GMT, "zarathu" <tzarathu@epix.net> wrote:

>All,
>
>What's New in Zeta talk shows(http://www.zetatalk.com/poleshft/p148.htm)
>that the crust of the planet will be moving antarctica to the equator in
>one hour.
>
>Now.......This would mean that the surface of the planet is effectively
>going to drag through at 6000 miles per hour, which would simply scour the
>entire planet.
>
>And of course we all "know" that this scouring at 6000 miles takes place
>every 3600 years.
>
>ERIC


Thanks for pointing that out Eric. It makes perfect sense. Check
that same page in a few days and see if it has been modified to reveal
something more probable. "You thought we meant a Richter 15
earthquake? Naw...we meant that Richter 15 represents the total energy
of the cumulative Richter 9 earthquakes. Duh!"

<pfunk@funkenstein.foo> wrote in message
news:3cbf89c0.1657703@netnews.attbi.com...
> On Fri, 19 Apr 2002 01:08:13 GMT, "zarathu" <tzarathu@epix.net> wrote:
>
> >All,
> >
> >What's New in Zeta talk shows(http://www.zetatalk.com/poleshft/p148.htm)
> >that the crust of the planet will be moving antarctica to the equator in
> >one hour.
> >
> >Now.......This would mean that the surface of the planet is effectively
> >going to drag through at 6000 miles per hour, which would simply scour
the
> >entire planet.
> >
> >And of course we all "know" that this scouring at 6000 miles takes place
> >every 3600 years.
> >
> >ERIC
>
>
> Thanks for pointing that out Eric. It makes perfect sense. Check
> that same page in a few days and see if it has been modified to reveal
> something more probable. "You thought we meant a Richter 15
> earthquake? Naw...we meant that Richter 15 represents the total energy
> of the cumulative Richter 9 earthquakes. Duh!"

The energy of an earthquake is approximately 10^(1.5R + 5) where R is the
richter scale value.

Richter 9: 3.2 x 10^18 Joules released. (Sun's energy in 1/100,000,000
sec)
Richter 15: 3.2 x 10^27 Joules released. (Sun's energy in 8 seconds)

The difference in energy is 1 billion times. If 1 billion Richter 9
earthquakes were to go off over Earth's surface, it would be around 2
earthquakes per square metre.

If you could tap into the energy and use it to heat kettles of water, then
you could make yourself 4 x 10^22 cups of coffee/tea etc.

You could actually boil off nearly all of the World's oceans, or melt most
of the crust of the Earth.

This just ain't going to happen.

Ric

Ric

>
>
>> If you'd like feedback from the group on what kind of scope, with
>>what capacities, you'd need, I think everyone here would be overjoyed to
>>answer questions from you on that. I mean, hell, questions related to
>>'Planet X' that were actually on-topic for amateur and vocational
>>astronomers? Paradise!
>>
>
>But wouldn't this be more in line for sci.astro.amateur?
>

Yup, as things stand now. However, I think such questions would
also be welcomed here, if for no other reason than as a reminder about
what a 'sci.' group should be. :)

<snip>

>>(Too bad; wouldn't have minded meeting the fellow on the other side of
>>the screen, and the other side of the debate!)
>>
>
>There are a number of "the other side" persons here on sci.astro that I
>would never want to waste any time and energy on. Others have named them
>before me, so there's no need to repeat the list. Even though you do get
>carried away into the same insults now and then, I think an open discussion
>could be interesting.
>

I admit I've gotten hot under the collar at times. When I have, I
think I've had provocation. But then again, Nancy can say the same thing.

Nancy says she's doing what she's doing out of concern for others.
I am doing the same. We'll all know which of us was more correct WRT
what was truly for the good of others in about a year now.

> Especially if Planet X is observed by amateurs this
>autumn, it could be very interesting to see for ourselves and see if the
>observation would actually fit the official stories about the observed body.
>

What do you mean, "...the official stories about the observed
body."? Nancy and folks who think as she does have put out stories
about a body out there. _They_ have what might be called official
stories about an observed body.

OTOH, astronomers have re-examined the IRAS and other data from
about 20 years ago, and have concluded that there is not likely to be a
body out there as they had initially thought possible.

No one, other than Steve Havaas and some other unnamed persons, and
Nancy, has 'observed' a previously-unknown body at or near her
cooridinates. And Nancy's 'observations' have not been direct, but
guided by her Zeta(s?) on some images that experts say don't show what
she claims to see.

So, the only current official story WRT an observed body not
previously known is the one coming from Nancy, and the other Planet
X/Niburu/Wormwood believers.

Now, if someone without a Planet X agenda does report an object at
Nancy's corrdinates, and on Nancy's trajectory (and maybe at Nancy's
magnitude and color, although this may be too much to ask), and that
report is commented on by officials from an agency such as NASA or JPL,
or a major university, _then_ we can speak of an 'official stor[y] about
the observed body.'

