Planet X: Changing the PAST?
Nancy Lieder
images provided to the public as existing Star Charts! This CHANGE, in
process, began promptly after my announcement on sci.astro that new
infrared images had been take on January 19, 2002 at the coordinates
given by the Zetas. Steve made note that David Tholen, who works in
Hawaii where the NEAT program is headquartered, was out of pocket and
had no comment for days after this announcement. Humm.
We suggest those who have copies of existing Star Charts KEEP THEM as
the past is changing before your very eyes! What the PATH of the
changing past, as it following, like a panting dog, after the Zeta
Coordinates! Whatever else happens, the rich and powerful get to know,
but you do NOT. Die in the earthquakes, get washed out to sea with your
babes in your arms, stumble around broken and dazed and bleeding and
starving, wondering why your government did not alert you, but YOU don’t
count! You’re just the taxpayer. They’re busy getting ready to leap to
Mars, in 2003, or at least eat all those Meals Ready to Eat they are
stashing away, and protecting the rich and powerful with the beefed up
military the Bush Administration is busy lining up to protect the
carry-on government. They’re sure you’ll want this, after all, how can
you possibly get along WITHOUT them?
From Steve:
NASA Skyview Images
Nancy, when I went back to look at these images which I was looking at
last nite from Skyview, they now clearly show an object where the Jan
17/2002 object is! I looked at this exact same image very carefully last
night at least a dozen times and there was NOTHING there at that spot! I
am not able to send that image yet because the viewer I'm using cannot
do that. I have to run out the door but I'll see if I can bring it up on
the
other viewer I have (the one that can invert etc.)
NEAT image
http://www.troubled-times.com/teams/rogue/jan17_neat
On this image you can see when comparing the two spots in question that
the one below is without a doubt larger and brighter than the one above.
Also, when I was trying to bring up the NEAT images from Dec. 16/2001
that IMO had on his site (which show the spot in question to be even
larger and brighter than the Jan 17/2001 image), all three pictures come
up with only a small part viewable in the shape of a cross and
says there are serious astrometry errors with the image. When I go to
see the actual .fits file most of the data is missing or all the same
repeating sequences in large chunks. Definitely someone has been in
there I think for it to look like that and it has to have been recent
otherwise IMO would not have been able to post the image on sci.astro...
Caught! (I think)
http://www.troubled-times.com/teams/rogue/feb26_dssii
Another contrast view of yesterdays (Feb 26,2002) DSSII image. NO spot
except the one which appears above and the same spot as the Jan 5,2002
image!
http://www.troubled-times.com/teams/rogue/dssii_image
Nancy, just by chance I happened to save an image from the DSSII
yesterday and it does not show anything at the Jan 19/2002 spot and does
NOT show the spot at the same area which appears on todays DSSII image!
New Image
http://www.troubled-times.com/teams/rogue/jan19_image
Here is a .fits file of the Jan 19 image rotated and reversed. Still
Dave or no one else brave enough has addressed the issue of why the NEAT
images so brilliantly show the new spot when it doesn't seem to appear
in any other images. I guess he has to do his usual dancing around...
Maybe he's still reeling from the sting of your post which probably hit
him directly on the head "...and I would'a gotten away w'tit too if it
hadn't a bin for dem meddling kids!" hehe. If I lived next door I'd go
over and give you a high-five :-)
Greg Neill
news:3C7EA2FF...@zetatalk.com...
> Steve Havas has identified CHANGES in process on DSS images and NEAT
> images provided to the public as existing Star Charts! This CHANGE, in
> process, began promptly after my announcement on sci.astro that new
> infrared images had been take on January 19, 2002 at the coordinates
> given by the Zetas. Steve made note that David Tholen, who works in
> Hawaii where the NEAT program is headquartered, was out of pocket and
> had no comment for days after this announcement. Humm.
We find it most amusing that you send your minions out
to hint at some strange conspiratorial manipulation of
historical data and then you jump on it as a fact.
You then proceed to weave an enourmous web of intrigue
around the unverified claim, naming names, hinting at
non existent relationships between individuals and
organizations, etc.
This is quite hilarious coming from the woman who
regularly rewrites history on her own ZetaBabble
web pages, constantly trying to cover her tracks
at failed predictions, wrong science, etc.
Jon Kvebaek
> Steve Havas has identified CHANGES in process on DSS images and NEAT
> images provided to the public as existing Star Charts!
and sci.astro has noticed changes in your and Steve's perception of
planet x! what used to be a planet at 11th mag seen by Steve Havas is
now all of a sudden a 20th magnitude speck detectable by you alone on
a ccd image. did someone in Niburu Town turn off the lights?
can you answer the question posed to you hundreds of times now? is
Steve Havas lying, are you lying, or is it the Zetas? it has to be
someone, if not all of you.
> This CHANGE, in process, began promptly after my announcement on
> sci.astro that new infrared images had been take on January 19, 2002
> at the coordinates given by the Zetas. Steve made note that David
> Tholen, who works in Hawaii where the NEAT program is headquartered,
> was out of pocket and had no comment for days after this
> announcement. Humm.
on your little cult group (tt-watch) you claim that Tholen works for
NEAT, something he has repeatedly denied. here you only say that he's
located where it's headquarters are. you are in USA, the headquarters
of CIA. "humm".
> We suggest those who have copies of existing Star Charts KEEP THEM
> as the past is changing before your very eyes!
damn right it is, especially you "predictions" and facts.
> What the PATH of the changing past, as it following, like a panting
> dog, after the Zeta Coordinates!
speak like Yoda you do. shame you don't have half the wits.
--
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."
-- Philip K. Dick, "How to Build a Universe"
Michael Davis
doomsday cult wrote:
>
> Steve Havas has identified CHANGES in process on DSS images and NEAT
> images provided to the public as existing Star Charts!
Is this the same Steve Havas who lied about seeing your
nonexistent planet visually through a telescope a year ago?
This in spite of the fact that you are now pointing to 20th
magnitude noise and calling it your planet?
Have your excuses ready next spring, kook.
Check out: http://www.kook-watch.net/nancy/
--- Snip remainder of doomsday cult propaganda and lies ---
--
The Evil Michael Davis™
Ruler For Life of AAR
http://mdavis19.tripod.com
http://skepticult.org Member #264-70198-536
Flaggy random killfile member #33 1/3
"Goddammit! The world is just filling up with more and more
idiots! And the computer is giving them access to the world!
They're Spreading their stupidity! At least they were
contained before - now they're on the loose everywhere!" -
Harlan Ellison
Sarah Mc
Nancy Lieder <zeta...@zetatalk.com> wrote in message news:<3C7EA2FF...@zetatalk.com>...
> Steve Havas has identified CHANGES in process on DSS images and NEAT
> images provided to the public as existing Star Charts! This CHANGE, in
> process, began promptly after my announcement on sci.astro that new
> infrared images had been take on January 19, 2002 at the coordinates
> given by the Zetas. Steve made note that David Tholen, who works in
> Hawaii where the NEAT program is headquartered, was out of pocket and
> had no comment for days after this announcement. Humm.
<snip long, boring, ZetaCult conspiracy theory>
This coming from someone who now intentionally supresses information
on her TT-watch Yahoo group, decides what the readers will be allowed
to see, and who intiated a coup in the takeover of the group,
assigning her right hand man to manage the content of the posts.
You know, when you do something wrong, claim it was the other guy that
did it first. When your opinion is opposed, attack the people instead
of defending your statements. Right out of the Scientology handbook,
Nancy. Never try to defend your statements, attack the opposition
instead. Take the spotlight off the matter at hand, and point it
elsewhere.
Steve Havas is now an expert in astrometrics and CCD imaging. How
quaint.
Steve Havas backtracks on his claimed sighting on the TT-watch group:
"Michael, what shows up on this image does not change my description
of my
sighting last April in which I reported that the object or whatever I
observed looked like a dark, fuzzy spot that I could only see when I
moved
my eye and looked around the area and not by looking directly at it.
So,
hardly noticeable but I DID notice and made sure by looking several
times.
The Zeta's subsequently stated that I did in fact see the one and only
Planet X. The new CCD image shows a faint, fuzzy spot which anyone can
see
by looking at and which the Zeta's say is the same Planet X. So, do I
know
if this is the same object I saw last April? No, of course not! But, I
do
believe PX is coming to a town near everyone soon so you connect the
dots..."
He claims the Zetas (Nancy) told him that he saw it now. Nancy claims
Steve saw it. Does he know if he saw it? Nope, he only knows the Zetas
told him he saw it.
Backpedaling at its finest. Sorry Steve-O, it's too late to save face
now. Nancy made a liar out of you for her own benefit. You fell right
into her trap, and she manipulated you.
So the truth comes out, Nancy tells Steve he saw it, then tells the
world as "documented proof" that Steve said he saw it. Information
manipulation at its finest.
Nancy, and you have the balls to make claims that others are
manipulating information? Your new pit bull Jan is tossing people off
tt-watch faster than they can join..is this open information? You
make claims about Hubble images being suppressed, but suppress
information and members opinions on your own newsgroup?
What a hypocrite you are. "Service to Others" at its finest moment of
glory. I only hope the tt-watch members come here for both sides of
the story. At least there's one place they can come that isn't run by
fear, intimidation and information suppresion.
Steve Havas
"Sarah Mc" <sara...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:3c09ad3.02022...@posting.google.com...
> <off topic crosspost to sci.astro.amateur removed>
>
>
> Nancy Lieder <zeta...@zetatalk.com> wrote in message
news:<3C7EA2FF...@zetatalk.com>...
> > Steve Havas has identified CHANGES in process on DSS images and NEAT
> > images provided to the public as existing Star Charts! This CHANGE, in
> > process, began promptly after my announcement on sci.astro that new
> > infrared images had been take on January 19, 2002 at the coordinates
> > given by the Zetas. Steve made note that David Tholen, who works in
> > Hawaii where the NEAT program is headquartered, was out of pocket and
> > had no comment for days after this announcement. Humm.
>
> <snip>
>
>
Sarah, you fine individual you hehe - I don't know how you got
"backpedaling" out of that post from TT but feel free to interpret it anyway
you like as you obviously have done. That post was primarily for the benefit
of Michael Cunningham who tends to get somewhat cranky if I even refer to
what I saw last spring as being an "object" nevermind Planet X.
<snip>
tho...@antispam.ham
> Steve Havas has identified CHANGES in process on DSS images and NEAT
> images provided to the public as existing Star Charts!
Where are these alleged changes allegedly identified, Nancy?
> This CHANGE, in process, began promptly after my announcement on
> sci.astro that new infrared images had been take on January 19, 2002
> at the coordinates given by the Zetas.
You're presupposing the existence of changes, Nancy.
> Steve made note that David Tholen, who works in Hawaii where the
> NEAT program is headquartered,
Incorrect; NEAT is "headquartered" at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory,
(Pasadena, California), Nancy.
> was out of pocket and had no comment for days after this announcement.
> Humm.
Out of pocket? What the heck does that mean, Nancy?
> We suggest those who have copies of existing Star Charts KEEP THEM as
> the past is changing before your very eyes!
Care to substantiate that ridiculous claim, Nancy?
Of course, encouraging you to do so is the same as encouraging you
to continue diverting attention away from the fact that there is
nothing anywhere close to magnitude 11 in any of the images you've
been talking about recently.
tho...@antispam.ham
> Nancy Lieder writes:
>> What the PATH of the changing past, as it following, like a panting
>> dog, after the Zeta Coordinates!
> speak like Yoda you do. shame you don't have half the wits.
Shouldn't that be "have half the wits you don't"?
One of my favorite recent posters shows Yoda with a milk moustache,
and the captions reads "Milk Got? Hmm?"
Jef...@tholen=nancy.com
You might be able to find some good deals on used MREs from all those
people that stocked up for Y2K. I saw lots of ads for them at the time.
As for me, I'm stocking up on ammo as it takes up less space and I can use
it to take MREs from other people. :)
Jeff
PS cross-posts trimmed to help out tholen
Jef...@tholen=nancy.com
Eureka! tholen is finally on the verge of getting it!
<cross post trimmed>
Bill Foley
<Nancy drivel snipped>
> to hint at some strange conspiratorial manipulation of
> historical data and then you jump on it as a fact.
>
> You then proceed to weave an enourmous web of intrigue
> around the unverified claim, naming names, hinting at
> non existent relationships between individuals and
> organizations, etc.
>
> This is quite hilarious coming from the woman who
> regularly rewrites history on her own ZetaBabble
> web pages, constantly trying to cover her tracks
> at failed predictions, wrong science, etc.
Get a good college textbook about various mental problems, and read up
on paranoia. It is amazing how well it fits Nancy's posts and
actions. Some
coincidence, isn't it??
Bill Foley
almost everything else, it isn't even a PLANET any more - now it's a
brown dwarf!
If the dwarf got brown, it must have been rolling in Nancy's
brains....
Or, in the great old acronym,
KBI,SFB
tho...@antispam.ham
There is no such .com address, Polston.
> Eureka! tholen is finally on the verge of getting it!
On the contrary, I got it long ago, Polston. Interestingly, you
have yet to get it. While you continue to chide me for countering
Nancy's nonsense, because it allegedly hasn't made any difference
(at least to you), you have failed to note that your repeated
chiding hasn't made any difference, yet you persist. That's
what's known as hypocrisy, Polston.
> <cross post trimmed>
Cross post restored.
tho...@antispam.ham
There is no .com address like that, Polston. Why the deception?
> You might be able to find some good deals on used MREs from all those
> people that stocked up for Y2K. I saw lots of ads for them at the time.
Well, after criticizing me repeatedly for responding to Nancy, Polston,
here you are responding to Nancy. That's also what's known as
hypocrisy.
> As for me, I'm stocking up on ammo as it takes up less space and I can use
> it to take MREs from other people. :)
Figures.
> PS cross-posts trimmed to help out tholen
Cross-posts restored to help illustrate Polston's hypocrisy.
Jef...@tholen=nancy.com
Please see my other post: Re: Planet X: Changing the PAST? - I'm out!, but
I thought I should respond to this since I posted it today.
tho...@AntiSpam.ham....."Why the deception?"
I haven't criticized you for merely responding to her, but for your entire
campaign and especially your tactics when you stray from scientific fact.
Please review the archives. Please, compare the content and intent of my
response to Nancy to yours. No hypocrisy on my part at all.
Is that enough for you? Any more? I'll send you my mailing address if you
have anything else, but as of today I refuse to be a tool in your attempt
to troll and clutter any astronomy related newsgroup!
Again, my apologies to the normal people of sci.astro and sci.astro.amateur.
Sorry you've seen my rants, but lies and hypocrisy are some of my biggest
pet peeves. Back to real astronomy for me!
Jeff
Why does the moon seem larger on the horizon?..see:
http://www.mindspring.com/~jeffpo/moonillu.htm
Can you buy or name a star?...see:
http://www.mindspring.com/~jeffpo/buystar.htm
Leonid Meteor shower notes:
http://www.mindspring.com/~jeffpo/wishes.htm
Mid-Atlantic Star Party 2001 notes:
http://www.mindspring.com/~jeffpo/masp2.htm
<posted only to sci.astro>
Jef...@tholen=nancy.com
Famous last words for you..."I'm outta here". But before I go...
..WELL DUH!!.. Care to tell us how tho...@AntiSpam.ham is a REAL
address? I've been getting a lot of spam lately and thought I would
try to take a few measures.
Here's the difference for you tholen, since you don't get it. My
purpose wasn't to make you change your mind but to point out your
flaws (as if I needed to) to others. And since I've seen that it probably
doesn't really matter, I'm going to stop. Therefore, it's not hypocrisy.
You on the other hand, cannot stop since you need the attention, and will
continue on.
And since you're now actively posting articles to sci.astro.amateur
in an attempt to clutter it up with articles from other groups, I'm definitely
getting out of the whole thing. If it was an attempt to shame me, it worked,
but not on the level you think. I'm not ashamed of what I said about you
since it's the absolute truth, easily verified by the archives, but I'm
ashamed I've given you the opportunity to do more damage to sci.astro.amateur
and to sci.astro than you (and Nancy) normally do. Besides, I've got way
too much astronomy to do than worry with you, Nancy, and others like you.
Right now I've got over 400mb of data sitting on a CD that I've got to get
to.
So my apologies to the normal people of sci.astro and sci.astro.amateur.
Sorry you've seen my rants, but lies and hypocrisy are some of my biggest
pet peeves. Back to real astronomy for me!
Jeff
Why does the moon seem larger on the horizon?..see:
http://www.mindspring.com/~jeffpo/moonillu.htm
Can you buy or name a star?...see:
http://www.mindspring.com/~jeffpo/buystar.htm
Leonid Meteor shower notes:
http://www.mindspring.com/~jeffpo/wishes.htm
Mid-Atlantic Star Party 2001 notes:
http://www.mindspring.com/~jeffpo/masp2.htm
<only posted to sci.astro to show tholen's intent>
Michael L Cunningham
> Steve Havas has identified CHANGES in process on DSS images and NEAT
> images provided to the public as existing Star Charts! This CHANGE, in
> process, began promptly after my announcement on sci.astro that new
> infrared images had been take on January 19, 2002 at the coordinates
> given by the Zetas.
That's because Steve Havas doesn't know how to process a FITS image.
You rely on a rookie who never processed a FITS image in his life and
you'll get garbage in return.
--
Michael L. Cunningham
So Cal SleeperS - 2001 Grand AM GT
e-mail boge...@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!
"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
Michael L Cunningham
> Sarah, you fine individual you hehe - I don't know how you got
> "backpedaling" out of that post from TT but feel free to interpret it anyway
> you like as you obviously have done. That post was primarily for the benefit
> of Michael Cunningham who tends to get somewhat cranky if I even refer to
> what I saw last spring as being an "object" nevermind Planet X.
And you still insist on side-stepping the question. Was it or wasn't it Planet
X?
A simple yes or no will suffice.
Nor afraid of being banned from tt-watch are you?
The Small Kahuna
tho...@antispam.ham
There is no such .com domain, Polston. Why the deception? Why
didn't you answer that question the last time I asked it?
> Please see my other post: Re: Planet X: Changing the PAST? - I'm out!,
Yes, please see it so that you can realize that Polston is back just
15 minutes after he said he was out. Why do you think I call them
"Famous Last Words"?
> but I thought I should respond to this since I posted it today.
Why would you want to respond to something you posted today, Polston?
Do you like to carry on conversations with yourself?
But what you really responded to below is not what you posted today,
rather what I posted today.
> tho...@AntiSpam.ham....."Why the deception?"
What alleged deception, Polston? There is nothing in that address
that attempts to compare you to Nancy, Polston. Meanwhile, you
haven't even acknowledged the existence of your own deception.
> I haven't criticized you for merely responding to her,
On the contrary, you have criticized me for merely responding to her,
Polston. Indeed, you've accused me of being responsible for Nancy's
continued presence, assuming that if I didn't respond to her, she
would leave. You even erroneously claimed that she left sci.astro.amateur
because folks there stopped responding to her (you obviously haven't; see
below for the evidence), but she continued in sci.astro because folks here
like me didn't stop responding to her. You've made the same erroneous
claim multiple times, so I'm surprised that you've forgotten it, Polston.
So, once again you're lying about the past, Polston.
> but for your entire campaign
Why do you call it a "campaign", Polston? Do you also regard your own
postings as part of some "campaign"?
> and especially your tactics when you stray from scientific fact.
When have I allegedly strayed from scientific fact, Polston? Oh,
maybe you regard the fact that NEAT is "headquartered" in California,
not Hawaii, as some sort of fact that is other than a scientific fact.
If so, then why would you object to fact, as opposed to scientific fact?
> Please review the archives.
Good advice, Polston. I heartily concur. Indeed, I recommend that you
practice what you preach, so that you can refresh your memory about the
criticism you've dumped on me for merely responding to Nancy.
> Please, compare the content and intent of my response to Nancy to yours.
How do you propose to compare intent, Polston? I've stated my intent,
but I can't read your mind. As for content, you strayed from "scientific
fact", Polston; see below for the evidence.
> No hypocrisy on my part at all.
Oh really? Care to identify the "scientific fact" in your response to
Nancy, Polston?
> Is that enough for you?
Not even close, Polston.
> Any more?
I have no desire to read any more of your hypoocrisy, Polston. But I
realize that that won't necessarily stop you.
> I'll send you my mailing address if you have anything else,
Non sequitur. The issue here is the content and intent of your
responses to Nancy in comparison to mine, Polston. Such a
comparison can be done right here.
> but as of today I refuse to be a tool in your attempt
> to troll and clutter any astronomy related newsgroup!
Why are you accusing me of being responsible for what you are doing,
Polston?
> Again, my apologies to the normal people of sci.astro and
> sci.astro.amateur.
Why didn't you think about them before you posted your latest
personal attacks, Polston?
> Sorry you've seen my rants, but lies and hypocrisy are some of my
> biggest pet peeves.
So why do you lie, Polston, and why are you a hypocrite, Polston?
See my other responses to you for the evidence.
> Back to real astronomy for me!
Until your next personal attack, right Polston?
> <posted only to sci.astro>
Restored to sci.astro.amateur.
>> JeffPo@tholen=nancy.com writes:
>>
>> There is no .com address like that, Polston. Why the deception?
Note: no response.
>>> You might be able to find some good deals on used MREs from all those
>>> people that stocked up for Y2K. I saw lots of ads for them at the time.
>> Well, after criticizing me repeatedly for responding to Nancy, Polston,
>> here you are responding to Nancy. That's also what's known as
>> hypocrisy.
Note: no response.
>>> As for me, I'm stocking up on ammo as it takes up less space and I can use
>>> it to take MREs from other people. :)
>> Figures.
Note: no response.
tho...@antispam.ham
There is no such .com domain, Polston. Why the deception? And why
didn't you answer that question the last time I asked it?
> Famous last words for you..."I'm outta here".
Obviously not, Polston. A scant 15 minutes after you posted the
article to which I'm responding, you posted yet another.
> But before I go...
> ...WELL DUH!!.. Care to tell us how tho...@AntiSpam.ham is a REAL
> address?
Irrelevant, given that I didn't call it a real address, Polston.
However, it does not try to deceptively equate me to Nancy, unlike
your own address, Polston.
> I've been getting a lot of spam lately and thought I would
> try to take a few measures.
You can do that without deceptively equating me to Nancy, Polston.
But no, you have to find yet another way to post your barbs. Readers
may not be able to read your mind and discover your true intent,
Polston, but little things like that speak volumes about you.
> Here's the difference for you tholen, since you don't get it.
You're erroneously presupposing that I don't "get it", Polston. See
above for the evidence that I do "get it".
> My purpose wasn't to make you change your mind
Then why have you spent so much time trying to change my mind about
responding to Nancy, Polston, if that really wasn't your purpose?
Do you often spend that much time on activities that aren't your
true purpose?
> but to point out your flaws (as if I needed to) to others.
Then you failed in your "purpose", Polston, because you haven't
pointed out any of my flaws. Of course, you lied about some
alleged flaws, but that's not the same thing as pointing out
real flaws, Polston.
> And since I've seen that it probably doesn't really matter, I'm
> going to stop.
Ah, so you've finally recognized your hypocrisy, eh Polston?
> Therefore, it's not hypocrisy.
On the contrary, it is hypocrisy, Polston, especially after you
posted yet again 15 minutes after saying you're "outta here".
> You on the other hand, cannot stop since you need the attention,
> and will continue on.
Illogical, Polston. If I needed any attention, I would start threads,
but I haven't had to do that.
> And since you're now actively posting articles to sci.astro.amateur
> in an attempt to clutter it up with articles from other groups,
On the contrary, I haven't posted anything to sci.astro.amateur,
Polston. I've simply restored the newsgroup distribution to its
original form, and the news server handles the cross-posting. As
for cluutering up newsgroup with articles, you've been doing just
that, Polston. Your latest barbs directed at me have accomplished
nothing useful, besides your own self-gratification.
> I'm definitely getting out of the whole thing.
For at least 15 minutes, Polston. By the way, doesn't "the whole
thing" include sci.astro.amateur?
> If it was an attempt to shame me, it worked,
> but not on the level you think.
How would you know what I think, Polston?
> I'm not ashamed of what I said about you since it's the absolute
> truth,
Balderdash, Polston. It's not even close to the truth, Polston.
> easily verified by the archives,
On the contrary, what can be easily verified by the archives is that
your claims are not even close to the truth, Polston, especially your
"everything" remark.
> but I'm ashamed I've given you the opportunity to do more damage
> to sci.astro.amateur and to sci.astro than you (and Nancy) normally
> do.
What "damage" have I allegedly done to either newsgroup, Polston?
That's rather ironic, coming from someone who took the opportunity,
not just once, but multiple times, to do "damage" by posting nothing
more than personal attacks against me, and posting a useless item
about Meals Ready to Eat in response to Nancy.
> Besides, I've got way too much astronomy to do than worry with
> you, Nancy, and others like you.
I'll be awaiting your journal publications, Polston.
> Right now I've got over 400mb of data sitting on a CD that I've
> got to get to.
Is that all? So why do you waste your time posting personal attacks
in newsgroups, Polston?
> So my apologies to the normal people of sci.astro and sci.astro.amateur.
I accept such apologies only when they are sincere, Polston. You have
yet to demonstrate any sincerity.
> Sorry you've seen my rants, but lies and hypocrisy are some of my
> biggest pet peeves.
So why do you lie, Polston? Why do you act hypocritically, Polston?
> Back to real astronomy for me!
For at most 15 minutes. Then we got treated to yet another one of your
useless postings, Polston.
> <only posted to sci.astro to show tholen's intent>
Cross-posting to sci.astro.amateur restored to show Polston's hypocrisy.
>> JeffPo@tholen=nancy.com writes:
>>
>> There is no such .com address, Polston.
Note: no response.
>>> Eureka! tholen is finally on the verge of getting it!
>> On the contrary, I got it long ago, Polston. Interestingly, you
>> have yet to get it. While you continue to chide me for countering
>> Nancy's nonsense, because it allegedly hasn't made any difference
>> (at least to you), you have failed to note that your repeated
>> chiding hasn't made any difference, yet you persist. That's
>> what's known as hypocrisy, Polston.
Note: no response.
Steve Havas
is supposed to be the Jan 19,2002 image that was taken at the Haute-Provence
observatory. Also, the new spot I noticed on the DSSII is LOWER than the new
spot on the Jan 19, 2002 image. It took me by surprise because I really did
not recall seeing it the day before and as I had to rush out I did not take
the time to line it up properly... However, when I was just comparing it to
the NEAT images (which appear to be of better quality than the DSSII images
as the fainter objects show up more clearly) that spot on the DSSII (from
SkyView) does NOT appear in the least from what I could see on any of the
six NEAT images I looked at (Jan 17, 2001 & Jan 26, 2001). It looks like the
mystery spot on the DSSII lines up closely with the second new spot which
appears on the Jan 19 image. Maybe the guys are getting their spots mixed
up!
Michael L. Cunningham
> I have a correction to make in the above - The Jan 17,2002 image I refer to
> is supposed to be the Jan 19,2002 image that was taken at the Haute-Provence
> observatory. Also, the new spot I noticed on the DSSII is LOWER than the new
> spot on the Jan 19, 2002 image. It took me by surprise because I really did
> not recall seeing it the day before and as I had to rush out I did not take
> the time to line it up properly... However, when I was just comparing it to
> the NEAT images (which appear to be of better quality than the DSSII images
> as the fainter objects show up more clearly) that spot on the DSSII (from
> SkyView) does NOT appear in the least from what I could see on any of the
> six NEAT images I looked at (Jan 17, 2001 & Jan 26, 2001). It looks like the
> mystery spot on the DSSII lines up closely with the second new spot which
> appears on the Jan 19 image. Maybe the guys are getting their spots mixed
> up!
I have a pretty good idea you don't know what in the hell you're looking
at
to begin with! You've never taken a CCD image in your life, you've never
worked with the software to calibrate raw images for processing. Lord
knows
how you're stretching (if at all) your calibrated image. If Nancy wishes
to
parade you as an expert be prepared to filed a whole lot of technical
questions thrown your way that you'll not be able to answer. She's
making a
big fool out of you and you're falling for it.
Good luck and let the questions begin!
--
Michael L. Cunningham
So Cal SleeperS
2001 Grand Am GT
Sarah Mc
Well, first of all, thank you for the compliment.
Backpedaling as in, now you don't know what you saw, when previously,
you claimed you saw Planet X. Is it that hard to comprehend?
So, was it or was it not Planet X? If you don't know if it was, then
Nancy is lying when she states you saw it. It's that simple. You can't
say "I don't know what I saw", while Nancy states the following:
"Steve Havas, who sighted
Planet X at the Zeta coordinates"
"Steve Havas, who has posted about his sighting
of Planet X at a Vancouver observatory"
Or posts like this from April 21, 2001,
"Although the 12th Planet at present is a magnitude 2.0,
astronomers should include objects up to a magnitude 10 in
their image capture. The image capture results should be
passed through a red filter, as most equipment is calibrated
to locate the pinpoint brightness of stars, rather than a diffuse
glow.
The naked eye [i.e. not a computer] will begin to register
increased brightness approximately 1 year 7 months before
the cataclysms, or late in the year 2001.
ZetaTalk"
(note that "[ie, not a computer]" was changed later in the year to
"computer assisted")" when it failed to appear as predicted. At 1
year, 2 months away, it can't even be resolved on a CCD image at ~mag
20.
Many many repeated times since then she's claimed it as a verified
sighting. "His sighting of Planet X". It does *not* say, "His sighting
of something he's unsure of". There's a big difference. Has Nancy
taken license with your report? Has she claimed you saw something that
you can not verify? Why have you not come forward to say you don't
know what you saw until now? WHy have you not countered her obviously
clear claim that you "saw" planet X?
Nancy claimed you saw Planet X in many archived postings over the last
year. Please point me to a post here on sci.astro or on tt-watch where
you've previously stated that you disagree with her statement.
Allowing her to continue to post that you saw planet X, in no
uncertain terms, without replying that you did not, is in itself a
statement of your agreeing with her.
The only post I've seen is one where you sarcasticly tell someone it
"must have been a bug on the eyepiece".
It can't be both Steve. The truth is here somewhere. You can continue
to cover it up with doubletalk and non-commitment, or you can just
come clean and tell everyone that you don't know what you saw, and
that Nancy fabricated the story that you saw Planet X. It's quite
simple really.
tho...@antispam.ham
> Also, the new spot I noticed on the DSSII is LOWER than the new
> spot on the Jan 19, 2002 image.
Out of curiosity, Havas, why are you spending so much time looking
at "spots" that are nowhere near magnitude 11? It's like digging
through a whole boxful of ping-pong balls trying to find a
basketball.
Nancy Lieder
wrote:
Trying to change the focus of the post, Dave?
The FASCINATION is, of course, watching the DSS and NEAT Star Charts,
out there as guides for the little guy to download and compare against,
being changed before their eyes. Images taken long ago, and SUDDENDLY,
just since the announcement of the Jan 19th imaging and discovery of a
round blob of infrared “noise” dropping the appropriate number of Dec
from the Jan 5th imaging and discovery of a round blob of infrared
“noise” not on the star charts. Errors inserted in the doctoring such
that the viewer has problems with the image!
It’s just fascinating watching you’all struggle with what to SAY, Dave!
Don’t be concerned that these bastions of integrity, the star charts,
are being changed to make the PAST look different? But we can trust
you’all on all other matters, right? You’ve got our interests at heart,
right? You, the readership, out there with your babes, your toddlers,
your pregnant wife - you’re not on the short list. NASA honchos are.
Bush family certainly is. Perhaps in taking a “vacation” just after the
Jan 19th images were announced, with a FITS files to back this up as a
NEW object, Dave assumed he’d be on the short list too. Hey Dave, you
can trust this crowd! They’re very caring folks! They don’t lie or
perpetrate a coverup! They let the whole world see what the Hubble
sees, right off the reel, and this is because there’s nothing to hide!
Now, I expect with the spotlight of attention Steve Havas and his
EXCELLENT sense of timing brought down on this matter, that the orginal,
unaltered, star charts will be reinstated. Then Steve will be called a
liar (again), and anyone else in the world who has pulled down what
Steve was pointing to, and compared to star charts they happened to have
in their possession, and noticed that INDEED, something fishy was going
on, will also be called a liar. That would once again leave open the
question of what it IS, that round moving “noise” showing up on those
infrared charts, moving in accordance with the Zeta prediction way last
November.
Comets don’t emit heat.
Novas don’t move those distances when supposedly far away.
Leaving a “self-luminating inbound planet close at hand” as the
explanation.
Greg Neill
> In Article <eJ3g8.15252$j47.4...@twister.socal.rr.com> David Tholen
> wrote:
> > Steve Havas writes:
> >> Also, the new spot I noticed on the DSSII is LOWER
> >> than the new spot on the Jan 19, 2002 image.
> >
> > Out of curiosity, Havas, why are you spending so much
> > time looking at "spots" that are nowhere near magnitude 11?
> > It's like digging through a whole boxful of ping-pong balls
> > trying to find a basketball.
>
> Trying to change the focus of the post, Dave?
Still trying to avoid the obvious question, Nancy?
Here's another analogy: You insist there's an elephant in
the room, but continue to discuss the merits of various mice
you find instead.
tho...@antispam.ham
>> Steve Havas writes:
>>> Also, the new spot I noticed on the DSSII is LOWER
>>> than the new spot on the Jan 19, 2002 image.
>> Out of curiosity, Havas, why are you spending so much
>> time looking at "spots" that are nowhere near magnitude 11?
>> It's like digging through a whole boxful of ping-pong balls
>> trying to find a basketball.
> Trying to change the focus of the post, Dave?
On the contrary, I'm trying to restore the focus to the claims you've
made, Nancy. You're one of the ones trying to change the focus toward
some object near the threshold of detection or some noise lump.
Perhaps you'd like to tell me why you're not talking about any
magnitude 11 object?
> The FASCINATION is, of course, watching the DSS and NEAT Star Charts,
> out there as guides for the little guy to download and compare against,
> being changed before their eyes.
What I find fascinating is the way you're trying to spin doctor the
fact that none of the images have revealed anything anywhere close
to magnitude 11, Nancy.
> Images taken long ago, and SUDDENDLY,
> just since the announcement of the Jan 19th imaging and discovery of a
> round blob of infrared “noise” dropping the appropriate number of Dec
> from the Jan 5th imaging and discovery of a round blob of infrared
> “noise” not on the star charts.
There is no magnitude 11 object dropping any "number of Dec", Nancy.
> Errors inserted in the doctoring such that the viewer has problems
> with the image!
Are you trying to claim that there was a magnitude 11 object in the
images, Nancy, but that somebody removed it? Gee, it wasn't long
ago that you were enclosing blank pieces of sky with red circles
and happily proclaiming "There it is!" Have you changed your mind,
Nancy?
> It’s just fascinating watching you’all struggle with what to SAY, Dave!
Impossible, given that I haven't struggled with what to say at all,
Nancy. Meanwhile, you are obviously struggling with what to say
about the absence of any magnitude 11 object in the recent images,
which is why you keep avoiding that particular issue.
> Don’t be concerned that these bastions of integrity, the star charts,
> are being changed to make the PAST look different?
The distant past is irrelevant, Nancy, considering how you haven't
produced an ephemeris for the distant past. What is relevant are
the new, recent images and how they utterly fail to reveal anything
anywhere close to magnitude 11.
> But we can trust you’all on all other matters, right?
"All other matters" are irrelevant here, Nancy. The relevant matter
is the absence of any magnitude 11 object in the new, recent images
taken at the coordinates you've specified.
> You’ve got our interests at heart, right?
You are you referring to when you say "our", Nancy?
> You, the readership, out there with your babes, your toddlers,
> your pregnant wife - you’re not on the short list.
On the contrary, just last night I was approached by someone at the
theater who knows I'm an astronomer and had heard Hazelwood on
Art Bell. She was concerned and wanted to know whether there was
anything to it. I certainly had her interests at heart when I
explained the situation to her.
> NASA honchos are. Bush family certainly is.
On what basis do you make those claims, Nancy?
> Perhaps in taking a “vacation” just after the
> Jan 19th images were announced, with a FITS files to back this
> up as a NEW object, Dave assumed he’d be on the short list too.
There is no "NEW object" anywhere close to magnitude 11, Nancy.
It is rather amusing to watch you continue to avoid the obvious.
> Hey Dave, you can trust this crowd!
Which crowd are you referring to, Nancy? I certainly can't trust you
or Havas.
> They’re very caring folks!
Which folks are you referring to, Nancy? Certainly not yourself and
Havas.
> They don’t lie or perpetrate a coverup!
Which folks are you referring to, Nancy? Certainly not yourself and
Havas.
> They let the whole world see what the Hubble sees, right off the
> reel, and this is because there’s nothing to hide!
Irrelevant, Nancy, as the discussion is about the new, recent images
that show no magnitude 11 object anywhere near the coordinates you
specified, and not about what Hubble sees.
>
> Now, I expect with the spotlight of attention Steve Havas and his
> EXCELLENT sense of timing brought down on this matter, that the orginal,
> unaltered, star charts will be reinstated.
The original star charts are irrelevant, Nancy, considering how you
haven't produced an ephemeris for the time that they were made. What
is relevant are the new, recent images and how they utterly fail to
reveal anything anywhere close to magnitude 11.
> Then Steve will be called a
> liar (again), and anyone else in the world who has pulled down what
> Steve was pointing to, and compared to star charts they happened to have
> in their possession, and noticed that INDEED, something fishy was going
> on, will also be called a liar.
Speaking of liars, Nancy, when are you going to admit that you lied
when you claimed that I'm associated with NEAT? When are you going
to admit that you lied when you claimed that NEAT was "headquartered"
in Hawaii? You've been corrected before, Nancy, and you've still
falsely accused me of being associated with NEAT, therefore you can't
hide behind the "little old Nancy made a mistake" routine. Repeated
such accusations are deliberate lies on your part, Nancy.
> That would once again leave open the question of what it IS, that
> round moving “noise” showing up on those infrared charts, moving
> in accordance with the Zeta prediction way last November.
On the contrary, there is NOTHING moving in accordance with the
so-called "Zeta prediction" because the so-called "Zeta prediction"
calls for a magnitude 11 object, and the new, recent images of sky
at the coordinates corresponding to that so-called "Zeta prediction"
don't show any magnitude 11 object.
> Comets don’t emit heat.
Incorrect, Nancy; heat is emitted by objects at temperatures above
absolute zero more or less according to Planck radiation curves.
The amount of heat emitted depends on the temperature raised to the
fourth power.
> Novas don’t move those distances when supposedly far away.
Irrelevant, given that nobody has suggested that novas move those
distances, Nancy. Are you trying to suggest that every time an
astronomer finds a new nova, it must be the same one that has
moved to a different part of the sky? Or are you at least willing
to admit that different novas can appear in different parts of the
sky?
> Leaving a “self-luminating inbound planet close at hand” as the
> explanation.
Balderdash, Nancy. Let's assume for the moment that all the objects
people are seeing in the new, recent images are in fact real and not
noise lumps. You shouldn't forget that there are thousands of
kilometer-sized asteroids relatively nearby in the main asteroid belt
between Mars and Jupiter that could appear as magnitude 20 objects in
the sky, particularly near the ecliptic. Remember that these asteroids
are all moving, so if you take two snapshots at two different times
something like a month apart, you'll see an entirely different pattern
of asteroids. It's not hard to accidentally link two positions and
believe they are the same object, when in reality they are two
different objects.
Greg Neill
news:3obg8.17191$j47.5...@twister.socal.rr.com...
> Balderdash, Nancy. Let's assume for the moment that all the objects
> people are seeing in the new, recent images are in fact real and not
> noise lumps. You shouldn't forget that there are thousands of
> kilometer-sized asteroids relatively nearby in the main asteroid belt
> between Mars and Jupiter that could appear as magnitude 20 objects in
> the sky, particularly near the ecliptic. Remember that these asteroids
> are all moving, so if you take two snapshots at two different times
> something like a month apart, you'll see an entirely different pattern
> of asteroids. It's not hard to accidentally link two positions and
> believe they are the same object, when in reality they are two
> different objects.
Indeed. One notes that the ZetaCult analysis "experts" made no
mention of what efforts were made to exclude _known_ objects from all
of the pictures they discuss. I believe that the SkyMorph site will
allow you to overlay a map of the catalogued objects on the images.
Idon't
> Now, I expect with the spotlight of attention Steve Havas and his
> EXCELLENT sense of timing brought down on this matter, that the orginal,
> unaltered, star charts will be reinstated. Then Steve will be called a
> liar (again), and anyone else in the world who has pulled down what
EGG-cellent Nancy. Nice try! This would be you, setting up the
potential for another smoke screen whereby you can claim that
"restored"(but actually never altered at all) images are evidence of
PX coverup! Set up noted- gambit denied.
I
PS: Of course, you will only post *your* statement on your "sci.astro
debates" page as if it were something which were true, and proved
anything, and stood unchallenged. Problem is, that tt people are now
reading sci.astro for themselves instead of believing your version of
what transpires here. You are going to have to shut down the tt lists
soon as you have lost control of them.
> Steve was pointing to, and compared to star charts they happened to have
> in their possession, and noticed that INDEED, something fishy was going
> on, will also be called a liar. That would once again leave open the
> question of what it IS, that round moving “noise” showing up on those
> infrared charts, moving in accordance with the Zeta prediction way last
> November.
>
> Comets don’t emit heat.
> Novas don’t move those distances when supposedly far away.
> Leaving a “self-luminating inbound planet close at hand” as the
> explanation.
Steve Havas
and the silence grew...
tho...@antispam.ham
> Nancy Lieder wrote:
>>> Steve Havas writes:
> and the silence grew...
The silence here is Nancy's failure to address the fact that there is
nothing in the new, recent images that is anywhere close to magnitude
11, Havas. As for the above article from Nancy, I responded to it in
detail, in particular noting how a "self-luminating inbound planet
close at hand" is NOT the explanation.
frankie
wrote:
[el snipo]
>> Comets don't emit heat.
>> Novas don't move those distances when supposedly far away.
>> Leaving a "self-luminating inbound planet close at hand" as the
>> explanation.
>
>and the silence grew...
I guess we'll just have to wait an see, eh? Of course by the time it
becomes apparent to any random third grader that Planet-X is pure
nonsense (or something from a rejected screenplay) the hucksters
promoting it will have moved on to something else, assuming that
no-one will hold them to their words. And no-one will, because there
is no particular crime in peddling bunk to the gullible, until you
take their money.
Y'all haven't given her any money, have you?
Michael L Cunningham
> and the silence grew...
A big silence on your part. Did you or did you not
see the same object that Nancy now claims is her
planet in the CCD images?
It's not a hard question!
...and the silence from Havas grew.
--
Michael L. Cunningham
So Cal SleeperS - 2001 Grand AM GT
Sarah Mc
> In Article <eJ3g8.15252$j47.4...@twister.socal.rr.com> David Tholen
> wrote:
> > Steve Havas writes:
> >> Also, the new spot I noticed on the DSSII is LOWER
> >> than the new spot on the Jan 19, 2002 image.
> >
> > Out of curiosity, Havas, why are you spending so much
> > time looking at "spots" that are nowhere near magnitude 11?
> > It's like digging through a whole boxful of ping-pong balls
> > trying to find a basketball.
>
> Trying to change the focus of the post, Dave?
Isn't it interesting that everytime Nancy gets herself caught in a
corner, she starts accusing people of conspiracies, attempts to change
the subject by adding some new poorly conjectured fantasy, or just
runs and hides for a couple days and ignores the posts altogether?
Took her 4 days to come up with this one after it was noted that Steve
Havas has no experience whatsoever, and after it was noted that he
NEVER saw Planet X by his own admission. SHe still won't address that
issue either.
Neither will she address issue of "Veronique" (who submitted the
"Haute observatory" images), as being the exact same person that
started the rumor about the Nebuchatel observatory "seeing" Planet X.
That was shot down within a few days by the observatory personel
themselves.
Now that Nancy has been outed for TELLING Steve he saw Planet X, then
posting all over USeNEt that Steve SAID he saw Planet X, she and Steve
come up with some far fetched story about doctored images.
Interesting, since it was pointed out that Steve didn't even know what
a fits image was until a few weeks ago, and now he and Nancy are
experts on them, CCD imaging techniques and astrometrics.
I personally lik ethe way Nancy told Steve that he saw planet X, when
she wasn't there to verify what he saw. I guess those Zetas sure are
God-like creatures. Nancy can "see" what Steve saw at the eyepiece
without even being there. She even knows for fact that the telescope
was at the correct coordinates without being there to verify it.
Nancy, how many arc-seconds is that?
"1/20th the size of the circle, per the Zetas"
Nancy, how far is Chicago from New York?
"2 inches on the map"
Interesting too that Nancy STILL refuses to explain why her mag 2,
then mag 10, then mag 11 object is now mag 20. Whats next Nancy? Black
filters required to see it?
Don't forget that Hale-Bopp was a "created" comet for the purposes of
"having people look the other way". 6 years ago, people were coerced
into "looking the other way" so as not to see an object that can't be
seen now, 6 years in the future.
Will it dissappear completely, and a new conspiracy get conjectured
that all the telescopes (including amateur's and every little cheapo
Tasco in the supermarket) have been intentionally altered so as not be
able to see it?
Speaking of editing, why have you never answered the question of why
your web pages were altered, especially since you altered what the
"Zetas" said. unaided eye became naked eye, then naked eye was
altered to mean "telescope assisted", then when fall 2001 came around
and STILL wasn't visible, it was changed again to "computer assisted".
What's next, Cray super-computer assisted?
Interesting that you never responded to that one either. Interesting
only, it was certainly expected. You have a long, long history of
avoiding the tough questions when you corner yourself (almost every
post you make here), if and when you finally reply, it's usually an
attack, a conspiracy, some supposition from unreliable sources, or you
don't even answer the question at all, you ignore that it was even
asked!
You wait a couple days, then come back here and post some more of your
adulterated cult web pages as if nothing was ever brought to your
attention. Ignorance is bliss at the cult.
As far as "doctored images", I suggest you come up with some solid
proof other than your conjecture based on hearsay from a person that
has no experience in the field, before you shoot your ignorant mouth
off again.
Oh and Nancy, I intentionally shut down all Yahoo groups today so that
your cult members would have to come HERE to read the truth. Now hows
that for a conspiracy?
Bill Nelson
> So, was it or was it not Planet X? If you don't know if it was, then
> Nancy is lying when she states you saw it. It's that simple. You can't
> say "I don't know what I saw", while Nancy states the following:
> "Steve Havas, who sighted
> Planet X at the Zeta coordinates"
> "Steve Havas, who has posted about his sighting
> of Planet X at a Vancouver observatory"
Sarah, I seldom feel that Steve should be supported. I think he is
a fool to believe what he does on the word of one woman who obviously
does not know anything about science.
However, he certainly can make such a statement, and be entirely
correct. He stated he did not know what he observed. It does not
matter what Nancy claims - it has no bearing on what he claims.
Steve is gullible. He believes Nancy, so when she stated that he had
spotted Px, then he believed it - probably because he wants to believe
it very much.
He has now rethought his belief - at least to the extent as now realizing
that he has no idea what he saw. That is a slight improvement. The totally
blind would refuse to modify their belief.
--
Bill Nelson (bi...@peak.org)
Bill Nelson
> Comets don't emit heat.
Wrong, Nancy. Comets do emit heat. It is just at a very low
temperature. If they didn't emit heat, then they would be at
absolute zero.
> Novas don't move those distances when supposedly far away.
If there had been a nova close enough for us to see visible movement,
then we would not be seen any movement - as we would all be dead from
the massive radiation dose we would have received.
> Leaving a "self-luminating inbound planet close at hand" as the
> explanation.
Don't you mean "self-luminous"? That is not the only explanation.
The other is what others have said all along - the supposed sightings
are noise.
This object was supposed to be visible to the eye - unaided by computer -
at the end of last year. Why can't I find it?
--
Bill Nelson (bi...@peak.org)
Bill Nelson
> promoting it will have moved on to something else, assuming that
> no-one will hold them to their words. And no-one will, because there
> is no particular crime in peddling bunk to the gullible, until you
> take their money.
I suspect that if people needlessly sell their homes etc because of
Nancy's claims, that she will be buried in civil lawsuits for the rest
of here life.
> Y'all haven't given her any money, have you?
Apparently people have. $50,000 or so prior to last year.
--
Bill Nelson (bi...@peak.org)
tho...@antispam.ham
>> The silence here is Nancy's failure to address the fact that there is
>> nothing in the new, recent images that is anywhere close to magnitude
>> 11,
> Again?
Again what?
> You are madman Tholen!
Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim, laced with invective, as
expected from someone who lacks a logical argument.
tho...@antispam.ham
> I suspect that if people needlessly sell their homes etc because of
> Nancy's claims, that she will be buried in civil lawsuits for the rest
> of here life.
What if some people die (recall Heaven's Gate) as a result of Nancy's
claims? How do you suppose the relatives of the victims might treat
Nancy?
Nancy Lieder
make available for historical and comparison purposes. This is now on
the Troubled Times server, for those interested. Steve's comments
below:
....................................................
I just wanted to send you this
Mar 4 DSSII .fits file
http://www.troubled-times.com/teams/rogue/dssii_mar4
as it exists on Mar 4,2002 just in case it changes anymore. If anyone
compares this side by side with
Feb 26 DSSII .fits file
http://www.troubled-times.com/teams/rogue/feb26_dssii
posted on sci.astro they should easily see the differences.
1. DSSII Feb 26,2002 - the spot where the star shows up (new spot on the
Jan 5,2002 image) is larger than the spot that shows up at the same
location on the DSSII Mar 4,2002 image. Also, the DSSII Feb 26 image
does not show any spot at the location of the new spot on the Jan
19,2002 image.
2. The DSSII Mar 4, 2002 image shows a spot, which does not exist on the
DSSII Feb 26 image, very close to the location of the second spot which
shows up on the Jan 19,2002 image and additionally does not show the
spot which shows up on the NEAT images (Jan 19, 2002 image new spot
location). In turn the NEAT image does not show the mystery spot which
appears on the DSSII Mar 4 image.
Can you download this image to the TT server and maybe post it on
sci.astro just in case anyone has been too lazy to bring up the current
DSSII image to compare? :-)
.......................................................
Nancy Lieder
Zetas explained why NASA et al went for with such a disastrous plan!
(NancyL) PLANET X ON SCI.ASTRO
(NancyL) 1. Can the Zeta's comment on the recent general mood of the
sci.astro boards.
(NancyL) 2. Can the Zeta's comment on the apparent changes to NEAT and
DSSII images recently documented?
(NancyL) ZT: Following the posting of an infrared image taken on Jan 5,
2002, the establishment was uneasy but felt the presence of an existing
star in the near vicinity would suffice to explain, in the main, to the
man on the street, the image.
(NancyL) ZT: Those following the debate closely, which several thousand
are, were not so confused, however, but indeed recognized, in spite of
the image makers later protests, that TWO objects were present in the
new image, not on the star charts.
(NancyL) ZT: In that once is an aberation, in science, but twice is a
pattern, the lights went off when the French team came through again
with an image taken on Jan 19, 2002.
(NancyL) ZT: This had the astonishing association of being 1. a
legitimate image, taken by a student given access to the equipment as a
part of a training routine, and 2. having the stamp of the observatory,
and 3. accompanied by an ESO star chart to be used as comparison.
(NancyL) ZT: They were horrified. All attempts to suppress such an
occurence had slipped through their fingers, as they had not gone DOWN
to the level of trainers and students in their covert warnings to
astronomers.
(NancyL) ZT: The cat was well out of the bag by the time the
establishment became aware.
(NancyL) ZT: Thus, they huddled, no comment being the mode, as noted by
Steve Havas who found it odd that David Tholen of the Haiwai complex was
absent for days after this announcement.
(NancyL) ZT: The options were discussed. Should they call it a
NEWobject, perhaps a nova, and deal with the motion according to our
coordinates later?
(NancyL) ZT: Should they ignore it, and have their lack of interest
rouse curiosity?
(NancyL) ZT: Should they state that this is an existing object, the
excuse used on Jan 5, 2002, always the most comfortable answer.
(NancyL) ZT: They chose the latter, and proceeded to INSERT an object in
the star charts that would be downloaded by interested parties in the
public, so that the public, comparing, would find the NEW object
identified in France an OLD object, and dismiss the image.
(NancyL) ZT: They proceeded, but Steve Havas is a gifted contactee whom
we have great confidence in, and thus he was guided as to WHERE to look,
and WHEN.
(NancyL) ZT: His early post that he was suspicious when Tholen did not
post a comment to Nancy's announcement shows he was aware that
activities behind the scenes were in process.
(NancyL) ZT: Caught in the Act! is his statement to sci.astro, and this
it was.
(NancyL) ZT: By pointing to what was a botched doctoring job, in time
for many thoughout the world to follow in his footsteps and do their own
checking, he produced a catch-22 for the establishment.
(NancyL) ZT: Should they proceed to fix their botches, hurriedly done by
inexperienced image fixing disinfo artists, they had to worry about
astronomers worldwide comparing the NEW star charts to those they had in
their possession already.
(NancyL) ZT: Thus, the decision was made to withdraw the botched and
doctored images, leaving Steve looking like a liar.
(NancyL) ZT: This supposition was posted today, Mar 2, 2002, on
sci.astro, by Nancy, so that those astronomers around the world, who
number in the hundreds, who have done their own comparisons and been
horrified, will be alerted to the plan.
(NancyL) ZT: Thus, though Steve may come under some heat, he should and
we are confident will, understand that many are out there have PROOF now
of the coverup, and the search for Planet X has now intensified a
thousand fold.
(NancyL) ZT: For each astronomer looking, or thinking, there will for
every astronomer finding the images being doctored, the bastion of
integrity the star charts are supposed to be being DOCTORED, there will
be dozens, each, that will be talked to privately in hushed tones about
this matter.
(NancyL) ZT: A wildfire has been lit, and cannot be damped. And Steve
cannot be touched else suspicions will go wild.
(NancyL) End ZT Followup?
Nancy Lieder
> frankie <fra...@nsa.gov> wrote:
>> promoting it will have moved on to something else,
>> assuming that no-one will hold them to their words.
>> And no-one will, because there is no particular crime in
>> peddling bunk to the gullible, until you take their money.
>>
>
> Apparently people have. $50,000 or so prior to last year.
I certainly hope you don’t do your own accounting, Bill, as the $45,000
the nonprofit received in 2000 was NOT to me personally. The nonprofit
has a CPA firm who does the books and reports to the IRS et al. Every
expense has to be documented and approved by the Board and is under
scrutiny. I an every other nonprofit board member or officer is a
volunteer, unpaid. What else is new.
The money I personally MIGHT have made on book sales went to that scam
artist Hazelwood, who took what I and others offered for FREE on web
sites, including the Troubled Times pages which I’m web mistress for and
spend endless time on. Like the PDF on safe Locations offered for FREE
as a link from the ZetaTalk home page, and the PDF booklet on survival
basics offered for FREE as a link from the Nonprofit home page.
He collected what OTHERS wrote, including Sitchin, put it into an
“electronic book” and charged $15 each. Then he spammed e-mail lists
with his advertisments, unrequested. He offers nothing NEW to the
story, unless you’re concluding that his story about having pole shift
visions is worth paying for. And why does he want to be out there, with
his hand out, at this time? Because, as the Zetas state, MANY such
scams of vulnerable people will be attempted this next year.
Hazelton is the TYPE of person we have been
warning about, during our various self-help
suggestions, who will front as someone
concerned about your welfare, while stripping
you of self-help options and taking your resources.
Why does he do this? He has correctly analyzed
the situation, along with others of a like mind,
and concluded that the hose of money that can
be pointed at them due to horrendous anxiety
over earth changes and the honesty of politicians
over the real truth of the matter can be turned
on THEM. Huge profits, in the months leading
into the shift, to pad their own confort. His
history is clear, his methods clear, but con artists
flourish worldwide and throughout time due to
their ability to size up the touch, and say just
what is needed to open pocket books. As we
have stated, rely on your SELF, those you know
and have know for years, and not potentially
empty promises.
ZetaTalk
He went far beyond just taking $15 for a “book” that he in fact didn’t
write, as he was banned from the Troubled Times lists shortly after
arriving there a year or more ago because he was just soliciting $$,
saying he was willing to invest so all of use there discussing the
possibility of a pole shift and what to do in the event could setup
survival camps, etc. Read Brent’s story, below, to see the horror of
how far Hazelwood goes. Then he got himself on the Art Bell show
because his dad is a famous musician know by Bell, so the scam could
read millions. You want to look for $$ being collected and mis-spent,
follow the Hazelwood trail, until it disappears into off-shore accounts.
From: Brent <bren...@excite.com>
Date: Thu Nov 8, 2001 8:07 am
Subject: Hazelwood Con Victim
I'm posting this to TT-Watch simply to get the word out, and to help
prevent other victims in the process.
I was the one that got burned by the pyramid scheme that Sol
refered to in his post, and yes it was for a relativley small
amount of money, $100.00. And as Sol said, we have all
been approached by people about these schemes, and did not
think they were "monsters". But this is an extreme simplification
of the whole story. Hazelwood got involved with me over a six
month period, at first helping me to find a better ISP than I had
at the time. We shared several private emails on this subject,
and then we began phone conversations. He is easy to talk to,
warm, friendly and seems extremly willing to help. He also
began to discuss the urgency of prepareing, and mentioned that
he was exploring several ways to make money in order to buy
land in the southern part of the U.S., and build a few domes on
it for his family. Was I interested? Well, he'd already helped
me once...sure, I said.
He approached me with several schemes in the next 6 months.
The first involved and investment of $20,000, but would
guarantee a quick return. Sorry...that was way over my head.
The next scheme...$10,000 an equally good investment, but a
slightly smaller return. Hmmm....sorry, still over my head, but
thanks anyway. The next opportunity was ideal. An invitation
only investment scheme that only a few people are invited into,
and you start at just $100.00. And Brent, I know that your wife
has just gone through surgery and treatment for Thyroid Cancer,
and you have 2 kids in school, but we need to prepare....think
of the future.O.K., send me the info, I'll give it a go!
I got my information packet with full instructions, I was
excited, this could work! I got my list of names in the pyramid,
and instructions on who I should pay to get the investment
rolling. This was a woman's name and address on the in Florida.
Once I sent her the money, things would start to really happen.
I waited......and waited......no updated list came in the mail. I
called Mark. Oh, that investment scheme just wasn't working
out, he was researching others. But his mother got the $100.00
I sent, thanks. Yes, his mom was the person on the list I had
to send my money to first! By the way, was I interested in an
off shore investment scheme he had? I haven't talked with him
since.
I agree that the people on his list are "just a bunch of good
people like us who want to survive"....but what will it cost
them in the long run? Why are we not encourageing them to
join OUR group for free information with no fear of ever
being charged for the privelege?
I hope none of those people get burned, but if they do, they
can't say they weren't warned....and I don't want to hear any
whineing.
Brent
frankie
<bi...@spock.peak.org> wrote:
[el snipo]
>> Y'all haven't given her any money, have you?
>
>Apparently people have. $50,000 or so prior to last year.
I must be in the wrong biz.
Bill Foley
Bill Foley
Sarah Mc
> Steve has secured another image, dated Mar 4, 2002, that he wishes to
> make available for historical and comparison purposes. This is now on
> the Troubled Times server, for those interested. Steve's comments
> below:
<Cult propaganda snipped>
We already know that Steve Havas isn't capable of interpreting a fits
file, you didn't need to remind us.
And yet you still avoid the question of your visual mag 11 object now
at mag 20. For 2 months now you've avoided answering that question.
Why's that?
And, you still avoid the fact that Steve Havas said he's unsure of
what he saw, but you claim he said he saw Planet X. WHo's lying Nancy?
Bill Nelson
>>> Y'all haven't given her any money, have you?
>>
>> Apparently people have. $50,000 or so prior to last year.
> I certainly hope you don~Rt do your own accounting, Bill, as the $45,000
> the nonprofit received in 2000 was NOT to me personally. The nonprofit
> has a CPA firm who does the books and reports to the IRS et al. Every
> expense has to be documented and approved by the Board and is under
> scrutiny. I an every other nonprofit board member or officer is a
> volunteer, unpaid. What else is new.
Yes, I do my own accounting. My memory was just a bit off on what had
been posted about your income last year - or the posting was wrong.
So, where was the money spent? And no, I am not going to go to your
site to find out.
By the way, you don't have to answer this if you don't wish to do so,
but has the non-profit status been made permanent? The automatic temporary
status expired last month.
I am not interested in Hazelwood - he is not the person being discussed
here.
--
Bill Nelson (bi...@peak.org)
Ben Sisson
(if that IS his real name) conspiratorially whispered:
> Hazelton is the TYPE of person we have been
> warning about, during our various self-help
> suggestions, who will front as someone
> concerned about your welfare, while stripping
> you of self-help options and taking your resources.
> Why does he do this? He has correctly analyzed
> the situation, along with others of a like mind,
> and concluded that the hose of money that can
> be pointed at them due to horrendous anxiety
> over earth changes and the honesty of politicians
> over the real truth of the matter can be turned
> on THEM.
More accurately, he (if any of what happened is true) has hit apon the
undeniable truth that zetafollowers are gullible nitwits all
conveniently gathered in one place. It's Christmas!
Seeing your people all talking together must make a scam artist drool,
Nancy. Talk about a target-rich environment....
--
Ben Sisson
"Fanboys like you have ruined your own lands, you will not ruin mine!"
tho...@antispam.ham
> (NancyL) ZT: Thus, they huddled, no comment being the mode, as noted by
> Steve Havas who found it odd that David Tholen of the Haiwai complex was
> absent for days after this announcement.
What is odd about being out of town, Nancy? The airlines certainly
don't find it odd.
> (NancyL) ZT: His early post that he was suspicious when Tholen did not
> post a comment to Nancy's announcement shows he was aware that
> activities behind the scenes were in process.
On the contrary, it shows that I was out of town, Nancy.
tho...@antispam.ham
> Steve has secured another image, dated Mar 4, 2002, that he wishes to
> make available for historical and comparison purposes. This is now on
> the Troubled Times server, for those interested.
And there's still no object anywhere close to magnitude 11, Nancy.
How long will it be before you finally admit that there's nothing
there matching your description?
@joricks.com Ricky Bennett
>
> > Steve has secured another image, dated Mar 4, 2002, that he wishes to
> > make available for historical and comparison purposes. This is now on
> > the Troubled Times server, for those interested.
Can you give the URL? I looked on the site but couldn't find it.
da...@pebble.org
tho...@AntiSpam.ham wrote:
> What is odd about being out of town, Nancy? The airlines certainly
> don't find it odd.
We should realize that Nancy probably never leaves the darkened interior
of her home. Being a willfully ignorant paranoid schizophrentic with
fanciful delusions of grandure, she has no idea what normal people do or
how normal people act. Simple matters such as someone taking a vacation
or having to take time to handle a death in the family, etc. would likely
not even occur to her. Nancy lives in an exciting fantasy world of her
own making where every kooky idea imaginable is not only possible, but
probable and where it is the rather mundane day-to-day real world we
actually live in that is impossible. If I didn't have hardcore reality
and real life responsibilities to attened to, I might even find her way of
life (but not her way of non-thinking) appealing rather than disgusting.
- Dan
jrla...@shell.golden.net
And don't forget, NASA and all the worlds scientists are out to get her
too!
P.S. But you do have to admit that her not leaving her house sure does
make it easier for us to make sure she doesn't find out about our world
meetings where we all get together to agree on our cover story!
P.S. Don't forget to book your hotel rooms early for this years first
waurterly meeting!
--
john R. Latala
jrla...@golden.net
Michael L Cunningham
And don't forget, NASA and all the worlds scientists are out to get her
too!
P.S. But you do have to admit that her not leaving her house sure does
make it easier for us to make sure she doesn't find out about our world
meetings where we all get together to agree on our cover story!
P.S. Don't forget to book your hotel rooms early for this years first
waurterly meeting!
moon?
Sarah Mc
> jrla...@shell.golden.net wrote:
>
> >And don't forget, NASA and all the worlds scientists are out to get her
> >too!
> >
> >P.S. But you do have to admit that her not leaving her house sure does
> >make it easier for us to make sure she doesn't find out about our world
> >meetings where we all get together to agree on our cover story!
> >
> >P.S. Don't forget to book your hotel rooms early for this years first
> >waurterly meeting!
> >
> Where are we having the meeting this year? On Mars or the hidden base on
> the dark side of the
> moon?
>
> --
> Michael L. Cunningham
The Elysium Hotel at Cydonia. I'll be there early Friday afternoon, I
want to go into town to that fragrance shop and stock up again on my
favorite, since no one else here can get it <g>.
Meet downstairs at the bar around 7:00 Mike, I'll buy you a drink and
we can talk about what to do with Nancy over dinner. By the way, they
already have the BBS (big blue screen) ready to transport out into
space to put between the Earth and Niburu. All we have to do now is
finish the star field simulator to project the "fake space" onto the
blue screen. That should keep them from seeing Niburu until at least
February next year.
I'm sure that's what most of the meeting will be about. It'll be more
of a vacation than actual work like last year. Once the screen is in
place, we won't have to do anything for almost 10 months - but by then
we'll all be back at Cydonia anyhow, and won't have to worry about a
thing.
But that fake implant we stuck in Nancy five years ago - lol, that
was the best thing we ever did. Now she really thinks she's getting
message from the Zetas, when it's really us. The boss was right,
stupidity follows stupidity.
They won't know what hit them when it shows up from the other side. I
mean, all they have to do is look the other way from Nancy's
coordinates and they'd see it, naked eye. I really thought that
Hazelwood character knew something at first when "Blindsided" came
out. Who would have thought that we could send out disinformation like
that through Nancy?
Oops. Nah, she won't believe this - will she?
LMAO
Bill Nelson
> The Elysium Hotel at Cydonia. I'll be there early Friday afternoon, I
> want to go into town to that fragrance shop and stock up again on my
> favorite, since no one else here can get it <g>.
Don't forget to bow thrice to the Face and once to Uranus. Otherwise,
the Watcher will not lift the distortion field and you won't be able
to find the entry.
--
Bill Nelson (bi...@peak.org)
Stig Bull
>>P.S. Don't forget to book your hotel rooms early for this years first
>>waurterly meeting!
>>
> Where are we having the meeting this year? On Mars or the hidden base on
> the dark side of the
> moon?
What?!? Weren't it supposed to be in the brand new NWO HQ?
--
Stig Bull
No animals were hurt or killed in the process of creating this electronic
message. To reduce download time, this message is made of 100% recycled
bytes.
Michael L Cunningham
Don't forget we also have to catch the shuttle to the moons to check the
mining operations that
have been going on for centuries. Shouldn't we start retiring some of
those slaves soon?
--
Michael L. Cunningham
So Cal SleeperS - 2001 Grand AM GT
e-mail boge...@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!
"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
Chris Franks
"Sarah Mc" <sara...@hotpop.com> wrote
>
> Oh and Nancy, I intentionally shut down all Yahoo groups today so that
> your cult members would have to come HERE to read the truth. Now hows
> that for a conspiracy?
I just saw a movie, based upon real life, that presents the world as seen by
a mind like Nancy's.
It is called "A Beautiful Mind". It explains a lot of why she does what
she does, and why
she refused to open her door to me 5 years ago.
< http://www.laughton.com/paul/rfo/nancy/nancy.html >
jrla...@shell.golden.net
Michael L Cunningham <boge...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>jrla...@shell.golden.net wrote:
>
>>And don't forget, NASA and all the worlds scientists are out to get her
>>too!
>>
>>P.S. But you do have to admit that her not leaving her house sure does
>>make it easier for us to make sure she doesn't find out about our world
>>meetings where we all get together to agree on our cover story!
>>
>>P.S. Don't forget to book your hotel rooms early for this years first
>>waurterly meeting!
>>
>Where are we having the meeting this year? On Mars or the hidden base on
>the dark side of the
>moon?
At the Cydonia Convention Center and we have booked a large block of rooms
at the adjacent Cydonia Hilton. Don't forget that the luggage allowance
this year has been changed. If you take the transporter it's only 10 kilos
instead of the usual 20 kilos if you go by UFO.
Nancy Lieder
wrote:
Ricky, these are .FITS files, originals from the cameras which are used
as a base line by astronomers, the star charts, the Digital Sky Survey
charts. You need special software to read them. They're there. I know
they're being accessed as the router is flickering constantly since
Steve's discovery, and I heard from someone unable to access ONE of them
as I filed to rename it properly into lower case (the server is UNIX and
particular about that). Thanks for your inquiry and interest :-)
Repeated below, though the URLs have not changed and are posted are
under this thread.
From
Steve...................................................................
NASA Skyview Images
Nancy, when I went back to look at these images which I was looking at
last nite from Skyview, they now clearly show an object where the Jan
17/2002 object is! I looked at this exact same image very carefully last
night at least a dozen times and there was NOTHING there at that spot! I
am not able to send that image yet because the viewer I'm using cannot
do that. I have to run out the door but I'll see if I can bring it up on
the other viewer I have (the one that can invert etc.)
Blow added later, from Steve .....................................
I have a correction to make in the above - The Jan 17,2002 image I refer
to
is supposed to be the Jan 19,2002 image that was taken at the
Haute-Provence
observatory. Also, the new spot I noticed on the DSSII is LOWER than the
new
spot on the Jan 19, 2002 image. It took me by surprise because I really
did
not recall seeing it the day before and as I had to rush out I did not
take
the time to line it up properly... However, when I was just comparing it
to
the NEAT images (which appear to be of better quality than the DSSII
images
as the fainter objects show up more clearly) that spot on the DSSII
(from
SkyView) does NOT appear in the least from what I could see on any of
the
six NEAT images I looked at (Jan 17, 2001 & Jan 26, 2001). It looks like
the
mystery spot on the DSSII lines up closely with the second new spot
which
appears on the Jan 19 image. Maybe the guys are getting their spots
mixed
up!
From Steve
..............................................................
NEAT image
http://www.troubled-times.com/teams/rogue/jan17_neat
On this image you can see when comparing the two spots in question that
the one below is without a doubt larger and brighter than the one above.
Also, when I was trying to bring up the NEAT images from Dec. 16/2001
that IMO had on his site (which show the spot in question to be even
larger and brighter than the Jan 17/2001 image), all three pictures come
up with only a small part viewable in the shape of a cross and
says there are serious astrometry errors with the image. When I go to
see the actual .fits file most of the data is missing or all the same
repeating sequences in large chunks. Definitely someone has been in
there I think for it to look like that and it has to have been recent
otherwise IMO would not have been able to post the image on sci.astro...
Caught! (I think)
http://www.troubled-times.com/teams/rogue/feb26_dssii
Another contrast view of yesterdays (Feb 26,2002) DSSII image. NO spot
except the one which appears above and the same spot as the Jan 5,2002
image!
http://www.troubled-times.com/teams/rogue/dssii_image
Nancy, just by chance I happened to save an image from the DSSII
yesterday and it does not show anything at the Jan 19/2002 spot and does
NOT show the spot at the same area which appears on todays DSSII image!
New Image
http://www.troubled-times.com/teams/rogue/jan19_image
Here is a .fits file of the Jan 19 image rotated and reversed. Still
Dave or no one else brave enough has addressed the issue of why the NEAT
images so brilliantly show the new spot when it doesn't seem to appear
in any other images. I guess he has to do his usual dancing around...
Maybe he's still reeling from the sting of your post which probably hit
him directly on the head "...and I would'a gotten away w'tit too if it
hadn't a bin for dem meddling kids!" hehe. If I lived next door I'd go
over and give you a high-five :-)
And most recently ...................................................
1. DSSII Feb 26,2002 - the spot where the star shows up (new spot on the
Jan 5,2002 image) is larger than the spot that shows up at the same
location on the DSSII Mar 4,2002 image. Also, the DSSII Feb 26 image
does not show any spot at the location of the new spot on the Jan
19,2002 image.
Feb 26 DSSII .fits file
http://www.troubled-times.com/teams/rogue/feb26_dssii
2. The DSSII Mar 4, 2002 image shows a spot, which does not exist on the
DSSII Feb 26 image, very close to the location of the second spot which
shows up on the Jan 19,2002 image and additionally does not show the
spot which shows up on the NEAT images (Jan 19, 2002 image new spot
location). In turn the NEAT image does not show the mystery spot which
appears on the DSSII Mar 4 image.
Mar 4 DSSII .fits file
http://www.troubled-times.com/teams/rogue/dssii_mar4
Steve Havas
<jrla...@shell.golden.net> wrote in message
news:a6bvoh$2to$1...@shell.golden.net...
You guys are scraping the bottom of the barrel! This is the serious
discussion which results from the apparent doctoring of star chart images?
Openmind
> In Article <Fkyh8.191$RB.4...@news1.news.adelphia.net> Ricky Bennett
> wrote:
>
>>Nancy Lieder writes:
>>
>>
>>>Steve has secured another image, dated Mar 4, 2002, that he wishes to
>>>make available for historical and comparison purposes. This is now on
>>>the Troubled Times server, for those interested.
>>>
>>Can you give the URL? I looked on the site but couldn't find it.
>>
>
> Ricky, these are .FITS files, originals from the cameras which are used
> as a base line by astronomers, the star charts, the Digital Sky Survey
> charts. You need special software to read them. They're there. I know
> they're being accessed as the router is flickering constantly since
> Steve's discovery, and I heard from someone unable to access ONE of them
> as I filed to rename it properly into lower case (the server is UNIX and
> particular about that). Thanks for your inquiry and interest :-)
> Repeated below, though the URLs have not changed and are posted are
> under this thread.
Ricky: If you really want to learn about this stuff, see
http://us.geocities.com/openmindxx/ where I discuss all this in detail.
However, if you want to access the Havas FITS postings this is how to
do it: Click on the URLs for the images in the fashion that your
browser uses to save a page to file rather than opening it (shift-Lclick
with Netscape). Give the file a .fit suffix and save it. Then look at
it with a program that can display FITS images. See my web pages at
http://us.geocities.com/openmindxx/compare3.htm (go to the bottom to
"Investigate On Your Own") for such a program.
What Nancy will tell you and what she has from Steve Havas is total
gibbrish. One example of Havas' incompetance follows:
... lots snipped ... what follows is N's quote of Havas message:
> And most recently ...................................................
>
> 1. DSSII Feb 26,2002 - the spot where the star shows up (new spot on the
> Jan 5,2002 image) is larger than the spot that shows up at the same
> location on the DSSII Mar 4,2002 image. Also, the DSSII Feb 26 image
> does not show any spot at the location of the new spot on the Jan
> 19,2002 image.
>
> Feb 26 DSSII .fits file
> http://www.troubled-times.com/teams/rogue/feb26_dssii
>
> 2. The DSSII Mar 4, 2002 image shows a spot, which does not exist on the
> DSSII Feb 26 image, very close to the location of the second spot which
> shows up on the Jan 19,2002 image and additionally does not show the
> spot which shows up on the NEAT images (Jan 19, 2002 image new spot
> location). In turn the NEAT image does not show the mystery spot which
> appears on the DSSII Mar 4 image.
>
> Mar 4 DSSII .fits file
> http://www.troubled-times.com/teams/rogue/dssii_mar4
>
Here Havas claims to be comparing two DSSII downloads to prove that
someone has been changing the on-line files. I have downloaded the FITS
images Havas provided to Nancy (see above for instructions on how you
too can do this) and I examined the FITS headers of these images. Its
no surprise that they are not identical. The Mar04 Havas download was
of the PSS1 E plate (note the epoch ca. 1957). The FEB26 Havas download
was of the PSS2 R plate (note the reference to 'scans of Second Palomar
Sky Survey').
-------
Mar04 FIT image header extract:
COMMENT
Based on photographic data obtained using Oschin Schmidt Telescope
COMMENT
on Palomar Mountain. The Palomar Observatory Sky Survey was funded
COMMENT
by the National Geographic Society. The Oschin Shmidt Telescope is
COMMENT
operated by the California Institue of Technology and Palomar
COMMENT
Observatory.
...
COMMENT
Epoch - ca. 1957
Feb26 FIT image header extract:
FLCPYRT1
= 'The compressed files of the "Palomar Observatory - Space Telescope'
FLCPYRT2
= 'Science Institute Digital Sky Survey" of the northern sky, based on'
FLCPYRT3
= 'scans of the Second Palomar Sky Survey are copyright (c) 1993-1999'
FLCPYRT4
= 'by the California Institute of Technology and are distributed herein'
FLCPYRT5
= 'by agreement. All Rights Reserved.' /
--------
My web page shows that these two different plate have the following
specifications:
Image # Emulsion Filter Date of Exposure Duration
PSS1 E1504 Kodak 103aE RG610 1955 Dec 11/12 23:03 PST 45 min
PSS2 A0E1 Kodak IIIaF Plexiglas 1990 Oct 24/25 70 min
Of course there are differences between these images. Different
emulsions, exposure times and epochs. No one has been changing anything
(expect perhaps Havas ... is he really so incompetant as to not have
known that he got different plates?).
The rest of Havas' discussion is similarly muddled and confused. The
fact is the object Nancy points to on the OHP image as being her planet
is visible (after suitable diddling a la Nancy) on the PSS2 R plate
image provided by Valerie in her original message to Nancy (erroneously
called an ESO DSS image). I show this at
http://us.geocities.com/openmindxx/compareHP2.htm at the very bottom
where the image Valerie has used as her reference is labled by me PSS2R.
It is impossible that this image could have been changed as Havas and
Nancy claim since Nancy posted it as part of her original posting of the
OHP imaging (unless nancy now wants to claim that we have a time machine
that allows us to go back and actually change the past).
Openmind
See my recent message ... You are the only one that has possible present
false evidence. The fact remains, the object Nancy claimed as her
planet is visible on the image presented as not showing that planet.
See http://us.geocities.com/openmindxx/compareHP2.htm at the bottom for
proof.
Michael L. Cunningham
>
> You guys are scraping the bottom of the barrel! This is the serious
> discussion which results from the apparent doctoring of star chart images?
Did you are did you not see the object that Nancy now claims is her
planet on the CCD images?
Why do you continue to side step this question?
Serious discussion? Are you selling your belongings and moving to
Wisconsin with Nancy?
--
Michael L. Cunningham
So Cal SleeperS
2001 Grand Am GT
e-mail boge...@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!
"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
Michael L. Cunningham
>
> What Nancy will tell you and what she has from Steve Havas is total
> gibbrish. One example of Havas' incompetance follows:...
Because Havas never processed a FITS image before in his life and
probably doesn't know how to. If Havas is Nancy's expert, her believers
are in for one hell of a disappointment! Kauhuna processed the images
correctly as he gave a detailed analysis of his process but since he
disagreed with Nancy's findings, he was outed and disgraced in the
eyes of Nancy.
> Of course there are differences between these images. Different
> emulsions, exposure times and epochs. No one has been changing anything
> (expect perhaps Havas ... is he really so incompetant as to not have
> known that he got different plates?).
>
> The rest of Havas' discussion is similarly muddled and confused. The
> fact is the object Nancy points to on the OHP image as being her planet
> is visible (after suitable diddling a la Nancy) on the PSS2 R plate
> image provided by Valerie in her original message to Nancy (erroneously
> called an ESO DSS image). I show this at
> http://us.geocities.com/openmindxx/compareHP2.htm at the very bottom
> where the image Valerie has used as her reference is labled by me PSS2R.
> It is impossible that this image could have been changed as Havas and
> Nancy claim since Nancy posted it as part of her original posting of the
> OHP imaging (unless nancy now wants to claim that we have a time machine
> that allows us to go back and actually change the past).
Havas was stupid enough to fall into Nancy's trap and is now her
resident
FITS expert. We should see more "discoveries" being made by Steve in the
very near future!
Michael Davis
Sorry, but any discussion with you and Nutty Nancy in it
cannot by any stretch of the imagination be called serious.
And the only results I have seen is that you are too stupid
to properly read a star chart, and too gullible not to see
that Nutty Nancy is the leader of a doomsday cult.
http://www.kook-watch.net/nancy/
Hint: Don't drink the Koolaid.
HTH.
HAND.
FOAD.
--
The Evil Michael Davis™
Ruler For Life of AAR
http://mdavis19.tripod.com
http://skepticult.org Member #264-70198-536
Flaggy random killfile member #33 1/3
"It's too bad ignorance isn't painful." - Anonymous
Thomas McDonald
>Steve Havas wrote:
>
>>You guys are scraping the bottom of the barrel! This is the serious
>>discussion which results from the apparent doctoring of star chart images?
>>
>
>Did you are did you not see the object that Nancy now claims is her
>planet on the CCD images?
>
>Why do you continue to side step this question?
>
>Serious discussion? Are you selling your belongings and moving to
>Wisconsin with Nancy?
>
Michael,
Hey, now, no fair giving him ideas. We've already got Nancy; and
our QC department somehow goofed up on Bob "The Earth Is Hollow and
Populated By The Galactic Federation" Macelwaine. Plus there's the
whole living down the "Tail Gunner Joe" McCarthy thing to be gotten
along with. Nope, our plate's full here.
BTW, is the dinner on Sunday evening formal? If so, I'll have to
change my plans. My tux and patent leather shoes would put my baggage
into the "UFO only" range. That'd be a shame. I was looking forward to
seeing if they had _really_ worked out the kinks in the transporter
system. Last time I wound up with a 10"...hmm. Maybe I'll re-pack, and
try the transporter again!
Tom McDonald
Greg Neill
news:3C8A4E64...@earthlink.net...
> Steve Havas wrote:
> >
> > You guys are scraping the bottom of the barrel! This is the serious
> > discussion which results from the apparent doctoring of star chart
images?
>
> Did you are did you not see the object that Nancy now claims is her
> planet on the CCD images?
>
> Why do you continue to side step this question?
>
> Serious discussion? Are you selling your belongings and moving to
> Wisconsin with Nancy?
Further, why did Nancy move from California to Wisconsin, and
not to the supposed safe bit of Australia?
Sarah Mc
>
> You guys are scraping the bottom of the barrel! This is the serious
> discussion which results from the apparent doctoring of star chart images?
Hey Steve,
Just because you weren't invited to Cydonia with the rest of us
disinformation artists, doesn't mean it isn't true.
If you can prove we aren't going to Mars for a disinformation
convention, then I might consider your claim of "apparent doctoring"
of images. In the meanwhile, I'll be buying Reticulan #7 perfume on
Mars.
And who said we weren't serious? We're just as serious as you ZetaCult
members are.
You have no idea how deep the rabbit hole goes Steve.
frankie
[el snipo]
>Just because you weren't invited to Cydonia with the rest of us
>disinformation artists, doesn't mean it isn't true.
Cydonia is so far to go for a meeting. I'm sure there's a cave in the
Nevada desert that would suffice, in fact, just last week when I flew
into...uh...oops. Sorry.
The ChessBrat
CB.
jrla...@shell.golden.net
Michael Davis <mdav...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>The moron known as Steve Havas wrote:
>>
>> You guys are scraping the bottom of the barrel! This is the serious
>> discussion which results from the apparent doctoring of star chart images?
>
>Sorry, but any discussion with you and Nutty Nancy in it
>cannot by any stretch of the imagination be called serious.
>And the only results I have seen is that you are too stupid
>to properly read a star chart, and too gullible not to see
>that Nutty Nancy is the leader of a doomsday cult.
>
>http://www.kook-watch.net/nancy/
>
>Hint: Don't drink the Koolaid.
I checked a few etiquette books but they didn't solve my problem. If Nancy
wants to be the perfect hostess when she has her going away party what
would she serve with the Koolaid?
Michael Davis
Well, it depends. According to David Koresh, Southern
hospitality demands that each guest at the party be provided
with a gallon of gasoline and a Bic lighter. But according
to Marshall Applewhite, who was more of a laid back,
California style host, a new pair of Nikes and a bowl of
pudding are the ideal party favors. Maybe she should write
to Miss Manners for a clarification?
http://www.kook-watch.net/nancy/
--
The Evil Michael Davis™
Ruler For Life of AAR
http://mdavis19.tripod.com
http://skepticult.org Member #264-70198-536
Flaggy random killfile member #33 1/3
"For men become civilized, not in proportion to their
willingness to believe, but in proportion to their readiness
to doubt." - H. L. Mencken
Bill Nelson
>> At the Cydonia Convention Center and we have booked a large block of rooms
>> at the adjacent Cydonia Hilton. Don't forget that the luggage allowance
>> this year has been changed. If you take the transporter it's only 10 kilos
>> instead of the usual 20 kilos if you go by UFO.
> You guys are scraping the bottom of the barrel! This is the serious
> discussion which results from the apparent doctoring of star chart images?
Go away, non-believer. This is a discussion only for members of the
true faith.
--
Bill Nelson (bi...@peak.org)
Bill Nelson
> I checked a few etiquette books but they didn't solve my problem. If Nancy
> wants to be the perfect hostess when she has her going away party what
> would she serve with the Koolaid?
Twinkies, of course - although a few gauche individuals have suggested
Fruit Loops.
--
Bill Nelson (bi...@peak.org)
Hal9000
news:01xh8.262$SL2.8...@twister.socal.rr.com...
> Nancy Lieder writes:
>
Whatever. I believed this were a scientific ng; but I never laughed so much
before like I do it here, reading such stuff. This is a very excellent
pastime specially in sunday, or after a hard job's day either, with a
teacup.
Hal9000.
Michael L. Cunningham
> Michael,
>
> Hey, now, no fair giving him ideas. We've already got Nancy; and
> our QC department somehow goofed up on Bob "The Earth Is Hollow and
> Populated By The Galactic Federation" Macelwaine. Plus there's the
> whole living down the "Tail Gunner Joe" McCarthy thing to be gotten
> along with. Nope, our plate's full here.
>
> BTW, is the dinner on Sunday evening formal? If so, I'll have to
> change my plans. My tux and patent leather shoes would put my baggage
> into the "UFO only" range. That'd be a shame. I was looking forward to
> seeing if they had _really_ worked out the kinks in the transporter
> system. Last time I wound up with a 10"...hmm. Maybe I'll re-pack, and
> try the transporter again!
>
> Tom McDonald
It's not formal. It's a costume ball so wear your favorite alien!
I M Openminded
> Steve has secured another image, dated Mar 4, 2002, that he wishes to
> make available for historical and comparison purposes. This is now on
> the Troubled Times server, for those interested. Steve's comments
> below:
>
> ....................................................
>
> I just wanted to send you this
>
> Mar 4 DSSII .fits file
> http://www.troubled-times.com/teams/rogue/dssii_mar4
>
> as it exists on Mar 4,2002 just in case it changes anymore. If anyone
> compares this side by side with
>
> Feb 26 DSSII .fits file
> http://www.troubled-times.com/teams/rogue/feb26_dssii
>
> posted on sci.astro they should easily see the differences.
As I have shown in another post, Steve's "Mar 4 DSSII" file has a header
showing it was from the PSS1 taken in the 1950's, his "Feb 26 DSSII"
file has a header showing it was from the PSS2 in the 1990's ... he
simply goofed up when he did his download ... that is why they are
different ... no alterations, no conspriracy (unless Steve did this on
purpose and I think he simply goofed). To see for yourselves (if you
have a FITS file header reader) l-shift click on the URLs of Steve's
files and save with a .fit extention. Then look at the header comments.
I M Openminded
> And last Saturday, Mar 2, during the Live ZetaTalk IRC Session, the
> Zetas explained why NASA et al went for with such a disastrous plan!
>
> (NancyL) PLANET X ON SCI.ASTRO
> (NancyL) 1. Can the Zeta's comment on the recent general mood of the
> sci.astro boards.
> (NancyL) 2. Can the Zeta's comment on the apparent changes to NEAT and
> DSSII images recently documented?
> (NancyL) ZT: Following the posting of an infrared image taken on Jan 5,
> 2002, the establishment was uneasy but felt the presence of an existing
> star in the near vicinity would suffice to explain, in the main, to the
> man on the street, the image.
> (NancyL) ZT: Those following the debate closely, which several thousand
> are, were not so confused, however, but indeed recognized, in spite of
> the image makers later protests, that TWO objects were present in the
> new image, not on the star charts.
> (NancyL) ZT: In that once is an aberation, in science, but twice is a
> pattern, the lights went off when the French team came through again
> with an image taken on Jan 19, 2002.
> (NancyL) ZT: This had the astonishing association of being 1. a
> legitimate image, taken by a student given access to the equipment as a
> part of a training routine, and 2. having the stamp of the observatory,
> and 3. accompanied by an ESO star chart to be used as comparison.
> (NancyL) ZT: They were horrified. All attempts to suppress such an
> occurence had slipped through their fingers, as they had not gone DOWN
> to the level of trainers and students in their covert warnings to
> astronomers.
> (NancyL) ZT: The cat was well out of the bag by the time the
> establishment became aware.
> (NancyL) ZT: Thus, they huddled, no comment being the mode, as noted by
> Steve Havas who found it odd that David Tholen of the Haiwai complex was
> absent for days after this announcement.
> (NancyL) ZT: The options were discussed. Should they call it a
> NEWobject, perhaps a nova, and deal with the motion according to our
> coordinates later?
> (NancyL) ZT: Should they ignore it, and have their lack of interest
> rouse curiosity?
> (NancyL) ZT: Should they state that this is an existing object, the
> excuse used on Jan 5, 2002, always the most comfortable answer.
> (NancyL) ZT: They chose the latter, and proceeded to INSERT an object in
> the star charts that would be downloaded by interested parties in the
> public, so that the public, comparing, would find the NEW object
> identified in France an OLD object, and dismiss the image.
> (NancyL) ZT: They proceeded, but Steve Havas is a gifted contactee whom
> we have great confidence in, and thus he was guided as to WHERE to look,
> and WHEN.
> (NancyL) ZT: His early post that he was suspicious when Tholen did not
> post a comment to Nancy's announcement shows he was aware that
> activities behind the scenes were in process.
> (NancyL) ZT: Caught in the Act! is his statement to sci.astro, and this
> it was.
> (NancyL) ZT: By pointing to what was a botched doctoring job, in time
> for many thoughout the world to follow in his footsteps and do their own
> checking, he produced a catch-22 for the establishment.
> (NancyL) ZT: Should they proceed to fix their botches, hurriedly done by
> inexperienced image fixing disinfo artists, they had to worry about
> astronomers worldwide comparing the NEW star charts to those they had in
> their possession already.
> (NancyL) ZT: Thus, the decision was made to withdraw the botched and
> doctored images, leaving Steve looking like a liar.
> (NancyL) ZT: This supposition was posted today, Mar 2, 2002, on
> sci.astro, by Nancy, so that those astronomers around the world, who
> number in the hundreds, who have done their own comparisons and been
> horrified, will be alerted to the plan.
> (NancyL) ZT: Thus, though Steve may come under some heat, he should and
> we are confident will, understand that many are out there have PROOF now
> of the coverup, and the search for Planet X has now intensified a
> thousand fold.
> (NancyL) ZT: For each astronomer looking, or thinking, there will for
> every astronomer finding the images being doctored, the bastion of
> integrity the star charts are supposed to be being DOCTORED, there will
> be dozens, each, that will be talked to privately in hushed tones about
> this matter.
> (NancyL) ZT: A wildfire has been lit, and cannot be damped. And Steve
> cannot be touched else suspicions will go wild.
> (NancyL) End ZT Followup?
>
See my posts on this topic ... Steve simply screwed up and compared an
image from the first PSS with a plate from the second taken about 35
years later with a different filter, emulsion, and exposure time ... and
WOW he found them not exactly the same.
I guess I will have to add this to http://us.geocities.com/openmindxx/
Idon't
Ummm, we don't seem to be hearing from any of these "hundreds of
horrified and alerted astronomers".
> (NancyL) ZT: Thus, though Steve may come under some heat, he should and
> we are confident will, understand that many are out there have PROOF now
> of the coverup, and the search for Planet X has now intensified a
> thousand fold.
A thousand more empty red circles? Gee, that will be helpful.
I
tho...@antispam.ham
> Ricky, these are .FITS files, originals from the cameras which are used
> as a base line by astronomers, the star charts, the Digital Sky Survey
> charts.
So, when are you going to admit that there isn't anything in those
images anywhere close to magnitude 11, Nancy?
tho...@antispam.ham
> You guys are scraping the bottom of the barrel! This is the serious
> discussion which results from the apparent doctoring of star chart images?
What appears to you is irrelevant, Havas. Until you have proof of
"doctoring", all we have is your interpretation of what you see, and
I know from prior experience that your interpretations of what you
see leave much to be desired.
I M Openminded
In fact, their own posted material shows that the apparent "doctoring"
was simple a mistake on Steve's part.
As I have shown in another post, Steve's "Mar 4 DSSII" file has a header
showing it was from the PSS1 taken in the 1950's, his "Feb 26 DSSII"
file has a header showing it was from the PSS2 in the 1990's ... he
simply goofed up when he did his download ... that is why they are
different ... no alterations, no conspriracy (unless Steve did this on
purpose and I think he simply goofed). To see for yourselves (if you
have a FITS file header reader) L-shift click on the URLs of Steve's
files and save with a .fit extention. Then look at the header comments.
If you do not have a FITS file viewer, do a web search on "FITSview"
and download the windows version if you need a FITS file viewer. To see
the header, select File|Preview and then select the file whose header
you want to view.
Steve and Nancy ... if you are STO you must post admiting your mistake
since to not do so would leave others with inaccurate information that
makes it more difficult for them to assess your credibility. That would
be STS behavior.
tho...@antispam.ham
>> Steve Havas writes:
>>> You guys are scraping the bottom of the barrel! This is the serious
>>> discussion which results from the apparent doctoring of star chart images?
>> What appears to you is irrelevant, Havas. Until you have proof of
>> "doctoring", all we have is your interpretation of what you see, and
>> I know from prior experience that your interpretations of what you
>> see leave much to be desired.
> In fact, their own posted material shows that the apparent "doctoring"
> was simple a mistake on Steve's part.
>
> As I have shown in another post, Steve's "Mar 4 DSSII" file has a header
> showing it was from the PSS1 taken in the 1950's, his "Feb 26 DSSII"
> file has a header showing it was from the PSS2 in the 1990's ... he
> simply goofed up when he did his download ... that is why they are
> different ... no alterations, no conspriracy (unless Steve did this on
> purpose and I think he simply goofed). To see for yourselves (if you
> have a FITS file header reader) L-shift click on the URLs of Steve's
> files and save with a .fit extention. Then look at the header comments.
You don't need any special FITS file header reader. The header of a
FITS file is simple ASCII text, but without any record separators.
However, each new keyword starts after 80 bytes, so a standard 80 column
screen or window usually displays the header just fine. If you scroll
down as far as the binary image data, however, you could run into
problems. One way around that is to set your window to 36 lines,
because FITS files are always in multiples of 2880 byte blocks, so that
works out to 36 lines of 80-byte header records per block. When one
screenful contains the END keyword, don't scroll any farther down.
> If you do not have a FITS file viewer, do a web search on "FITSview"
> and download the windows version if you need a FITS file viewer. To see
> the header, select File|Preview and then select the file whose header
> you want to view.
Or use Ximtool, or SkyCat, or SAOImage, or Vista, or...
Doesn't XV also handle FITS format now?
Jeff Lowe
"I M Openminded" <open...@telocity.com> wrote in message
news:3C8F4D04...@telocity.com...
..... snip .......
>
> Steve and Nancy ... if you are STO you must post admiting your mistake
> since to not do so would leave others with inaccurate information that
> makes it more difficult for them to assess your credibility. That would
> be STS behavior.
What is this STO and STS stuff?
Not wanting to wade through the dreck at ZT, I went to acronymfinder. I
don't believe they are State Traffic Officer and Serological Test for
Syphilis.
jeff
@joricks.com Ricky Bennett
STO means Service To Others and refers to someone who devotes his life to
helping others. STS means Service To Self and refers to someone who devotes
his life to helping only himself. Both are terms that relate to aspects of
Zeta religion.
Steve Havas
apologize for posting differently. Overall, the areas in question on the
NEAT images when compared to those of the SkyView still leave questions in
my mind and I just hope others out there are looking for themselves and
doing their own comparisons.
Jonathan Silverlight
<jalo...@SPAM-DEATH.hotmail.com.invalid> writes
Or Space Transportation System, come to that :-) But acronymfinder
sounds worth remembering, so even this thread is useful.
I M Openminded
Thanks for the admission Steve. Will nancy acknowledge this as well on
her pages?
I do not understand why yoiu are surprised at there being differences
between the PSS1 in 1955, the PSS2 in 1990, and NEAT in 2001. The
PSS1&2 are on photographics plates with the Palomar Schmidt with
different filters and sensitivities. The NEAT images are CCD images
with a very different telescope and very different (though still "red")
wavelength sensitivity. Of course there are differences due to epoch
and wavelength. All three of these are certain to differ from the OHP
CCD images which were again with a diffent wavelength passband. The
differences you immediately used to claim that people were going out and
changing posted images. Do you still belive that after being shown that
your prime evidence was based on your error? Nancy has covered herself
by saying that although we had changed the posted images, when you
"exposed" us we changed them back. Does this tell you something about
Nancy's though patterns and credibility?
The bottom line is that both objects that Nancy has declared are her
planet are visible years and decades before at the same locations. The
objects are more than 1000 times fainter than the object that you saw
which she has told you was her planet. Do you still believe that what
you saw was her planet? If so, how do you reconcile that with the fact
that no such 11th magnitude object has been imaged at the Nancy
prescribed coordinates (remember, by claiming the wrong objects in a ZT
posting, she was specifying exactly where her planet should have been)?
Hal9000
news:h5Mj8.1082$Ty4.1...@news1.news.adelphia.net...
Each week I find here a new chapter of this laughful discussion, and I find
it relaxing 'til a certain limit; after which I think we were giving these
"believers" much more importance than they really would deserve, 'til the
limit they coud feel themselves such martyrs.
That's very weird; we gave PLENTY of data about the impossibility of Planet
X, about Sitchin's tampering, about what REALLY was Nibiru, but they still
pursue obscene beliefs. As we use to say here in Italy, "blindfold belief's
a sign of madness"; mankind is a very weird race.
Please someone setup an archive of these idiocies, so we'll have something
which to laugh about when "Planet X" has come :-)....
:-) "Zeta religion".... I guess that's another chapter for of
psyco-sociological studies, unless it weren't something too idiotic to be
referred!
Hal.
__________
"Idiots' mother is always pregnant".
__________