Planet X: Magnitude (Revisited)
Nancy Lieder
X, at the distance of 9 Sun-Pluto distances and the Zetas described by
the Zetas. There was discussion that this object should be able to be
seen, even though only about 3 times the size of Pluto as viewed at this
distance and 81 times dimmer in reflecting sunlight than Pluto at this
distance. A quote from that time:
In Article <4KhN6.3080$WI.5...@typhoon.hawaii.rr.com> David Tholen
wrote:
> Nancy Lieder writes:
>> And it appears as a "blob" (i.e. DIFFUSE, not a pin-point) to some.
>
> Actually, it appears as just as much a "blob" as any other star
> suffering from atmospheric turbulence. The seeing is a
> function of the atmosphere, not the telescope.
If seems that all stars are not alike. ...
Michael L Cunningham wrote:
>> The thing I don't understand is why M31 (with a 3.7 Magnitude)
>> is not visible to the naked eye? Stars with this magnitude are
>> very bright.
>
> It's called "surface brightness" and the total magnitude is
> equivalent to it's light coming from a point source such as a
> single star. ... Since M31 is spread out over a full half degree
> of area (full moon covers a half degree of sky) it is actually
> much fainter without optical aid than a 3.7 magnitude point
> source.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Greg Neill
news:3B812097...@zetatalk.com...
>
> If seems that all stars are not alike. ...
>
> Michael L Cunningham wrote:
> >> The thing I don't understand is why M31 (with a 3.7 Magnitude)
> >> is not visible to the naked eye? Stars with this magnitude are
> >> very bright.
> >
> > It's called "surface brightness" and the total magnitude is
> > equivalent to it's light coming from a point source such as a
> > single star. ... Since M31 is spread out over a full half degree
> > of area (full moon covers a half degree of sky) it is actually
> > much fainter without optical aid than a 3.7 magnitude point
> > source.
Indeed, and some things aren't stars at all. M31 is not a star.
Bill Foley
quite a bit more than half a degree, I beleive a bit over 4 degrees.
--
Clear, Dark Skies
Bill Foley
tho...@antispam.ham
> Back on May 15, 2001 there was a discussion on the Magnitude of Planet
> X, at the distance of 9 Sun-Pluto distances and the Zetas described by
> the Zetas.
Actually, there was a discussion on the magnitude of your so-called
"Planet X" back around the time of Hale-Bopp, and you described it as
second magnitude back then. What happened?
> There was discussion that this object should be able to be seen, even
> though only about 3 times the size of Pluto as viewed at this distance
> and 81 times dimmer in reflecting sunlight than Pluto at this distance.
But you also said that it isn't reflecting ANY light from the Sun.
Yet another one of your inconsistencies.
> A quote from that time:
>
> In Article <4KhN6.3080$WI.5...@typhoon.hawaii.rr.com> David Tholen
> wrote:
>
> > Nancy Lieder writes:
>
> >> And it appears as a "blob" (i.e. DIFFUSE, not a pin-point) to some.
>
> > Actually, it appears as just as much a "blob" as any other star
> > suffering from atmospheric turbulence. The seeing is a
> > function of the atmosphere, not the telescope.
>
> If seems that all stars are not alike. ...
Especially when one of them is not a star at all.
JTRIV
If you quote someone out of context it still makes you look stupid. Do you
have any clue of what Cunningham is talking about?
Obviously not. LOL
Extraterrestrial do seem pretty bad at picking humans. Doesn't it seem every
time there is an abduction it is someone named Billy Bob from out in the
sticks somewhere? "Well I wus walkin bak from thu outhouse when this here
light cum down an BAM, I was zapped onto there ship. They wanted my
nawledge"
Nancy does seem to have the intelligence (or lack of) typically shown by
those in contact with them.
Jim
<note: copy to sci.astro.amateur removed>
John Jones
"JTRIV" <JT...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3B815A5D...@home.com...
> Nancy,
> If you quote someone out of context it still makes you look stupid.
Do you
> have any clue of what Cunningham is talking about?
>
> Obviously not. LOL
>
> Extraterrestrial do seem pretty bad at picking humans. Doesn't it
seem every
> time there is an abduction it is someone named Billy Bob from out in
the
> sticks somewhere? "Well I wus walkin bak from thu outhouse when
this here
> light cum down an BAM, I was zapped onto there ship. They wanted my
> nawledge"
I don't see any reason for you to needlessly insult toothless, inbred
hillbillies in this manner. How would you like it if someone
compared your family to this ZetaTalking person?
jrla...@shell.golden.net
<tho...@AntiSpam.ham> wrote:
>Nancy Lieder writes:
>
>> Back on May 15, 2001 there was a discussion on the Magnitude of Planet
>> X, at the distance of 9 Sun-Pluto distances and the Zetas described by
>> the Zetas.
>
>Actually, there was a discussion on the magnitude of your so-called
>"Planet X" back around the time of Hale-Bopp, and you described it as
>second magnitude back then. What happened?
The Zetans didn't pay their hydro bill so the lights got turned off.
P.S. :-) for the humor impaired.
--
john R. Latala
jrla...@golden.net
Nathan Moschkin
but they have excellent night vision, perhaps you were mistaken.
Nathan Moschkin
behest of human beings.
of course the imagination makes things up; but sometimes, the
imagination makes up facts, out of thin air, using portions of math,
science, whatever it can to come to grips with what has taken to it. Be it
a thought, a disincarnate entity, or a nagging pain or foul oder that you
fear finding the source of.....
but does that mean the imagination is responsible for all that
inexplicable?
hell; 500 years ago; sickness was a demon, today, we even know what they
look like, way down under the SEM.
Bill Foley
are from Zeta Reticulae, but, since Zeta Herculis is approaching us at
about 42 miles per second, I would think that is them driving it over to
see us. One of the Reticula stars was the one where Ripley first met
the Alien, in the movie of that name. Also, one should check out
Burnham's Celestial Handbook for H.P. Lovecraft's references to some of
the stars where his evil critters came from.
--
jerry warner
Jerry Warner ?
Nancy Lieder
wrote:
> In Article <3B812097...@zetatalk.com> Nancy Lieder wrote:
>> Michael L Cunningham wrote:
>>>> The thing I don't understand is why M31 (with a 3.7
>>>> Magnitude) is not visible to the naked eye? Stars with
>>>> this magnitude are very bright.
>>>
>>> It's called "surface brightness" and the total magnitude
>>> is equivalent to it's light coming from a point source such
>>> as a single star. ... Since M31 is spread out over a full half
>>> degree of area (full moon covers a half degree of sky) it is
>>> actually much fainter without optical aid than a 3.7
>>> magnitude point source.
>>
>
> Indeed, and some things aren't stars at all. M31 is not a star.
Well neither is Planet X! It's a brown dwarf. They are usually
referred to as that, not as a "star", but during magnitude discussions
on this usenet I've had it thrown at me that amateurs should have NO
problem seeing it as it should be a point source, like a star. I've had
it thrown at me that something of a magnitude that could be seen,
hypothetically, by an amateur should be visible REGARDLESS of size, and
now we have something that covers the sky like the Moon and it can be
hard to see because it is diffuse (the term I used endlessly to describe
Planet X) and one takes into consideration SURFACE BRIGHTNESS, or total
magnitude, when computing magnitude! To repeat the viewing specs last
stated on Monday, August 13th in Article
<3B78528C...@zetatalk.com>.
Pluto is reflecting sunlight, and Planet X at this time is NOT,
but does have a dull redish glow as it is a smoldering brown dwarf.
This is what we're looking for, appearance and size wise, etc.
- Search for an object down to Magnitude 11
- Size in scope is 2-3 times that of Pluto
- Is not yet reflecting sunlight (81 times less than Pluto)
- Has a diffuse glow as is a slow-smolder brown dwarf
- Has a redish color, so filter for red for best results
- Brightness increase detectable not until late 2001 (by computer)
- Coordinates per Zetas as ephemeris will not describe path
- Distance is approximately 9 Sun-Pluto distances away
- Retrograde motion now and dropping below ecliptic
- Rapid passage in 2003
DIFFUSE
It does not shine with the intensity of most stars, but has a dull,
diffuse, glow. It appears to be the last gasp of a dying star, a
faint, blurry, reddish glow. Your eye would pass over it if
attuned to the pin points that are the stars. A star is intense
in the center and rapidly diminishes in intensity toward the
edges of the spot you call a star. The light from a star comes
from a single point and fans out, the periphery a bit less than
the center, increasingly, but the center very intense. The 12th
Planet, being nearer, is giving you light rays from its entire
surface, so the light has an even quality to it.
ZetaTalk™ in Comet Visible
REDISH GLOW
[Planet X] has both heat and light, generated from
within its core. ... The light is diffused in the atmosphere, and
returns to the land surface, but emerges from the core to
interact with the atmosphere only via the surface of the deep
oceans,
which cover the majority of the planet's surface. You may equate
this to volcanic activity, where the Earth has numerous
places both above ground and under the oceans that ooze
molten lava. Just so [Planet X] has places where the molten
and churning substance in its core escapes to the surface. ...
Light only escapes the core where what is essentially volcanic
activity under the water occurs. Of course, this would occur if
there was volcanic activity on the land surface of the planet,
but there is little land surface, and this long ago hardened.
ZetaTalk™ in [Planet X] Glow
The composition is not the composition of reflecting sunlight,
but is almost exclusively in the spectrum you would call red
light. Thus you will do best if you filter for red light [including
infra-red], and by this we mean filtering out all but red light.
ZetaTalk™ in Comet Visible
In Article <isl5otsp1udoctrog...@4ax.com> Bob Officer
wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Aug 2001 09:37:11 -0500, Nancy Lieder
>> M31 is visible without a telescope. All one has to do is have
>> dark adapted eyes, and a tube to block out stray light.
>
> Use a little averted vision and There it is... Faint, but it is
there.
>
> M31 was known of in 905 AD and mentioned in the 10th century
> by Al Sufi. Long before the telescope was developed.
>
> This technique also works with M31, it takes very dark skies
> and very still night. All you get is a hint of fuzziness.
Nancy Lieder
wrote:
> Nancy Lieder writes:
>> Back on May 15, 2001 there was a discussion on the
>> Magnitude of Planet X, at the distance of 9 Sun-Pluto
>> distances and the Zetas described by the Zetas.
>
> Actually, there was a discussion on the magnitude of your
> so-called "Planet X" back around the time of Hale-Bopp, and
> you described it as second magnitude back then. What
> happened?
Magnitude 2 when the total red spectrum is taken into consideration,
including INFRA-RED, which the IRAS team needed to spot it in 1983, else
THEY could not see it either. To repeat the viewing specs last stated
on Monday, August 13th in Article <3B78528C...@zetatalk.com>.
MAGNITUDE
Although [Planet X] at present is a magnitude 2.0,
[when infra-red is taken into consideration]
astronomers should include objects up to a magnitude 10
in their image capture.
Rogue Planet TOPIC
The operator described the object as diffuse and of approximate
magnitude 11.
Lowell Sighting
In Article <oPcg7.8279$R8.1...@typhoon.hawaii.rr.com> David Tholen
wrote:
> Nancy Lieder writes:
>> There was discussion that this object should be able to
>> be seen, even though only about 3 times the size of Pluto
>> as viewed at this distance and 81 times dimmer in reflecting
>> sunlight than Pluto at this distance.
>
> But you also said that it isn't reflecting ANY light from
> the Sun. Yet another one of your inconsistencies.
I't reflecting, my understanding, 81 times LESS sunlight than Plute.
Essentially, no reflection. To repeat the viewing specs last stated on
Monday, August 13th in Article <3B78528C...@zetatalk.com>.
Pluto is reflecting sunlight, and Planet X at this time is NOT,
but does have a dull redish glow as it is a smoldering brown dwarf.
This is what we're looking for, appearance and size wise, etc.
- Search for an object down to Magnitude 11
- Size in scope is 2-3 times that of Pluto
- Is not yet reflecting sunlight (81 times less than Pluto)
- Has a diffuse glow as is a slow-smolder brown dwarf
- Has a redish color, so filter for red for best results
- Brightness increase detectable not until late 2001 (by computer)
- Coordinates per Zetas as ephemeris will not describe path
- Distance is approximately 9 Sun-Pluto distances away
- Retrograde motion now and dropping below ecliptic
- Rapid passage in 2003
REFLECTED SUNLIGHT
As [Planet X] is too far away for reflected sunlight up until 6
months before passage.
ZetaTalk™ in Brightness
DISTANCE
[Planet X] is circling on a long elliptical orbit around
the sun and its dead companion which lies at a distance some
18.724 times the length from the sun to Pluto. It is not a long
distance to be traveled in 3,657 years, especially considering
that it transverses the solar system in 3 short months! Clearly,
the uptick in speed is considerable, and the rate of speed as it
floats from one binary sun to the other is sedate in comparison.
Thus, when the passage is due in 2003, there is an exponential
increase in speed during the last years, and this speeding up
has already started. To compute the distance from the solar
system on any given date, create an exponential equation which
takes into consideration the total distance we have given for the
sun's dead companion, the years [Planet X] takes to make
a complete ellipse (3,657), and the approximate May 15, 2003
date of the next passage. The distance will differ greatly, thus,
depending upon the date.
ZetaTalk™ in Distance
Greg Neill
> > Indeed, and some things aren't stars at all. M31 is not a star.
>
> Well neither is Planet X! It's a brown dwarf. They are usually
> referred to as that, not as a "star", but during magnitude discussions
> on this usenet I've had it thrown at me that amateurs should have NO
> problem seeing it as it should be a point source, like a star. I've had
> it thrown at me that something of a magnitude that could be seen,
> hypothetically, by an amateur should be visible REGARDLESS of size, and
> now we have something that covers the sky like the Moon and it can be
> hard to see because it is diffuse (the term I used endlessly to describe
> Planet X) and one takes into consideration SURFACE BRIGHTNESS, or total
> magnitude, when computing magnitude!
At the purported distance and for the specified physical size,
your imaginary object would appear as a point source. A second
(or 11th, dependending it seems upon the your state of mind at the
time) magnitude object. You can't avoid this trivial geometric
fact.
Greg Neill
>
> I't reflecting, my understanding, 81 times LESS sunlight than Plute.
> Essentially, no reflection. To repeat the viewing specs last stated on
> Monday, August 13th in Article <3B78528C...@zetatalk.com>.
Let's see. Pluto has a magnitude of, oh, about 15. Call that Mp.
You say the brightness ratio of Pluto to Planet X is 81. Then
Mx = Mp - 2.5*log(1/81)
= 15 - 2.5*(-1.908)
= 19.8
So by your brightness reckoning, planet X should have a magnitude
of nearly 20. It's 2, it's 11, it's 20. Care to try again?
Magnus Nyborg
The image at http://www.nybtech.com/Astronomy/Pictures/NGC7331-001022.jpg is
a picture of a galaxy (the large one, the smaller ones are much dimmer at
about mag 15) that is about the same brightness that you claim planet-X to
be. The galaxy also extends about 100.000x the area that planet-X extends,
meaning it has _much_ lower surface brightness.
I took this image last year, with a 12" telescope and one of the simplest
ccd-cameras on the market. Can you see the galaxy ?
Not only is this galaxy visible in a longtime cdd-image, it is easily
visible to the eye when looking through the same telescope (and
significantly smaller telescopes aswell). Why don't you simply acknowledge
that you have absolutely no idea at all what you are talking about!
Clear Skies,
Magnus
Nathan Moschkin
to.
Some say it does come, but it will not come any time soon, again, as its
orbit is longer, and its passes not as close.
Some speculationists put the arrival (if it exists) to up to as much as
150 years from now.
One point. There is nothing there, now; so the web-site is still
*FRAUD*
tho...@antispam.ham
>>> Back on May 15, 2001 there was a discussion on the
>>> Magnitude of Planet X, at the distance of 9 Sun-Pluto
>>> distances and the Zetas described by the Zetas.
>> Actually, there was a discussion on the magnitude of your
>> so-called "Planet X" back around the time of Hale-Bopp, and
>> you described it as second magnitude back then. What
>> happened?
> Magnitude 2 when the total red spectrum is taken into consideration,
> including INFRA-RED,
Now exactly how are you measuring such a magnitude? I'm not aware
of any photometric system that defines such a bandpass.
> which the IRAS team needed to spot it in 1983, else
> THEY could not see it either.
They didn't see your so-called "Planet X".
> MAGNITUDE
> Although [Planet X] at present is a magnitude 2.0,
> [when infra-red is taken into consideration]
Don't you just love it when someone has to go back and doctor an
older document to try and remove a contradiction?
> astronomers should include objects up to a magnitude 10
> in their image capture.
> The operator described the object as diffuse and of approximate
> magnitude 11.
Too bad it's more than a factor of two fainter than magnitude 10.
>>> There was discussion that this object should be able to
>>> be seen, even though only about 3 times the size of Pluto
>>> as viewed at this distance and 81 times dimmer in reflecting
>>> sunlight than Pluto at this distance.
>> But you also said that it isn't reflecting ANY light from
>> the Sun. Yet another one of your inconsistencies.
> I't reflecting, my understanding, 81 times LESS sunlight than Plute.
But you also said that it isn't reflecting ANY light from
the Sun. Yet another one of your inconsistencies.
> Essentially, no reflection.
Don't you just love it when someone has to go back and add hedge
words to try and remove a contradiction.
> To repeat the viewing specs last stated on
> Monday, August 13th in Article <3B78528C...@zetatalk.com>.
>
> Pluto is reflecting sunlight, and Planet X at this time is NOT,
And there you have it: NOT reflecting sunlight. No "essentially"
mentioned.
> - Is not yet reflecting sunlight (81 times less than Pluto)
A contradiction in a single line.
> - Coordinates per Zetas as ephemeris will not describe path
In other words, you don't know where it's going.
> REFLECTED SUNLIGHT
> As [Planet X] is too far away for reflected sunlight up until 6
> months before passage.
And there you have it again: no reflected sunlight. No "essentially"
mentioned.
Contradiction after contradiction.
The Small Kahuna
Oh, it is such a pain having to actually read ALL the characters in a
posting isn't it?
What was originally posted was:
"Magnitude 2 when the total red spectrum is taken into consideration,
including INFRA-RED, which the IRAS team needed to spot it in 1983, else
THEY could not see it either."
Translation: the spectrum is not typical.
"I't reflecting, my understanding, 81 times LESS sunlight than Plute.
Essentially, no reflection." (sic)
Translation: the *albedo* is 81 times smaller and by your calculations
is magnitude 20.
"Pluto is reflecting sunlight, and Planet X at this time is NOT, but
does have a dull redish glow as it is a smoldering brown dwarf."
Translation: It is not *really* that it isn't reflecting sunlight
(because that is physically impossible unless PX were a black hole,
which would present other problems), but since most of the light coming
from it that is *visible* is self generated light, the albedo is not
currently a significant contribution.
"Although [Planet X] at present is a magnitude 2.0, [when infra-red is
taken into consideration] astronomers should include objects up to a
magnitude 10 in their image capture."
Translation: the light is the sum of the albedo and the self generated
spectrum (which is not strictly black body) so the magnitude
calculations might be a bit off.
Gee Whiz, hasn't this magnitude thing been beaten to death enough
already? Because Nancy can't correctly do magnitude calculations
doesn't mean Planet X does not exist. In fact, it is an orthogonal
factoid. Either PX exists or it does not. Either Nancy can do
magnitude calculations or not. They are unrelated. The correlation
coefficient is zero. You win, your magnitude calculation ability is
superior.
Would you care to stop whining about the damn magnitude and take me up
on my "image challenge"? Post images at the coordinates each week along
with differential images week to week. Actual images. No friggin red
filter, preferably B/W and it might help if as a courtesy you posted it
contrast inverted. Raw images, not GIFs, JPEGs or other images with
compression artifacts.
The Small Kahuna
Do you have an equivalent image of the supplied coordinates for the
supposed Planet X to show its absence? Do you have several time stamped
images to show that differential image processing does not show
something moving?
If so, you could easily add *data* to the argument. Instead of just
arguing.
JTRIV
It has been beaten to death, and yet Nancy's silly science still doesn't make
sense. From the descriptions of 2 or 10 or 11 mag it should be visible to most
scopes. Why not get a scope and take a look? No observatory telescope needed
from her descriptions, except she insists one is needed.
So which is it? At any of her stated magnitudes? Or an object so faint an
observatory scope is needed? This is one of the many contradictions of Nancy's
silly Planet X.
Clear Skies
Jim
Greg Neill
news:3B86DC37...@company.com...
> Greg Neill wrote:
> >
> > "Nancy Lieder" <zeta...@zetatalk.com> wrote in message
> > news:3B863547...@zetatalk.com...
> >
> > >
> > > I't reflecting, my understanding, 81 times LESS sunlight than Plute.
> > > Essentially, no reflection. To repeat the viewing specs last stated on
> > > Monday, August 13th in Article <3B78528C...@zetatalk.com>.
> >
> > Let's see. Pluto has a magnitude of, oh, about 15. Call that Mp.
> > You say the brightness ratio of Pluto to Planet X is 81. Then
> >
> > Mx = Mp - 2.5*log(1/81)
> >
> > = 15 - 2.5*(-1.908)
> >
> > = 19.8
> >
> > So by your brightness reckoning, planet X should have a magnitude
> > of nearly 20. It's 2, it's 11, it's 20. Care to try again?
>
>
> Oh, it is such a pain having to actually read ALL the characters in a
> posting isn't it?
>
> What was originally posted was:
>
> "Magnitude 2 when the total red spectrum is taken into consideration,
> including INFRA-RED, which the IRAS team needed to spot it in 1983, else
> THEY could not see it either."
>
> Translation: the spectrum is not typical.
Translation of translation: I don't understand the magnitude standards
either.
>
> "I't reflecting, my understanding, 81 times LESS sunlight than Plute.
> Essentially, no reflection." (sic)
>
> Translation: the *albedo* is 81 times smaller and by your calculations
> is magnitude 20.
Translation of translation: I don't know what albedo is.
>
> "Pluto is reflecting sunlight, and Planet X at this time is NOT, but
> does have a dull redish glow as it is a smoldering brown dwarf."
>
> Translation: It is not *really* that it isn't reflecting sunlight
> (because that is physically impossible unless PX were a black hole,
> which would present other problems), but since most of the light coming
> from it that is *visible* is self generated light, the albedo is not
> currently a significant contribution.
Translation of translation: I do not know what *NOT* means.
>
> "Although [Planet X] at present is a magnitude 2.0, [when infra-red is
> taken into consideration] astronomers should include objects up to a
> magnitude 10 in their image capture."
>
> Translation: the light is the sum of the albedo and the self generated
> spectrum (which is not strictly black body) so the magnitude
> calculations might be a bit off.
Tranlation of translation: I still do not know what albedo is.
>
> Gee Whiz, hasn't this magnitude thing been beaten to death enough
> already? Because Nancy can't correctly do magnitude calculations
> doesn't mean Planet X does not exist. In fact, it is an orthogonal
> factoid. Either PX exists or it does not. Either Nancy can do
> magnitude calculations or not. They are unrelated. The correlation
> coefficient is zero. You win, your magnitude calculation ability is
> superior.
Nancy does not claim to do magnitude calculations. She claims to
report factual results from an authorative source. These results
are demonstrably specious.
>
> Would you care to stop whining about the damn magnitude and take me up
> on my "image challenge"?
We'll stop whining about magnitudes when N*ncy does.
> Post images at the coordinates each week along
> with differential images week to week. Actual images. No friggin red
> filter, preferably B/W and it might help if as a courtesy you posted it
> contrast inverted. Raw images, not GIFs, JPEGs or other images with
> compression artifacts.
First demonstrate that there is sufficient reason to bother looking.
A self consistent body of facts would help. The "evidence" of
Zetababble is dismissed due to incredibility and inconsistency.
tho...@antispam.ham
> Gee Whiz, hasn't this magnitude thing been beaten to death enough
> already? Because Nancy can't correctly do magnitude calculations
> doesn't mean Planet X does not exist.
However, Nancy has done far more than just "magnitude calculations",
and when you take everything she has done collectively, it does mean
that Planet X does not exist.
> In fact, it is an orthogonal
> factoid. Either PX exists or it does not. Either Nancy can do
> magnitude calculations or not. They are unrelated. The correlation
> coefficient is zero. You win, your magnitude calculation ability is
> superior.
You're still ignoring the fact that Nancy has done far more than just
"magnitude calculations".
> Would you care to stop whining about the damn magnitude and take me up
> on my "image challenge"?
Would you care to explain how something can be both "diffuse" and
smaller than Pluto? Would you care to explain how something can be
at both 5 hours right ascension and 5 degrees right ascension? Would
you care to explain how a planet can get from the position Nancy gave
for it in April to the position Nancy gave for it in August?
> Post images at the coordinates each week along
> with differential images week to week.
How large a field do you want? That would depend on the ephemeris
uncertainty. Do you have that information?
> Actual images. No friggin red filter,
But Nancy specifically recommended filtering for red light.
> preferably B/W and it might help if as a courtesy you posted it
> contrast inverted. Raw images, not GIFs, JPEGs or other images with
> compression artifacts.
Why would you want a raw image? Raw CCD images have all sort of
artifacts. For example, a dust speck on the dewar window can
produce a doughnut-shaped artifact in the image. Flat-fielding
can take care of that.
John Shakespeare
[followups set to sci.astro]
The Small Kahuna wrote:
> Greg Neill wrote:
> >
> > "Nancy Lieder" <zeta...@zetatalk.com> wrote in message
> > news:3B863547...@zetatalk.com...
> >
> > >
> > > I't reflecting, my understanding, 81 times LESS sunlight than Plute.
> > > Essentially, no reflection. To repeat the viewing specs last stated on
> > > Monday, August 13th in Article <3B78528C...@zetatalk.com>.
> >
> > Let's see. Pluto has a magnitude of, oh, about 15. Call that Mp.
> > You say the brightness ratio of Pluto to Planet X is 81. Then
> >
> > Mx = Mp - 2.5*log(1/81)
> >
> > = 15 - 2.5*(-1.908)
> >
> > = 19.8
> >
> > So by your brightness reckoning, planet X should have a magnitude
> > of nearly 20. It's 2, it's 11, it's 20. Care to try again?
>
> Oh, it is such a pain having to actually read ALL the characters in a
> posting isn't it?
Why not read all of Nancy's zetababble, and you'll also find a statement that
there is almost NO infra red light from the thing. Her most recent mag 2 vs
mag 11 "clarification" is just another layer of contradiction on top of her
inner confusion. The previous clarifications were utter rubbish as well, which
she eventually backed away from.
>
> What was originally posted was:
>
> "Magnitude 2 when the total red spectrum is taken into consideration,
> including INFRA-RED, which the IRAS team needed to spot it in 1983, else
> THEY could not see it either."
Here's the relevant rubbish, available in Nancy's post
<3B1261E6...@zetatalk.com> and on her web site, which contradicts her
alleged claraification:
>In addition, the light spectrum
>is red, so unless a filter FOR red is used, it cannot compete. The
>Zetas have stated:
>
> The composition is not the composition of reflecting
> sunlight, but is almost exclusively in the spectrum you
> would call red light. Thus you will do best if you filter
> for red light, and by this we mean filtering out all but
> red light.
> ZetaTalk, Comet Visible
> (http://www.zetatalk.com/poleshft/p29.htm)
Note: almost exclusively in the spectrum WE call red means essentially no
infra red. Amusingly enough, this excerpt was even in her initial posts trying
to "clarify" the magnitude issue. She clarified the depth of her ignorance
instead.
Best Regards,
John.
Magnus Nyborg
No, I don't (yet) since Orion is not up in a dark sky just yet from my
location.
>
> If so, you could easily add *data* to the argument. Instead of just
> arguing.
Well, I just added data to the problem of planet-X being "fuzzy" (which it
is not, it would be starlike in this picture), and for mag 11 objects to be
detectable in a large amateur instrument (not observatory grade though).
Unfortunately the galaxy is not mag 2 but mag 11 in infrared, and the image
was taken without filtering for red (not that this would help)
Why don't YOU add a little data instead of just arguing ?
Clear Skies,
Magnus
Nancy Lieder
wrote:
> The image at [URL] is a picture of a galaxy (the large one, the
> smaller ones are much dimmer at about mag 15) that is about the
> same brightness that you claim planet-X to be. The galaxy also
> extends about 100.000x the area that planet-X extends, meaning
> it has _much_ lower surface brightness.
>
> I took this image last year, with a 12" telescope and one of the
> simplest ccd-cameras on the market. Can you see the galaxy ?
The Zeta wish to repond.
You're continuing to attempt to confuse the public by pointing
to STARS and then claiming that the inbound Planet X, which
is a smoldering brown dwarf, should be equivalent. M31 is
not a star, so that's why it can be excused from having an
intense pinpoint of light MUCH more intense and thus
registerable by the eye and imaging equipment, but Planet X
cannot? Why? Because then Nancy will be taken seriously?
Is this a science discussion or a pissing contest?
ZetaTalk
Greg Neill
> In Article <nLsh7.24487$e5.22...@newsb.telia.net> Magnus Nyborg
> wrote:
> > The image at [URL] is a picture of a galaxy (the large one, the
> > smaller ones are much dimmer at about mag 15) that is about the
> > same brightness that you claim planet-X to be. The galaxy also
> > extends about 100.000x the area that planet-X extends, meaning
> > it has _much_ lower surface brightness.
> >
> > I took this image last year, with a 12" telescope and one of the
> > simplest ccd-cameras on the market. Can you see the galaxy ?
>
> The Zeta wish to repond.
>
> You're continuing to attempt to confuse the public by pointing
> to STARS and then claiming that the inbound Planet X, which
> is a smoldering brown dwarf, should be equivalent. M31 is
> not a star, so that's why it can be excused from having an
> intense pinpoint of light MUCH more intense and thus
> registerable by the eye and imaging equipment, but Planet X
> cannot? Why? Because then Nancy will be taken seriously?
> Is this a science discussion or a pissing contest?
> ZetaTalk
M31 is "excused" because it is physically large enough to subtend
a substantial arc at its distance -- it really is spread out.
You have specified a physical size for your fantasy planet, which
in turn specifies its angular size at any given distance. There
is no wiggle room here, it's grade school geometry.
Clearly it's not a science discussion so long as you refuse to stick
to reality.
Steve Holland
> "Nancy Lieder" <zeta...@zetatalk.com> wrote:
> > The Zeta wish to repond.
> >
> > You're continuing to attempt to confuse the public by pointing
> > to STARS and then claiming that the inbound Planet X, which
> > is a smoldering brown dwarf, should be equivalent. M31 is
> > not a star, so that's why it can be excused from having an
> > intense pinpoint of light MUCH more intense and thus
> > registerable by the eye and imaging equipment, but Planet X
> > cannot? Why? Because then Nancy will be taken seriously?
> > Is this a science discussion or a pissing contest?
> > ZetaTalk
> M31 is "excused" because it is physically large enough to subtend
> a substantial arc at its distance -- it really is spread out.
Also, M31 is visible to the naked eye. Perhaps the Zetan don't
have very good eye-sight. They certainly don't have very good
science.
> You have specified a physical size for your fantasy planet, which in
> turn specifies its angular size at any given distance. There is no
> wiggle room here, it's grade school geometry.
Perhaps the Zetans live in a universe with a radically different
curvature than our own. May-be if their universe is toroidal it would
explain the holes in Nancy's nattering.
> Clearly it's not a science discussion so long as you refuse to stick
> to reality.
Pink elephants, Zetans, pixies. There isn't much difference.
=====================================================================
To find out who and where I am look at:
http://www.nd.edu/~sholland/index.html
Spammers: Please send spam to: ab...@aol.com and ab...@yahoo.com
=====================================================================
Nathan Moschkin
undergraduate science I had ever taken and can dredge up?
The Zetas keep offering a different aspect of the concept. Another way to
look at it differently, perhaps you don't understand...
I see you keep repeating yourselves, using two dollar clichés, name
calling and rehearsed lines. For each different response, you give the same
lines.
That's what I see.
Steve Holland
> You know what I clearly see, using every bit of high school and
> undergraduate science I had ever taken and can dredge up?
A great bigshining planet in the sky where Nancy said it should
be? If Nancy is right then it should be easy for anyone with $200
telescope (or even a good pair of binoculars) to see Planet X. Go out
and take a look for it. Tell us if you see it.
> The Zetas keep offering a different aspect of the concept. Another
> way to look at it differently, perhaps you don't understand...
Not every way of looking at something is equally valid.
Phlogisten was one way of looking at the concept of fire. It didn't
work. A big sheet-metal tent was one way of describing the sky. It
didn't work. When an idea disagrees with reality the usuall thing is
to keep reality and junk the idea. Nancy's Zetans disagree with
reality.
> I see you keep repeating yourselves, using two dollar clichés,
> name calling and rehearsed lines. For each different response, you
> give the same lines.
No. This is the first time that I have responded to a Zeta post
in a long time.
> That's what I see.
Get a telescope, look for Nancy's World, and tell me if you see
it.
Magnus Nyborg
> wrote:
> > The image at [URL] is a picture of a galaxy (the large one, the
> > smaller ones are much dimmer at about mag 15) that is about the
> > same brightness that you claim planet-X to be. The galaxy also
> > extends about 100.000x the area that planet-X extends, meaning
> > it has _much_ lower surface brightness.
> >
> > I took this image last year, with a 12" telescope and one of the
> > simplest ccd-cameras on the market. Can you see the galaxy ?
>
> The Zeta wish to repond.
>
> You're continuing to attempt to confuse the public by pointing
> to STARS and then claiming that the inbound Planet X, which
The galaxy pointed to is _not_ a star! It is an extended source of light!!
Composed of many billions of stars and planets and gaseous nebulas.
> is a smoldering brown dwarf, should be equivalent. M31 is
> not a star, so that's why it can be excused from having an
> intense pinpoint of light MUCH more intense and thus
> registerable by the eye and imaging equipment, but Planet X
> cannot? Why? Because then Nancy will be taken seriously?
> Is this a science discussion or a pissing contest?
Incorrect - I just proved that a magnitude 11 object can easily be seen with
an amateur instrumentation (as opposed to observatory grade) even if it had
a much larger angular size than planet-X would have (which would appear
starlike in comparison). Whether the extended lightsource is a galaxy, a
nebula or a smoldering brown dwarf is entirely irrelevant to this issue. In
fact, the smoldering brown dwarf refered to as planet-X would for all
practical means _look_ like a star because it's angular size is still very
small. A little larger than pluto (ca 3 times) but still to small to show as
anything but a starlike object due to atmospheric seeing!
There is no risk that Nancy would be taken seriously, as long as definitive
proof of her misunderstandings are publicised. Tell her to stop pissing out
of the window and learn some proper manners! It's windy !! The piss just
blows right back into her face!!!
Clear Skies,
Magnus
tho...@antispam.ham
> You know what I clearly see, using every bit of high school and
> undergraduate science I had ever taken and can dredge up?
>
> The Zetas keep offering a different aspect of the concept.
Too bad their "different aspect" is both inconsistent and wrong.
> Another way to look at it differently, perhaps you don't understand...
Or more likely, you don't understand.
> I see you keep repeating yourselves,
You also see Nancy keep repeating the same contradictory descriptions.
> That's what I see.
What you haven't yet seen are the contradictions.
Nathan Moschkin
that you brought that up. I suppose it's your favorite, it's the one with
the compunctious 'Nathan is litigating' motif, avoiding too much contrast to
issues that are inherent to 'me', ah, I see.
Spin doctor. yeah, buddy. Right on.
Nathan is emotional. Don't worry about Nathan.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Officer" <bobof...@earthlink.net>
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2001 3:30 PM
Subject: Re: Planet X: Magnitude (Revisited)
> On Fri, 24 Aug 2001 14:51:07 GMT, "Nathan Moschkin"
> <log...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >A lot of speculation goes into what Sitchin's evidence might actually
point
> >to.
>
> Sitchen has no evidence. He has a set of co-incidences connected by
> fantasy. Even his basic translations are not accepted by 'experts'.
>
> <snip>
>
> > One point. There is nothing there, now; so the web-site is still
> >*FRAUD*
>
> As is Sitchen and Velikovsky
> --
> Uyelvha`i
>
Nathan Moschkin
I wish to go through "Door # 101."
----- Original Message -----
From: <tho...@AntiSpam.ham>
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.astro.amateur
Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2001 2:45 PM
Subject: Re: Planet X: Magnitude (Revisited)
___ reputation thusly preceeded ___
Nathan Moschkin
I wish to go through "Door # 101."
----- Original Message -----
From: <tho...@AntiSpam.ham>
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.astro.amateur
Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2001 2:45 PM
Subject: Re: Planet X: Magnitude (Revisited)
tho...@antispam.ham
> ah, and if I disagree is it through door 101 I will go?
What does some ambiguous "door 101" have to do with anything?
> I wish to go through "Door # 101."
Irrelevant to the issue of Nancy's imaginary "Planet X".
By the way, why are you responding to me yet again, after saying
you wouldn't?
tho...@antispam.ham
>>> You know what I clearly see, using every bit of high school and
>>> undergraduate science I had ever taken and can dredge up?
>>>
>>> The Zetas keep offering a different aspect of the concept.
>> Too bad their "different aspect" is both inconsistent and wrong.
>>> Another way to look at it differently, perhaps you don't understand...
>> Or more likely, you don't understand.
>>> I see you keep repeating yourselves,
>> You also see Nancy keep repeating the same contradictory descriptions.
>>> That's what I see.
>> What you haven't yet seen are the contradictions.
> ah, and if I disagree is it through door 101 I will go?
>
> I wish to go through "Door # 101."
Why did you post the same response twice?
And why don't you address the issue of the contradictions? Apparently
you STILL don't understand the point about there not being any blue
Hondas that are red Chevys.
Bill Nelson
: You know what I clearly see, using every bit of high school and
: undergraduate science I had ever taken and can dredge up?
Make that "that you can see" - there is no evidence that you are capable
of seeing clearly at all.
: The Zetas keep offering a different aspect of the concept. Another way to
: look at it differently, perhaps you don't understand...
So, basically what you are saying is "I don't wish to consider the
information that is counter to what I want to believe - so I will
ignore it."
That is not science, it is blind faith (eg religion).
What Nancy has proposed is physically impossible, unless this supposed
object obeys a different set of physical laws than those that seem to
rule in the rest of the observable universe.
--
Bill Nelson (bi...@peak.org)
Nathan Moschkin
Re: George Orwell, 1984.
I told you I have not responded to you. I am not responding to you now.
Now, am I responding to you? Say no, because that is what is real.
If you say yes, you'll be sent through.................... Door 101.
Nathan Moschkin
You have no real input to this matter. You're like a team mascot.
<tho...@AntiSpam.ham> wrote in message
news:XK1i7.3890$OW.3...@typhoon.hawaii.rr.com...
Nathan Moschkin
that I would absolutely love to address.
Have you ever heard of a game called Mau? It's where you make the rules
up as you go, and the dealer/instructor is the only one who ever knows his
rules.
The object is not to win the game. The object is to win the right to
make the rules.
"Bill Nelson" <bi...@spock.peak.org> wrote in message
news:9maelk$o9$4...@sevenofnine.peak.org...
Martin Brown
Nathan Moschkin wrote:
> It's too bad this is sci.astro, there are other things posted in ZetaTalk
> that I would absolutely love to address.
The Total Tosh website is full of bovine excrement and shines just as brightly.
If you wish to believe in Zetababble that is your problem.
> Have you ever heard of a game called Mau? It's where you make the rules
> up as you go, and the dealer/instructor is the only one who ever knows his
> rules.
>
> The object is not to win the game. The object is to win the right to
> make the rules.
Sounds similar to Eleusis, but that game requires powerful deductive reasoning
to play.
http://www.netaxs.com/people/nerp/eleusis0.html
You cannot make up your own laws of physics like Nancy does and expect nature to
play along. She will be proved a fake and a charlatan within the next couple of
years when her fabled Planet-X fails to materialise. Until then she will mislead
the naive and scientifically illiterate.
Unfortunately it impossible to legislate against stupidity.
Regards,
Martin Brown
Nathan Moschkin
nature to
> play along. She will be proved a fake and a charlatan within the next
couple of
> years when her fabled Planet-X fails to materialise. Until then she will
mislead
> the naive and scientifically illiterate.
No comment, see my other posts.
> Unfortunately it impossible to legislate against stupidity.
Legislate against stupidity? Isn't that an anachronism!!! <g>
Greg Neill
news:cf4i7.67732$0X.13...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
> It's too bad this is sci.astro, there are other things posted in ZetaTalk
> that I would absolutely love to address.
>
> Have you ever heard of a game called Mau? It's where you make the
rules
> up as you go, and the dealer/instructor is the only one who ever knows his
> rules.
>
> The object is not to win the game. The object is to win the right to
> make the rules.
Sounds like a fair description of politics. Definitely not science,
though.
Nancy Lieder
wrote:
>> A lot of speculation goes into what Sitchin's evidence
>> might actually point to.
>
> Sitchen has no evidence. He has a set of co-incidences
The 12th Planet, chapter Landing on Planet Earth
by Zecharia Sitchin
In February, 1971, the United States launched Pioneer 10.
Pioneer 10 scientists attached to it an engraved aluminum
plaque. It attempts to tell whoever might find the plaque
that Mankind is male and female, etc., and that [Pioneer 10]
is from the 3rd planet of this Sun. Our astronomy is geared
to the notion that Earth is the 3rd planet, which indeed it is
if one begins the count from the center of our system, the Sun.
But to someone nearing our solar system from the outside,
the 1st planet to be encountered would be Pluto, the 2nd
Neptune, the 3rd Uranus, the 4th Saturn, the 5th Jupiter, the
6th Mars .. and the Earth would be 7th.
We know today that beyond the giant planets Jupiter and
Saturn lie more major planets, Uranus and Neptune, and a
small planet, Pluto. But such knowledge is quiet recent.
Uranus was discovered, through the use of improved
telescopes, in 1781. Neptune was pinpointed by astronomers
(guided by mathmatical calculations) in 1846. It became
evident that Neptune was being subjected to unknown
gravitational pull, and in 1930 Pluto (was located).
In Assyrian times, the celestial count of a god's planet was
often indicated by the appropriate number of symbols
placed alongside the god's throne. Thus, a plaque depicting
the god (of Saturn) placed 4 star symbols at his throne. Many
cylinder seals and other graphic relics depict Mars as the 6th
planet. A cylinder seal shows the god associated with Mars
seated on a throne under a 6-pointed star. Ample evidence
shows that Venus was depicted as an 8 pointed star. Other
symbols on the seal show the Sun, much in the same manner
we would depict it today; the Moon; and the cross, the
symbol of the Planet of Crossing, the 12th Planet.
Nancy Lieder
>> You're continuing to attempt to confuse the public by
>> pointing to STARS and then claiming that the inbound
>> Planet X, ...
>
> The galaxy pointed to is _not_ a star! It is an extended
> source of light!! Composed of many billions of stars and
> planets and gaseous nebulas.
I see. It's not a star, its many stars. This makes it LESS THAN a
star? Now we have MANY pin-points of light, etc. Come one, guys,
you're losing it.
In Article <VOPh7.33021$Oj3.1...@wagner.videotron.net> Greg Neill
wrote:
>> M31 is not a star, so that's why it can be excused from
>> having an intense pinpoint of light MUCH more intense
>> and thus registerable by the eye and imaging equipment, but
>> Planet X cannot? Why?
>
> M31 is "excused" because it is physically large enough to
> subtend a substantial arc at its distance - it really is spread
> out.
M31, with a magnitude 3.7, is visible only because it subtends a HUGE
arc. Would it be visible if the arc were only 2-3 times the size of
Pluto, as viewed from Earth? No. But during early discussion on the
Planet X sightings and supposed visiblity via amateur scopes, it was
stated that this TINY arc should be viewable, from a diffuse object (no
pin-point of intensity in the center as in a star), no problem.
M31 gets to have its light gathered up from everywhere, because it's
diffuse, collecting this into a bag called "surface brightness" which
gets totalled up into a magnitude that would NOT be viewable from Earth
unless over a huge surface. But Planet X can't have this same
priviledge extended to it? It also has "surface brightness" without a
pin-point of intensity that triggers eye and imagine equipment to
register, but can't have the same priviledge extended to it? Come one
guys, you're becoming too obvious!
Nathan Moschkin
Greg Neill
news:3B89062B...@zetatalk.com...
> In Article <IbQh7.24661$e5.23...@newsb.telia.net> Magnus Nyborg wrote:
>
> >> You're continuing to attempt to confuse the public by
> >> pointing to STARS and then claiming that the inbound
> >> Planet X, ...
> >
> > The galaxy pointed to is _not_ a star! It is an extended
> > source of light!! Composed of many billions of stars and
> > planets and gaseous nebulas.
>
> I see. It's not a star, its many stars. This makes it LESS THAN a
> star? Now we have MANY pin-points of light, etc. Come one, guys,
> you're losing it.
It is a relatively bright, physically extended source. Can't
you form an image if that in your mind? Is the concept beyond
you?
>
> In Article <VOPh7.33021$Oj3.1...@wagner.videotron.net> Greg Neill
> wrote:
> >> M31 is not a star, so that's why it can be excused from
> >> having an intense pinpoint of light MUCH more intense
> >> and thus registerable by the eye and imaging equipment, but
> >> Planet X cannot? Why?
> >
> > M31 is "excused" because it is physically large enough to
> > subtend a substantial arc at its distance - it really is spread
> > out.
>
> M31, with a magnitude 3.7, is visible only because it subtends a HUGE
> arc. Would it be visible if the arc were only 2-3 times the size of
> Pluto, as viewed from Earth? No.
Yes. With magnitude 3.7, it would be visible if it were a point
source. In fact, it would be even *more* easily spotted than
an extended source of the same magnitude, since its light would
all eminate from, well, a point. You still need to learn what
the magnitude system is.
> But during early discussion on the
> Planet X sightings and supposed visiblity via amateur scopes, it was
> stated that this TINY arc should be viewable, from a diffuse object (no
> pin-point of intensity in the center as in a star), no problem.
Yes.
>
> M31 gets to have its light gathered up from everywhere, because it's
> diffuse, collecting this into a bag called "surface brightness" which
> gets totalled up into a magnitude that would NOT be viewable from Earth
> unless over a huge surface.
No. It would be more easily viewable as a point source. Spreading
a given amount of light out over an extended surface makes it less
easily detected.
> But Planet X can't have this same
> priviledge extended to it?
No. Because you have stated its physical size and distance, which
specify its actual angular size as viewed from that distance. No
wiggle room here, it will appear as a point source.
> It also has "surface brightness" without a
> pin-point of intensity that triggers eye and imagine equipment to
> register, but can't have the same priviledge extended to it? Come one
> guys, you're becoming too obvious!
With the physical size you give and the distance you give, it will
be seen as a point source. The mechanism of light emission from the
surface is irrelevent, provided it is isotropic. As a crude analogy,
a fluorescent light is an extended source, its emission surface
being spread over the length of the tube. Viewed from a mile
away, a 6ft tube will appear as essentially a point source, and the
math will back me up:
angular_size = arctan(6ft/1mile) = 0.065 degree
tho...@antispam.ham
>>>>> You know what I clearly see, using every bit of high school and
>>>>> undergraduate science I had ever taken and can dredge up?
>>>>>
>>>>> The Zetas keep offering a different aspect of the concept.
>>>> Too bad their "different aspect" is both inconsistent and wrong.
>>>>> Another way to look at it differently, perhaps you don't understand...
>>>> Or more likely, you don't understand.
>>>>> I see you keep repeating yourselves,
>>>> You also see Nancy keep repeating the same contradictory descriptions.
>>>>> That's what I see.
>>>> What you haven't yet seen are the contradictions.
>>> ah, and if I disagree is it through door 101 I will go?
>>>
>>> I wish to go through "Door # 101."
>> Why did you post the same response twice?
>>
>> And why don't you address the issue of the contradictions? Apparently
>> you STILL don't understand the point about there not being any blue
>> Hondas that are red Chevys.
> you're not very reputable, yourself.
Non sequitur, as I wasn't talking about reputation. However, now that
you've brought it up, on what basis do you make your claim?
> You have no real input to this matter.
Incorrect; pointing out mutually contradictory descriptions of an
object is "real input", whether you would like to admit it or not.
> You're like a team mascot.
Also non sequitur.
tho...@antispam.ham
>>> I wish to go through "Door # 101."
> I told you I have not responded to you.
Which is an incorrect telling.
> I am not responding to you now.
Incorrect; you're responding to message ID
<4J1i7.3889$OW.4...@typhoon.hawaii.rr.com>
which is my posting. Simply removing all my
text doesn't change that fact.
> Now, am I responding to you?
Yes you are, despite the fact that you said you wouldn't.
> Say no, because that is what is real.
You obviously have trouble understanding what is real.
> If you say yes, you'll be sent through.................... Door 101.
Illogical.
Nathan Moschkin
whole idea from.
Have you ever heard of 1984?
this, by the way, takes you exactly where it says he not only is a student
but teaches:
http://www2.hawaii.edu/~boyne/about/about.html
----- Original Message -----
From: <tho...@AntiSpam.ham>
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2001 2:53 PM
Subject: Re: Planet X: Magnitude (Revisited)
tho...@antispam.ham
>>>>> I wish to go through "Door # 101."
>>> I told you I have not responded to you.
>> Which is an incorrect telling.
Note: no response.
>>> I am not responding to you now.
>> Incorrect; you're responding to message ID
>> <4J1i7.3889$OW.4...@typhoon.hawaii.rr.com>
>> which is my posting. Simply removing all my
>> text doesn't change that fact.
Note: no response.
>>> Now, am I responding to you?
>> Yes you are, despite the fact that you said you wouldn't.
Note: no response.
>>> Say no, because that is what is real.
>> You obviously have trouble understanding what is real.
>>> If you say yes, you'll be sent through.................... Door 101.
>> Illogical.
> George Orwell wrote a book called 1984. That's basically where I take this
> whole idea from.
As irrelevant as your reference to Door 101.
> Have you ever heard of 1984?
Yes; how is that relevant here?
> this, by the way, takes you exactly where it says he not only is a student
> but teaches:
>
> http://www2.hawaii.edu/~boyne/about/about.html
No, "this" does not do that. I suggest you try reading more carefully.
Bill Nelson
:> Unfortunately it impossible to legislate against stupidity.
: Legislate against stupidity? Isn't that an anachronism!!! <g>
Look up "anachronism" in the dictionary.
--
Bill Nelson (bi...@peak.org)
Bill Nelson
I see that you are unwilling to address the points I made, but instead
take off on the following tangent.
: It's too bad this is sci.astro, there are other things posted in ZetaTalk
: that I would absolutely love to address.
: Have you ever heard of a game called Mau? It's where you make the rules
: up as you go, and the dealer/instructor is the only one who ever knows his
: rules.
: The object is not to win the game. The object is to win the right to
: make the rules.
So, what does this have to do with real science? It appears that Nancy is
the only person attempting to make up the rules as time passes. These rules
also change, when convenient for Nancy.
--
Bill Nelson (bi...@peak.org)
Bill Nelson
:>
:> The galaxy pointed to is _not_ a star! It is an extended
:> source of light!! Composed of many billions of stars and
:> planets and gaseous nebulas.
: I see. It's not a star, its many stars. This makes it LESS THAN a
: star? Now we have MANY pin-points of light, etc. Come one, guys,
: you're losing it.
"losing" what? It is simply an illustration that a diffuse object of
about the same magnitude you claim for "Planet X" is easily visible.
: In Article <VOPh7.33021$Oj3.1...@wagner.videotron.net> Greg Neill
: wrote:
: M31, with a magnitude 3.7, is visible only because it subtends a HUGE
: arc. Would it be visible if the arc were only 2-3 times the size of
: Pluto, as viewed from Earth? No. But during early discussion on the
Wrong. It would still be easily visible. Making it a point source would
not change that.
: Planet X sightings and supposed visiblity via amateur scopes, it was
: stated that this TINY arc should be viewable, from a diffuse object (no
: pin-point of intensity in the center as in a star), no problem.
A diffuse object, if the angle subtended is small enough, appears as a
point source. It does NOT make the object dimmer or less visible.
: M31 gets to have its light gathered up from everywhere, because it's
: diffuse, collecting this into a bag called "surface brightness" which
: gets totalled up into a magnitude that would NOT be viewable from Earth
: unless over a huge surface. But Planet X can't have this same
Again, this is absolutely incorrect. You are again displaying your
ignorance of both optics and how the human eye perceives light from
diffuse and condensed objects.
: priviledge extended to it? It also has "surface brightness" without a
: pin-point of intensity that triggers eye and imagine equipment to
: register, but can't have the same priviledge extended to it? Come one
: guys, you're becoming too obvious!
At the diameter and distance you have provided, it would appear as a
point source optically.
The only thing obvious is that you persist in maintaining a bone-headed
ignorance about visual astronomy. If you would do your best to understand
what has been presented to you, it would help greatly in clarifying your
misconceptions. None of the optical concepts that have been presented are
difficult or occult - they are all basic physical facts that can be
verified in any decent optics text.
--
Bill Nelson (bi...@peak.org)
Michael L Cunningham
For example, in TT Watch they are now discussing whether or not to rewrite
part of ZetaTalk since Nancy has written that food shortages would start
to be wide spread due to crop failures 3 years before the closest passage of
her planet. Since it hasn't happened yet, the suggestion was presented that
she should rewrite it to fit what is being observed currently.
--
Michael L. Cunningham
e-mail boge...@earthlink.net
web site http://home.earthlink.net/~bogeystar/
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!"
"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
Greg Neill
>
> : In Article <VOPh7.33021$Oj3.1...@wagner.videotron.net> Greg Neill
> : wrote:
>
> : M31, with a magnitude 3.7, is visible only because it subtends a HUGE
> : arc. Would it be visible if the arc were only 2-3 times the size of
> : Pluto, as viewed from Earth? No. But during early discussion on the
Hey! I never wrote that crap! Please be careful about attributions.
JTRIV
claim such high accuracy in her predictions? LMAO
From reading her tt groups it is obvious that quite a few people are realizing
that Nancy is full of bull. Questions are being asked, lame answers given and the
people that question are basically being run off. How dare they question Nutty
Nancy! She only seems to have a handful of believers left, and wow, those people
are crazy!
Unfortunately there are still crazies that pop up to join Nancy (think we've seen
one here the last couple of weeks).
Clear Skies
Jim
Bill Nelson
:>
:> : M31, with a magnitude 3.7, is visible only because it subtends a HUGE
:> : arc. Would it be visible if the arc were only 2-3 times the size of
:> : Pluto, as viewed from Earth? No. But during early discussion on the
: Hey! I never wrote that crap! Please be careful about attributions.
Oops! My apologies Greg. I rarely goof up attributions like that.
--
Bill Nelson (bi...@peak.org)
The Small Kahuna
>
> Well of course, if Nancy didn't revise herself after events happen, how could she
> claim such high accuracy in her predictions? LMAO
>
> From reading her tt groups it is obvious that quite a few people are realizing
> that Nancy is full of bull. Questions are being asked, lame answers given and the
> people that question are basically being run off. How dare they question Nutty
> Nancy! She only seems to have a handful of believers left, and wow, those people
> are crazy!
Yeah, kind of like many of the people posting in sci.astro... The point
is that it is not a moderated group discussion so anybody can join,
including Michael, who clearly is "not a supporter".
These groups are divided into the curious, the believers, the crazies
and the disinformation artists. Funny, it is kind of like the rest of
the internet...
>
> Unfortunately there are still crazies that pop up to join Nancy (think we've seen
> one here the last couple of weeks).
>
> Clear Skies
>
> Jim
>
> Michael L Cunningham wrote:
>
> > For example, in TT Watch they are now discussing whether or not to rewrite
> > part of ZetaTalk since Nancy has written that food shortages would start
> > to be wide spread due to crop failures 3 years before the closest passage of
> > her planet. Since it hasn't happened yet, the suggestion was presented that
> > she should rewrite it to fit what is being observed currently.
> >
> > --
> > Michael L. Cunningham
> > e-mail boge...@earthlink.net
> > web site http://home.earthlink.net/~bogeystar/
Well, Michael, my news server only caches every other posting it seems
so I cannot respond to this as an original. But I cannot help but
respond.
What exactly are you talking about? I went to the TT Watch web site and
looked around at the discussions and could not find any evidence of a
"discussion whether or not to rewrite part of ZetaTalk". References
please? Links? After all, its all public and on the web.
As far as crop shortages, this is well known and the presence of a
world-wide drought has been the subject of news reports for months now,
even appearing on US network TV.
Afghanistan is simply starving to death which is the REAL reason the
Taliban is acting so crazy - they are desperate to keep the populace
under control and are sending the message "if we go this nuts over
friggin statues, imagine what we will do to you if you make too many
demands?".
Sub Saharan Africa is undergoing Yet Another Round of Starvation, the
only difference being that Bono is not writing any new songs about it.
Aid agencies are being overwhelmed with the need and simultaneously
being prevented from any reasonable action because of the incredible
increase in violence almost everywhere on the continent. People are
dying, but "fortunately" they are doing so quietly so as not to disturb
our western sensibilities.
China is suffering wide spread crop failures. India is swinging back
and forth between crop failure and flooding. The North West US is
undergoing the worst drought in memory with reservoirs and rivers at all
time lows. The Ukraine, the bread basked of the old USSR is suffering
crop failure and drought.
The problem with food shortages is clearly affecting most of the world
by population, and if you lived in some of these places you would feel
the affects directly. It has as yet to affect the more affluent
westernized countries (US, Europe) for several reasons:
1) We could really care less if half of the world starves to death, just
as long as they do not do it on our door step. (Because if we did give
a damn, when the Taliban contacted western governments through back
channels in a desperate aid request, we might have actually sent them
some *food* instead of $1.5 million to preserve the Buddhist statues.)
2) Most of western agriculture depends on irrigation and we have Great
Big Machines to suck all of the water out of the ground to put on our
crops. If you read the newspapers, even casually, you cannot help
reading about all of the stories as to how so many of our aquifers are
being sucked dry and water problems will come on us all of a sudden.
After all, everything is Just Fine up until the day the well goes dry...
3) We really do have stores of grain from years past. These stores are
dwindling, but not empty. The agriculture industry has seen good years
and bad *before* so this particular decline is not causing alarm bells
to go off. Been There Done That. Since very few people are looking at
the "global picture" it is easy to ignore.
4) Most of our grain is fed to animals. We could stop doing that and
eat all of the animals, dramatically increasing the effective
productivity of our agriculture. This, ironically would have the short
term effect of decreasing prices for meat as meat producers would
decimate their stocks because they cannot afford the grain. I think it
is almost criminal that we take one of the best sources of vegetable
protein (soy) and feed it to cattle.
5) The news media is composed of people. Upper middle class people, who
have an E320, or a Lexus, a large mortgage on a house in the suburbs,
2.1 children and a dog. If starvation and crop shortages affect other
areas in a way that is safe (i.e. not likely to suddenly show up in
their neighborhood) they will report on the conditions (like famines in
Africa in the '80s). However if they see it coming home to roost (so to
speak) in their own back yards, be it because of "global warming" or PX,
or just overpopulation, they are not going to be making a big stink
about it all out of a clear self interest in their own preservation. No
sense raising undue alarm and causing panic and hoarding. The fireman
will put out the fire in your house only until his own house starts to
burn. The cop will protect your house from robbery up until someone
breaks into his own. Reporters are no more or less righteous than cops
or fireman.
So the bottom line is that we have built in a great deal of what
economists call elasticity in our western food production which protects
us from price fluctuations and obvious shortages. However all of the
warning signs are there predicting the fact that we are increasingly
sensitive to a sudden collapse on many simultaneous fronts. To see
these warning signs all you have to do is read the newspapers or look on
your favorite news server.
There is an enormous amount of denial and avoidance of the issue. This
means that nobody is planning on the inevitable, so what is going to
happen is that failure will hit western countries SUDDENLY and seemingly
"out of nowhere". Well, it is not out of nowhere, it is just that the
elastic will suddenly snap. It is just that it will be HERE and not
THERE.
So you can argue PX or not PX, global warming or no, or just too many
human beings, but the data on world wide crop shortages and failures is
overwhelming and frankly obvious. I'm not going to provide links
because it is just too easy for someone to find them for themselves.
Unless the data suddenly changes, it is only a matter of time, and it
won't be too long a time either.
JTRIV
> JTRIV wrote:
> >
> > Well of course, if Nancy didn't revise herself after events happen, how could she
> > claim such high accuracy in her predictions? LMAO
> >
> > From reading her tt groups it is obvious that quite a few people are realizing
> > that Nancy is full of bull. Questions are being asked, lame answers given and the
> > people that question are basically being run off. How dare they question Nutty
> > Nancy! She only seems to have a handful of believers left, and wow, those people
> > are crazy!
>
> Yeah, kind of like many of the people posting in sci.astro... The point
> is that it is not a moderated group discussion so anybody can join,
> including Michael, who clearly is "not a supporter".
Actually it is a moderated group. Michael is not the one I'm talking about though.
Mikepip was obviously a long time supporter, yet he had the nerve to question some
things (which many agreed ) and he was attacked and driven away. I think the latest was
the Zeta's take on JonBenet Ramsey! Maybe the Zeta's know more about this than they do
about Orbital Mechanics.
>
>
> These groups are divided into the curious, the believers, the crazies
> and the disinformation artists. Funny, it is kind of like the rest of
> the internet...
>
> >
> > Unfortunately there are still crazies that pop up to join Nancy (think we've seen
> > one here the last couple of weeks).
> >
> > Clear Skies
> >
> > Jim
> >
> > Michael L Cunningham wrote:
> >
> > > For example, in TT Watch they are now discussing whether or not to rewrite
> > > part of ZetaTalk since Nancy has written that food shortages would start
> > > to be wide spread due to crop failures 3 years before the closest passage of
> > > her planet. Since it hasn't happened yet, the suggestion was presented that
> > > she should rewrite it to fit what is being observed currently.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Michael L. Cunningham
> > > e-mail boge...@earthlink.net
> > > web site http://home.earthlink.net/~bogeystar/
>
> Well, Michael, my news server only caches every other posting it seems
> so I cannot respond to this as an original. But I cannot help but
> respond.
>
> What exactly are you talking about? I went to the TT Watch web site and
> looked around at the discussions and could not find any evidence of a
> "discussion whether or not to rewrite part of ZetaTalk". References
> please? Links? After all, its all public and on the web.
>
How about -
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tt-watch/message/5999
This talks of specific worldwide crop shortages starting in 2000. There are crop
shortages, but not much different than has been happening for the last 50 years. Nutty
Nancy was pointing to this as yet another sign of her phantom planet. Her follower
Niels was pointing out that this did not happen and the page should be revised. It
probably has been revised, Nancy wouldn't want her accuracy to go down. LMAO
<snip babble about the usual world hunger problem, serious but not relevant to the
prediction>
Jim
Nancy Lieder
> Michael L Cunningham wrote:
>>
>> For example, in TT Watch they are now discussing whether or
>> not to rewrite part of ZetaTalk since Nancy has written that food
>> shortages would start to be wide spread due to crop failures 3
>> years before the closest passage of her planet. Since it hasn't
>> happened yet, the suggestion was presented that she should
>> rewrite it to fit what is being observed currently.
>
> web site and looked around at the discussions and could not
> find any evidence of a "discussion whether or not to rewrite
> part of ZetaTalk". References please? Links? After all, its
> all public and on the web.
Michael lies a lot. For instance, a couple weeks back in the Re; Planet
X Question thread, he stated:
In Article <3B7952AC...@earthlink.net> Michael L. Cunningham
wrote:
> Currently Planet X is said to be in the constellation of Taurus.
> Individuals are already claiming that due to it's size (four times
> that of Jupiter) and having a magnetic field that far exceeds that
of
> our Sun (approaching that of a neutron star)
And I responded in Article <3B7A7BC2...@zetatalk.com>
And ZetaTalk stated it is near the constellation of Taurus
(http://www.zetatalk.com/theword/tword03h.htm) but who the
heck said it's four times the size of Jupiter and has a magnetic
field exceeding the Sun? Not ZetaTalk, that's for sure!
His lame answer "didn't you say that, somewhere?". He also tried to
insert this into the tt-watch discussions, speaking for ZetaTalk, as it
were. Since Michael claims to be, and seems to be otherwise, an
intelligent guy, a number of people early on concluded that Michael is a
disinformation artist, and a poor one at that.
The subject under discussion is NOT regarding ZetaTalk, which is a
copyrighted documents of which I'm the owner. It says so clearly in
Troubled Times that ZetaTalk supports the operation of Troubled Times,
meaning that I've hosted them on my web site and act as web mistress,
but this does not mean that the members of the Troubled Times mailing
lists OWN ZetaTalk or can determine to change it. It doesn't change,
unless so noted in the What's New pages linked from the ZetaTalk home
page, which link back to 1995, the year of it's inception, to the
present.
The subject that came up briefly is whether the Troubled Times home
page, owned by the several hundreds of contributing members (of whom
Michael is not one, as he has never contributed to content but seem
solely bent on destroying the mailing group, a subject that has by the
way repeatedly come under discussion as Micheal's mission was noted
right off, such is his disinformation artistry). This home page at
http://www.zetatalk.com/thub.htm mentions that families should get into
gardening, due to increasing crop shortages, but in any case they need
to practice self sufficiency. A quote from that home page:
About to Change
Starting in 1997 the earth's warming trend, steming from
her core,
will be noticed and is a general topic of conversation.
This is when
you should prepare for self sufficiency in a safe
location.
Prepare for Change
Starting in 2000, three years prior to the cataclysms, a
period of
crop shortages will be so severe that alternative food
production
needs to be begun and practiced in earnest. This is when
you
should become practiced at self sufficiency.
Too late to Change
Starting in May, 2003, the earth's rotation will stop
within a day
and hold for several days just prior to the pole shift.
This is when
you and your loved ones should be situated at your safe
location.
In Article <3B8D2E92...@home.com> Jim wrote:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tt-watch/message/5999
>
> This talks of specific worldwide crop shortages starting in 2000.
> There are crop shortages, but not much different than has been
> happening for the last 50 years. Nutty Nancy was pointing to this
> as yet another sign of her phantom planet. Her follower Niels
> was pointing out that this did not happen and the page should be
> revised. It probably has been revised, Nancy wouldn't want her
> accuracy to go down. LMAO
Nancy Lieder
> of a world-wide drought has been the subject of news reports
> for months now, even appearing on US network TV.
We have a TOPIC among the hundred in Troubled Times, started to keep
track of these shortages. Prior to the millennium, all we had in there
was about a dozen links, mostly about NiCAD battery shortages and the
like caused by folks worried about the supposed Y2K crisis. In mid-2000,
during the quarterly web wrapping (I act as web mistress for Troubled
Times, I posted 86 pages, news article quotes, to that TOPIC from
contributions made by members of the tt-watch mailing list. The linking
TOPIC at page http://www.zetatalk.com/theword/tword202.htm read as
follows:
Starting in 1999, food shortages caused by drought or deluge began
appearing, and by 2000 were in evidence worldwide in Afghanistan,
Albania, Algeria, Argentina, Armenia, Austria, Australia, Bolivia,
Brazil, Bulgaria, Burundi, Cambodia, Canada, China, Croatia, Cuba,
Cyprus, Ethiopia, France, Georgia, Ghana, Greece, Guyana,
Hondurus, India, Iran, Iraq, Iraq, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Jordan,
Kazakstan, Kenya, Korea, Laos, Liberia, Madagascar, Mexico,
Moldova, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Pakistan,
Palestine, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Romania, Russia,
Saudi Arabia, Serbia, Slovakia, South Africa, Sudan, Syria,
Tajikistan,
Tanzania, Thailand, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Uruguay,
Uzbekistan, Vietnam, Yugoslavia. By 2000, it was clear that floods
were devastating crops in Asia, while a World Drought was
devastating crops in Africa, Europe, and the Balkans, resulting in
Civil Unrest and Violence while shortages in Wheat loomed. By
1999 in the US, Fish in Maryland and the East Coast were affected,
and by 2000 the Cornbelt, Hawaii, Texas, the West, North Dakota,
the Midwest, New England, Fisheries, the Southeast, and the Apple
Harvest suffered weather related shortages, with Ag Disasters
declared. In 2000, plagues and blights had affected crops in the US
with the Citrus Canker, Grape Sharpshooter, Banana Virus, Red Tide,
Soybean Aphid and Sudden Death, Grasshopper, Cutworm, Pine Beetle,
and Fire Blight among them. In 2000 a worldwide Fuel Crisis emerged,
and in the US Gasoline, Oil, Natural Gas, Firewood, and Electricity
prices rose. For Year 2000, NiCAD batteries and Distillers were in
short supply. As Maine demonstrated, Monitoring may ensue. The
government is stockpiling Meals Ready-to-Eat, a Hot Item. Blood
continues in short supply.
Nancy Lieder
> This means that nobody is planning on the inevitable, so what is
> going to happen is that failure will hit western countries SUDDENLY
> and seemingly "out of nowhere". Well, it is not out of nowhere, it is
> just that the elastic will suddenly snap.
A couple months after those crop shortage reports started piling up in
mid-2000, the ZetaTalk site got banned in Saudi Arabia. This posting is
at http://www.zetatalk.com/theword/tworx240.htm
Subject: [tt-gossip] Access to Zeta-Talk site blocked in the Middle
East
Date: Sat, 01 Jul 2000 08:59:26 +0300
Nancy,
I was stunned to see today that for the first time I could not
access to
the Zeta-Talk site (I am in Saudi). The message is : Blocked site -
Emirates Internet denies access to this site.....
I'd been getting e-mail from that part of the world for years, since
1995, so it wasn't the site ITSELF, I presumed, but something else.
Then a month later another news article dropped in my queue. Not 5 days
before the ban, the Saudis had to start subsidizing their farmers, big
time. Oops! If ZetaTalk is that accurate, then the common folks can't
READ it, else (take your pick) panic might ensue, our line won't be
believed, we might get questioned about matters we have no answer for,
whatever. From the page at http://www.zetatalk.com/theword/tworx187.htm
Saudi Orders Subsidies to Curb High Barley Prices
Reuters, June 25, 2000
Saudi Arabia's King Fahd has ordered "billions of riyals" in
state
subsidies to help livestock owners cope with high barley prices,
a
Saudi official said on Sunday. Saudi Arabia is the world's
largest
importer of feed barley. According to the International Grains
Council, Saudi Arabia is expected to import 4.5 million tonnes
of
barley during the current crop year. But traders see the desert
kingdom importing between five and six million tonnes because
of the impact of drought.
Nancy Lieder
> we are increasingly sensitive to a sudden collapse on many
> simultaneous fronts. To see these warning signs all you have to
> do is read the newspapers or look on your favorite news server.
I noted in the ZetaTalk What's New page for May, 2000 the ZetaTalk
predictions in 1995 and repeated that crop shortages would occur,
worldwide, for 3 years running into the pole shift in 2003, because of
weather irregularities. The Zetas predicted EXACTLY how the weather
would affect them, and were the only source predicting either these
weather changes or the crop shortages. I quote from that What's New
page.
The Zetas stated in Crop Failures
(http://www.zetatalk.com/poleshft/p09.htm)
Going into the cataclysms the weather will become unpredictable,
with torrential rainstorms where not expected, and droughts
likewise where not expected. Extremes of temperature will be
experienced. Unusually warm winters, where the trees and shrubs
will start to bud, thinking spring, and then be subjected to
frost.
Similarly, frosts will come late in the spring, almost into
summer,
killing the buds which have already put forth their tender
shoots.
Where today the world balances these situations, shipping
produce
around the world, during the years coming close to the time of
the
reappearance of [Planet X], the giant comet, all parts of the
world
will experience extremes.
and in Heralding
(http:///www.zetatalk.com/poleshft/p24.htm)
Changes have already begun, and are known to your scientists
and meteorologists. Violent storms, unusual weather patterns,
severe and long lasting droughts, increased frequency of
hurricanes,
torrential rains, and a general warming of the planet. ... Areas
of
the world which have been deserts throughout mankind's memory
will become swamps under constant and repeated rains. Temperate
climates used to periodic gentle rainfall will suffer intractable
droughts. Then this will switch about, for no apparent reason.
and the readership was reminded of these predictions in 1999
Predictions
(http://www.zetatalk.com/awaken/a97.htm)
We predicted, in 1995 when ZetaTalk first started, the weather
changes. This is a matter of record, because our emissary Nancy
has put on the web site a What's New page that traces all the
way
back to 1995. We predicted the erratic weather that is occurring
now where no one else did. We stated in the beginning of 1995
that there would be weather changes of such a nature that there
would be crop failures due to crops being wrongly signaled, a
spring coming too soon so that plants start off on their cycles
and
then a dramatic reversal, winter returning. This can cause a
crop
failure as surely as an intractable drought or a deluge that
literally
washes the seeds out of the ground. In addition we predicted
that
livestock and fish harvests would suffer, because they are going
to
be affected by a tendency to have increased diseases, fungal
infections and the like that can run rampant through commercial
operations.
and the Next 3 1/2 Year statements
(http://www.zetatalk.com/transfor/t90.htm)
As we have predicted in 1995, there will be increasing crop
shortages to the point where commercial crops will fail for the
next 3 years running. Not in 1999 but during the 3 years
following,
going into the coming pole shift. This is already occurring
around
the world, where it is noted that this or that crop has failed.
This
does not get the news coverage it should, on what this means for
starvation and food shortages, which are rarely mentioned.
Everyone should anticipate that the price of food is going to
skyrocket, shortages will occur.
tho...@antispam.ham
> Michael lies a lot.
How ironic, coming from someone who lies a lot. For example, you
falsely accused me of being a "disinfo arm" of NASA, which itself
is ironic, coming from someone posting a lot of "disinfo", such as
the claim that a "large California observatory" was tracking your
so-called "Planet X":
] Nancy Lieder writes:
]
] > I was told by an astronomer who works for a large California observatory
] > the following "We were looking for it, then we found it, and now we're
] > tracking it.
]
] Which "astronomer"? Which "large California observatory"?
]
] Recall that you have repeatedly and erroneously accused me of evading
] answers. Will you act hypocritically and evade the answers to these
] questions?
da...@pebble.org
> Since Michael claims to be....an intelligent guy, a number of people
> early on concluded that Michael is a disinformation artist...
Nancy, maybe you should require your TT sheep to take an IQ test before
being admitted to the flock for shearing. The disinformation artists
would all be revealed by their high scores.
- Dan
Nathan Moschkin
PREPARE FOR THE COMING CHANGES of Global Warming, saying poorer countries
will be hit hardest by 'the coming changes'.
Some places like Louisiana had crop shortages last year, as the natives
had noticed. The reason many people don't notice is because, well,
education is proportionate to wealth, I must say, I must say.
> Nancy,
> I was stunned to see today that for the first time I could not
> access to
> the Zeta-Talk site (I am in Saudi). The message is : Blocked site -
> Emirates Internet denies access to this site.....
>
> I'd been getting e-mail from that part of the world for years, since
> 1995, so it wasn't the site ITSELF, I presumed, but something else.
> Then a month later another news article dropped in my queue. Not 5 days
> before the ban, the Saudis had to start subsidizing their farmers, big
> time. Oops! If ZetaTalk is that accurate, then the common folks can't
> READ it, else (take your pick) panic might ensue, our line won't be
> believed, we might get questioned about matters we have no answer for,
> whatever. From the page at http://www.zetatalk.com/theword/tworx187.htm
All volatile statements are used up. I learned to use Sender-Block.
( All beligerent senders are blocked, and needn't reply.
You know who you would be. But that's what you ain't! )
- Seven's for the reasoning of the disembodied mind,
turning fast the four seasons with a truent sense of time.......
Michael L Cunningham
> I noted in the ZetaTalk What's New page for May, 2000 the ZetaTalk
> predictions in 1995 and repeated that crop shortages would occur,
> worldwide, for 3 years running into the pole shift in 2003, because of
> weather irregularities. The Zetas predicted EXACTLY how the weather
> would affect them, and were the only source predicting either these
> weather changes or the crop shortages. I quote from that What's New
> page.
>
> The Zetas stated in Crop Failures
> (http://www.zetatalk.com/poleshft/p09.htm)
(snipped)
So ZetaTalk does say you've predicted worldwide crop shortages.
Then please show me where I lied?
Michael L Cunningham
jrla...@shell.golden.net
Michael L Cunningham <boge...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Nancy Lieder wrote:
>
>> The Zetas stated in Crop Failures
>> (http://www.zetatalk.com/poleshft/p09.htm)
>
>
>Then please show me where I lied?
You didn't lie ... you misread. That was a typo on Nancy's part. She
predicted a world wide CRAP shortage and thanks to her ceaseless effort
and voluminous ... ah ... output that shortage has been averted. Mind you
it seems sci.astro has been earmarked for a bunker crop (crap?).
--
john R. Latala
jrla...@golden.net
Nancy Lieder
wrote:
>> M31, with a magnitude 3.7, is visible only because it
>> subtends a HUGE arc. Would it be visible if the arc
>> were only 2-3 times the size of Pluto, as viewed from
>> Earth? No.
>
> a point source. In fact, it would be even *more* easily
> spotted than an extended source of the same magnitude,
> since its light would all eminate from, well, a point.
>
>> because it's diffuse, collecting this into a bag called
>> "surface brightness" which gets totalled up into a
>> magnitude that would NOT be viewable from Earth
>> unless over a huge surface.
>
> surface makes it less easily detected.
>
>> to it?
>
> No. Because you have stated its physical size and distance,
> which specify its actual angular size as viewed from that
> distance. No wiggle room here, it will appear as a point
> source.
As small as a point, perhaps, as are stars, but without the intensity of
light that stars do from their center. As diffuse with “surface
brightness” as M31 but without the wide area of the sky, equivalent to
the size of the Moon as viewed from Earth, that M31 has. Pixel for pixel
the light coming from Planet X is as diffuse (being a slow smoldering
brown dwarf) as M31, but with a lower magnitude (estimated at magnitude
11 during the spring 2001 sightings) and is reflecting sunlight less
that Pluto (calculated to be 81 times less, essentially no sunlight
reflection). People have to look out the side of their eye at M31, even
though it is a Magnitude 3.7! Diffuse objects are harder to see!
So when we get to looking at the RA and Dec again, and posting images to
support our claims, then lets bear that in mind. This is WHY the Zetas
have stated an observatory grade scope is required.
Michael L Cunningham
> So when we get to looking at the RA and Dec again, and posting images to
> support our claims, then lets bear that in mind. This is WHY the Zetas
> have stated an observatory grade scope is required.
Specify what an "observatory grade" telescope is.
--
Michael L. Cunningham
e-mail boge...@earthlink.net
web site http://home.earthlink.net/~bogeystar/
Visit the LX50 Web Site and join in our Discussion Forum!
JTRIV
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1893183157
Not exactly a best seller. What Nancy really needs is this book.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0595094724
which is actually a much more popular book! Interesting since once book is about holding
in crap and the other is full of it!
Clear Skies
Jim
Greg Neill
news:3B8E748A...@zetatalk.com...
> >
> > No. Because you have stated its physical size and distance,
> > which specify its actual angular size as viewed from that
> > distance. No wiggle room here, it will appear as a point
> > source.
>
> As small as a point, perhaps, as are stars, but without the intensity of
> light that stars do from their center. As diffuse with "surface
> brightness" as M31 but without the wide area of the sky, equivalent to
> the size of the Moon as viewed from Earth, that M31 has. Pixel for pixel
> the light coming from Planet X is as diffuse (being a slow smoldering
> brown dwarf) as M31, but with a lower magnitude (estimated at magnitude
> 11 during the spring 2001 sightings) and is reflecting sunlight less
> that Pluto (calculated to be 81 times less, essentially no sunlight
> reflection). People have to look out the side of their eye at M31, even
> though it is a Magnitude 3.7! Diffuse objects are harder to see!
You do realize, of course, that the above is nonsense? You don't seem
to understand light. Tell us, is there a difference between a
"diffuse photon" and a "sharp photon"?
Stars don't shine from their centers. They shine from their *diffuse*
(to use your term) photosphere, surrounding their entire bulk.
"Pixel for pixel the light coming from Planet X is as diffuse..." is
composted crapola. It's like saying you want the radio volume set to 3
but fuzzy. Since a pixel is indivisible it cannot be diffuse or sharp or
anything but lit to a given intensity/color.
Your 81 times less sunlight reflected than Pluto is a piffling dampening
in astronomy. Drops the brightness by just a handfull of magnitudes,
so if Pluto is at magnitude 15 (about) then the planet will be at
magnitude 19.5 or so in reflected light. Still easily reached by
many amateur telescopes.
Diffuse objects are indistinguishible from "sharp" objects at any
distance that renders them effective point sources. Thats physics,
that's life. Deal with it and move on.
Magnus Nyborg
> As small as a point, perhaps, as are stars, but without the intensity of
> light that stars do from their center. As diffuse with "surface
> brightness" as M31 but without the wide area of the sky, equivalent to
> the size of the Moon as viewed from Earth, that M31 has. Pixel for pixel
> the light coming from Planet X is as diffuse (being a slow smoldering
> brown dwarf) as M31, but with a lower magnitude (estimated at magnitude
I earlier posted a picture of a mag 10.5 galaxy catalogued as NGC7331 (no,
it was not M31!), which was clearly visible _although_ it was 'diffuse'. In
fact, that galaxy was _more_ diffuse than your planet-X would be. You saw
the galaxy, and that proves planet-X would be trivial to detect with my
scope.
> 11 during the spring 2001 sightings) and is reflecting sunlight less
> that Pluto (calculated to be 81 times less, essentially no sunlight
Now make up your mind, is planet-X mag 11 or mag 19 !?
> reflection). People have to look out the side of their eye at M31, even
> though it is a Magnitude 3.7! Diffuse objects are harder to see!
Either way, I prooved that a mag 10.5 galaxy was easy in my telescope.
>
> So when we get to looking at the RA and Dec again, and posting images to
> support our claims, then lets bear that in mind. This is WHY the Zetas
> have stated an observatory grade scope is required.
An delude old woman sitting in her apartment and dreaming of wealth!
Clear Skies,
Magnus
josX
>Nancy Lieder wrote:
>
>> So when we get to looking at the RA and Dec again, and posting images to
>> support our claims, then lets bear that in mind. This is WHY the Zetas
>> have stated an observatory grade scope is required.
>
>Specify what an "observatory grade" telescope is.
>
you guys are really unbelievable.
I just read here from one of you observatory scopes are essentially the
same as amateur scopes.
What is this for kind of a fucking nonsense.
They build observatories on the peeks of Hawaian mountains, some of
them are equiped with a lasar that will track air-movements so the
mirrors can be adjusted real-time to cancel out as much air-turbulence
as possible. And what not more they are equiped with.
Ofcourse you know that.
So what is the deal, why don't you guys shut up and go home and lie to
your neighbours and sisters if you can't help it.
Why don't you all give up on the intentional lies and intentional debunking,
feeding the ppl of the world lies as if your own life depended on them
believing you. Does it?
Is that how you make yourself a living?
It sure looks that way doesn't it, you guys being here on sci.astro talking
over and over to Nancy whom you think doesn't say anything worthwhile, while
you cannot keep away from your keyboards; it sure is a _sad_ thing to have
accomplished at the end of a day's work: lying and deceiving, all day long
and nothing else. Pitty on you.
Someone who actually owns a telescope, do you?
(ah, it cunning-ham i'm talking to. What's the difference.
Yep, i didn't even check until now, what does it matter, you are all alike.)
Jos
--
Michael L Cunningham
> you guys are really unbelievable.
>
> I just read here from one of you observatory scopes are essentially the
> same as amateur scopes.
>
> What is this for kind of a fucking nonsense.
>
> They build observatories on the peeks of Hawaian mountains, some of
> them are equiped with a lasar that will track air-movements so the
> mirrors can be adjusted real-time to cancel out as much air-turbulence
> as possible. And what not more they are equiped with.
>
> Ofcourse you know that.
>
> So what is the deal, why don't you guys shut up and go home and lie to
> your neighbours and sisters if you can't help it.
>
> Why don't you all give up on the intentional lies and intentional debunking,
> feeding the ppl of the world lies as if your own life depended on them
> believing you. Does it?
>
> Is that how you make yourself a living?
>
> It sure looks that way doesn't it, you guys being here on sci.astro talking
> over and over to Nancy whom you think doesn't say anything worthwhile, while
> you cannot keep away from your keyboards; it sure is a _sad_ thing to have
> accomplished at the end of a day's work: lying and deceiving, all day long
> and nothing else. Pitty on you.
>
> Someone who actually owns a telescope, do you?
> (ah, it cunning-ham i'm talking to. What's the difference.
> Yep, i didn't even check until now, what does it matter, you are all alike.)
This from Nancy's lap dog. Why aren't you out recording timings so you can
prove the earth is slowing down at a rate that defies imagination. I see a Nobel
Prize in your future!
JTRIV
inches and smaller. They were basically the smaller amateur style scopes that
observatories use for public viewing nights. Not the twin scopes on the top of a mountain,
not even close.
In those rather amusing sightings they basically just looked and there it was! In an 18"
and 16" scope. Do you have any idea how many people have scopes that large or scopes with
CCD's that can capture what can visually be seen by those scopes? Many, many thousands.
Sorry pal, but you are one of the few dumb enough to fall for the ole "observatory scope"
line. It's right there, can't you see it? No? Well that's because you don't have an
observatory. Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha
How about this Nancy quote from sci.astro in 1996? Check it yourself..
<begin Zetababble>
This 12th Planet will, however, get consistently brighter, so that an
image taken now, compared with an image taken a year from now, would
show an increased brightness not expected from a distant star. The
naked eye would not capture this. The naked eye will begin to register
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
increased brightness approximately 1 year 7 months before the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
cataclysms, or late in the year 2001. This appearance will be
discounted by most, who will point to the distortions in the atmosphere
as a cause or will explain this as an exploding star, the light rays of
which are just becoming visible on Earth. Increased brightness will
occur gradually, so that without the capacity to register brightness
over time, and compare closely the changes, this cannot be proved or
even, until close to the end, mentally registered by the observer.
High powered equipment can and has registered this increased
brightness. The images must be compared by computer analysis, but the
magnification need not be huge, only slight. Here again, this
information will not be made public. Quite the opposite. This
information will be denied and refuted by those controlling the high
powered equipment needed for proof.
For those with access to powerful telescopes and the software to
support image capture and analysis, here are the specs which will put
the 12th Planet in your scope - RA 6 16 15, Dec 8 39 37.6. Look
around this spot, and do not be discouraged, as these specs were
compiled by a helpful human, and are not our numbers, though they are
exact enough. At the current time the 12th Planet is approximately
magnitude 2.0 in brightness, and appears as large as a star as viewed
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
by the naked eye. It does not shine with the intensity of most stars,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
but has a dull, diffuse, glow. It appears to be the last gasp of a
dying star, a faint, blurry, reddish glow. Your eye would pass over it
if attuned to the pin points that are the stars. A star is intense in
the center and rapidly diminishes in intensity toward the edges of the
spot you call a star. The light from a star comes from a single point
and fans out, the periphery a bit less than the center, increasingly,
but the center very intense. The 12th Planet, being nearer, is giving
you light rays from its entire surface, so the light has an even
quality to it.
<end Zetababble>
In 2 months its brightening should be visible to the naked eye, and magnification needed
is only slight. According to this it should have been visible to the naked eye nice 1996
as just another star. Hmm... this doesn't sound like the drivel that Nancy has been
putting out lately. She now says "magnify like crazy" and "observatory scope". I thought
all her predictions were accurate? Or just another change of her story to explain why no
one can see it, which fortunately few are naive enough to believe.
And why curse in a public forum? People aren't going to start thinking your are an adult
just because you use the "F" word.
Clear Skies
Jim
jrla...@shell.golden.net
Michael L Cunningham <boge...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Nancy Lieder wrote:
>
>> So when we get to looking at the RA and Dec again, and posting images to
>> support our claims, then lets bear that in mind. This is WHY the Zetas
>> have stated an observatory grade scope is required.
>
>Specify what an "observatory grade" telescope is.
It's got really cool knobs on the side marked "ZOOM" and "MAGNITUDE".
Bill Nelson
:>
:>> So when we get to looking at the RA and Dec again, and posting images to
:>> support our claims, then lets bear that in mind. This is WHY the Zetas
:>> have stated an observatory grade scope is required.
:>
:>Specify what an "observatory grade" telescope is.
: you guys are really unbelievable.
: I just read here from one of you observatory scopes are essentially the
: same as amateur scopes.
: What is this for kind of a fucking nonsense.
It isn't nonsense. Nancy has never defined the term - although she uses
it all the time - as if it made such scopes unique in some way.
: They build observatories on the peeks of Hawaian mountains, some of
: them are equiped with a lasar that will track air-movements so the
: mirrors can be adjusted real-time to cancel out as much air-turbulence
: as possible. And what not more they are equiped with.
That applies to the new generation of scopes that use adaptive optics.
The bugs are still being worked out of such systems.
Most observatory scopes are NOT on the peaks of mountains. And many that
are are so close to major population areas that they suffer from serious
sky glow - which cannot be filtered out.
: Ofcourse you know that.
But "Of course, you know that". It is a pity that you forgot to mention
it.
... deleted ... (some rather wild conjectures)
: Someone who actually owns a telescope, do you?
As a matter of fact, yes. I own a 16" reflector. The largest diameter
"observatory" scope to which I have access is 36" (as if that mattered).
--
Bill Nelson (bi...@peak.org)
josX
>josX <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote:
<snip>
>As a matter of fact, yes. I own a 16" reflector. The largest diameter
>"observatory" scope to which I have access is 36" (as if that mattered).
(Sounds great, 16" reflector, that's 41cm right?)
You saw my little piece of ascii-art. Planet-X wasn't found until 1983
(that is the hypotheses), and it was found by a special satalite (IRAS).
There has been a 100+ year search for Planet-X with no results officially
(no, Pluto was not the one, as was determined one week after it's discovery)
Is it a big suprise it isn't visible in amateur telescopes, it hasn't come
much closer remember ?
How can you "define" what scope is necessary, aren't all scopes different,
and it depends on the location, and the location of Earth etc etc?
Observatory means (in my mind) "proffesional telescopes" where proffesionals
pay money to get time (or however that works).
joshb
--
Bill Nelson
:>As a matter of fact, yes. I own a 16" reflector. The largest diameter
:>"observatory" scope to which I have access is 36" (as if that mattered).
: (Sounds great, 16" reflector, that's 41cm right?)
: You saw my little piece of ascii-art. Planet-X wasn't found until 1983
: (that is the hypotheses), and it was found by a special satalite (IRAS).
: There has been a 100+ year search for Planet-X with no results officially
: (no, Pluto was not the one, as was determined one week after it's discovery)
: Is it a big suprise it isn't visible in amateur telescopes, it hasn't come
: much closer remember ?
The only reason it isn't visible is because it does not exist.
: How can you "define" what scope is necessary, aren't all scopes different,
: and it depends on the location, and the location of Earth etc etc?
Not really, when you are talking about quality telescopes.
: Observatory means (in my mind) "proffesional telescopes" where proffesionals
: pay money to get time (or however that works).
My telescope, and the 36" "observatory" telescope to which I have access,
are both "professional" quality. The only difference is that professional
astronomers do not pay me to use my scope.
--
Bill Nelson (bi...@peak.org)
josX
>On 1 Sep 2001 11:10:04 GMT, jo...@mraha.kitenet.net (josX) wrote:
>>In article <9mpncc$mr7$1...@sevenofnine.peak.org>, Bill Nelson wrote:
>>>josX <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote:
>><snip>
>>>As a matter of fact, yes. I own a 16" reflector. The largest diameter
>>>"observatory" scope to which I have access is 36" (as if that mattered).
>>
>>(Sounds great, 16" reflector, that's 41cm right?)
>>
>>You saw my little piece of ascii-art. Planet-X wasn't found until 1983
>>(that is the hypotheses), and it was found by a special satalite (IRAS).
>
>misunderstanding of an announcement by a staff writer which didn't
>understand what was being said.
'Which has been fully explained. IIRC, the article was a
misunderstanding of an announcement by a staff writer which didn't
understand what was being said.'
you got to be kidding me this is your cover-story...
>>There has been a 100+ year search for Planet-X with no results officially
>>(no, Pluto was not the one, as was determined one week after it's discovery)
>>Is it a big suprise it isn't visible in amateur telescopes, it hasn't come
>>much closer remember ?
>
>Actually there is no "search going on now for a missing planet.
There *is* none? Why? They searched for it for 100+ years.
Why does someone or some group stop searching something that they have
searched for longer than a human lifetime? Indeed, there seems to be
only one explanation.
> There
>has been found no missing mass. Now that the data from the flybys has
>been taken in to account and the masses of Uranus and Neptune
>calculated to a more precise amount. we find no need for a 10th
>planet.
When you build a house, and discover using cm's that you have a problem
on the South-wall, two beams don't touch by 2 cm during constructions.
Are you going to call someone who can measure in micrometers to see if
it disapears?
>>How can you "define" what scope is necessary, aren't all scopes different,
>>and it depends on the location, and the location of Earth etc etc?
>>Observatory means (in my mind) "proffesional telescopes" where proffesionals
>>pay money to get time (or however that works).
>
>I have a 30 inch telescope... and a 16 inch portable scope... both
>as good as or better than some observatory's scopes.
>
>What do you really thinks makes a observatory scope?
There is basically 2 definitions possible: the one where it means
"full staffed, highly technical, multimillion, well placed globally,
proffesionals crave time there" observatories (you know what i mean),
and the one that says that any shed or build-out from your roof that
houses a telescope is by definition an observatory, too.
Read the zetasite, you will see in the piece recently quoted here,
they talk about "high powered" stuff, this planet is discovered with
a "special satalite", and ofcourse it wasn't discovered until 1983.
Doesn't this all mean, it is a rather difficult target until 1983?
It hasn't come much closer too, so i guess it will remain a difficult
target for some time, too. It is magnitude 11th in visible spectrum,
but it is covering an area as is said in ZetaTalk "your eye would miss
it if attuned to the pinpoints that are the stars". It was recently
admitted that targets covering an angle appear MUCH weaker than their
magnitude number, something with M?? being 3.7, but not easy to see.
When that came up, were you debunkers at it to prove this cannot be,
and that this object must be a hallucination and not exist because
"it's descriptions are mutually contradictory", that "3.7 should be easy
visible by the unaided eye if it existed"? Why weren't you; you ppl
seem to delight, day and night, in zifting about this kind of a thing.
Interestingly there are no falsifying pictures, too, as of yet, while
it should be easy to doctor-out P-X if it happened to be there. Afraid
there will be a small increase in noise on the zetacoordinates when
comparing multiple photo's? (just guessing)
Although this planet still needs "observatory grade scopes", it could
be an interesting Orion season :)). Perhaps it is good to know what
magnitude of star you need to capture, so you will also capture P-X...
oh yeah: "set equipment for mag 11, filter for red".
regards,
Jos
ps: Are you debunkers at it and being so irrational and boring so readers
will be bored by P-X ?
--
Jonathan Silverlight
>
>I have a 30 inch telescope... and a 16 inch portable scope... both
>as good as or better than some observatory's scopes.
>
16 inch portable? Is that mounted on a trailer or are you just built
like Arnold Schwarzenegger? :-)
josX
>On 2 Sep 2001 06:16:29 GMT, jo...@mraha.kitenet.net (josX) wrote:
>>In article <8ev2ptsad9o6krm9c...@4ax.com>, Bob Officer wrote:
>>>On 1 Sep 2001 11:10:04 GMT, jo...@mraha.kitenet.net (josX) wrote:
>>>>In article <9mpncc$mr7$1...@sevenofnine.peak.org>, Bill Nelson wrote:
>>>>>josX <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote:
>>>><snip>
>>>>>As a matter of fact, yes. I own a 16" reflector. The largest diameter
>>>>>"observatory" scope to which I have access is 36" (as if that mattered).
>>>>
>>>>(Sounds great, 16" reflector, that's 41cm right?)
>>>>
>>>>You saw my little piece of ascii-art. Planet-X wasn't found until 1983
>>>>(that is the hypotheses), and it was found by a special satalite (IRAS).
>>>
>>>Which has been fully explained. IIRC, the article was a
>>>misunderstanding of an announcement by a staff writer which didn't
>>>understand what was being said.
>>
>>'Which has been fully explained. IIRC, the article was a
>> misunderstanding of an announcement by a staff writer which didn't
>> understand what was being said.'
>>
>>you got to be kidding me this is your cover-story...
>
>truth there. It was a slow day and some science writer attempted to
>punch up the story. Very Simple.
Yes, read it. Reads like an announcement of the likely finding of another
planet (if i remember correctly).
>>>>There has been a 100+ year search for Planet-X with no results officially
>>>>(no, Pluto was not the one, as was determined one week after it's discovery)
>>>>Is it a big suprise it isn't visible in amateur telescopes, it hasn't come
>>>>much closer remember ?
>>>
>>>Actually there is no "search going on now for a missing planet.
>>
>>There *is* none? Why? They searched for it for 100+ years.
>>Why does someone or some group stop searching something that they have
>>searched for longer than a human lifetime? Indeed, there seems to be
>>only one explanation.
>
>Yes, the only explanations is the math and current planetary masses
>show there is no need for a 'planet' outside the 8th orbit.
Did you know that this is one of your worst cover-stories?
Anybody with half a brain can know that astronomers would not waste
100+ years looking for something when their observations could simply
be exlainedaway by more precise data.
Second fatal problem for your story is that if the masses were incorrect,
astronomers would be looking at Neptune-Uranus interactions, to see why
the perturbations behave differently than thought. Maybe there is a moon
they missed on Uranus, maybe their drifts something like rings around
Neptune, that kind of thing. Anything that can influence the perturbations
of known planets unto eachother.
Do i really need to tell that only asynchronious perturbations, "perturbations
out of nowhere, suddenly popping up when the known planets are not perturbing"
are a reason to look for another planet ?
And here is another stretch in the story-line itself:
Pluto was the one that was the result of searching for Planet-X, right?
(One of the debunkers has claimed that.)
So, the story is basically:
1) astronomers make formulas that describe perturbations
2) they derive the mass of the planets also from how they perturb eachother
(right?)
3) then they notice something is amiss with their predictions
4) instead of recalibrating and perhaps redoing their formulas, they
suddenly start looking for a Planet-X
5) this is just a dumn error, because they should have noticed their
problem was within their error-bars.
6) this error lasted for 100+ years
(yes, this story IS a big stretch...)
7) Pluto is discovered, it turned out to be extremely small
8) the person saying it was not the one causing the anomalous perturbations
BECAUSE it was too small (and perhaps in the wrong locations, too?)
is just a nutcase according to present-day debunkers, because the
perturbations are not caused by another planet, but simply is within
the error-bars.
9) astronomer who proclaimed enthousiastically to go find this Planet-X and
go abroad with a big scope dies suddenly and the scope is immideately
retrieved
(just facts, right? right.)
10) The Pioneers/Voyagers (dunno which) flyby, obtaining more numbers
behind the dot for the masses of the planets. This means, the error-bars
for the prediction of perturbations of these known planets can be
reduced.
11) According to debunkers: this explains it all.
12) Major news-agencies carry a story of a new planet which is discovered,
calling it "Planet-X" (which was the name the old astronomers gave it
who saw it's perturbation-effects, and hunted for it).
Is this an accurate depiction of your story?
>An improper estimation of the planetary masses of Uranus and Neptune
>was the fault. The correct masses were derived from the flybys of the
>known masses of the man made satellites. It is amazing what happens
>when on ca plug in the data, and things work out right.
>
>Did you know you can derive the mass of the Earth by dropping a known
>mass and timing it's fall. Same works for the Moon, and IIRC that was
>one of the experiments done by one of the Moon missions.
>
>Flybys and orbital periods of probes have allow us to measure the
>masses of much of the solar system.
>
>Yes the only explanation is as more data is received, the error bars
>of human knowledge is reduced.
>
>Most people stopped looking for the 10 planet when it was shown there
>was no reason to look for such a planet.
Most ppl will do exactly what the debunkers tell them to.
Thank God for the German Scientist who researched Tunguska, and is not
afraid to call pseudo-science pseudo-science when he sees it, and doesn't
go to the boss to ask "what shall i do about it, Sir".
>Nancy is a nutcase.
Nancy is one of the only (the only?) persons making this group worthwhile
as far as theories go.
Isn't it interesting, that the Zeta/Nancy said *all* *along* it
was a NATURAL GASS EXPLOSION in 1908 that caused massive "tree-tumbling"?
How can she know that! Makes you think?
Official Science, and debunkers allike said it was a COMET EXPLODING IN
THE AIR.
Who is getting it right ..., Bob ?
> It is mag 2, then as it gets closer it is mag 10?
>It is defuse, by then it is a brown dwarf which will become a pulsar?
>It is in Orion or then it is Pisces...
Mag 2 on the whole spectrum, "set equipment for mag 11". It was there all
along.
It's in Orion and also a bit in Taurus, check the path here
http://www.zetatalk.com/theword/tword03h.htm .
>>> There
>>>has been found no missing mass. Now that the data from the flybys has
>>>been taken in to account and the masses of Uranus and Neptune
>>>calculated to a more precise amount. we find no need for a 10th
>>>planet.
>>
>>When you build a house, and discover using cm's that you have a problem
>>on the South-wall, two beams don't touch by 2 cm during constructions.
>>Are you going to call someone who can measure in micrometers to see if
>>it disapears?
>
>No! I fire the contractor....
Which means, you will fire all known astronomers, and even your NASA.
> in this case the orbital periods were
>estimated and the wrong masses used. When the flybys took place we
>used the known masses of the probes and derived the proper masses for
>the Both of Planets. It also gave us accurate masses for Saturn and
>Jupiter.
Exactly: "debunkers hire somebody who can measure it more precisely".
>>>>How can you "define" what scope is necessary, aren't all scopes different,
>>>>and it depends on the location, and the location of Earth etc etc?
>>>>Observatory means (in my mind) "proffesional telescopes" where proffesionals
>>>>pay money to get time (or however that works).
>>>
>>>I have a 30 inch telescope... and a 16 inch portable scope... both
>>>as good as or better than some observatory's scopes.
>>>
>>>What do you really thinks makes a observatory scope?
>>
>>There is basically 2 definitions possible: the one where it means
>>"full staffed, highly technical, multimillion, well placed globally,
>>proffesionals crave time there" observatories (you know what i mean),
>
>Sure... And guess what. I have given time...
>
>>and the one that says that any shed or build-out from your roof that
>>houses a telescope is by definition an observatory, too.
>
>So, I can see down to Mag 16, and photograph to Mag 20 or so with no
>problems. This is the 16 inch scope which the standing off to let
>Nancy use. I will travel to a location of her choice and allow her to
>tell me exactly were she wishes to look. I will give her all the time
>she needs.
But you won't make pictures of the zetacoordinates and send the negatives
or raw data to Kahuna, am i correct?
>>Read the zetasite, you will see in the piece recently quoted here,
>>they talk about "high powered" stuff, this planet is discovered with
>>a "special satalite", and ofcourse it wasn't discovered until 1983.
>
>What was seen by IRAS was a distant cloud of Gas. When IRAS was 1st
>sent up, many people didn't even know how to use and understand what
>they actually saw. One observation of a gas cloud was misunderstood
>and misreported.
How come i sense apprehencion along the lines of "oh my God... i hope
he buys thisone..." ?
So, let me chop it into small digestable pieces:
1) This IRAS satalite is simply surveying some wavelength, OFCOURSE scientists
know how that works.
2) They send an satalite into orbit without knowing whatever the hell it is
going to measure? Are these things cheap or something? No, they are not
cheap, they take years to build. Or are NASA scientists just a bunch of
loonies hacking some hardware together and blasting it off just for the
fun of launching rockets with taxpdollars ("hell, we got to do something!")?
3) Planet-X has a dustcloud surrounding it, of iron-oxide, which is reddish
(see zetatalk.com).
Maybe that is the cloud you are reffering to....
The truth is so very simple, isn't it:
Planet-X was searched for, for 100+ years, because both Neptune and
Uranus showed anomalous movements. Pluto was discovered in this
search but was not the one so they kept looking. In 1983 it was
located by means or an infrared satalite, evidentally, this must
be a very faint target.
>Have you even read discussion about some of the missing NGC and IC
>items which were seen on the red and blue survey plates?
>>Doesn't this all mean, it is a rather difficult target until 1983?
>
>No... IRAS was an infrared detector.
Exactly....
>>It hasn't come much closer too, so i guess it will remain a difficult
>>target for some time, too. It is magnitude 11th in visible spectrum,
>
>Hey, no big deal I see stuff that dim all the time.
I am looking forward to your steady stream of zetacoordinates pictures
with long exposure-times, made available in their rawest formats to
The Small Kahuna.
>>but it is covering an area as is said in ZetaTalk "your eye would miss
>>it if attuned to the pinpoints that are the stars". It was recently
>
>At F4, the 16 inch scope would pop right out at you. I use it for
>looking at galaxies and planetary nebulas. Trust me, an 11th mag
>object is easy.
Then make pictures with it, lots of it.
You even want to go to the trouble of showing Nancy what a nice scope
you have, then you should surely be able to make some pictures and make
them available.
>>admitted that targets covering an angle appear MUCH weaker than their
>>magnitude number, something with M?? being 3.7, but not easy to see.
>
>Extended objects. buy lad, I explained that M31 was a 3.7 dim extended
>object and can be seen with a telescope.
M31 is 3.7, yet, it is not easy to see with the naked eye, although you
can easily see magnitude 6th stars if you are outside
lightpollution.
P-X is 11th (2nd in total-spectrum, which does no good unless you operate
IRAS).
>>When that came up, were you debunkers at it to prove this cannot be,
>>and that this object must be a hallucination and not exist because
>No we proved Nancy's object couldn't be as she stated. It has to do
>with a size and magnitude relationships. One of those psychical laws
>Nancy Just Doesn't Understand. She lacks the basic math to understand
>it.
>>"it's descriptions are mutually contradictory", that "3.7 should be easy
>>visible by the unaided eye if it existed"? Why weren't you; you ppl
>>seem to delight, day and night, in zifting about this kind of a thing.
>
>"We" (TINW) people have spent hours looking at stars, galaxies,
>nebulas, planets, other assorted items. AT 3.7 mag I can see it. Even
>at extended objects can be seen. M31 is easy... M33 is a real
>challenge, Try M42 in Orion that is the Sword in Orion's belt. can you
>see it. Get up about 3:30-4:00am and take a look in two weeks (new
>moon)...
My scope is too small to have real fun with (114 mm).
>>Interestingly there are no falsifying pictures, too, as of yet, while
>
>Yawn, Have Nancy produce her pictures, She still hasn't really told us
>were it is, Film costs money. it takes time to shot a decent shot. and
>like you said, Nancy will claim it is a doctored shot. Most of us are
>tired of jumping to Nancy's lies...
But you will jump in your car with your scope in the trunk and drive to
her home to set it up on the pavement before her house so she can take
a look.
>( hey she could take me to court for calling her a liar, but she won't
>because it is the truth)
Liar.
Take me to court!
>>it should be easy to doctor-out P-X if it happened to be there. Afraid
>>there will be a small increase in noise on the zetacoordinates when
>>comparing multiple photo's? (just guessing)
>Yawn, you are a Nancy Pet.
>>Although this planet still needs "observatory grade scopes", it could
>>be an interesting Orion season :)). Perhaps it is good to know what
>>magnitude of star you need to capture, so you will also capture P-X...
>>oh yeah: "set equipment for mag 11, filter for red".
>
>Stupid Little Josh one doesn't set a scope for Magnitude....
Grasping Bob, substituting "scope" for "equipment".
>>regards,
>>Jos
>>ps: Are you debunkers at it and being so irrational and boring so readers
>> will be bored by P-X ?
>
>You are rather stupid, instead of just ignorant. Why does Nancy seem
>to lure so many Clueless Wanks into her fold?
But you can't ignore it? If it is `stupid', let it die out of
itself. Things that are stupid usually do, unless a paid staff of
debunkers is promoting it.
jos
--
Ahmet
>
> It's in Orion and also a bit in Taurus, check the path here
> http://www.zetatalk.com/theword/tword03h.htm .
It is imposible for an object to make a path as described in that link. How
can an object move in sky like that without a propulsion system. Nancy
describes her object愀 orbit as very eccentric, almost like a railway to and
fro. Even if it was perturbated by the other planets in solar system it
should not move like descibed in that map. Can you imagine an object coming
straight towards you without any sort of propulsion and making such
incredible manoeuvres like Nancy愀 planet? That is an impossibilty. It
should not be difficult to realize that. And if Nancy really searches for
followers, she should seek it somewhere else and not in a science forum.
Here she is only making fun out of herself.
Ahmet
josX
>>
>> It's in Orion and also a bit in Taurus, check the path here
>> http://www.zetatalk.com/theword/tword03h.htm .
>
>It is imposible for an object to make a path as described in that link. How
>can an object move in sky like that without a propulsion system. Nancy
>fro. Even if it was perturbated by the other planets in solar system it
>should not move like descibed in that map. Can you imagine an object coming
>straight towards you without any sort of propulsion and making such
>should not be difficult to realize that. And if Nancy really searches for
>followers, she should seek it somewhere else and not in a science forum.
>Here she is only making fun out of herself.
>
>Ahmet
So, doesn't this provide an EXCELLENT, and i mean E X C E L L E N T
way to check if she is right, when an object is sighted that will follow
this impossible path ?...
It's very hard to get this right, it being contrary Science and all...
I haven't plotted the exact provided coordinates, but i read something like
"tick up", "tick back", so the link may just be the rough idea of her
prediction, and the precise prediction even more interesting.
But when NASA comes along, and this object is sighted, trucking EXACTLY the
way Nancy describes, you still won't believe it will you ;-) (you will?).
You may think Nancy is a NutCase, and NASA and esthablished Science
are all completely substantiated and proven from the smallest to the
biggest item, it's all fine with me. But let me tell you Nancy is
NOT a NutCase, just to see how it sounds.... Here's another i think
is true: there are debunkers here who ARE nutcases and who DO try
to degrade this NG, the thing everybody seems to accuse Nancy Lieder
off, while she is patently right about this Tunguska-thing, and what
about the Mammoth, she's right there too: it was flash-frozen. How
can anybody deny such things? yeah, when they are paid to, $3000 a
month or something, to keep the media behaving and enhance stability
in the country or whatever.
Now you probably think "wow, what a WackJob"? (seen it before at
least). *IF* so, please, look in yourself to see WHY you would think
that (or, if not, why somebody would, when reading the governments are
not what they seem). You would discover that the ONLY reason to think
the media and politics and all are all genuine is that... if you would
tell other people you think otherwise at the burger-stand, ppl would
laugh at you, turn their backs and call you crazy, or they simply cannot
stand the thought and throw it away instantly. And not out of some high
morals and "oh, i am so patriotic, i don't doubt Bush is a good man for
one second", but because of the real possibility it may actually be true.
Then what! What hell would break loose then... you would need to question
all kinds of things all over again (for instance, the liquor-ban made the
Maffia, why is there a Drug-war then now and an endless list if items most
would know perfectly i think)
Everybody (most) want to fit in, and to fit in is to belief the same
things; nonsense or no nonsense...
Is it a big deal? we live in "the matrix"?, we are all slaves? Let's go
paranoid? no ofcourse not, you can think whatever you want, but it's still
there as an influence. That's all.
Here is an example of the power of the media:
Clinton's Lewinsky schandal, if the media decided it was not worth a
word (wish they had) nobody woud give a damn, and what if they blew
up the story about the ballot manipulation and the injust court-ruling
(yes, saw it all life and it was not a just ruling). So now the USA is
in effect a non-democracy, which equates to "dictatorship". What if the
media were still running stories and background, followup-articles etc,
"more intrigues discovered", etc on Bush having done a coup on the USA.
They could run these stories for decades, talking endlessly about how
it violates what the "founding fathers" envisioned. (yeah, recently even
learned some `All American' history on Usenet).
The media have power and they use it. And it is the same power that's
brought against Nancy here, and nobody is believing her but she is right
on all counts as far as i can tell.
Remember WWII, more media-power:
"wir haben es nich gewusst", "wir haben es nie glauben keunnen dass
das wirklich stattfanden wird, hinter unsehren reucken" (in my broken
German "we didn't know", "we could never belief this was happening
behind our backs"). Everybody knows about the jews now ofcourse,
but almost nobody knew then (I guess the internet wasn't around).
The media has great influence, which is the reason for neverending
add-campaigns for all kinds of silly stuff. Nobody would want it,
but throw in an add campaign and here come the orders... Same with
politics. (Not that it's anything new, but it's worth remembering,
living in a world of constant media exposure.)
regards,
Jos
--
Thomas S. McDonald
"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message
news:9mvpj6$2ic$1...@news1.xs4all.nl...
<snip>
Dear JosX,
Nancy is not right about the mammoth, and I have given
arguments and references to support my contention. You said
you didn't read all that, as you thought so much
documentation was just another form of debunking. Not
following through on the references and just taking Nancy's
view is a choice you can make; but it leaves you open to
charges of ignorance and potentially intellectual
dishonesty. That's up to you, of course.
How about this. Look on Nancy's site. Use the "search"
function and input my name. See what comes up. When _I_
did it, what I got was Nancy's responses to my posts,
wherein she made changes and snips to make it appear that I
either agreed with her, or was clearly wrong. She has
several times lied about what I said in a post, and now I
know why. It is so that the sheep of TT and ZetaTalk get a
sanitized version of things that supports Nancy, and seems
to demolish her critics.
That's just dishonest.
BTW, if you are still reading and haven't gotten bored
yet, you might want to know that my only interest is in
discussing things to get closer to truth. I am disabled and
unemployed. No $3000 per month for disinformation pay.
Say, if you know where I could go to get that much moola for
writing what I find out about things, let me know.
Tom McDonald
josX
(don't you love it? `echo sed 's/[ >]*//;'|fmt -72|sed "s/^/$1/">~/bin/i;
cat FILE |i '>> ';, or better, use inside vi.)
>Dear JosX,
>
> Nancy is not right about the mammoth, and I have given
>arguments and references to support my contention. You said
>you didn't read all that, as you thought so much
>documentation was just another form of debunking.
Correct.
> Not
>following through on the references and just taking Nancy's
>view is a choice you can make; but it leaves you open to
>charges of ignorance and potentially intellectual
>dishonesty. That's up to you, of course.
Alright, let's do it again, see what happens.
Found a post by you:
<QUOTE>
McDonald wrote:
> Now, that said, I'd like your response to what I _did_
>write. Most especially I'd like you to comment on:
> 1) The flora (plants) of the "Mammoth Steppe" at
> the end of the last ice age;
Question: could the flora support herdes of Mammoth.
I say: no, as it is now, it is too cold and there is growing virtually
nothing. There really can't be a debate on that one actually, just look
at some pictures from the regeon, or better, video from the nomads.
You think there once was vegitation that can support herds of mammoth?
> 2) Your references for your statement that only moss
> and lichens grow in the Arctic Circle today;
I don't know that (comment wasn't directed at me), but now there grows
only some grass in summer and some flowers between the grass. Very
odd landscope btw, no tree, no bush, nothing at all sticking out, all
like one giant "golf-green". Very peculiar... . (Shots were from the
locations they were searching for more Mammoth remains.)
> 3) The taphonomy (science of fossil formation) as
> related by the quotation from Irena Dubrovo in
> my previous post (especially the two instances she
> mentions of the 6-8 month-old male, dated to 12-
> 15,000 BP and the 10-12 year-old female, dated
> to ca. just under 10,000 BP);
Tell, what does it proof/say/*.
> 4) The biggie: the fact that the mammoth carcasses in
> Siberia that have been dated range from ca.
> 50,000 years BP to ca. 10,000 BP.
Actually, this is rather obvious: mammoth lived before this
shift, and the also died before this shift.
</QUOTE>
> How about this. Look on Nancy's site. Use the "search"
>function and input my name. See what comes up. When _I_
>did it, what I got was Nancy's responses to my posts,
>wherein she made changes and snips to make it appear that I
>either agreed with her, or was clearly wrong. She has
>several times lied about what I said in a post, and now I
>know why.
Can you point to specific instances that are "the worst" in your mind?
This is a website, this is not usenet and not dejanews.com. The
message-ID's are preserved (correct?), which means you can always
find the actual posts/threads/whatever. When you put something on
your private space, it is accepted that you quote pieces of it
and suply a link to the whole. You don't need to quote a whole
paper to quote an article, and you don't need to quote the entire
article to quote a sentence. So, it is free to quote whatever you
like, as long as you don't rip it out of context so bad, the original
intent is turned around.
Search for my name, you will also find there are sometimes snipages
done in my posts, and yet, i think they are right.
> It is so that the sheep of TT and ZetaTalk get a
>sanitized version of things that supports Nancy, and seems
>to demolish her critics.
That's rather wrong, because on TT there are as much posts for as
against zetatalk.com. Quite unlike you would expect from a Cult.
Everybody who can go to zetatalk, can go to dejanews btw.
> That's just dishonest.
> BTW, if you are still reading and haven't gotten bored
>yet, you might want to know that my only interest is in
>discussing things to get closer to truth. I am disabled and
>unemployed. No $3000 per month for disinformation pay.
>Say, if you know where I could go to get that much moola for
>writing what I find out about things, let me know.
> Tom McDonald
Ask Michael Davis, maybe you get "lucky".
regards,
Jos
--
JTRIV
That Zetababble site is amusing. Nancy twists everything, but it is pretty transparent.
That is why only the dim ones such as our friend JosX believe it. The only way that stupid
crap makes any sense is if everyone else in the world is in on some conspiracy! At least
now the scientifically illiterate have something to believe in.
Clear Skies
Jim
"Thomas S. McDonald" wrote:
> <snip>
tho...@antispam.ham
> You may think Nancy is a NutCase, and NASA and esthablished Science
> are all completely substantiated and proven from the smallest to the
> biggest item, it's all fine with me. But let me tell you Nancy is
> NOT a NutCase, just to see how it sounds....
Perhaps you think she's out to make a buck off a gullible public?
> Here's another i think is true: there are debunkers here who ARE
> nutcases and who DO try to degrade this NG,
What you think is irrelevant; what you can prove is relevant.
> the thing everybody seems to accuse Nancy Lieder
> off, while she is patently right about this Tunguska-thing,
Could you be more specific about what you think she said that is
"patently right"?
> and what about the Mammoth, she's right there too: it was
> flash-frozen. How can anybody deny such things?
Could you be more specific about "such things", particularly about
Tunguska?
> yeah, when they are paid to, $3000 a month or something, to keep
> the media behaving and enhance stability in the country or whatever.
Nancy is selling a book, so she has financial interests herself.
josX
>josX writes:
>> You may think Nancy is a NutCase, and NASA and esthablished Science
>> are all completely substantiated and proven from the smallest to the
>> biggest item, it's all fine with me. But let me tell you Nancy is
>> NOT a NutCase, just to see how it sounds....
>
>Perhaps you think she's out to make a buck off a gullible public?
Alright Tholen, a little fun, you and me...
>> Here's another i think is true: there are debunkers here who ARE
>> nutcases and who DO try to degrade this NG,
>
>What you think is irrelevant; what you can prove is relevant.
http://www.xs4all.nl/~joshb/edl_index.html
If it is there and significant i will start seeing it in the data.
This could be evidence of your story or Zetans', let's see.
>> the thing everybody seems to accuse Nancy Lieder
>> off, while she is patently right about this Tunguska-thing,
>
>Could you be more specific about what you think she said that is
>"patently right"?
Tunguska-thing, learn how to read, tholen.
>> and what about the Mammoth, she's right there too: it was
>> flash-frozen. How can anybody deny such things?
>
>Could you be more specific about "such things", particularly about
>Tunguska?
You have lost your memory, tholen?
>> yeah, when they are paid to, $3000 a month or something, to keep
>> the media behaving and enhance stability in the country or whatever.
>
>Nancy is selling a book, so she has financial interests herself.
Nancy is selling a book. The alternative would be to give it away.
Personally, i like giving away (you can enjoy that on my website), but
that doesn't cost anything more than the netconnection i already have.
Making a book costs money. Selling a book means LOSING money, too.
Nancy is having an officially registered dns name, that costs money.
Nancy is giving away all the information on the internet ANYWAY, that
costs revenew from the book.
If she didn't /sold/ the book, there might very well be no book at all,
because where are the funds coming from to PAY for the book. She might
get a loan to jumpstart? then again, if she wants money, she would put
out a teaser, and sell the book with the real meat.
Why isn't she doing that, tholen, can you answer that?
regards,
jos
--
josX
> Tom, That Zetababble site is amusing. Nancy twists everything, but
> it is pretty transparent.
What did she twist where. I am listening.
> That is why only the dim ones such as our
> friend JosX believe it.
> The only way that stupid crap makes any sense
> is if everyone else in the world is in on some conspiracy!
And here you are very wrong, jtriv.
I say there are debunkers debunking a number of subjects, let's say
"alien existance", and "planet X" for starters, and "JFK CIA-murder",
always a good one to throw in, makes the debunkers jumpy ;-).
Alright then, you are saying that i am projecting "all these disinformation
agents are in on the conspiracy". That could mean any number of ppl, and
surely there would be a leak somewhere, right?
Halfright (i think). Right that there surely would be a leak, but wrong
because they are ofcourse not in on the conspiracy, they are themselves
deluded first, and then used to dellude the rest while they perhaps think
they are doing something honest, or at least not something criminal, and
given a good pay to make them want it to be true. If anything, *that* is
my theory about debunkers, not that they are all in on this. Their
supervisors may also not be in on it, and perhaps this goes up a while
in the chain of command. It's all so very simple: the persons who belief
the hardest aliens don't exist you promote to personal trainers etc etc.
So they don't know, just as anybody else. They if anything think more
hardier there are no aliens, or no planet-X, because they were selected
for that. That is at least what i would do: select those who lack the
ability to think creatively and problem-solving, but who are good in
arguing and persuasion, in getting their way. Recruit them, and you have
few problems. They are inherently incapable of processing new information
in unexpected ways, so they are a reliable asset. They don't know, they
don't want to know because of the pay, they don't need to know, and
they won't find out. Done.
And below that you have private civilians who want in on the action of
slamming targets and sense what they should do to belong to those that
start with the slamming who they don't realize are paid for that. These
also start debunking, kindof a free-ride as a bonus for the debunkers.
The dubunkers meanwhile are believing perhaps something like "these
are dangerous thought's, and dangerous people who look at crop-circles
and dare think aliens made them" at first, but soon they may becoming
so blunt they don't belief anything and just do the job and go home
afterward not thinking about it anymore.
Don't forget the stupidity of the average humans. First i admit i was
thinking SR was actively debunked because of its total voidness, but now
i am thinking: ppl just can't figure this out, probably the esthablishment
can't figure it out too.
Which means: if ppl can't figure that out, they also will perhaps not
figure out why humans cannot make all crop-circles, and what it means
when a story don't add up about perturbations, or about flash-frozen
mammoth and lost civilizations. It might very well be that virtually
none are in on the conspiracy, and that ppl are genuinly believing
at the top there are no aliens and whatever nonsense they are capable
of carying in their head without noticing! (How's that for a wild thought.)
So, that is my current hypotheses: ppl just can't figure it out, not at
the plain civilian level, not at the very very top. Too bad. The only
ones in it are probably the ones with the solid evidence they ABSOLUTELY
had NO change of denying to themselves, the rest is incapable of
problem-solving thought, correction: these too, they just didn't need to
anymore.
> At least
> now the scientifically illiterate have something to believe in.
Yeah? i am scientifically illiterate? Show me the flaw in my proof against
SR.
Better yet: go buy a book about SR and figure it out for yourself, can't
be that hard now you know it's wrong right?
regards,
jos
--
tho...@antispam.ham
>>> You may think Nancy is a NutCase, and NASA and esthablished Science
>>> are all completely substantiated and proven from the smallest to the
>>> biggest item, it's all fine with me. But let me tell you Nancy is
>>> NOT a NutCase, just to see how it sounds....
>> Perhaps you think she's out to make a buck off a gullible public?
> Alright Tholen, a little fun, you and me...
Why didn't you answer my question?
>>> Here's another i think is true: there are debunkers here who ARE
>>> nutcases and who DO try to degrade this NG,
>> What you think is irrelevant; what you can prove is relevant.
> http://www.xs4all.nl/~joshb/edl_index.html
> If it is there and significant i will start seeing it in the data.
> This could be evidence of your story or Zetans', let's see.
That URL does not contain any evidence to support your claim that
there are debunkers here who are nutcases.
>>> the thing everybody seems to accuse Nancy Lieder
>>> off, while she is patently right about this Tunguska-thing,
>> Could you be more specific about what you think she said that is
>> "patently right"?
> Tunguska-thing,
I asked you to be more specific, but all you did is repeat the
same unspecific thing.
> learn how to read, tholen.
Practice what you preach, josX.
>>> and what about the Mammoth, she's right there too: it was
>>> flash-frozen. How can anybody deny such things?
>> Could you be more specific about "such things", particularly about
>> Tunguska?
> You have lost your memory, tholen?
I have no idea what you consider Nancy to be right about.
So far, you're batting .000, having failed to answer a single
question of mine or substantiate a single claim.
>>> yeah, when they are paid to, $3000 a month or something, to keep
>>> the media behaving and enhance stability in the country or whatever.
>> Nancy is selling a book, so she has financial interests herself.
> Nancy is selling a book. The alternative would be to give it away.
Another alternative is to not write a misleading book in the first place.
> Personally, i like giving away (you can enjoy that on my website), but
> that doesn't cost anything more than the netconnection i already have.
> Making a book costs money.
Another alternative is to not write a misleading book in the first place.
> Selling a book means LOSING money, too.
Not necessarily.
> Nancy is having an officially registered dns name, that costs money.
Another alternative is to not have a misleading web site in the first
place.
> Nancy is giving away all the information on the internet ANYWAY, that
> costs revenew from the book.
Another alternative is to not write a misleading book in the first place.
> If she didn't /sold/ the book, there might very well be no book at all,
Something wrong with that?
> because where are the funds coming from to PAY for the book.
Funds wouldn't be needed if the book wasn't written in the first place.
> She might get a loan to jumpstart?
Why start at all?
> then again, if she wants money, she would put
> out a teaser, and sell the book with the real meat.
But the question is, does she truly believe in everything shes writes,
or is she making a buck off a gullible public?
> Why isn't she doing that, tholen, can you answer that?
That's what I was asking you, which takes us full circle, back to the
original question that you failed to answer.
Ahmet
"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> skrev i meddelandet
news:9mvpj6$2ic$1...@news1.xs4all.nl...
> In article <CsIk7.605$sn6.1...@newsc.telia.net>, Ahmet wrote:
> >>
> >> It's in Orion and also a bit in Taurus, check the path here
> >> http://www.zetatalk.com/theword/tword03h.htm .
> >
> >It is imposible for an object to make a path as described in that link.
How
> >can an object move in sky like that without a propulsion system. Nancy
> >describes her object´s orbit as very eccentric, almost like a railway to
and
> >fro. Even if it was perturbated by the other planets in solar system it
> >should not move like descibed in that map. Can you imagine an object
coming
> >straight towards you without any sort of propulsion and making such
> >incredible manoeuvres like Nancy´s planet? That is an impossibilty. It
> >should not be difficult to realize that. And if Nancy really searches for
> >followers, she should seek it somewhere else and not in a science forum.
> >Here she is only making fun out of herself.
> >
> >Ahmet
>
> So, doesn't this provide an EXCELLENT, and i mean E X C E L L E N T
> way to check if she is right, when an object is sighted that will follow
> this impossible path ?...
What Nancy describes is an imposibilty. Why would anyone with credibility
waste time with such nonsense?
> It's very hard to get this right, it being contrary Science and all...
Yes indeed. And Nancy has never got it right, and nor will she.
> I haven't plotted the exact provided coordinates, but i read something
like
> "tick up", "tick back", so the link may just be the rough idea of her
> prediction, and the precise prediction even more interesting.
>
> But when NASA comes along, and this object is sighted, trucking EXACTLY
the
> way Nancy describes, you still won't believe it will you ;-) (you will?).
Why would I not believe Nasa? They present the facts, and if they say there
is something out there, it would take my attention. Just because Nancy says
Nasa is unreliable does not make it so.
> You may think Nancy is a NutCase, and NASA and esthablished Science
> are all completely substantiated and proven from the smallest to the
> biggest item, it's all fine with me. But let me tell you Nancy is
> NOT a NutCase, just to see how it sounds....
I don´t know what Nancy´s intetions are, but out from what she has talked
here, she is a very unreliable person.
>Here's another i think
> is true: there are debunkers here who ARE nutcases and who DO try
> to degrade this NG, the thing everybody seems to accuse Nancy Lieder
> off, while she is patently right about this Tunguska-thing, and what
> about the Mammoth, she's right there too: it was flash-frozen. How
> can anybody deny such things? yeah, when they are paid to, $3000 a
> month or something, to keep the media behaving and enhance stability
> in the country or whatever.
What is wrong with questioning false claims? And how can you be so sure
about one thing when there are so many possibilities? Just because Nancy has
an explanation doesn´t mean she has right.
> Now you probably think "wow, what a WackJob"? (seen it before at
> least). *IF* so, please, look in yourself to see WHY you would think
> that (or, if not, why somebody would, when reading the governments are
> not what they seem). You would discover that the ONLY reason to think
> the media and politics and all are all genuine is that... if you would
> tell other people you think otherwise at the burger-stand, ppl would
> laugh at you, turn their backs and call you crazy, or they simply cannot
> stand the thought and throw it away instantly. And not out of some high
> morals and "oh, i am so patriotic, i don't doubt Bush is a good man for
> one second", but because of the real possibility it may actually be true.
> Then what! What hell would break loose then... you would need to question
> all kinds of things all over again (for instance, the liquor-ban made the
> Maffia, why is there a Drug-war then now and an endless list if items most
> would know perfectly i think)
> Everybody (most) want to fit in, and to fit in is to belief the same
> things; nonsense or no nonsense...
Rambling?
> Is it a big deal? we live in "the matrix"?, we are all slaves? Let's go
> paranoid? no ofcourse not, you can think whatever you want, but it's still
> there as an influence. That's all.
More rambling.
> Here is an example of the power of the media:
> Clinton's Lewinsky schandal, if the media decided it was not worth a
> word (wish they had) nobody woud give a damn, and what if they blew
> up the story about the ballot manipulation and the injust court-ruling
> (yes, saw it all life and it was not a just ruling). So now the USA is
> in effect a non-democracy, which equates to "dictatorship". What if the
> media were still running stories and background, followup-articles etc,
> "more intrigues discovered", etc on Bush having done a coup on the USA.
> They could run these stories for decades, talking endlessly about how
> it violates what the "founding fathers" envisioned. (yeah, recently even
> learned some `All American' history on Usenet).
Don´t mix in Clinton here. He is innocent in this case ;)
> The media have power and they use it. And it is the same power that's
> brought against Nancy here, and nobody is believing her but she is right
> on all counts as far as i can tell.
Poor Nancy, a whole world against her.
josX
>"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> skrev i meddelandet
>news:9mvpj6$2ic$1...@news1.xs4all.nl...
>>In article <CsIk7.605$sn6.1...@newsc.telia.net>, Ahmet wrote:
>>>>
>>>> It's in Orion and also a bit in Taurus, check the path here
>>>> http://www.zetatalk.com/theword/tword03h.htm .
>>>
>>> It is imposible for an object to make a path as described in that
>>> link. How can an object move in sky like that without a propulsion
>>> system. Nancy describes her object´s orbit as very eccentric, almost
>>> like a railway to and fro. Even if it was perturbated by the other
>>> planets in solar system it should not move like descibed in that
>>> map. Can you imagine an object coming straight towards you without any
>>> sort of propulsion and making such incredible manoeuvres like Nancy´s
>>> planet? That is an impossibilty. It should not be difficult to realize
>>> that. And if Nancy really searches for followers, she should seek it
>>> somewhere else and not in a science forum. Here she is only making
>>> fun out of herself.
>>>
>>> Ahmet
>>
>> So, doesn't this provide an EXCELLENT, and i mean E X C E L L E N T
>> way to check if she is right, when an object is sighted that will follow
>> this impossible path ?...
>
>What Nancy describes is an imposibilty. Why would anyone with credibility
>waste time with such nonsense?
It is an theoretical imposibility, where theory means the current theory
of gravity.
This theory is shown to be somewhat wrong: why are planets in stable orbits
(this will not happen with only gravity, as simulations show), and why
do planets return to their familiar orbit after a perturbation, and not
gain a new perhelium/aphelium (these two problems are related).
>> It's very hard to get this right, it being contrary Science and all...
>
>Yes indeed. And Nancy has never got it right, and nor will she.
She is saying there will be this big object coming close to the sun, even
inside the inner-planets orbits. She is also saying it will behave contrary
modern theory, and she gains the information alledgedly from aliens who have
investigated this.
As a scientist you must ignore the source and accept anything as a valid
hypotheses for testing. You can't be subjective about what hypotheses you
will allow and from whom and what not.
So, she is saying this object will come in, and it will behave contrary
theory. So far, so good, because if you look closely at the theory you will
know it is flawed. This is kindof like a double-blind experiment: she is
portraying an object but very likely didn't know gravity-theory was wrong.
But she describes the object as correctly not following this law. How can
that be!
More credibility heaping up on Nancy, that's what *i* see...:).
>> I haven't plotted the exact provided coordinates, but i read something
>> like "tick up", "tick back", so the link may just be the rough idea
>> of her prediction, and the precise prediction even more interesting.
>>
>> But when NASA comes along, and this object is sighted, trucking EXACTLY
>> the way Nancy describes, you still won't believe it will you ;-)
>> (you will?).
>
>Why would I not believe Nasa?
As a scientists or critical person, you should investigate everything and
take nothing for granted...
That certainly doesn't mean you should not think NASA is right, or continue
to think that while investigating it.
But that personal belief should not prevent investigating the matter when it
is brought up. It is then a simple matter of looking at the arguments and
determining if they are logical, if they are, follow up on it.
For instance this "principal investigator" that has been brought many times.
One person says "hell, what are they keeping from us, and why", and another
says "ofcourse not dummy, they paid for it so they have first crack at it's
results".
...investigate... :-)).
Personally, this would not be enough for me to distrust NASA, but the
perturbations story goes a very long way in that. It just doesn't add up
having more precise masses can explain a 100+ year search for a planetary
object like they did when searching for Neptune. And then we have this
gravity-theory which predicts an unstable solar-system (then i'm starting
to raise some question-marks), and then when you learn more about the
world, you notice how politics never solves problems in a real decisive
manner, and then suddenly top-ranking politicians in respected countries
(Germany? France?) turn out to have corruption-charges brought against them,
and the European-commision turns out to be corrupt!
Let that add an exclamation-mark to the questionmarks in my head about it all.
And NASA is a government orgenization, the government which supports the
magic-bullit theory which has become a household-saying "yeah, and you believe
in the magic-bullit, too, right? (;-)". So, then you start wondering.
Time to investigate.
oh wait here's another: I read on ZetaTalk the esthablishment has had their
eye on Mars for a while, to escape this "poleshift".
Then you (i) walk in a local bookstore and buy a scientific-american. Lo
and behold? A story about a sofisticated Mars-base simulation (june 2001
`North to Mars').... and we haven't even gone back to the ol' Moon. Let's
set up camp there first (and please let me work on the systems :))) ).
I am not saying all of NASA is a big lie, ofcourse not, they put out great
stuff. But some tiny bits don't seem to come together, and i like to know
why. They can't be that stupid, so what's the reason...
I constantly see this kind of a thing: Nancy is saying something. It seems
far-out and far fetched. Then suddenly you see this magazine, and damn is
she ever hitting the nail on the head (so it seems). (Still with me?;-) ).
And she is saying this "Counsil-of-Worlds" which protects developing worlds
etc isn't allowing the esthablishment to reach Mars.
Next thing what happens is a mysterious Mars-probe failure.
She is saying the Oceans heat up from below.
I recently read, El-niño is back.
Media projects that El-niño has always been around.
it hasn't! it just hasn't godd*mmit! even i am old enough to know that,
suddenly it is there!.
Although the list is a hell of a lot longer than this, the list is NOT
endless, the list is finite. But it is still growing, and as long as it is
growing, and not shrinking or counter-evidence pops up that is more
than Disney-tales, i have very little choice than to say she is right.
Who knows, maybe my measurements will show something different, and the
Earth is not slowing down. Could be, that one is still open.
Oh, damn, there is already evidence from the ohter experiment that an
assortment of clocks is running faster as time passes.
You see?
And what are the counter-arguments:
Tunguska was a meteor-impact.
* there is no shrapnel
* it is not possible (not known behaviour of meteors)
... and here we go *again*, German scientist etc.
It is Magnitude 2nd and 11ht.
* this is so lame it isn't worth talking about anymore
It is not a brown-dwarf
* lame: you got to call it something, it's a planet that gives out light,
and sometimes they call it `brown-dwarf' sometimes planet, wow, big deal
(not).
Scopes don't zoom
* **Extremely** lame, because scopes do when you plug in different eye-pieces
as if nobody knows that. Man this is LAME.
You cannot set equipment for magnitude
* But you can.
...anything more... erm...
oh yes:
the mammoth wasn't flash-frozen
* also virtually too far-fetched to take serious
...
"Perturbations were caused by Pluto", or "Perturbations were an illusion
within the error-bars".
* yeah, whatever.
She is out to make a quick buck
* quick?
* why put it all on a website when you want to sell a book
She doesn't believe it herself
* doesn't appear so, does it.
TT is a Cult
* no get-togethers
* why do they enhance strengthening the individual with self-started
projects like growing your own crops. Is it dangerous to have ppl
do gardening?
Nancy is crazy
* Then does she seem to be hitting so many nails on their heads, and
why is NASA missing so many.
Yes sure, this is how i see it, perhaps it is skewed a bit?
> They present the facts, and if they say there
>is something out there, it would take my attention. Just because Nancy says
>Nasa is unreliable does not make it so.
>> You may think Nancy is a NutCase, and NASA and esthablished Science
>> are all completely substantiated and proven from the smallest to the
>> biggest item, it's all fine with me. But let me tell you Nancy is
>> NOT a NutCase, just to see how it sounds....
>
>I don´t know what Nancy´s intetions are,
You don't know what anybodies intentions are, or are you a psychic.
> but out from what she has talked
>here, she is a very unreliable person.
Substantiate/arguments.
>>Here's another i think
>> is true: there are debunkers here who ARE nutcases and who DO try
>> to degrade this NG, the thing everybody seems to accuse Nancy Lieder
>> off, while she is patently right about this Tunguska-thing, and what
>> about the Mammoth, she's right there too: it was flash-frozen. How
>> can anybody deny such things? yeah, when they are paid to, $3000 a
>> month or something, to keep the media behaving and enhance stability
>> in the country or whatever.
>
>What is wrong with questioning false claims?
?
> And how can you be so sure
>about one thing when there are so many possibilities? Just because Nancy has
>an explanation doesn´t mean she has right.
Absolutely correct. But it add's up.
Any one thing might be reasonably explained away, and if only one piece
of the puzzle were there i would discard it i think and search for more
rational/down-to-earth explanations.
>> Now you probably think "wow, what a WackJob"? (seen it before at
>> least). *IF* so, please, look in yourself to see WHY you would think
>> that (or, if not, why somebody would, when reading the governments are
>> not what they seem). You would discover that the ONLY reason to think
>> the media and politics and all are all genuine is that... if you would
>> tell other people you think otherwise at the burger-stand, ppl would
>> laugh at you, turn their backs and call you crazy, or they simply cannot
>> stand the thought and throw it away instantly. And not out of some high
>> morals and "oh, i am so patriotic, i don't doubt Bush is a good man for
>> one second", but because of the real possibility it may actually be true.
>> Then what! What hell would break loose then... you would need to question
>> all kinds of things all over again (for instance, the liquor-ban made the
>> Maffia, why is there a Drug-war then now and an endless list if items most
>> would know perfectly i think)
>> Everybody (most) want to fit in, and to fit in is to belief the same
>> things; nonsense or no nonsense...
>
>Rambling?
No, the reasons why ppl usually belief what they believe in the mainstream.
>> Is it a big deal? we live in "the matrix"?, we are all slaves? Let's go
>> paranoid? no ofcourse not, you can think whatever you want, but it's still
>> there as an influence. That's all.
>
>More rambling.
No, you are not critical enough.
>> Here is an example of the power of the media:
>> Clinton's Lewinsky schandal, if the media decided it was not worth a
>> word (wish they had) nobody woud give a damn, and what if they blew
>> up the story about the ballot manipulation and the injust court-ruling
>> (yes, saw it all life and it was not a just ruling). So now the USA is
>> in effect a non-democracy, which equates to "dictatorship". What if the
>> media were still running stories and background, followup-articles etc,
>> "more intrigues discovered", etc on Bush having done a coup on the USA.
>> They could run these stories for decades, talking endlessly about how
>> it violates what the "founding fathers" envisioned. (yeah, recently even
>> learned some `All American' history on Usenet).
>
>Don´t mix in Clinton here. He is innocent in this case ;)
, and Lewinsky, she a lamb too....(sigh)
>> The media have power and they use it. And it is the same power that's
>> brought against Nancy here, and nobody is believing her but she is right
>> on all counts as far as i can tell.
>
>Poor Nancy, a whole world against her.
Poor public, so entrenched in the present situation, and so little perspective,
so afraid to look.
You did not comment on the fact that the media has a great influence,
and that many ppl *just* *want* *to* *belong* so they will just belief
whatever makes them belong, and the problem that if you raise the real
issues here (USA facade-dictatorship, drugs-government connection etc etc)
that there is almost too much do deal with. It's a matter of revulotion
or going down slowly but surely in the One-World-Opression system. Most
ppl chose the latter, and i have to say, i can't blame anybody for it.
But that doesn't make it right though, does it?
Do you notice the erosion of civil-right's?
Do you notice the increased employee pressure?
Do you notice the increasing globalization of corporations?
Have you ever noticed the ruthlessness of the top-dogs of these corporations?
no?
Have you noticed ppl need money to survive?
And that ppl will need to perform services to obtain this money (life)?
Have you noticed where the money is at?
What are this for kind of a people.
So, be happy that this poleshift is coming along, because if so, there
will be no One-World-Opression (hell, call it the fourth-reich perhaps,
the 1st being Romans the second being perhaps the Sovjet-Union, the 3rd
being Nazies, the Fourth being Global.).
Oh, yeah sure, i understand, you just want to sleep(?)... history repeating
itself... over and over and over again. A damn shame this time it looks
to being a global affair, and with the increased weapon-capabilities, it
very well may be not possible to get underneath the control away to freedom
again.
Have you noticed the films about the future?
What picture do they paint, a happy one or a not-so-happy one. Figure it
out. At least you will have learned something, although you probably can't
do much about it except in your immediate surroundings.
Growing crops for instance reduces government control and enhances being
self-reliant. That's the kind of thing you CAN do. That the kind of
revolution that would be great: everybody producing their food where
possible, so there will be very little to control people with, and it will
increase the sense of self-worth in the public.
You start hell and destruction with a grand vision of paradise, you start
liberty and happyness with a small and insignificant action.
Right now, it is growing a simple eddible plant (food), do you believe it?
Am i right? (or at least logical?)
tho...@antispam.ham
> Ahmet wrote:
>> What Nancy describes is an imposibilty. Why would anyone with credibility
>> waste time with such nonsense?
> It is an theoretical imposibility, where theory means the current theory
> of gravity.
> This theory is shown to be somewhat wrong: why are planets in stable orbits
> (this will not happen with only gravity, as simulations show),
Evidence, please.
> and why do planets return to their familiar orbit after a perturbation,
You're erroneously presupposing that they do.
> and not gain a new perhelium/aphelium (these two problems are related).
What are "perihelium" and "aphelium"? Hydrogen and lithium, perhaps?
> As a scientist you must ignore the source and accept anything as a valid
> hypotheses for testing.
Let's test the hypothesis that you just stated. Here's something that
you claim must be accepted as a valid hypothesis for testing: you are
both 25 and 45 years old at the same time.
> You can't be subjective about what hypotheses you
> will allow and from whom and what not.
I can be objective about ignoring hypotheses that are mutually
contradictory.
> As a scientists or critical person, you should investigate everything and
> take nothing for granted...
Really? Shall we investigate whether you are both 25 and 45 years old at
the same time?
> oh wait here's another: I read on ZetaTalk the esthablishment has had their
> eye on Mars for a while, to escape this "poleshift".
As if we'll be able to get there in two years.
> It is Magnitude 2nd and 11ht.
> * this is so lame it isn't worth talking about anymore
Yes, Nancy's contradictory claims are lame.
> You cannot set equipment for magnitude
> * But you can.
How?
josX
>josX writes:
>> Ahmet wrote:
>>> What Nancy describes is an imposibilty. Why would anyone with credibility
>>> waste time with such nonsense?
>> It is an theoretical imposibility, where theory means the current theory
>> of gravity.
>> This theory is shown to be somewhat wrong: why are planets in stable orbits
>> (this will not happen with only gravity, as simulations show),
>
>Evidence, please.
Sometimes, you need to think to see something tholen.
>> and why do planets return to their familiar orbit after a perturbation,
>
>You're erroneously presupposing that they do.
You are telling me that there are new orbital elements for all planets
(direction/speed) long after a perturbation (up to the next perturbation
in fact) ?
>> and not gain a new perhelium/aphelium (these two problems are related).
>
>What are "perihelium" and "aphelium"? Hydrogen and lithium, perhaps?
Maybe.
>> As a scientist you must ignore the source and accept anything as a valid
>> hypotheses for testing.
>
>Let's test the hypothesis that you just stated. Here's something that
>you claim must be accepted as a valid hypothesis for testing: you are
>both 25 and 45 years old at the same time.
Classic case of low iq.
Classic!
>> You can't be subjective about what hypotheses you
>> will allow and from whom and what not.
>
>I can be objective about ignoring hypotheses that are mutually
>contradictory.
No. You would have accepted them, and thereafter proved them wrong
due to a fatal contradiction.
The problem is that saying "pixtel" instead of "pixel" is already fatal
in your mind.
It isn't. Words are a communication attempt, they are not the tought itself,
you will need to extract that afterwards from the text, it's called
`begrijpend lezen' in Dutch (reading and understanding).
>> As a scientists or critical person, you should investigate everything and
>> take nothing for granted...
>
>Really? Shall we investigate whether you are both 25 and 45 years old at
>the same time?
Yes we should.
It's very easy: there can only be one age for a person (we are not going
to change any word-meanings), so this hypotheses has a fatal flaw.
You should study SR, it has a very similar type of flaw (an object both
contracting and lengthening at the same time (from the same frame)).
>> oh wait here's another: I read on ZetaTalk the esthablishment has had their
>> eye on Mars for a while, to escape this "poleshift".
>
>As if we'll be able to get there in two years.
Read the article, they are on a thight schedule won't you say?
And what happened to going to the moon, for me a Moon-base would be
interesting enough, why go to Mars without even having practiced on
the Moon....
>> It is Magnitude 2nd and 11ht.
>> * this is so lame it isn't worth talking about anymore
>
>Yes, Nancy's contradictory claims are lame.
she should use a spellchecker! ;-) (oops)
>> You cannot set equipment for magnitude
>> * But you can.
>
>How?
Read the manual.
Also don't forget to read the manual for you camera, since that is the
matter of real interest (pictures). Usually camera-shopkeepers are nice
folks willing to explain different films. There is undoubtedly a lot of
info on the internet as well. Enjoy! ( ;-) ).
jos
--
Ahmet
then one and half year when it is eleven times further out than Pluto? Does
it have a warpdrive to achieve that? Will it go through a wormhole as
physicians nowadays are talking about. How? Have you or Nancy any
theoretical explanation for that? Let us suppose that this object will make
to earth in less than 1.5 years, how on earth will it remain in solar system
with such an incredible speed. Use your imagination, and don´t come up with
"what we know about gravitation is flawed".
Regards, Ahmet
josX
That would be a bit sweaping with the big arm.
Here is an idea:
Planets move /around/ the Sun, that is a stable matter.
According to the hypotheses, the planets drift on a repulsion-force,
with other factors too. This at least will solve the stability problem
presented by running models of the solar-system.
Planet-X is too far out to be drifting on it's accompanying repulsion
force, so it is basically plummiting like a brik on the Earth, only...
there is no atmosphere to slow it down... and it isn't the ol' rusty
Earth but the Sun. Additionally, this planet-X is to the Earth like
the Earth is to the Moon. Planet-x is then basically plummiting into
the sun for Month' even years. That will create a dramatic increase
is speed no doubt. Then it will "collide" with the repulsion force
(ofcourse in a fluent manner, like atom-bumbing, that is a fluent matter
right?).
So, my imaginations is showing me the normal planets basically drifting
around the sun, riding the repulsion force and all is well, getting
the occasional puhs in the back from these "sweeping solar-arms".
Then there is this planet-X poised high above it's accompanying repulsion
boundary... and it is even coming from another star... *here it comes*
oh boy it is MOVING! holy motherload this thing is falling like a brik
from the sky. Damn we come too close! oh shit, there you have it, the
Earth-core can't help it but follow this bullit on it's collision-course
when it panics by. Then this planet sinks into it's repulsion-force, and
this force builds (reportedly) quicker than gravity so it just bounces
off off the Sun. Phieuuuuwwww. And up it goes somewhere else, and gee
this thing never relaxes, now it is climbing again much too high over
it's repulsion-force. And it is going further and hola, we can't even
see it nomore... Couple of years later, it comes back again, being
attracted by the now two suns on one sides, repeating the scenario but
this time there is less attraction to the Sun, because the Suns (reported)
twin in joining the fight for Planet-X, and wining it due to it's
momentum still from when it first fell to the Sun, and it goes into the
oposite direction. Still not riding it's repulsion-force, like all the
other planets.
That is what i just imagined would happen.
So still, it works for me :), but i factor in the Zetans-theory, and
leave out human gravity theory, which indeed i think doesn't work.
They said `this' would happen, and `that' was their theory about
gravity. Pull them together in an imagination, and i see no flaws (you?).
At least it is self-consistent. (More than you can say about gravity-formula
and the escape-velocity-thing i think.)
regards,
Jos
--