>
>
>> Now, when JosX pays off on his wager to me (alright, 'if,' and 'if I
>>win'), I'd be willing to put a chunk of it towards an observing trip.
>>But, since he only is required to pay when/if Planet X does not show by
>>the end of next May, we may have to settle for a post-Planet-X-no-show
>>star party instead.
>>
>
>Always having had an interest in the story behind the story, wanting to look
>behind the smoke & mirrors, reading alternative literature since I was a
>kid, I must disappoint you; I don't think you will win the bet with Josh or
>have the opportunity to any post-Planet-X-no-show.
>

Would you care to make the same wager with me that JosX has? I
could use the extra cash! :)

<snip>

>>If it were really seen, tracked, and verified WRT the positions and
>>magnitudes (small dig here) she's given/been given, I should think that
>>that would help a lot. It would certainly help her credibility, and
>>would allow an earlier warning than she seems to think would happen via
>>official sources. (All this predicated on Planet X existing and
>>behaving as she says it will.)
>>
>
>If only I could agree with you...
>
>As the inevitable comments to this discussion will show, there are soldiers
>(or pawns) around here which can be expected to fight this one to the bitter
>end, regardless of sightings. If nothing else, they can always use the
>magnitude inconsistencies as a fall-back (wrong magnitude, cannot be Planet
>X...)
>
>Ian
>

That cuts both ways, Ian. If you change the POV of this last
paragraph of yours, it could apply equally to the pro-Nanzetas equally
well, if not better. In my opinion, if there were verified sightings of
'Planet X' by amateur astronomers, there would be many here who would
accept them. And quite a number who would be able to double-check the
sightings, and either further support or tend to disconfirm the
sightings of others.

I think you are wrong about most people here when you suggest that
they would turn a blind eye to actual evidence in favor of the 'Planet
X' idea. What you might see, and misinterpret as blind belief, would
likely be demands for verification of evidence of the extraordinary
claims about 'Planet X.' That's not the same as denial of the evidence.

Your cause would be better served, also, if it were possible to get
clear answers to simple questions such as, 'what magnitude do you/the
Zetas claim Planet X to be at now?' A clear, simple answer might be, "I
don't know," or "__ magnitude." Nancy's current waffleing on the
subject makes it hard(er) to take her seriously.

Tom McDonald

I

> People here on the list have
> been notoriously trying to link these together, and use that as "evidence"
> that the ZetaTalk information is wrong.
>
> When Nancy herself has gotten degrees mixed up with hours & minutes, or when
> she's been on a steep learning curve as to magnitude etc., it has been taken
> as "proof" that the Zetatalk information is cooked up by Nancy. To me, it is
> more an indication that there must indeed be two sources of information.
>
> Ian

Jan,

Nancy says that the Sun is red at sunrise and sunset because
the red light is bent as it passes over the Earth to your eye.
Do you believe that? If so, why?

It is actually caused by scattering and absorption of shorter
wavelengths of light by Earth's atmosphere, leaving only the
red light to travel to your eye. A well-known fact, and not
hard to show in simple observations.

Nancy says the bending is caused by Earth's gravity. Do you
believe that? If so, why?

In fact, Earth's gravity is so weak that the gravitational
bending of light ray paths by Earth's gravity is too small to
detect from Earth's surface, much less make the Sun look red.
Gravitational bending of light rays was first observed during
a solar eclipse in 1919, when the strong gravity of the Sun
bent the path of light rays from distant stars just enough to
detect and measure.

Nancy says that red light is bent more than any other color of
light. Do you believe that? If so, why?

In fact, gravity bends all colors of light equally. Refraction
bends red light less than any other color, not more. The latter
is easy to observe and demonstrate yourself.

Nancy says that several people saw planet X through 16-inch
telescopes last year, by eye. Do you believe that? If so, why?

Nancy says a small blob on the CCD image made by "OpenMinded"
on January 5, with an apparent visual magnitude of about 20, is
planet X. Do you believe that? If so, why?

If it is true that someone saw planet X through a 16-inch
telescope last year, and that the blob she last claimed to be
planet X on the CCD image is planet X, then planet X was more
than a thousand times brighter last year than it was January 5.
Do you believe that?

Nancy says planet X is about 9 times as far from Earth as
Pluto is, and that it is affecting Earth's core in such a way
that it is changing the weather and increasing earthquake and
volcano activity. Do you believe that? If so, why?

She says that aliens implanted a device in her brain. Do you
believe that? If so, why?

She says the aliens have been 100% right in everything they
have said. Do you believe that? If so, why?

Do you trust the aliens? If so, why?

Would you trust the aliens to implant a device in your brain?
If so, why?

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis