Planet X: ZetaTalk ACCURACY
Nancy Lieder
1. ZetaTalk made a statement, preferably on live radio
or a usenet posting so timing can be verified
2. LATER some news or science report shows ZetaTalk
to have been on target, where they could not have had
foreknowledge.
Which are documented in the ZetaTalk Accuracy TOPIC
http://www.zetatalk.com/theword/tword232.htm
There are daily confirmations that I, Nancy, get that ZetaTalk is
accurate, 100% so.
Just yesterday, someone showed me a recent article on what it would mean
for the world should ALL the ice in Antarctica melt. Estimate was a 200
foot rise in sea level. Back in 1995, ZetaTalk stated an approximate
650-700 foot rise in sea level to be cause by the existing pole being
put under the equatorial sun. Check the New Geo and Melting Ice Caps
pages to see this diagrammed. Not only the poles, but Greenland, which
has MORE ice than Antartica, under the new equatorial sun. Now, did I
have that 200 foot measure before me in 1995? Nope. Figure 200 for
Antarctica + 200 for Arctic ice + 200 at least for Greenland ice + 50
for melted glaciers elsewhere = 650 feet.
http://www.zetatalk.com/poleshft/p10.htm
http://www.zetatalk.com/poleshft/p30.htm
When I wrote the ZetaTalk on Planet X, being 4 times the diameter of
Earth but 23 times as massive, and during the same time frame wrote that
the hominoids living on that smoldering brown dwarf are “almost twice”
the size of man, more bone mass and muscularity and height because this
is needed for the gravity pull on that planet, I had zero notion, brain
dead as I am on math, on how to compute surface gravity pull based on
mass of an object. Someone with a physics degree wrote to me to express
doubt. How could 23 times as massive as Earth result in hominoids only
that increase in size? Then he wrote back to say that the gravity
equations in fact computed that the surface of such a planet would have
1.6 the pull of Earth.
http://www.zetatalk.com/poleshft/p20.htm
http://www.zetatalk.com/science/s58.htm
http://www.zetatalk.com/worlds/w58.htm
In the fall of 1995 someone was trying to help me get a diagram of the
Passage, and we went back and forth on e-mail for a couple weeks, he
saying things did not line up. After awhile I drew the concept I was
getting on PC Paintbrush, and sent this to him. I had Planet X coming
DOWN from Orion and the planets rotating around the Sun in a clockwise
orbit. Flip this over, to be in accordance with human North/South
Up/Down thinking, and what I was describing fit perfectly. Now, being a
complete ignoramus on astronomy, as most on this Usenet will agree, I
had no notion of orbit direction or location of Orion and whether
something coming from Orion in May, 2003 would be on this or that side
of the Sun, etc.
http://www.zetatalk.com/theword/tword03y.htm
http://www.zetatalk.com/science/s31.htm
http://www.zetatalk.com/science/s29.htm
And finally, my tale of the broken windshield, also a tale that is
meaningful only to ME as confirmation, but the type of confirmation I am
presented with on a daily basis. A year ago I had a crack in my
windshield, such that the crack was making a circle and I worried it
would break some day when I was going down the highway. Being broke, I
put off fixing it, but this was taken out of my hands one day when I was
driving under some pine trees. BLAM, a branch impaled the windshield,
in what appeared to be a branch breaking off in the wind. Windshield
completely shattered, the branch coming in on one side and ending up in
my lap, literally, on the other side. Odd thing, there was glass all
over the front seat, littered, the dashboard and seats and floor
covered. But I had NO glass whatsoever on my sweater or hair. NONE.
The Zetas later told me “you weren’t even in the car when this
happened”.
tho...@antispam.ham
> There are daily confirmations that I, Nancy, get that ZetaTalk is
> accurate, 100% so.
Impossible, given that there is no magnitude 11 object at the coordinates
you've specified, Nancy.
Greg Neill
"Nancy Lieder" <zeta...@zetatalk.com> wrote in message
news:3CAF3A1B...@zetatalk.com...
> Beyond the cases where:
> 1. ZetaTalk made a statement, preferably on live radio
> or a usenet posting so timing can be verified
> 2. LATER some news or science report shows ZetaTalk
> to have been on target, where they could not have had
> foreknowledge.
> Which are documented in the ZetaTalk Accuracy TOPIC
> http://www.zetatalk.com/theword/tword232.htm
>
> There are daily confirmations that I, Nancy, get that ZetaTalk is
> accurate, 100% so.
>
> Just yesterday, someone showed me a recent article on what it would mean
> for the world should ALL the ice in Antarctica melt. Estimate was a 200
> foot rise in sea level. Back in 1995, ZetaTalk stated an approximate
> 650-700 foot rise in sea level to be cause by the existing pole being
> put under the equatorial sun. Check the New Geo and Melting Ice Caps
> pages to see this diagrammed. Not only the poles, but Greenland, which
> has MORE ice than Antartica, under the new equatorial sun. Now, did I
> have that 200 foot measure before me in 1995? Nope. Figure 200 for
> Antarctica + 200 for Arctic ice + 200 at least for Greenland ice + 50
> for melted glaciers elsewhere = 650 feet.
These estimates have been around for a long time. A recent article
does not make it new.
Further, the Antarctic accounts for over 90% of the ice mass on the
planet, so your estimate is wrong. Gee, go figure, the Nancy is
*wrong* again.
See: http://pubs.usgs.gov/factsheet/fs133-99//gl_vol.html
Note the dates.
>
> When I wrote the ZetaTalk on Planet X, being 4 times the diameter of
> Earth but 23 times as massive, and during the same time frame wrote that
> the hominoids living on that smoldering brown dwarf are "almost twice"
> the size of man, more bone mass and muscularity and height because this
> is needed for the gravity pull on that planet, I had zero notion, brain
> dead as I am on math, on how to compute surface gravity pull based on
> mass of an object. Someone with a physics degree wrote to me to express
> doubt. How could 23 times as massive as Earth result in hominoids only
> that increase in size? Then he wrote back to say that the gravity
> equations in fact computed that the surface of such a planet would have
> 1.6 the pull of Earth.
Wow! Startling revelations from 400+ year old Netwonian math!
Will the Zeta's never cease to impress?
For a fun read about a scenario involving a planet with
higher gravity, read Hal Clement's "Mission of Gravity".
Note how a thinking person relizes that increased gravity
would result in shorter, squatter beings.
>
> In the fall of 1995 someone was trying to help me get a diagram of the
> Passage, and we went back and forth on e-mail for a couple weeks, he
> saying things did not line up. After awhile I drew the concept I was
> getting on PC Paintbrush, and sent this to him. I had Planet X coming
> DOWN from Orion and the planets rotating around the Sun in a clockwise
> orbit. Flip this over, to be in accordance with human North/South
> Up/Down thinking, and what I was describing fit perfectly. Now, being a
> complete ignoramus on astronomy, as most on this Usenet will agree, I
> had no notion of orbit direction or location of Orion and whether
> something coming from Orion in May, 2003 would be on this or that side
> of the Sun, etc.
So you draw something "coming down from Orion" and then have to
flip it over. Guess what? That puts Orioin on the wrong side
of the celestial equator. Tch, tch, wrong again.
>
> And finally, my tale of the broken windshield, also a tale that is
> meaningful only to ME as confirmation, but the type of confirmation I am
> presented with on a daily basis. A year ago I had a crack in my
> windshield, such that the crack was making a circle and I worried it
> would break some day when I was going down the highway. Being broke, I
> put off fixing it, but this was taken out of my hands one day when I was
> driving under some pine trees. BLAM, a branch impaled the windshield,
> in what appeared to be a branch breaking off in the wind. Windshield
> completely shattered, the branch coming in on one side and ending up in
> my lap, literally, on the other side. Odd thing, there was glass all
> over the front seat, littered, the dashboard and seats and floor
> covered. But I had NO glass whatsoever on my sweater or hair. NONE.
> The Zetas later told me "you weren't even in the car when this
> happened".
Deus ex machina. The cult leader warrants personal intervention
from the Gods. All hail the cult leader.
tho...@antispam.ham
> When I wrote the ZetaTalk on Planet X, being 4 times the diameter of
> Earth but 23 times as massive, and during the same time frame wrote that
> the hominoids living on that smoldering brown dwarf are “almost twice”
> the size of man, more bone mass and muscularity and height because this
> is needed for the gravity pull on that planet, I had zero notion, brain
> dead as I am on math, on how to compute surface gravity pull based on
> mass of an object.
Are you saying that this "smoldering brown dwarf" has a solid surface,
Nancy? How could it then be "diffuse", as you've also claimed?
It's a Miracle
> smoldering brown dwarf are "almost
>twice" the size of man
How do hominids live on hot burning panets?
--
My kaleidoscope art webpage:
http://community-2.webtv.net/Amused_2_Death_/Kaleidoscope/
Keep spam illegitimate, Report spam to:
http://spamcop.net/
Stig Bull
> How do hominids live on hot burning panets?
The same reason Richter 15 earthquakes only causes local damages per the
Zebracult definition: Pure magic!
--
Stig Bull
No animals were hurt or killed in the process of creating this electronic
message. To reduce download time, this message is made of 100% recycled
bytes.
Sarah Mc
> Beyond the cases where:
> 1. ZetaTalk made a statement, preferably on live radio
> or a usenet posting so timing can be verified
> 2. LATER some news or science report shows ZetaTalk
> to have been on target, where they could not have had
> foreknowledge.
> Which are documented in the ZetaTalk Accuracy TOPIC
> http://www.zetatalk.com/theword/tword232.htm
>
> There are daily confirmations that I, Nancy, get that ZetaTalk is
> accurate, 100% so.
>
(Big ZetaCult self-worshiping propaganda Snip)
Interesting that you make that claim when you're proven wrong on a
daily basis here. I guess if all you do is post that you're 100%
correct, and never read the replies to your posts, you would assume
such nonsense.
Kind of like pointing to your own pages as proof of your statements.
My cat is more accurate than you Nancy. She never misses the litter
box. You on the other hand, defecate wherever you feel like it.
Once again, your extreme ignorance and loud mouth proves more fatal
and damaging to you than all of sci.astro, NASA, JPL, the FBI, CIA,
NSA, et al, combined.
Bill Nelson
> Just yesterday, someone showed me a recent article on what it would mean
> for the world should ALL the ice in Antarctica melt. Estimate was a 200
> foot rise in sea level. Back in 1995, ZetaTalk stated an approximate
So what? That has been known for at least 30-40 years. Nothing new there.
> 650-700 foot rise in sea level to be cause by the existing pole being
> put under the equatorial sun. Check the New Geo and Melting Ice Caps
> pages to see this diagrammed. Not only the poles, but Greenland, which
> has MORE ice than Antartica, under the new equatorial sun. Now, did I
Greenland does NOT have more ice than Antartica - not even a small
fraction of the amount.
> have that 200 foot measure before me in 1995? Nope. Figure 200 for
That was your ignorance, not that of others.
> Antarctica + 200 for Arctic ice + 200 at least for Greenland ice + 50
> for melted glaciers elsewhere = 650 feet.
> http://www.zetatalk.com/poleshft/p10.htm
> http://www.zetatalk.com/poleshft/p30.htm
There is more Arctic ice than Greenland ice - but it would not raise
the ocean level very much. Why? Because that ice is already floating
on the ocean water. Your figures are bogus.
... rest of silliness deleted ...
--
Bill Nelson (bi...@peak.org)
It's a Miracle
scientologist who rejected her meds.L Ron Hubbard would be proud.
~A2D~
Sarah Mc
> >that the hominoids living on that
> > smoldering brown dwarf are "almost
> >twice" the size of man
>
> How do hominids live on hot burning panets?
Nancy's "smoldering brown dwarf, planet, comet" has deep oceans, and
generates it's own light.
"Humans are aware of heat and light being produced
together - fire, the Sun, and elements heated until they
glow. Humans are also aware of light being produced
without heat, as with fireflies or minerals that are
phosphorescent. And of course, there is heat without
light, close at hand as in 98.6 degrees. [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. "
More bad science from the High Priestess of ZetaCult.
The more I read of her cult trash, the more it reads like a bad L. Ron
Hubbard novel, or his OT III scientology cult manual.
richard schumacher
jrla...@shell.golden.net
It's a Miracle <Amused_...@webtv.net> wrote:
>>that the hominoids living on that
>> smoldering brown dwarf are "almost
>>twice" the size of man
>
>How do hominids live on hot burning panets?
They wear asbestos sneakers then try to survive as best os they can! :-)
--
john R. Latala
jrla...@golden.net
pf...@funkenstein.foo
I think they knock off a lot of cold ones too :-)
Michael L. Cunningham
> Beyond the cases where:
> 1. ZetaTalk made a statement, preferably on live radio
> or a usenet posting so timing can be verified
> 2. LATER some news or science report shows ZetaTalk
> to have been on target, where they could not have had
> foreknowledge.
> Which are documented in the ZetaTalk Accuracy TOPIC
> http://www.zetatalk.com/theword/tword232.htm
>
> There are daily confirmations that I, Nancy, get that ZetaTalk is
> accurate, 100% so.
You haven't been right yet.
--
Michael L. Cunningham
So Cal SleeperS
2001 Grand Am GT http://www.n-body.net/registry/bogeystar/
e-mail boge...@earthlink.net
web site http://home.earthlink.net/~bogeystar/
Remembering the World Trade Center Massacre
Sept. 11, 2001
Cry Havoc! ...and let slip the dogs of war!
Visit the LX50 Web Site and join in our Discussion Forum!
"There are two infinite things: universe and human stupidity.
And I'm not sure of the former".
Albert.
Jan
> It's a Miracle wrote:
>
> > How do hominids live on hot burning panets?
>
> The same reason Richter 15 earthquakes only causes local damages per the
> Zebracult definition: Pure magic!
a, Nobody ever said it would be "local damages" only.
In fact, it has been labeled as a worldwide cataclysm.
b, Richter 15 is the total energy released.
In the individual local areas, its effects will be felt like a prolonged
Richter 9.
Regards,
Jan
David Storoy
"Sarah Mc" <sara...@hotpop.com> skrev i melding
> My cat is more accurate than you Nancy. She never misses the litter
> box. You on the other hand, defecate wherever you feel like it.
And Stig is saying that I,Nancy and other TT-members are attacking you a
lot....you are worse than us in insulting and attacking.
--
David Skywalker
Star Wars II - Attack of the Clones
22 May 2002 in Norway
David Storoy
"Michael L. Cunningham" <boge...@earthlink.net> >
> You haven't been right yet.
If Nancy and Zetas have been right on something than you would be scared to
think - "hey,maybe this Nibiru and pole-shift thing also will be righ"...So
NOTHING could be right in ZetaTalk because you will have to think maybe IF
Nibiru is right - so then you DISCREDIT all the info there - even they have
been right on something!It is a tactic well known for the debunkers to use -
DENY EVERYTHING on ZetaTalk. Even when Zetas said that the Y2K was a paper
dragon of the establishment and we did not have to prepare for it - then you
say they were wrong! So the personal agenda for the debunkers is:
DENY EVERYTHING on the ZetaTalkpage......
Common tactics for debunkers!
Stig Bull
>> The same reason Richter 15 earthquakes only causes local damages per the
>> Zebracult definition: Pure magic!
>
> a, Nobody ever said it would be "local damages" only.
> In fact, it has been labeled as a worldwide cataclysm.
> b, Richter 15 is the total energy released.
> In the individual local areas, its effects will be felt like a
> prolonged Richter 9.
Which school did you actually attend to reach such conclusions?
And why won't you nor reveal your last name or reply to this post?
Richard Bullock
>
> When I wrote the ZetaTalk on Planet X, being 4 times the diameter of
> Earth but 23 times as massive, and during the same time frame wrote that
> the hominoids living on that smoldering brown dwarf are "almost twice"
> the size of man, more bone mass and muscularity and height because this
> is needed for the gravity pull on that planet, I had zero notion, brain
> dead as I am on math, on how to compute surface gravity pull based on
> mass of an object. Someone with a physics degree wrote to me to express
> doubt. How could 23 times as massive as Earth result in hominoids only
> that increase in size? Then he wrote back to say that the gravity
> equations in fact computed that the surface of such a planet would have
> 1.6 the pull of Earth.
> http://www.zetatalk.com/poleshft/p20.htm
> http://www.zetatalk.com/science/s58.htm
> http://www.zetatalk.com/worlds/w58.htm
>
only 1.4 times that of Earth. The calculation is simple.
g = m / d^2 where all of these are expressed as ratios of Earth's
dimensions.
23 / 16 = 1.4 (to 2 s.f.)
Stop lying - if there is a large planet X, why can no-one see it? Small
telescopes should be able to see magnitude 11 objects.
Ric
Greg Muncill
>b, Richter 15 is the total energy released.
> In the individual local areas, its effects will be felt like a prolonged
> Richter 9.
And the energy differences between Richter 15 and 9
would mean that you are distributing one billion Richter
9 earthquakes around the planet. This does not
disturb you? Did the zetatalk just mention one
Richter 15 earthquake? I thought multiple quakes
were mentioned.
Greg Muncill
Ian
> Not only the poles, but Greenland, which has MORE ice than Antartica...
I think you mean the North Pole here, Nancy.
If the total ice-mass of the Earth is about 30 million cubic km; Antarctica
has 27 million cubic km; Greenland 2.5 million cubic km.
Ian
Jan
news:3cb03e5c...@news.mindspring.com...
> "Jan" <n...@home.com> wrote:
>>b, Richter 15 is the total energy released.
>> In the individual local areas, its effects will be felt like a
>> prolonged Richter 9.
>
> And the energy differences between Richter 15 and 9
> would mean that you are distributing one billion Richter
> 9 earthquakes around the planet. This does not
> disturb you?
Of course it disturbs me, as it should everybody else.
Part of the ZetaTalk message is that we need to prepare for surviving such a
cataclysm. The non-profit organization Troubled Times' main goal is to
inform people *how* they may survive such a devastating event. Did you think
any of us do this for fun?
> Did the zetatalk just mention one Richter 15 earthquake?
> I thought multiple quakes were mentioned.
From http://www.zetatalk.com/poleshft/p92.htm, Earthquakes:
"During the pole shift all plates on earth on the move, and the jolt occurs
at the sudden stop when the crust stops moving. This is when the Richter 9
equivalent earthquakes, which we have termed Richter 15 as the scope is far
larger than Richter 9, will be felt worldwide."
Regards,
Jan
Greg Neill
news:jKVr8.6329$gY3.1...@juliett.dax.net...
Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
Greg Muncill
>"Greg Muncill" <gmun...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>>
>> And the energy differences between Richter 15 and 9
>> would mean that you are distributing one billion Richter
>> 9 earthquakes around the planet. This does not
>> disturb you?
>
>Of course it disturbs me, as it should everybody else.
>
I was of course referring to the impossibility of your
scenario. You/Zetas are claiming a distribution of
one billion earthquakes of Richter 9 over the earth.
This is 5 Richter 9 earthquakes per square mile of
the earth's surface. As poer previous observations
the earth's crust cannot support such an input of
energy without melting. The unscientific aspect
of your statement is what should be disturbing you.
>Part of the ZetaTalk message is that we need to prepare for surviving such a
>cataclysm. The non-profit organization Troubled Times' main goal is to
>inform people *how* they may survive such a devastating event. Did you think
>any of us do this for fun?
>
I think that so far all of the science quoted by
you in this forum (note the sci. part of sci.astro)
has been either blatantly wrong, misquoted or
largely misunderstood by you and your fellow
TT/Zeta posters.
>> Did the zetatalk just mention one Richter 15 earthquake?
>> I thought multiple quakes were mentioned.
>
>From http://www.zetatalk.com/poleshft/p92.htm, Earthquakes:
>"During the pole shift all plates on earth on the move, and the jolt occurs
>at the sudden stop when the crust stops moving. This is when the Richter 9
>equivalent earthquakes, which we have termed Richter 15 as the scope is far
>larger than Richter 9, will be felt worldwide."
>
And as I have polnted out, you/Nancy have
been trying to backtrack on this but the energies
still do not add up to simple earthquake shaking
of the crust - even worldwide as you have now
changed your interpretations. The energy is
still too large by orders of magnitude. The
earthquakes would stop once the crust is
heated to a partially molten state.
Greg Muncill
Stig Bull
>> The same reason Richter 15 earthquakes only causes local damages per the
>> Zebracult definition: Pure magic!
>
> a, Nobody ever said it would be "local damages" only.
> In fact, it has been labeled as a worldwide cataclysm.
> b, Richter 15 is the total energy released.
> In the individual local areas, its effects will be felt like a
> prolonged Richter 9.
What an interesting ah, scientific reasoning.
By your own arguement you therefore also believe that if you take a one
megaton nuclear weapon and add another megaton device, the following
explosion will be a prolonged one megaton blast, not two megatons.
pf...@funkenstein.foo
This Richter 15 thing is strange to me. I could have sworn that, some
months back, that the prediction was something along the lines of "up
to and including Richter 15." Now Richter 15 simply represents the
total energy released by an unfathomable number (a number that would
be enough to turn this planet into a bowl of badly burnt soup) of
Richter 9s. Has the story changed. If so, why?
Greg Muncill
>"Greg Muncill" <gmun...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>> Did the zetatalk just mention one Richter 15 earthquake?
>> I thought multiple quakes were mentioned.
>
>From http://www.zetatalk.com/poleshft/p92.htm, Earthquakes:
>"During the pole shift all plates on earth on the move, and the jolt occurs
>at the sudden stop when the crust stops moving. This is when the Richter 9
>equivalent earthquakes, which we have termed Richter 15 as the scope is far
>larger than Richter 9, will be felt worldwide."
>
This is an interesting degree of editing from what Nancy was
saying earlier. Let me quote a post of her's labelled
"Re: From TT, for your Amusement... " dated March 5th
of this year:
"- Existing shelter shattered during the 15 Richter point
earthquakes, so homelessness among the survivors
is acute, along with almost continuous rain during the
first few years after the Pole Shift. "
Note the word earthquakes, Jan, NOT earthquake.
You are trying to do a fair amount of spin doctoring
here but it's in the USENET archives for all to see.
Greg Muncill
Boris Mohar
Richter 12 is energy equivalent to 160 trillion tons of TNT
Richter 13 is energy equivalent to 4800 trillion tons of TNT
Richter 14 is energy equivalent to 144000 trillion tons of TNT
Richter 15 is energy equivalent to 4320000 trillion tons of TNT
Jan, do you know what TNT is?
Civilian
>
> There are daily confirmations that I, Nancy, get that ZetaTalk is
> accurate, 100% so.
>
> has MORE ice than Antartica, under the new equatorial sun.
Not true...
> the hominoids living on that smoldering brown dwarf are "almost twice"
People living on a star?
>Now, being a complete ignoramus on astronomy, as most on this Usenet
will >agree,
You got that right...
> had no notion of orbit direction or location of Orion and whether
> something coming from Orion in May, 2003 would be on this or that side
> of the Sun, etc.
You make claims of a plant inbound, claim to know where it is, and you
don't know where Orion is? The most recognisable constellation in the
sky?
> Windshield
> completely shattered, the branch coming in on one side and ending up in
> my lap, literally, on the other side.
Invest in safety glass.
>Odd thing, there was glass all
> over the front seat, littered, the dashboard and seats and floor
> covered. But I had NO glass whatsoever on my sweater or hair. NONE.
> The Zetas later told me "you weren't even in the car when this
> happened".
I have read you site Nancy, i have seen your "predictions" and have
especially read your commebts on my country.
Where are the food shortages you predicted? Why was the 1999 flood so
significant? Have you figured out what the internet Suffix .ZA means
yet (note its NOT New Zealand or Zaire)?
I am a free thinking human being. I have considered the evidence given
to me. I have weighed it and found yours wanting.
There is no planetX. It is not possible.
Bill Nelson
>>
>> The same reason Richter 15 earthquakes only causes local damages per the
>> Zebracult definition: Pure magic!
> a, Nobody ever said it would be "local damages" only.
> In fact, it has been labeled as a worldwide cataclysm.
> b, Richter 15 is the total energy released.
> In the individual local areas, its effects will be felt like a prolonged
> Richter 9.
Of course, you don't have the bloodiest idea what even a Magnitude 9
quake would do to a local area.
You are also wrong - if the total energy were Magnitude 15 in level
anywhere on Earth, the level everywhere else would be far above magnitude
9.
--
Bill Nelson (bi...@peak.org)
Jeff Root
>>> Did the zetatalk just mention one Richter 15 earthquake?
>>> I thought multiple quakes were mentioned.
>> From http://www.zetatalk.com/poleshft/p92.htm, Earthquakes:
>>
>> "During the pole shift all plates on earth on the move, and the
>> jolt occurs at the sudden stop when the crust stops moving. This
>> is when the Richter 9 equivalent earthquakes, which we have termed
>> Richter 15 as the scope is far larger than Richter 9, will be felt
>> worldwide."
I don't think Jan isn't quite as far off as you've been saying.
Nancy is talking about the entire crust of the Earth swiveling
around something like 90 degrees from its current position.
That would obviously take an enormous amount of energy, perhaps
on the order of the energy of a magnitude 15 "earthquake".
Magnitude is a measure of the total energy involved. Naturally,
when the entire surface of the Earth swivels around, there will
also be localized earthquakes.
But Jan would do better to describe local effects in terms of
intensity, which is commonly measured on the Mercalli scale.
An earthquake of any given magnitude can have a local intensity
of just about anything. I can imagine a Richter 9 earthquake
ocurring so deep underground that the effects at the surface
might be very low on the Mercalli scale, even at the epicenter.
Nancy is inventing the mechanism which will cause the Earth's
surface to swivel around, so if she doesn't realize that in the
real world, most of that energy would end up as heat, in her
imaginary world, it won't end up as heat. But also, apparently
she is saying that planet X, still something like nine times
as far away as Pluto, has already been affecting conditions on
Earth for some years. So if she wants, she can distribute the
Richter 15-equivalent energy over several months, reducing the
intensity enough to keep the continents from melting and the
oceans from boiling away, rather than have it all happen at
once as Planet X comes roaring past.
Chances are excellent, though, that Nancy will have the
advanced Zeta scientists come up with something at the last
minute to make planet X veer around the other side of the Sun,
where we can't see it, saving the Earth. Nancy can do anything
she can imagine. Although from what I have seen so far, Nancy
seems to be quite unimaginative. She has only added minor
details to plots written by others, decades ago. I get the
impression (especially from the numerous weirdos currently
posting in sci.astro) that that is generally the case for
people with moderately severe mental illness. They seem to be
both low in intelligence and lacking in imagination, endlessly
repeating stories that they have heard and become fixated on,
but adding little that is new.
I asked Nancy whether she knows the age of her Zeta friend,
and said that the Zetan writes very much like a human twelve-
year-old boy or ten-year-old girl. No answer, of course.
I really would like to know about the Zetan's personality,
and what the Zetan thinks of Nancy. I wonder if they ever
argue, or disagree about anything, and if they do, who wins
the arguments?
-- Jeff, in Minneapolis
.
Jeff Root
typed offline, so that it read:
> I don't think Jan isn't quite as far off as you've been saying.
I don't think Jan is quite as far off as you've been saying.
Almost that far off, but not quite that far.
-- Jeff, in far-off Minneapolis
.
Greg Neill
news:f0b30c00.02040...@posting.google.com...
> Nancy is inventing the mechanism which will cause the Earth's
> surface to swivel around, so if she doesn't realize that in the
> real world, most of that energy would end up as heat, in her
> imaginary world, it won't end up as heat. But also, apparently
> she is saying that planet X, still something like nine times
> as far away as Pluto, has already been affecting conditions on
> Earth for some years. So if she wants, she can distribute the
> Richter 15-equivalent energy over several months, reducing the
> intensity enough to keep the continents from melting and the
> oceans from boiling away, rather than have it all happen at
> once as Planet X comes roaring past.
The claim is that the Earth will first stop rotating in
a matter of hours, then the 90 degree poleshift will occur
in a matter of an hour or so, then the Earth will start
rotating again.
Disregarding the Earth rotation component, I estimate that
the energy needed for the supposed poleshift of the crust is about
equivalent to the _entire_ output of the Sun for some 25 minutes.
Greg Muncill
>Greg Muncill wrote:
>
>>>> Did the zetatalk just mention one Richter 15 earthquake?
>>>> I thought multiple quakes were mentioned.
>
>"Jan" replied:
>
>>> From http://www.zetatalk.com/poleshft/p92.htm, Earthquakes:
>>>
>>> "During the pole shift all plates on earth on the move, and the
>>> jolt occurs at the sudden stop when the crust stops moving. This
>>> is when the Richter 9 equivalent earthquakes, which we have termed
>>> Richter 15 as the scope is far larger than Richter 9, will be felt
>>> worldwide."
>
>Greg,
>
>I don't think Jan isn't quite as far off as you've been saying.
>Nancy is talking about the entire crust of the Earth swiveling
>around something like 90 degrees from its current position.
>That would obviously take an enormous amount of energy, perhaps
>on the order of the energy of a magnitude 15 "earthquake".
>Magnitude is a measure of the total energy involved. Naturally,
>when the entire surface of the Earth swivels around, there will
>also be localized earthquakes.
>
Yes, but both Jan and Nancy have been quite specific
on the term Richter Magnitude 15 earthquakes, not
Richter Magnitude 15 energy to transform the poles.
You have, however, provided them with a new idea
for wiggling out of the Richter 15 problem. Don't expect
any acknowledgement, however.
>But Jan would do better to describe local effects in terms of
>intensity, which is commonly measured on the Mercalli scale.
>An earthquake of any given magnitude can have a local intensity
>of just about anything. I can imagine a Richter 9 earthquake
>ocurring so deep underground that the effects at the surface
>might be very low on the Mercalli scale, even at the epicenter.
>
A Richter 9 earthquake occurring with an epicenter on
the dipping Benioff Zone will still shake things up considerably
above it, as we know from South America. Are you suggesting
something deeper in the mantle?
<rest of justification snipped>
Yes, she can and probably will alter what she
has recorded as her "zetatalk". I for one can only
comment on the supposed science that she and Jan
put into the newsgroup. They have not so far explained
it in the manner you have just described, but I am sure
they will once they read your posting. They have so
far only described the scenario as a pole flip with
accompanying Richter Magnitude 15 earthquakes.
So I guess I am asking you - Why are you coming
up now with these addendums to explain their Richter
15 earthquake nonsense when they are not suggesting
it so far? I'm not going to get into a discussion of
distribution of Richter Magnitude 15 energies over
time when that was not originally stated by them.
Is this some scenario that you want to put forward
and discuss?
Greg Muncill
Greg Muncill
>
>A Richter 9 earthquake occurring with an epicenter on
>the dipping Benioff Zone will still shake things up considerably
>above it, as we know from South America. Are you suggesting
>something deeper in the mantle?
I should have said with a focus on the dipping Benioff Zone.
Most of the damaging quakes are shallow focus, less than
100 km depth, but still occurring beneath the continental
crust in the downgoing oceanic slab.
Greg Muncill
Greg Muncill
>Most of the damaging quakes are shallow focus, less than
>100 km depth, but still occurring beneath the continental
>crust in the downgoing oceanic slab.
>
shallow focus earthquakes can also occur and be
most damaging at the surface juncture of the overriding
and downgoing plates. There is a whole regime of
damaging quake foci from near the surface at the
plate juncture to down 100 km along the subducting
plate. Earthquakes happen below this depth but
are generally not as strong because of decreasing
friction between the downgoing slab and the
mantle and because the temperatures are increasing
so there is plastic deformation rather than faulting.
Greg Muncill
Greg Muncill
>
>Disregarding the Earth rotation component, I estimate that
>the energy needed for the supposed poleshift of the crust is about
>equivalent to the _entire_ output of the Sun for some 25 minutes.
>
slop of their Richter Magnitude 15 earthquake. That
comes in at 3.2X10^19 tons of TNT. As I calculate
it about 10 years of the entire output of the sun.
Greg Muncill
Jeff Root
>>>>> Did the zetatalk just mention one Richter 15 earthquake?
>>>>> I thought multiple quakes were mentioned.
"Jan" replied:
>>>> From http://www.zetatalk.com/poleshft/p92.htm, Earthquakes:
>>>>
>>>> "During the pole shift all plates on earth on the move, and the
>>>> jolt occurs at the sudden stop when the crust stops moving. This
>>>> is when the Richter 9 equivalent earthquakes, which we have termed
>>>> Richter 15 as the scope is far larger than Richter 9, will be felt
>>>> worldwide."
>> I don't think Jan [is] quite as far off as you've been saying.
>> Nancy is talking about the entire crust of the Earth swiveling
>> around something like 90 degrees from its current position.
>> That would obviously take an enormous amount of energy, perhaps
>> on the order of the energy of a magnitude 15 "earthquake".
>> Magnitude is a measure of the total energy involved. Naturally,
>> when the entire surface of the Earth swivels around, there will
>> also be localized earthquakes.
> Yes, but both Jan and Nancy have been quite specific
> on the term Richter Magnitude 15 earthquakes, not
> Richter Magnitude 15 energy to transform the poles.
> You have, however, provided them with a new idea
> for wiggling out of the Richter 15 problem. Don't expect
> any acknowledgement, however.
the earthquakes. They appear always to have been one and the
same event. I don't see how you could separate them. I'm sure
I didn't generate a new idea in that bit.
>> But Jan would do better to describe local effects in terms of
>> intensity, which is commonly measured on the Mercalli scale.
>> An earthquake of any given magnitude can have a local intensity
>> of just about anything. I can imagine a Richter 9 earthquake
>> ocurring so deep underground that the effects at the surface
>> might be very low on the Mercalli scale, even at the epicenter.
> A Richter 9 earthquake occurring with an epicenter on
> the dipping Benioff Zone will still shake things up considerably
> above it, as we know from South America. Are you suggesting
> something deeper in the mantle?
surface being dependant on the structure and composition of
the ground surrounding the quake center, the point of interest
at the surface, and everything in between. I'm just guessing
that even the energy of a Richter 9 could be dispersed deep
within the Earth in such a way that at no point on the surface
would it be very intense. I have no theory and no evidence to
support this guess -- it just seemed to fit my limited knowledge
about earthquakes. If you say otherwise, then I'll think that
otherwise is more likely right.
> Yes, she can and probably will alter what she
> has recorded as her "zetatalk". I for one can only
> comment on the supposed science that she and Jan
> put into the newsgroup. They have not so far explained
> it in the manner you have just described, but I am sure
> they will once they read your posting. They have so
> far only described the scenario as a pole flip with
> accompanying Richter Magnitude 15 earthquakes.
> So I guess I am asking you - Why are you coming
> up now with these addendums to explain their Richter
> 15 earthquake nonsense when they are not suggesting
> it so far? I'm not going to get into a discussion of
> distribution of Richter Magnitude 15 energies over
> time when that was not originally stated by them.
> Is this some scenario that you want to put forward
> and discuss?
very far beyond what they have said, at all. The earthquakes
are obviously concommitant with the "pole shift". This shift
is supposed to be caused by the effects of planet X on Earth's
core, and the claim has been made that such effects have
already been felt for several years now, even at the extreme
distance that planet X is supposed to be from Earth. Maybe
the absurdity of this last claim has prevented you from seeing
that that is indeed what has been claimed. As I told Steve
Havas, *no-one* is stupid enough to believe that such a distant
planet could have effects like that on the Earth.
What I didn't say is that there must be some other reasons,
instead of or in addition to stupidity, to expain how he or
anyone else could think such an idea could possibly make the
slightest bit of sense. In Nancy's case, it seems very clear
to me, in contrast to the opinions of some here, that she is
paranoid schizophrenic, and believes what she says. For all
the other people who find her stories plausible, I could only
speculate, though I think it is pretty safe to say that, in
general, they all have what is usually called "poor judgement",
or to use a more poetic term, a lack of "wisdom". That seems
to apply especially to David Storey, who repeatedly, ad nauseum,
criticizes others for their poor judgement. He is probably
giving what he has gotten throughout his life.
Greg Muncill
>
>It was clear to me that Nancy connected the pole rotation and
>the earthquakes. They appear always to have been one and the
>same event. I don't see how you could separate them. I'm sure
>I didn't generate a new idea in that bit.
>
Well, that point wasn't and still isn't clear to me.
Maybe they are being purposely unclear about it.
>
>No, but I should have added something about shaking at the
>surface being dependant on the structure and composition of
>the ground surrounding the quake center, the point of interest
>at the surface, and everything in between. I'm just guessing
>that even the energy of a Richter 9 could be dispersed deep
>within the Earth in such a way that at no point on the surface
>would it be very intense. I have no theory and no evidence to
>support this guess -- it just seemed to fit my limited knowledge
>about earthquakes. If you say otherwise, then I'll think that
>otherwise is more likely right.
>
This is true but I don't see anyway of dispersing
the energy of a billion Richter 9 earthquakes
very easily. I did the calculations and this is
the energy of 3.2X10^19 tons of TNT. Now
they (Nancy et. al.) have allways claimed that
this pole rotation and earthquakes were going
to take place on the scale of hours if not minutes.
This amount of energy is equivalent to 10 years
entire energy output of the sun. How do you see
this being dissipated in hours? If you convert that
energy to calories, it is enough to add one million
calories per gram of earth material. It would not
result in a pole shift, it would result in total destruction
of the planet.
<snip>
>
>No, it just seemed completely obvious. I don't think I went
>very far beyond what they have said, at all.
Well, to take Jan's quotation from the Zetatalk:
"During the pole shift all plates on earth on the move,
and the jolt occurs at the sudden stop when the crust
stops moving. This is when the Richter 9 equivalent
earthquakes, which we have termed Richter 15 as the
scope is far larger than Richter 9, will be felt worldwide."
It seems pretty obvious to me Nancy/Jan are interpreting this
as the Richter 15 energy release occurring during
the pole event, which is stated to happen during
a relatively short time period. They are interpreting the
earthquakes happening as a jolt "when the crust
stops moving".
>The earthquakes
>are obviously concommitant with the "pole shift".
They seem to be saying that they are happening
when the pole shift stops as in a braking effect or
somesuch.
>This shift
>is supposed to be caused by the effects of planet X on Earth's
>core, and the claim has been made that such effects have
>already been felt for several years now, even at the extreme
>distance that planet X is supposed to be from Earth.
Yes, but they have not so far tried to explain the
Richter 15 as measured over the years of the
supposed effect of Planet X on the Earth.
>Maybe
>the absurdity of this last claim has prevented you from seeing
>that that is indeed what has been claimed.
But that is not what seems to be quoted in the
Zetatalk above. It is all absurd but even more
so as they are claiming the energy output of
Richter 15 over a really short time period. Over
that time period we are talking about enough
energy to not only melt the earth, but probably
vaporize it as well. We don't even need to go
into the fact that we are only calculating the
seismic wave energies, which are only part
of the energy represented by an earthquake.
>As I told Steve
>Havas, *no-one* is stupid enough to believe that such a distant
>planet could have effects like that on the Earth.
>
Agreed
>What I didn't say is that there must be some other reasons,
>instead of or in addition to stupidity, to expain how he or
>anyone else could think such an idea could possibly make the
>slightest bit of sense. In Nancy's case, it seems very clear
>to me, in contrast to the opinions of some here, that she is
>paranoid schizophrenic, and believes what she says. For all
>the other people who find her stories plausible, I could only
>speculate, though I think it is pretty safe to say that, in
>general, they all have what is usually called "poor judgement",
>or to use a more poetic term, a lack of "wisdom". That seems
>to apply especially to David Storey, who repeatedly, ad nauseum,
>criticizes others for their poor judgement. He is probably
>giving what he has gotten throughout his life.
>
I don't particularly care what they believe as they have
shown that they are not going to change this belief with
reason from us. It's when they try to support it by faulty
science/reasoning that I will call them on it. And that
is all I have seen them post on this and other
newsgroups.
I think we both see the absurdity of their claim about
the energy effects of the supposed Planet X. I just
see them as having even more of a problem because of
their stated time frame for the occurrence of these quakes.
Greg Muncill
Michael L Cunningham
from her web site.
-- Michael L. Cunningham So Cal SleeperS - 2001 Grand AM GT e-mail boge...@earthlink.net web site http://home.earthlink.net/~bogeystar/ Remembering the World Trade Center Massacre Sept. 11, 2001 Cry Havoc! ...and let slip the dogs of war! Visit the LX50 Web Site and join in our Discussion Forum! "There are two infinite things: universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure of the former". Albert. "If you want to be counted... stand up! If you want to be heard... speak up! If you want to be appreciated... shut up!" We've been notified by Building Security that there have been 4 suspected terrorists working at our office. Three of the four have been apprehended. Bin Sleepin, Bin Loafin, and Bin Drinkin have been taken into custody. Security advised us that they could find no one fitting the description of the fourth cell member, Bin Workin, in our office. "A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects." Robert Heinlein
Michael L Cunningham
First, we keeping you posting on sci.astro so your responses show how extremely stupid Nancy's followers
are. You happen to be our best debunker with your posts!
Second, EVERYTHING on Zeta Talk depends on the existence of Nancy's planet. So far, she's grasping for
straws trying to prove it's real. I've got bad news for you, anyone with half a brain (leaves you out) can
look at the CCD images and her past predictions, put 2 and 2 together and figure out she's either mentally
unstable or a scam artist. Without her planet, she has nothing so it keeps her busy trying to prove it's
existence. If that reason is soooooo important for her, why hasn't she taken ANY steps to search for the
supposed planet herself?
Michael L Cunningham
"Greg Muncill" <gmun...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3cb03e5c...@news.mindspring.com..."Jan" <n...@home.com> wrote:b, Richter 15 is the total energy released.
In the individual local areas, its effects will be felt like a
prolonged Richter 9.And the energy differences between Richter 15 and 9
would mean that you are distributing one billion Richter
9 earthquakes around the planet. This does not
disturb you?
Of course it disturbs me, as it should everybody else.
Part of the ZetaTalk message is that we need to prepare for surviving such a
cataclysm. The non-profit organization Troubled Times' main goal is to
inform people *how* they may survive such a devastating event. Did you think
any of us do this for fun?
difference? You can do math and figure out the energy expenditures. Don't give us the party line quote which
doesn't address the issue!
Did the zetatalk just mention one Richter 15 earthquake?
I thought multiple quakes were mentioned.
From http://www.zetatalk.com/poleshft/p92.htm, Earthquakes:
"During the pole shift all plates on earth on the move, and the jolt occurs
at the sudden stop when the crust stops moving. This is when the Richter 9
equivalent earthquakes, which we have termed Richter 15 as the scope is far
larger than Richter 9, will be felt worldwide."
Regards,
Jan
-- Michael L. Cunningham So Cal SleeperS - 2001 Grand AM GT e-mail boge...@earthlink.net web site http://home.earthlink.net/~bogeystar/
Remembering the World Trade Center Massacre Sept. 11, 2001 Cry Havoc! ...and let slip the dogs of war! Visit the LX50 Web Site and join in our Discussion Forum! "There are two infinite things: universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure of the former". Albert. "If you want to be counted... stand up! If you want to be heard... speak up! If you want to be appreciated... shut up!" We've been notified by Building Security that there have been 4 suspected terrorists working at our office. Three of the four have been apprehended. Bin Sleepin, Bin Loafin, and Bin Drinkin have been taken into custody. Security advised us that they could find no one fitting the description of the fourth cell member, Bin Workin, in our office. "A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects." Robert Heinlein
Bill Nelson
>>
>>A Richter 9 earthquake occurring with an epicenter on
>>the dipping Benioff Zone will still shake things up considerably
>>above it, as we know from South America. Are you suggesting
>>something deeper in the mantle?
> I should have said with a focus on the dipping Benioff Zone.
> Most of the damaging quakes are shallow focus, less than
> 100 km depth, but still occurring beneath the continental
> crust in the downgoing oceanic slab.
But that does not jibe with the facts - or what Lieder has written.
If the energy was equivalent to a Mag 15 quake - the Earth's crust
would be turned into a semi-molten mass. There is no way around the
amount of energy released. Whether part of it manifested as shaking
on the surface is immaterial.
Also, there would have to be several Mag 9 quakes per square mile of
the Earth's surface. Move the focus zones deeper into the Earth, and
the density would have to be even higher. The end result - total
surface destruction.
Lieder also claims mountain building etc. That is NOT caused by minor
quakes.
--
Bill Nelson (bi...@peak.org)
Greg Muncill
>Greg Muncill <gmun...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>A Richter 9 earthquake occurring with an epicenter on
>>>the dipping Benioff Zone will still shake things up considerably
>>>above it, as we know from South America. Are you suggesting
>>>something deeper in the mantle?
>
>> I should have said with a focus on the dipping Benioff Zone.
>> Most of the damaging quakes are shallow focus, less than
>> 100 km depth, but still occurring beneath the continental
>> crust in the downgoing oceanic slab.
>
>But that does not jibe with the facts - or what Lieder has written.
>
>If the energy was equivalent to a Mag 15 quake - the Earth's crust
>would be turned into a semi-molten mass. There is no way around the
>amount of energy released. Whether part of it manifested as shaking
>on the surface is immaterial.
>
You should be reading some of my other posts. I was only
responding here to the idea of heavy earthquakes occurring
deep enough so they would not be felt at the surface. This
is true in the extreme - there was a Bolivian earthquake of
8.3 at a depth of 400 km that was not felt at the epicenter.
This particular statement of mine had nothing to do with the
Richter 15 phenomenon.
>Also, there would have to be several Mag 9 quakes per square mile of
>the Earth's surface. Move the focus zones deeper into the Earth, and
>the density would have to be even higher. The end result - total
>surface destruction.
>
Actually I calculated it out and it comes out to 5 per square
mile. I also calculated the energy and it is enough to vaporize
the earth, much less melt it. The energy input is equivalent to
10 years of the entire energy output of the sun.
>Lieder also claims mountain building etc. That is NOT caused by minor
>quakes.
>
I wouldn't be worrying about mountain building when we are
all a plasma.
Greg Muncill
Nancy Lieder
No, I meant Greenland, but this was NancyTalk, not ZetaTalk I read
somewhere that Greenland had MORE ice mass than any other land body,
including Antartica. My Britannicas, published in 1987, states that
Antartica as 91% of the worlds ice, and that the SECOND largest ice mass
after this is Greenland. These 15 year old Britannicas also state that
the Antarctic ice "appears to be growing" and in Greenland the "net
balance appears to be closer to zero", and then states that "the fact
that the amount of ice in the world appears to be increasing is
difficult to reconcile with the observation that the sea level is also
rising" and attribute the sea rise to warmer water or heaving ocean
floors. I heard from someone in Osaka, Japan (and this is JapanTalk,
not ZetaTalk or NancyTalk) that the rise in sea level they are
experiencing along their coastline (not sure if all or which) is one
foot, not a fraction of an inch. Perhaps because of all the volcanic
action in Indonesia, not sure, and not sure of this statistic either.
This is from a native there. But something that HAS hit the news is
disappearing islands in the Pacific, where the residents had to be
rescued or they would have drown. That said, the Zeta respond as to why
650-700 feet.
It has been estimated by mankind's scientists that
the melting, completely, of the Antarctic ice
would cause the oceans of the world to rise in
sea level by 200 feet. This is measuring the effect
of ice above the water line melting and returning
to the body of water, and leveling out. MORE
occurs during and for some time after the shift
when the existing poles are placed under the
equatorial sun and all active volcanoes of the
world explode. What degree of heat would be
generated by the crust and core separating and the
core moving under the crust? How much heat is
required to melt rock, during rapid subduction of
one plate over another, which the Indians of the
West Coast and witnesses of the last pole shift
in the Middle East report? How rapidly does heat
dissipate, even from campfire ashes, open to the
air, or the seat of a chair from which the occupant
recently rose? MOST of the surface of the Earth
is covered by the great oceans, which warm
completely, without cold spots, after the shift, and
do not return to having cold spots until some
centuries have passed. This warmer water
accounts for the rise in sea level, in the main.
ZetaTalk
Nancy Lieder
> Yes, but both Jan and Nancy have been quite specific
> on the term Richter Magnitude 15 earthquakes, not
> Richter Magnitude 15 energy to transform the poles.
> You have, however, provided them with a new idea
> for wiggling out of the Richter 15 problem. Don't expect
> any acknowledgement, however.
What does the word EQUIVALENT mean to you, Greg? The message in
ZetaTalk has always been that for we surface creatures, the Richter 15
will be EQUIVALENT to no greater a surface jolting than Richter 9.
In Article <f0b30c00.0204...@posting.google.com> Jeff Root
wrote:
> Jan replied:
>>>> From http://www.zetatalk.com/poleshft/p92.htm, Earthquakes:
>>>>
>>>> "During the pole shift all plates on earth on the move, and the
>>>> jolt occurs at the sudden stop when the crust stops moving. This
>>>> is when the Richter 9 EQUIVALENT earthquakes, which we have termed
>>>> Richter 15 as the scope is far larger than Richter 9, will be felt
>>>> worldwide."
Nor will we get an acknowledgment from YOU, when you are wrong, I'm
sure.
In Article <3cb18016...@news.mindspring.com> Greg Muncill wrote:
>> Naturally, when the entire surface of the Earth swivels
>> around, there will also be localized earthquakes.
>
> Yes, but both Jan and Nancy have been quite specific
> on the term Richter Magnitude 15 earthquakes, not
> Richter Magnitude 15 energy to transform the poles.
Wrong. The pole shift was ALWAYS described a occurring within an hour,
the entire globe participating, the crust moving with the core but
separating during this process, and the real ouch occurring when the
crust STOPS moving. From the very early days of ZetaTalk:
The pole shift is therefore sudden, taking place in what
seems to be minutes to humans involved in the drama,
but which actually takes place during the better part of
an hour. There are stages, between which the human
spectators, in shock, are numb. At first there is a
vibration of sorts, a jiggling, as the crust separates in
various places from the core. Then there is a slide,
where the crust is dragged, over minutes, to a new
location, along with the core. During the slide, tidal
waves move over the Earth along the coast lines, as
the water is not attached and can move independently.
The water tends to stay where it is, the crust moving
under it, essentially. When the core finds itself
aligned, it churns about somewhat, settling, but the
crust, more solid and in motion, proceeds on. This is
in fact where mountain building and massive
earthquakes occur, just as car crashes do their damage
on the point of impact, when motion must stop.
ZetaTalk, Pole Shift
(http://www.zetatalk.com/poleshft/p21.htm)
Nancy Lieder
wrote:
> Magnitude is a measure of the total energy involved.
> around, there will also be localized earthquakes.
of land affected by the jolt, thus, using a word common here on
sci.astro, the overall "energy" of the shifting plates is measured by
the Richter. It's being assumed in these discussions that the
exponential increase in Richter would translate to the effect on an
object on the surface, such that if in a Richter x a man in a field is
knocked off his feet and a brick structure shaken to the point of having
the brick mortar crack, than Richter y would cause that man to be dashed
against anything but thin air in the vicinity and the brick structure to
become powder, or some such. A cup of cocoa may fly off the table and
hit the floor if a child bumps the table or if the table happens to be
on a moving train smashing another in a head-on collision. The effect
on the cup may be the same, dashed to the floor, but the overall
"energy" of the incident surrounding the cup is different. From
existing ZetaTalk:
Weak spots among the Earth's crustal plates give way.
The Pacific Ocean will shorten, and the Atlantic widen.
Subducting plates will subduct greatly. Mountain
building will occur suddenly, primarily increasing in
areas already undergoing mountain building. All told,
the better part of an hour, but at certain stages, only
minutes. Plants survive as they are rooted and their
seeds are everywhere, and animals including man
survive because they travel with the moving plates of
the Earth and experience no more severe a shock when
the plates stop moving than they would during a
Richter 9 earthquake. Where mountain building
occurs when the plates stop moving, the stoppage is
not simply a sudden jolt, like a car hitting a brick
wall. All is in motion, and the stoppage is more like a
car hitting a barrier of sand filled plastic barrels - a
series of small jolts, occurring in quick succession.
Nancy Lieder
the floor whether a child bumps the table or a moving train takes a
head-on collision, it's better for the cup of cocoa to be where the ROOF
will not shortly fall upon it, or the walls compress into a crush, or
some such, which is why the Zetas have responded to questions and the
safe Locations TOPIC (http://www.zetatalk.com/info/tinfo242.htm) and an
Adobe document (http://www.zetatalk.com/safelocs.pdf) has developed. For
example, ZetaTalk given on the following locations:
ANCHORAGE is dealt several blows during the shift, as it
lies along a coastline, is near a chain of volcanoes, and
borders the Pacific where subduction of plates will
occur. During the week of roatation stoppage, the water
normally pooled at the equator due to the effect of
rotation will drift toward the poles, equalizing. Thus,
the tides will be higher. At the shift, the volcanoes to the
west will explode spewing ash over the nearby vicinity,
which will become upwind to Anchorage to some
degree due to the prevailing westerlies which will still
pull the ash toward Anchorage. Sloshing water, already
higher than normal along the coast, will rise to the tops
of the buildings in the city. After the shift, however, the
ocean fishing, and the familiarity of the people with this
activity, should prove a good lifestyle. Survivors will
need to become accustomed to a very warmer climate,
as the new Anchorage will be close to the new equator.
MELBOURNE lies on a southern tip of Australia,
pointing toward the South Pole. In this regard it needs
to take extra precautions over and above the other
coastal cities along Australia's eastern coast. Melbourne
has many advantages - being on a plate that will tip up,
slightly, during the shift, and being close to the sea for
fishing opportunities and snuggled within mountains
for safety from floods and tidal waves. However, there
will be extraordinarily strong ocean currents rushing
between the Pacific, which will be compressed and
need to empty, and the Indian Ocean. This affects any
city directly along the currents. Boats will disappear
in a wink in the flow, and not surface for days. The
water may be somewhat higher than normal just
prior to the shift, too, as the stagnating earth will pool
her waters at the poles, not the equator, when rotation
stops. Thus, the rush of water away from the Pacific
will not only be forceful, but high, rather than low -
a double danger.
Where India will become the new South Pole, lands
nearby can expect to move from the near equatorial
climate they experience now to severe cold such as
Siberia and northern Canada experience. Jolting
earthquakes from the nearby fault lines adjusting to
the effect of having a moving crust come to a crunching
halt will take its toll on TURKEY, but as this part of
the world is experiencing a stretch, rather than
compression, there will be no hot earth or subducting
land to be a concern. In addition, these lands ride
high so will escape the rising waters from melting
poles. Those unprepared for a sudden drop in
temperature will be the worst off, both from the
standpoint of clothing and agricultural practices.
DALLAS sits like a jewel in the center of Texas, but
will prove to be a jewel out in the open and without
protection during the coming cataclysms. Freed
from concern about earthquake damage, being away
from fault lines, and concerned only with replacing a
few windows after any hurricane that might travel
inland, Dallas has had few worries. During the coming
cataclysms, Dallas will find itself presented with wind
and water changes that it cannot resist, and its residents
will be without protection. Water does damage that
those viewing film of floods cannot imagine, unless
one were viewing the effects of the flood waters as
they encroach. Water melts the substrata, as well as
presses against foundations not built to resist such
pressures. Thus, unless constructed on solid rock
and with thick walls, most structures will lean in the
winds and be pushed over by the rising water. Where
a high rise does manage to stand above the water, it
will become filled with desperate survivors, who
increase in number as they manage to paddle to these
islands. The flood waters will take days, and in most
cases weeks, to recede. And what, during those weeks,
will these survivors eat and drink? Few will survive,
and those that do will live with tortured memories.
Nancy Lieder
>> around something like 90 degrees from its current position.
>> That would obviously take an enormous amount of energy, perhaps
>> on the order of the energy of a magnitude 15 "earthquake".
How much "energy" is involved in the ENTIRE crust of the globe on the
move? Ripping the Atlantic Rift further apart? Forcing several hundred
miles of plate under the West Coast of the Americas? Driving India
under the Himalayas? Forcing a new land mass to pop up between the tip
of South America and Africa? Ripping the St. Lawrence Seaway and the
African Rifts further apart and creating a new rip in land above the
Himalayas? Crumbling plates now holding the Caribbean and Central
America, and Indonesia? Snapping solid rock to create cliffs or new
mountain peaks? Those on the surface don't experience more than a series
of jolts, just as the cup of cocoa does not experience more than table
beneath it disappearing, and a drop to the floor. The Zetas have spoken
to this issue before, and I'll quote.
The stage having been set, then, the crust movement
steps during the hour of the shift are as follows:
1. As the South Pole, gripped by the passing North Pole
of the 12th Planet, moves north, the crust is torn from
the core and freed in this way, allows pre-existing
stress points to relax. Thus, Europe and Africa move
further east, allowing the Atlantic to rip apart, during
the slide northward.
2. The immediate affect of the massive plate housing
Europe and Russia and the Near East to move is felt
most strongly in India, as the Himalayas are driven
over India at this point, effectively sumerging this
country in a wink.
3. The effect of the Indio-Australian plate taking a dive
under the Himalayas is to relieve tension along the
African rift, such that this tears, promptly, but in
shuddering steps with halting adjustments pauses
between shudders. In essence, the movement
eastward of the African continent is a momentum
creating this tear.
4. During the tearing of the Atlantic, and the dragging
north or the North American continent, an already
existing tear in the St. Lawence Seaway tears further,
essentially the weak link in this landmass held at so
many points to the further side of the Atlantic.
Canada move north, while the rest of the Americas
cling to the Atlantic Rift while it separates.
5. The movement of the massive plate housing Europe,
Russia, and Asia to the east also is expected to rip
this plate along the Himalayas, as we have stated,
creating an inland bay into the Russian lands just to
what is now the north of the Himalayas. This
follows, in jerks and tears, over the hour of the
shift, along with the tearing of the African rift.
6. When the ocean off the Bulge of Brazil has reached
the position of the current North Pole, crust slippage
stops, creating yet another drama. The major
northern hemisphere plates stop, and whatever
follows crashes into them. In the case of the
America's, this causes Central America and the
Caribbean to crumble.
7. In the case of Africa, already sliding eastward, the
force is further movement eastward, as subduction
of the Indio-Australian plate has already begun, the
weaker link already established and momentum in
process.
8. The pile-up is in what was the former northern
hemisphere, and the compression of the Pacific is
creating resistance as plates are subducted under
the Americas and Japan explodes and Indonesia
crumbles.
9. This frees the plates south of the tips of South
America and Africa of stress. As the Pacific
adjusts, reluctantly, pressure toward Antarctica,
the one place on the globe not experiencing plate
pressure, allows new land to pop up between the
tips of South America and Africa.
ZetaTalk, Scripted Drama
(http://www.zetatalk.com/poleshft/p148.htm)
Greg Neill
> In Article <3cb18016...@news.mindspring.com> Greg Muncill wrote:
> > Yes, but both Jan and Nancy have been quite specific
> > on the term Richter Magnitude 15 earthquakes, not
> > Richter Magnitude 15 energy to transform the poles.
> > You have, however, provided them with a new idea
> > for wiggling out of the Richter 15 problem. Don't expect
> > any acknowledgement, however.
>
> What does the word EQUIVALENT mean to you, Greg? The message in
> ZetaTalk has always been that for we surface creatures, the Richter 15
> will be EQUIVALENT to no greater a surface jolting than Richter 9.
Except, of course, for the lava bath they'll all be enjoying when
the entire crust melts due to the energy released by that
magnitude 15 event.
Greg Neill
> In Article <f0b30c00.02040...@posting.google.com> Jeff Root
> wrote:
> > Magnitude is a measure of the total energy involved.
> > Naturally, when the entire surface of the Earth swivels
> > around, there will also be localized earthquakes.
>
> Richter is measuring not only the FORCE of the jolt but also the scope
> of land affected by the jolt, thus, using a word common here on
> sci.astro, the overall "energy" of the shifting plates is measured by
> the Richter.
It's not "thus", it "is". The Richter magnitude scale measures
the energy. Period. If you want to compare qualitative effects
of earthquakes, you turn to the Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale.
See:
http://wwwneic.cr.usgs.gov/neis/general/handouts/magnitude_intensity.html
> It's being assumed in these discussions that the
> exponential increase in Richter would translate to the effect on an
> object on the surface, such that if in a Richter x a man in a field is
> knocked off his feet and a brick structure shaken to the point of having
> the brick mortar crack, than Richter y would cause that man to be dashed
> against anything but thin air in the vicinity and the brick structure to
> become powder, or some such. A cup of cocoa may fly off the table and
> hit the floor if a child bumps the table or if the table happens to be
> on a moving train smashing another in a head-on collision. The effect
> on the cup may be the same, dashed to the floor, but the overall
> "energy" of the incident surrounding the cup is different. From
> existing ZetaTalk:
Ah yes, the ever scientifically accurate and precice Zetas. Let's
see just how specific they can be:
>
> Weak spots among the Earth's crustal plates give way.
> The Pacific Ocean will shorten,
By how much? In what direction?
> and the Atlantic widen.
By how much? In what direction?
> Subducting plates will subduct greatly.
How greatly?
> Mountain
> building will occur suddenly,
How suddenly?
> primarily increasing in
> areas already undergoing mountain building. All told,
> the better part of an hour, but at certain stages, only
> minutes.
What is the better part of an hour? The sentence is unconnected.
> Plants survive as they are rooted and their
> seeds are everywhere, and animals including man
> survive because they travel with the moving plates of
> the Earth and experience no more severe a shock when
> the plates stop moving than they would during a
> Richter 9 earthquake.
Except for the subsequent lava bath, as mentioned above.
> Where mountain building
> occurs when the plates stop moving, the stoppage is
> not simply a sudden jolt, like a car hitting a brick
> wall. All is in motion, and the stoppage is more like a
> car hitting a barrier of sand filled plastic barrels - a
> series of small jolts, occurring in quick succession.
Releasing how much energy? In a few jolts over a few minutes?
It is to laugh.
Jeff Root
> why hasn't she taken ANY steps to search for the supposed
> planet herself?
from the implant in her brain TOLD her it is there, so there
is no uncertainty involved. She's told other people where it
is -- they can look for it if they want to.
But it is nice to see something with your own eyes. When
planet X is supposed to be within naked-eye visibility, about
a year from now, Nancy will surely have no reason NOT to look
for it. Baraboo, Wisconsin is only a few hours drive from me.
I've gone right by it many times on I-90/94. Planet-hunting
party, next year?
Jeff Root
> If the energy was equivalent to a Mag 15 quake - the Earth's crust
> would be turned into a semi-molten mass. There is no way around the
> amount of energy released. Whether part of it manifested as shaking
> on the surface is immaterial.
>
> Also, there would have to be several Mag 9 quakes per square mile of
> the Earth's surface. Move the focus zones deeper into the Earth, and
> the density would have to be even higher. The end result - total
> surface destruction.
>
> Lieder also claims mountain building etc. That is NOT caused by
> minor quakes.
mass away from Earth's center, rather than into heat. How much
energy would go into, say, lifting up a new mountain range the
size and height of the Andes?
I think you guys are making a mistake in thinking that what
Nancy is claiming is either a bunch of earthquakes or one big
earthquake. It is neither of those. It is the wholesale
rotation of all the Earth's tectonic plates over the Earth's
mantle and core, with a lot of slippage and grinding together
and smashing together of those plates, and a lot of shaking
naturally taking place in the process.
This whole thing is supposed to be caused by the effects of
planet X on Earth's core. I haven't read or don't recall the
details from Nancy, but my guess is that she says the core will
stop rotating. I know she says the Earth's crust will stop
rotating. How much energy does that require? That seems to be
where most of the energy would go: into changing the rotational
momentum of the Earth. Not into heat.
I gather that there is supposed be a large differential between
the rotation of the core and the crust, and friction will partly
restore the original rotation, but not all of it. In reality,
I belive it was discovered a few years ago that Earth's core
rotates 1% faster than the rest of the Earth, so it rotates
101 times in 100 days.
I have a figure which isn't very precise, as I read it from a
chart, but from a source I trust, which indicates that the
energy of Earth's rotation is about 3x10^29 joules. Can you
do something with it?
Greg Neill
>
> > If the energy was equivalent to a Mag 15 quake - the Earth's crust
> > would be turned into a semi-molten mass. There is no way around the
> > amount of energy released. Whether part of it manifested as shaking
> > on the surface is immaterial.
> >
> > Also, there would have to be several Mag 9 quakes per square mile of
> > the Earth's surface. Move the focus zones deeper into the Earth, and
> > the density would have to be even higher. The end result - total
> > surface destruction.
> >
> > Lieder also claims mountain building etc. That is NOT caused by
> > minor quakes.
>
> Mountain-building means turning some of the energy into raising
> mass away from Earth's center, rather than into heat. How much
> energy would go into, say, lifting up a new mountain range the
> size and height of the Andes?
Rough guess? Assume 1000km long chain of mountains,
300km wide, 2km high. Average density of rock, 5.5gm/cm^3.
How much work to lift a solid block that size to half
the height (1km)? mgh. I make it about 3x10^22 Joules.
A Richter 15 earthquake weighs in at about 2x10^27 Joules.
You won't be hiding much energy in mountain building.
>
> I think you guys are making a mistake in thinking that what
> Nancy is claiming is either a bunch of earthquakes or one big
> earthquake. It is neither of those. It is the wholesale
> rotation of all the Earth's tectonic plates over the Earth's
> mantle and core, with a lot of slippage and grinding together
> and smashing together of those plates, and a lot of shaking
> naturally taking place in the process.
Slippage, grinding, smashing, shaking = heat
Where's the energy to go otherwise? You can't beat the laws
of thermodynamics.
>
> This whole thing is supposed to be caused by the effects of
> planet X on Earth's core. I haven't read or don't recall the
> details from Nancy, but my guess is that she says the core will
> stop rotating. I know she says the Earth's crust will stop
> rotating. How much energy does that require? That seems to be
> where most of the energy would go: into changing the rotational
> momentum of the Earth. Not into heat.
What goes in must come out. Just to rotate the crust 90 degrees
requires that about 4.6 x 10^28 Joules be applied, then removed
(to make it stop again). Where's that energy going to go? How
do you apply it to a spherical shell to produce a torque that
is evenly distributed and won't tear it to bits (the crust is
very very weak on those scales)?
Stopping the rotation of the entire Earth from core to crust is
another matter. Much higher moment of inertia. Add a factor of
ten.
>
> I gather that there is supposed be a large differential between
> the rotation of the core and the crust, and friction will partly
> restore the original rotation, but not all of it. In reality,
> I belive it was discovered a few years ago that Earth's core
> rotates 1% faster than the rest of the Earth, so it rotates
> 101 times in 100 days.
That would be the liquid core.
What part of 10^28 Joules would be safely lost to friction?
>
> I have a figure which isn't very precise, as I read it from a
> chart, but from a source I trust, which indicates that the
> energy of Earth's rotation is about 3x10^29 joules. Can you
> do something with it?
Well, one thing you can do with it is make Nancy look silly. :-)
Duncan Carroll
Man, oh man. Frankly, and with all due respect, sir, I have only
heard such posturing from naive children. Would it not be "wise" to
step down, in modest humility, from your own pedestal of anxious
doubts? Contesting your presumptions is not worth the bandwidth,
suffice to say that a mind is like a parachute...
Give it a rest. We will all find out in due time who is to play the
fool, here, as all present know that Nancy will *not* be able to
wiggle out, should nothing substantial occur leading up to or during
May of 2003. Period.
-Duncan
Greg Muncill
>"Jeff Root" <je...@freemars.org> wrote in message
>news:f0b30c00.02040...@posting.google.com...
>> Bill Nelson wrote:
>>
>> > If the energy was equivalent to a Mag 15 quake - the Earth's crust
>> > would be turned into a semi-molten mass. There is no way around the
>> > amount of energy released. Whether part of it manifested as shaking
>> > on the surface is immaterial.
>> >
>> > Also, there would have to be several Mag 9 quakes per square mile of
>> > the Earth's surface. Move the focus zones deeper into the Earth, and
>> > the density would have to be even higher. The end result - total
>> > surface destruction.
>> >
>> > Lieder also claims mountain building etc. That is NOT caused by
>> > minor quakes.
>>
>> Mountain-building means turning some of the energy into raising
>> mass away from Earth's center, rather than into heat. How much
>> energy would go into, say, lifting up a new mountain range the
>> size and height of the Andes?
>
>Rough guess? Assume 1000km long chain of mountains,
>300km wide, 2km high. Average density of rock, 5.5gm/cm^3.
>How much work to lift a solid block that size to half
>the height (1km)? mgh. I make it about 3x10^22 Joules.
>
Actually, that density is probably a little high for the crust.
The average density is taking into account the higher
density phases (iron in the core and minerals in the mantle)
resulting from the high pressures inside the earth. A more
likely density would be 3.5-4.0. The average basalt at the
surface is about 3.0-3.3 and the average granite is 2.6-2.9.
>A Richter 15 earthquake weighs in at about 2x10^27 Joules.
>You won't be hiding much energy in mountain building.
>
Agreed.
>>
>> I think you guys are making a mistake in thinking that what
>> Nancy is claiming is either a bunch of earthquakes or one big
>> earthquake. It is neither of those. It is the wholesale
>> rotation of all the Earth's tectonic plates over the Earth's
>> mantle and core, with a lot of slippage and grinding together
>> and smashing together of those plates, and a lot of shaking
>> naturally taking place in the process.
>
>Slippage, grinding, smashing, shaking = heat
>
>Where's the energy to go otherwise? You can't beat the laws
>of thermodynamics.
>
Well I was getting quite a bit of heating when I was using
Louie's formulas for going from seismic energy to tons of
TNT and then doing some comparisons from there. It turns
out, though, that I think the energy/ton of TNT formulations
are wrong at:
<http://www.seismo.unr.edu/ftp/pub/louie/class/100/magnitude.html>
His formulations for the erg energy calculations are correct and
I get the same energy as you are talking about, 2X10^27 Joules.
It turns out, though, this is equivalent to 55 days of total sun
energy output, not 10 Years as I reported previously.
Further, if all this energy was converted to heat, it would yield
4.8X10^26 calories. If this was spread out over the total crust
(2.7X10^25 gm) it would only yield 18 calories per gram. That
would not be much of a temperature increase.
Does this mean there would be no partial melting? No. We
are only calculating Es, the seismic wave energy and as is
pointed out in my reference above:
"Note that Es is not the total ``intrinsic'' energy of the earthquake,
transferred from sources such as gravitational energy or to sinks
such as heat energy. It is only the amount radiated from the
earthquake as seismic waves, which ought to be a small fraction
of the total energy transfered during the earthquake process. "
I am not a seismologist and it will take a little more
digging to get a handle on the total energy of a
Richter 15 event. I am wondering whether the seismic
moment, which is 20,000 times Es, is what we are
after.
<snip>
>>
>> I gather that there is supposed be a large differential between
>> the rotation of the core and the crust, and friction will partly
>> restore the original rotation, but not all of it. In reality,
>> I belive it was discovered a few years ago that Earth's core
>> rotates 1% faster than the rest of the Earth, so it rotates
>> 101 times in 100 days.
>
>That would be the liquid core.
>
No, the solid core is rotating slightly faster than
the crust. They think it is essentially an electric
motor effect from the magnetic field. See:
<http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/press_releases/song/pr.html>
Note however, Jeff, that the core has only progressed
an extra quarter turn in 100 YEARS.
<snip>
Greg Muncill
Thomas McDonald
Jeff,
I'm in. Pick me up at the Menomonie Hwy. 25 exit. I'll bring my 8"
SCT, and my 80 mm short tube, with all my observing goodies. I don't
have a CCD, but do have the camera and adapter to take some nice film
shots.
I'll also bring my disaster kit and Worm Cooker (tm). Just in case,
ya know.
Tom McDonald
Greg Muncill
>
>What does the word EQUIVALENT mean to you, Greg? The message in
>ZetaTalk has always been that for we surface creatures, the Richter 15
>will be EQUIVALENT to no greater a surface jolting than Richter 9.
>
The term EQUIVALENT to me, Nancy, means that you will
have a distribution of Richter 9 earthquakes equal in energy
to a Richter 15 earthquake. That is what I have been supposing
you have said. Please supply the appropriate correction as
necessary.
>
>Nor will we get an acknowledgment from YOU, when you are wrong, I'm
>sure.
>
Actually, you get it right here. My calculations for the
tons of TNT for the Richter 15 event are in error. I was
using the conversion factor supplied by Louie at:
<http://www.seismo.unr.edu/ftp/pub/louie/class/100/magnitude.html>
Further digging at weapon lab website and such show me
that there is a big discrepancy between his value and other
recognized values. My revised value for the Richter 15
event is 4.8X10^17 tons of TNT, as compared to 3.2X10^19 tons
I reported earlier. This is equivalent to 55 days of total output of
the sun, not 10 years. It is still a huge amount of seismic
energy, corresponding to the energy of 5 of those massive
Richter 9 earthquakes per square mile of the earth.
OK Nancy. I fessed up. Your turn.
So, are you now claiming that the energy of a Richter
15 earthquake will be used to accomplish all that you
refer to above? What is it? Is it a Richter 15 energy
being used to accomplish the pole shifts, and follow
on earthquakes? And what are you talking about with
the crust detaching from the core? Haven't you
neglected a rather large layer of rock referred to as
the mantle between these two features? I also
find it rather interesting that you are now referring
to a single event, when I clearly pulled out a Zetatalk
quote about Richter 15 earthquakeS. Want me to
go back into the archives and pull it out again?
Greg Muncill
Greg Muncill
Sarah Mc
> Thus, to refer to my previous analogy of a cup of cocoa being dashed to
> the floor whether a child bumps the table or a moving train takes a
> head-on collision, it's better for the cup of cocoa to be where the ROOF
> will not shortly fall upon it, or the walls compress into a crush, or
> some such, which is why the Zetas have responded to questions and the
> safe Locations TOPIC (http://www.zetatalk.com/info/tinfo242.htm) and an
> Adobe document (http://www.zetatalk.com/safelocs.pdf) has developed. For
> example, ZetaTalk given on the following locations:
>
<big snip of cult rhetoric)
These wouldn't happen to be the locations that you would be looking
for new cult members, would they?
Cult fear tactics noted.
Greg Neill
> "Greg Neill" <gnei...@OVE.netcom.ca> wrote:
> >
> >Rough guess? Assume 1000km long chain of mountains,
> >300km wide, 2km high. Average density of rock, 5.5gm/cm^3.
> >How much work to lift a solid block that size to half
> >the height (1km)? mgh. I make it about 3x10^22 Joules.
> >
>
> Actually, that density is probably a little high for the crust.
> The average density is taking into account the higher
> density phases (iron in the core and minerals in the mantle)
> resulting from the high pressures inside the earth. A more
> likely density would be 3.5-4.0. The average basalt at the
> surface is about 3.0-3.3 and the average granite is 2.6-2.9.
I decided to err on the conservative side. :-)
>
> Well I was getting quite a bit of heating when I was using
> Louie's formulas for going from seismic energy to tons of
> TNT and then doing some comparisons from there. It turns
> out, though, that I think the energy/ton of TNT formulations
> are wrong at:
>
> <http://www.seismo.unr.edu/ftp/pub/louie/class/100/magnitude.html>
>
> His formulations for the erg energy calculations are correct and
> I get the same energy as you are talking about, 2X10^27 Joules.
> It turns out, though, this is equivalent to 55 days of total sun
> energy output, not 10 Years as I reported previously.
Sounds reasonable for where we started from. Only recently
Nancy has confirmed that the crustal starting and stopping
all occurs in the space of an hour. Yikes! That pushes the
energy requirements up to about 1.5x10^30 J. This does not
include the energy needed to start and stop the core
rotation.
>
> Further, if all this energy was converted to heat, it would yield
> 4.8X10^26 calories. If this was spread out over the total crust
> (2.7X10^25 gm) it would only yield 18 calories per gram. That
> would not be much of a temperature increase.
>
Well, rock has a specific heat of about 1000 J/kg/K. So 18 cals per
gram would yield an overall crustal temperature increase of about
75K for the 4.8x10^26 cals. That's if it would be evenly distributed,
which is highly unlikely. The new figure of 1.5x10^30 J would yield
a temp rise of about 10,000K.
> Does this mean there would be no partial melting? No. We
> are only calculating Es, the seismic wave energy and as is
> pointed out in my reference above:
>
> "Note that Es is not the total ``intrinsic'' energy of the earthquake,
> transferred from sources such as gravitational energy or to sinks
> such as heat energy. It is only the amount radiated from the
> earthquake as seismic waves, which ought to be a small fraction
> of the total energy transfered during the earthquake process. "
>
> I am not a seismologist and it will take a little more
> digging to get a handle on the total energy of a
> Richter 15 event. I am wondering whether the seismic
> moment, which is 20,000 times Es, is what we are
> after.
I believe that you are on the right track there.
jrla...@shell.golden.net
Greg Neill <gnei...@OVE.netcom.ca> wrote:
>
>Except, of course, for the lava bath they'll all be enjoying when
>the entire crust melts due to the energy released by that
>magnitude 15 event.
Won't be a problem ... Nancy's supplying ice cold Koolaid!
--
john R. Latala
jrla...@golden.net
Bill Nelson
>
> 1. As the South Pole, gripped by the passing North Pole
> of the 12th Planet, moves north, the crust is torn from
> the core and freed in this way, allows pre-existing
> stress points to relax. Thus, Europe and Africa move
Your explanations become even less possible as you add more detail.
Compared to gravity, the magnetic attraction is very small. Before
there could be any "gripping" of the North/South magnetic poles,
the Earth and your Px would be ripped apart by tidal forces.
To verify that the magnetic force is small - just take out any
magnetic compass. Set it on a table top. Does it go scooting off
towards the North Magnetic Pole?
--
Bill Nelson (bi...@peak.org)
Bill Nelson
>>
>> Lieder also claims mountain building etc. That is NOT caused by
>> minor quakes.
>
> Mountain-building means turning some of the energy into raising
> mass away from Earth's center, rather than into heat. How much
> energy would go into, say, lifting up a new mountain range the
> size and height of the Andes?
Only a very slight fraction of the total energy that Lieder claims will
be involved.
> I think you guys are making a mistake in thinking that what
> Nancy is claiming is either a bunch of earthquakes or one big
> earthquake. It is neither of those. It is the wholesale
> rotation of all the Earth's tectonic plates over the Earth's
> mantle and core, with a lot of slippage and grinding together
> and smashing together of those plates, and a lot of shaking
> naturally taking place in the process.
It doesn't matter if it is one big quake or millions of smaller
quakes. The total energy involved is the same.
You could turn all the land mass on the Earth into one giant mountain,
and it still wouldn't use up more than a small fraction of the total
energy claimed.
> This whole thing is supposed to be caused by the effects of
> planet X on Earth's core. I haven't read or don't recall the
> details from Nancy, but my guess is that she says the core will
> stop rotating. I know she says the Earth's crust will stop
> rotating. How much energy does that require? That seems to be
> where most of the energy would go: into changing the rotational
> momentum of the Earth. Not into heat.
See the above. Neither you, nor Lieder, has any concept of the
magnitude of the total energies that have been claimed by Lieder.
> I have a figure which isn't very precise, as I read it from a
> chart, but from a source I trust, which indicates that the
> energy of Earth's rotation is about 3x10^29 joules. Can you
> do something with it?
Sure. I can stop the rotation in a few days, and turn the Earth
into a molten mass.
--
Bill Nelson (bi...@peak.org)
Jeff Root
> No, the solid core is rotating slightly faster than
> the crust. They think it is essentially an electric
> motor effect from the magnetic field. See:
>
> <http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/press_releases/song/pr.html>
that is happening! Wow wow wow!
> Note however, Jeff, that the core has only progressed
> an extra quarter turn in 100 YEARS.
the "100" part right. And I see that I remebered it from 1996.
The year was omitted from the web page, but I sneaked into the
directory it was in, and the files are all dated 1996.
Jeff Root
regarding "pole shift", Nancy, and her admirers:
> Man, oh man. Frankly, and with all due respect, sir, I have only
> heard such posturing from naive children. Would it not be "wise" to
> step down, in modest humility, from your own pedestal of anxious
> doubts? Contesting your presumptions is not worth the bandwidth,
> suffice to say that a mind is like a parachute...
>
> Give it a rest. We will all find out in due time who is to play the
> fool, here, as all present know that Nancy will *not* be able to
> wiggle out, should nothing substantial occur leading up to or during
> May of 2003. Period.
I appreciate that your advice is to give it a rest, and that
you feel that contesting my "presumptions" is not worthwhile,
but I'm not clear on what specific errors you think I'm making,
and I really want to know.
That I have made "presumptions", I do not doubt, but I have
no idea which presumptions of mine you find fault with.
And I don't know what you refer to as my "posturing". With
such an enormous range of human behavior in the world, it seems
unlikely that my "posturing" is at an extreme of the spectrum
of what you have heard from adults, but I really have no idea
what you are referring to.
The only thing you said above that I definitely disagree with
is that I have "anxious doubts" about anything I've discussed.
I do not. What you mean by "pedestal of anxious doubts" is a
mystery to me.
Maybe I can explain why I post these messages. If I understand
my own motives correctly, then I suspect that they also apply
to others here.
I think my reason for posting is, very simply, that I feel
anger when an apparently intelligent person says something
untrue which is clearly and obviously and demonstrably untrue,
and asserts authority in the truth of the assertion, despite
having the knowledge that the assertion is untrue.
Why I feel anger, I do not know, but I think you will agree
that anger in such a situation is a natural and predictable
response. Further, I think you will agree that attempting
to correct and/or expose the untruths is a natural and
predictable expression of my anger. Finally, I don't see
that I've gone farther with these expressions than others.
If *I* have said anything that you believe is untrue, you are
free and welcome to take me to task for it. I know that I do
speak untruthfully many times. I hope that it is only when I
am mistaken, but I am susceptible to the temptation to stretch
the truth when that is easy to do, so I should be corrected
when that happens, just like anyone else.
The bottom line is: I don't know specifically what you are
complaining about, but I want to know.
Duncan Carroll
Preface: This started out as an individual reply and gradually morphed
into something, imo, suitable for the entire board.
Jeff,
Tim Leary has a saying that goes, "You can't talk to a caterpillar in
butterfly language", and I have found this to be accurate, insomuchas I
have found it quite hard to convey spiritual or intuitive experience and
concepts to scientists (mainly CMU professors) with whom I have spoken.
But let's give it a shot! I've given my "$0.02 on the Zeta's" in a March
31 sci.astro post of the same name, briefly summarizing why I give
credence to the information coming from Nancy, And here, we are definitely
moving away from the richter 15 topic of this thread, but this is for the
sake of the greater discussion. So, instead of parrying your questions
piecemeal with individual arguments, I will try to illuminate for you why
I made the comments I did re: your statements, just as you did for me. I
hope this is helpful, and please note that I am not wearing my "flame
proof suit", and am not interested in such battle.
The difficulty with clear communication in these ongoing debates is, to
me, that those who feel qualified to tackle the nitty-gritty of the ZTalk
scenario, in doing so, necessarily shut out the larger picture. But this
works both ways, of course, as I do not feel qualified to tackle the grit,
but I do feel that I have a perspective on the "larger picture". Having
lurked around a bit in these threads, I see a lot of valid points being
made, but I also see much room for uncertainty, and it is this that I
refer to broadly as the possible subconscious expression of "anxious
doubts".
One point I feel needs to be made clear: You will find that there is
little dissagreement among recognized authorities in this matter, that we
are living in, or are very close to much-prophesized "End Times". In
Vedanta scripture this age is known as the Kali Yuga. Here I quote Meher
Baba from volume III of "Discourses"
"Those who are spiritually awake have been aware for some time that the
world is at present in the midst of a period such as always precedes
Avataric manifestations [The Avatar, or the incarnation of God on earth,
is said to arrive before times of unusually great suffering]. Even
unawakened men and women are becoming aware of it now ... For the moment
[written in 1938] they must be patient. The wave of destruction must rise
still higher, must spread still further ... The disease of selfishness in
mankind will need a cure which is not only
universal in its application but drastic in nature ... It is so
deep-rooted
that is can be eradicated only if it is attacked from all sides ... The
present chaos and destruction will engulf the whole world, but it will be
followed by a very long period in which there shall be no war ... What
will
the present chaos lead to? How will it all end? It can only end in one
way. makind will be sick of it all. Men will be sick of wanting and sick
of fighting out of hatred...THe way out of the dead-lock will be found
through selflessness ... Great suffering awakens great
understanding ... Unprecedented suffering leads to unprecedented spiritual
growth."
I implore you to read these words carefully. They are the words of a man
who spend his *entire life* in charitable service [dare I say
Service-to-Other?], in addition to keeping a vow of silence for 40 years
of his 60 year life, in keeping with his saying, "I have not come to teach
[verbally], but to awaken". If not a pole shift type scenario, what else
could induce "unprecedented suffering, universal and drastic in
application"? (and to those who do not "buy" the Pole Shift theory of
geological change, I ask, how do you refute Velikovsky?) A side note,
Baba has also written about the fate of the continent of India, stating
that near the end the rivers will run red, and India will suffer
disproportionally greater than the remainder of the world. I point you to
ZTalk's statements that the continent of India is predicted to go
underwater, Atlantis-style.
You may be aware of specific Hopi prophecy, as well as more recent
Christian prophecies (although I am not well-versed in this particular
area). The end date of the Mayan calendar is also much-touted. Baba is
also quite clear in regards to what he refers to as "cycles of time", of
which we are rapidly approaching an end, as well as a "new beginning".
Baba has this to say on wisdom, and upon reading this I could not help but
think of the posts of the die-hard Nancy-bashers on our very own
sci.astro:
"Once an inquisitive and doubting man went to Bayazid the Perfect Master
and said, 'You, being Perfect, ought to know the thoughts of others. What
am I thinking of just now?' Bayazid replied, 'You are thinking of that
which you ought not to have thought of, and asking that which you ought
not to have asked. Had you come with an open mind and curbed tongue you
would have recieved that which you ought to have recieved, instead of this
well-deserved rebuke.'"
Lest there be any confusion, I am not putting Mrs. Leider on a pedestal,
here, so I don't want ot hear any yelling of "cult follower!". But I hope
the point has been made.
So, when I say "I have only seen such posturing in naive children", what I
am getting at is that, with all due respect, who are you to pass judgement
on mental stability? Until very recently, anthropologists visiting
Amazonian cultures simply described the shamans who claimed to speak with
spirits as schitzos and as mad. It was only when R. Gordon Wasson, then
VP of JP Morgan, participated in a sacred mushroom rite (as reported in
Life magazine, 1953), that the West began to see it's gross misconceptions
regarding the mind, the brain, and the world. Modern day shamans like
Terence McKenna have continued this exploration into the uncharted regions
of the mind. His prescription? "Five dried grams of psylocibin cubensis
mushrooms on a rainy day in your apartment, and Magellan will take a back
seat." Many scientists describe phenomenal or otherwise super-mindane
events in their lives. Read, "The Scientist" by John C. Lilly, the
inventor of the isolation tank. I will quote from his web page, "I made
so many discoveries [using the tank] that I didn't dare tell the
psychiatric group about it at all because the would've said I was
psychotic. I found the isolation tank was a hole in the universe. I
gradually began to see through to another reality. It scared me. I
didn't know about alternate realities at that time, but I was experiencing
them left and right without any LSD."
As I have stated in my "$0.02" post, available evidence suggests that the
UFO/ET phenomena is not a mass delusion. Read, "DMT: The Spirit
Molecule" chapters "Contact Through the Veil", for lucid descriptions of
contact with alien entities seeming to inhabit the same physical space as
the experimentors, yet invisible under ordinary circumstances. Sound like
Zetatalk? I will say that when I read ZTalk, I was quite surprised to
find the correlations between earlier research I had done on the subject,
and I do not believe for a second that Nancy has read the DMT book, which
in any case was published in 2001. The most logical explanation? That
there is a kernel of truth to the information she imparts. As I've stated
before, we'll find out soon enough.
So, wrapping things up here because I am way way late for my Astronomy
recitation:
Do I have a problem with the math regarding the melting of the Earth's
crust in response to a Richter 15 quake? No.
Do I have a problem with the assumption that a distant body could simply
and flatly NOT be, in some way, already affecting the magnetically
sensitive core of the Earth? No, *however*, I do admit my ignorance on the
subject, and in that ignorance lies the possibility that is *may be*
occurring by some cosmic mechanism that our science is unfamiliar with.
Even our most cherished and long-standing physical theories can be called
into question. Just look at Kepler and Newton's laws in regards to the
problem of Dark Matter.
Do I have a problem with your brash statements regarding your conception
of what is "sane", and what is "not sane"? Most certainly, and I do hope
that the above has presuaded you to not write ZTalk off as the
hallucinatory, delusional fantasy of a deranged yet strangely otherwise
mild-mannered, middle aged mother.
Sincerely,
Duncan Carroll
tho...@antispam.ham
> Greg Muncill wrote:
>> Yes, but both Jan and Nancy have been quite specific
>> on the term Richter Magnitude 15 earthquakes, not
>> Richter Magnitude 15 energy to transform the poles.
>> You have, however, provided them with a new idea
>> for wiggling out of the Richter 15 problem. Don't expect
>> any acknowledgement, however.
> What does the word EQUIVALENT mean to you, Greg? The message in
> ZetaTalk has always been that for we surface creatures, the Richter 15
> will be EQUIVALENT to no greater a surface jolting than Richter 9.
That's a rather feeble attempt at spin doctoring yet another error
on your part, Nancy. Why call it Richter 15 in the first place
if Richter 9 is the correct description, and then try to wriggle
your way out of it by claiming 15 is equivalent to 9?
Jeff Root
>>> both Jan and Nancy have been quite specific on the term Richter
>>> Magnitude 15 earthquakes, not Richter Magnitude 15 energy to
>>> transform the poles.
>> What does the word EQUIVALENT mean to you, Greg? The message in
>> ZetaTalk has always been that for we surface creatures, the
>> Richter 15 will be EQUIVALENT to no greater a surface jolting than
>> Richter 9.
> That's a rather feeble attempt at spin doctoring yet another error
> on your part, Nancy. Why call it Richter 15 in the first place
> if Richter 9 is the correct description, and then try to wriggle
> your way out of it by claiming 15 is equivalent to 9?
she obviously is trying to describe the intensity when she
refers to "surface jolting" "equivalent to" Richter 9.
That she can't grasp the difference between intensity and
magnitude is revealing of her point of view. The concepts are
simple and are analogous to all kinds of other situations that
people run into all the time. She apparently assumes that she
can't understand such things, so she doesn't try to.
Chosp
"Duncan Carroll" <dun...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.43L-024.020...@unix3.andrew.cmu.edu...
> I do hope
> that the above has presuaded you to not write ZTalk off as the
> hallucinatory, delusional fantasy of a deranged yet strangely otherwise
> mild-mannered, middle aged mother.
You have not persuaded me.
Nor likely any other rational person.
That is, however, an accurate description of her.
Perhaps a bit overly generous.
Bill Nelson
> One point I feel needs to be made clear: You will find that there is
> little dissagreement among recognized authorities in this matter, that we
> are living in, or are very close to much-prophesized "End Times". In
> Vedanta scripture this age is known as the Kali Yuga. Here I quote Meher
> Baba from volume III of "Discourses"
What "recognized authorities"? Vedantan writings are ancient prophesy.
I have not read Baba - but from what you quote (which I have deleted)
I don't need to. His forecasts have not occurred in 70 years - it is
unlikely that they will occur anytime in the near future.
> geological change, I ask, how do you refute Velikovsky?) A side note,
Velikovsky was not a geologist. Nor did he have training in the physical
sciences. His imaginings have been well debunked as impossible - given
what we know about the physical functioning of the universe.
> Do I have a problem with your brash statements regarding your conception
> of what is "sane", and what is "not sane"? Most certainly, and I do hope
> that the above has presuaded you to not write ZTalk off as the
> hallucinatory, delusional fantasy of a deranged yet strangely otherwise
> mild-mannered, middle aged mother.
Oh, I don't necessarily consider them to be that. I just believe them
to be wrong - and have all of known science knowledge behind me in support.
--
Bill Nelson (bi...@peak.org)
Nancy Lieder
> Nancy Lieder <zeta...@zetatalk.com> wrote:
>>
>> 1. As the South Pole, gripped by the passing North Pole
>> stress points to relax. Thus, Europe and Africa move
>
> Your explanations become even less possible as you add
> more detail. Compared to gravity, the magnetic attraction
> is very small.
Oh? What is the largest magnet mankind has that you could point to?
How far does another magnet have to be, from that magnet, before
escaping the influence? And note, this other magnet must be FREE to
move, not nailed down, as a planet in space is free to move, rotate,
etc.
> Before there could be any "gripping" of the North/South
> magnetic poles, the Earth and your Px would be ripped
> apart by tidal forces.
And what do you base this on? Experience?
> To verify that the magnetic force is small - just take out
> any magnetic compass. Set it on a table top. Does it go
> scooting off towards the North Magnetic Pole?
An itsy-bitsy compass? Put this into perspective and size the compass
to a PLANET. What is the distance one magnet needs to be from another
before it is influenced? Size this distance between planets, and THEIR
size. I read from my Britannicas that magnetic influences are based on
an inverse square rule, like gravity. At what distance would a planet
sized magnet influence another planet sized magnet?
Nancy Lieder
> No, the solid core is rotating slightly faster than
> the crust. They think it is essentially an electric
> motor effect from the magnetic field. See:
> http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/press_releases/song/pr.html
Yes, another point for ZetaTalk Accuracy. The Zetas have ALWAYS stated
that rotation is not simply momentum, continuing, but DRIVEN by the
liquid core. Below, the ZetaTalk on Rotation, written on or before Dec
15, 1995 (http://www.zetatalk.com/index/z94.htm)
Rotation of a planet is dependent on many factors,
only one of which is the initial motion attained
coming out of a big bang. Take the instance of your
Earth, during the passage of her brother, [Planet X].
Rotation slows and then stops, for days, and then
after passage resumes to the same pace as before.
This is because of the other factors involved in
rotation, which remain in place in your Solar System
and have their grip on the Earth.
Rotation is due to a mobility difference between
the core of a planet and the surface, and for lack
of a better analogy we relate this to a dog chasing
its tail. The core of the Earth is liquid, and mobile,
and has a mind of its own. As the Earth moves in its
orbit around the Sun, the relationship of the core
of the Earth to surrounding influences changes. A
child standing on a merry-go-round and wishing to
face his mother must himself turn a complete circle
in order to do this. In like manner, the heavy Core
of the Earth moves to face or escape magnetically
related forces in the Universe about your Solar System,
dragging the surface with it. The core is not
homogeneous everywhere and thus parts of it are
strongly attracted or repulsed to this part or that of the
Universe about it, so motion in the core is constant.
No sooner does a part of the core move to the far
side of its liquid tomb, then it finds itself presented
with its old problem again, and sets into motion once
again.
Now as the Earth takes 365 days to orbit the Sun,
and rotation happens once a day, it would seem at
first glance that the merry-go-round analogy is
incorrect. How could rotation started because of the
Earth's orbit, a yearly affair, turn into a daily rotation?
Motion is not a controlled matter, as anyone riding
a bike without brakes is painfully aware. In the liquid
core of the Earth, there is little to stop motion, once
started, save the desire of parts of the core to approach
or escape magnetic influences in the Universe.
Rotation starts because of these external influences,
and thus is always in the same direction. The rate of
rotation is due to the liquidity of the core, as the
brakes are never applied. Thus, the parts of the core
that are moving away from an influence soon find
that they have created their problem again, as the
motion of the Earth has placed these parts back where
they did not want to be! Round and round, like a dog
chasing its tail.
ZetaTalk, Rotation
http://www.zetatalk.com/science/s45.htm
John Jones
"Nancy Lieder" <na...@zetatalk.com> wrote in message
news:3CB588DE...@zetatalk.com...[...]
> An itsy-bitsy compass? Put this into perspective and size the
compass
> to a PLANET. What is the distance one magnet needs to be from
another
> before it is influenced? Size this distance between planets,
and THEIR
> size. I read from my Britannicas that magnetic influences are
based on
> an inverse square rule, like gravity.
Look again or get a better encyclopedia. Magnetism follows an
inverse cube rule. That ought to tell you something right there.
Greg Muncill
>In Article <3cb34614...@news.mindspring.com> Greg Muncill wrote:
>> No, the solid core is rotating slightly faster than
>> the crust. They think it is essentially an electric
>> motor effect from the magnetic field. See:
>> http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/press_releases/song/pr.html
>
>Yes, another point for ZetaTalk Accuracy. The Zetas have ALWAYS stated
>that rotation is not simply momentum, continuing, but DRIVEN by the
>liquid core. Below, the ZetaTalk on Rotation, written on or before Dec
>15, 1995 (http://www.zetatalk.com/index/z94.htm)
>
Make that a minus point as we will now discuss.
<snip>.
>
> Rotation is due to a mobility difference between
> the core of a planet and the surface, and for lack
> of a better analogy we relate this to a dog chasing
> its tail. The core of the Earth is liquid, and mobile,
> and has a mind of its own.
So the Zetas are not aware of the solid inner core?
And it has a mind of it's own.. very scientific.
If you would care to actually READ the article you
will find that the GREAT and all powerful magnetic
field you are proposing has the power to turn the
earth's inner SOLID core about one quarter extra
revolution per CENTURY. And note that that SOLID
core is contained within an outer liquid core responsible
for generation of the magnetic field.
>As the Earth moves in its
> orbit around the Sun, the relationship of the core
> of the Earth to surrounding influences changes. A
> child standing on a merry-go-round and wishing to
> face his mother must himself turn a complete circle
> in order to do this. In like manner, the heavy Core
> of the Earth moves to face or escape magnetically
> related forces in the Universe about your Solar System,
> dragging the surface with it.
Once again the Zetas seem to have missed the
earth's mantle, which accounts for roughly two
thirds of the mass of the earth.
http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/phys_props_earth.html
As any student who has had intro geology
can tell you, the earth's relatively thin crust
rides on the hot mantle, which is slowly
convecting and generating new crust at
mid ocean ridge spreading centers and
supplying the driving forces for plate motions
and subduction. Why have the Zetas missed
this important component of the earth?
Want the simple geology 101 picture of
the earth Nancy?
<http://www.geog.ouc.bc.ca/physgeog/contents/10h.html>
Your Zetas apparently need an intro course
on our geology. They certainly have it
mucked up so far.
<snip of the rest of a complete lack of
understanding of hydrodynamic convection
in the liquid part of the core>
Greg Muncill
Greg Neill
> > Nancy Lieder <zeta...@zetatalk.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> 1. As the South Pole, gripped by the passing North Pole
> >> of the [Planet X], moves north, the crust is torn from
> >> the core and freed in this way, allows pre-existing
> >> stress points to relax. Thus, Europe and Africa move
> >
> > Your explanations become even less possible as you add
> > more detail. Compared to gravity, the magnetic attraction
> > is very small.
>
> Oh? What is the largest magnet mankind has that you could point to?
> How far does another magnet have to be, from that magnet, before
> escaping the influence? And note, this other magnet must be FREE to
> move, not nailed down, as a planet in space is free to move, rotate,
> etc.
http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/14-tesla-magnet.html
About 15 Teslas. The Earth's magnetic field strength varies
from point to point on the surface, but ranges from about 20,00
nanoTeslas at the magentic equator, to about 65,000 nT at the
poles. *Nano* Teslas, Nancy. That's 10^-9 Teslas. The
Earth's magnetic field is some 300,000 times weaker than the
strongest magnetic field we've produced so far.
The fact that magnets are dipoles means that their influence
drops off as the cube of the distance.
Being free to rotate in space does not magically turn off
mass and inertia.
>
> > Before there could be any "gripping" of the North/South
> > magnetic poles, the Earth and your Px would be ripped
> > apart by tidal forces.
>
> And what do you base this on? Experience?
The Roche limit. To be close enough to "grip" the Earth's
weak magnetic field, and given the inverse cube drop in
magnetic field strength, PX would have to:
a) have a field strength larger than anything ever seen,
including pulsars, quasars, and anything else you could
name.
b) pass within the orbit of the Moon at least, and probably
through the Earth's atmosphere.
Further, the field dipoles would have to be situated in the
Earth's crust, rather than generated in the core. Field forces
work on the dipole centers. Whatever they're 'nailed' to
will move along with them.
>
> > To verify that the magnetic force is small - just take out
> > any magnetic compass. Set it on a table top. Does it go
> > scooting off towards the North Magnetic Pole?
>
> An itsy-bitsy compass? Put this into perspective and size the compass
> to a PLANET. What is the distance one magnet needs to be from another
> before it is influenced? Size this distance between planets, and THEIR
> size. I read from my Britannicas that magnetic influences are based on
> an inverse square rule, like gravity. At what distance would a planet
> sized magnet influence another planet sized magnet?
Size doesn't matter. It's field strength. The Earth's is too weak
by many orders of magnitude to be used to move the Earth. More likely,
the dynamic field generation mechanism in the core would simple
change direction to accommodate an applied influence, leaving the rest
of the mantle and crust stationary. Note the observed periodic
magnetic pole reversals that are already documented. They occur
without a hint of shifting of the mass of the Earth.
tho...@antispam.ham
> Nancy Lieder wrote:
>> Richter is measuring not only the FORCE of the jolt but also the scope
>> of land affected by the jolt, thus, using a word common here on
>> sci.astro, the overall "energy" of the shifting plates is measured by
>> the Richter.
> It's not "thus", it "is". The Richter magnitude scale measures
> the energy. Period.
I wouldn't be quite so emphatic about it. The Richter scale measures
ground motion, which is related to the energy. To quote from:
http://wwwneic.cr.usgs.gov/neis/eqlists/eqstats.html
"The magnitude scale is really comparing amplitudes of waves
on a seismogram, not the STRENGTH (energy) of the quakes."
Each point on the Richter scale is a factor of ten in ground motion,
but more like a factor of 32 in energy.
Greg Muncill
>
>Each point on the Richter scale is a factor of ten in ground motion,
>but more like a factor of 32 in energy.
>
But that is only a factor of 32 in seismic wave energy.
And the seismic wave energy is only a fraction of the
total energy of the earthquake:
<http://www.seismo.unr.edu/ftp/pub/louie/class/100/magnitude.html>
With the quote:
"Note that ES is not the total ``intrinsic'' energy of the
earthquake, transferred from sources such as gravitational
energy or to sinks such as heat energy. It is only the amount
radiated from the earthquake as seismic waves, which ought
to be a small fraction of the total energy transfered during
the earthquake process."
Greg Muncill
Duncan Carroll
> Duncan Carroll <dun...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
>
> > One point I feel needs to be made clear: You will find that there is
> > little dissagreement among recognized authorities in this matter, that we
> > are living in, or are very close to much-prophesized "End Times". In
> > Vedanta scripture this age is known as the Kali Yuga. Here I quote Meher
> > Baba from volume III of "Discourses"
>
> What "recognized authorities"? Vedantan writings are ancient prophesy.
> I have not read Baba - but from what you quote (which I have deleted)
> I don't need to. His forecasts have not occurred in 70 years - it is
> unlikely that they will occur anytime in the near future.
Try not to get so worked up over this. I'm more than willing to consider
your own points, if you will present an equally open mind to mine.
To begin with, being a recognized authority in a scientific field is more
straightforward than achieving the same status in a metaphysical or
spiritual field, which are more nebulous areas. I present a list of my
own sources, those I consider to be authorities, wise, or
otherwise prescient individuals:
Tom Brown's "Grandfather", Apache tracker extraordinaire. If you have not
met the man personally or read his books, I humbly suggest that you have
no foundation to gague his legitimacy, suffice to say that he was the real
McCoy. Predicts that shortly, the Earth will be forced to heal itself
should mankind not turn from "the world of the flesh".
Meher Baba, self-proclaimed "Avatar of the Age", born in India, 1894.
Has delivered thousands of discourses and is one of the few Indian
"guru's" to achieve world renown in his time. I've already mentioned his
life of service, which speaks for itself. His major books, Discourses,
God Speaks, and Listen Humanity, are available from libraries around the
world. He is widely respected. His forecasts *have* occurred, my friend,
"the tide of destruction" has indeed risen; have you not noticed this?
Vedanta scriptures are obviously open to interpretation, but again, the
Kali Yuga *is* known as the last age in cycles of time. Again quoting
Baba from "God Speaks",
"In each cycle of time, which ranges from 700-1400 years, there are eleven
ages of 65 to 125 years each ... In the last, the eleventh age of each
cycle, the Avatar is present."
If Baba [the Avatar] was born in 1894, and each age can be a maximum of
125 years, then our age is scheduled to come to a close at 2019, at the
latest. An entirely new cycle of time begins thereafter.
Lastly, the Mayan calendar's end date is an enigma. I admit the subject
is over my head, so I do not consider it a crucial piece of evidence,
although it is noteworthy.
These are my recognized authorities, take it or leave it.
> > geological change, I ask, how do you refute Velikovsky?) A side note,
>
> Velikovsky was not a geologist. Nor did he have training in the physical
> sciences. His imaginings have been well debunked as impossible - given
> what we know about the physical functioning of the universe.
If they are well-debunked, I would very much like to see the evidence for
myself. Thusfar, I've spoken with two CMU (astronomy) professors, and
perused "Velikovsky and His Critics", as well as "Worlds in Collision" and
"Earth in Upheaval". Compelling stuff, imho. I welcome you to give me an
equally compelling refutation.
> > Do I have a problem with your brash statements regarding your conception
> > of what is "sane", and what is "not sane"? Most certainly, and I do hope
> > that the above has presuaded you to not write ZTalk off as the
> > hallucinatory, delusional fantasy of a deranged yet strangely otherwise
> > mild-mannered, middle aged mother.
>
> Oh, I don't necessarily consider them to be that. I just believe them
> to be wrong - and have all of known science knowledge behind me in support.
>
> --
> Bill Nelson (bi...@peak.org)
>
>
-Duncan
Greg Neill
news:Rgkt8.36396$VQ2.17...@twister.socal.rr.com...
Perhaps I was a tad overzealous. The point I wanted to make was that
Richter magnitude does not measure how many teacups fall from the
third shelf within some vague number of furlongs from epicenter. It
has a direct relation to the energy in a quake. The Richter Magnitude
Scale is not just a "word", it is a definition.
If Nancy wants to use fluffily prose to define things, and paint
everything in unspecified shades of unspecified colors, that's her
problem. If she wants to do so in a science newsgroup, then her
problems will multiply; we don't let that sort of thing go
unchallenged.
Wally Anglesea™
I wonder why the Zetans never corrected this for her.................
--
Find out about Australia's most dangerous Doomsday Cult:
http://users.bigpond.net.au/wanglese/pebble.htm
"You can't fool me, it's turtles all the way down."
Chris Franks
"Wally AngleseaT" <wang...@spbigpondam.net.au> wrote
> >
> >Look again or get a better encyclopedia. Magnetism follows an
> >inverse cube rule. That ought to tell you something right there.
> >
> >
> I wonder why the Zetans never corrected this for her.................
The Zetans are still trying to escape from a planet that is on fire.
I suppose their argument will be like the drunk's: "It was on fire when I
laid down on it!".
The ChessBrat
>that rotation is not simply momentum, continuing, but DRIVEN by the
>liquid core.
It's GREAT to have you ABOARD Nancy, you've SUCH an interesting HOBBY.
CB
Civilian
> How much "energy" is involved in the ENTIRE crust of the globe on the
> move? Ripping the Atlantic Rift further apart? Forcing several hundred
> miles of plate under the West Coast of the Americas? Driving India
> under the Himalayas? Forcing a new land mass to pop up between the tip
> of South America and Africa?
</knippie>
OK i have a little test. It is not possible of course since PX is not
possible, but it should gauge Nancy's understanding of science.
Nancy, If the Earth is to be affected, then surely the surface of
Planet X will experience much the same problems?
Surely that amount of force does not go one way. According to physics
both planets should be very badly affected.
All this means that there should be much death and destruction among
the inhabitants of your "planet x" as well.
So, how are your Zetas preparing for this? Have you asked them?
Bill Nelson
> "In each cycle of time, which ranges from 700-1400 years, there are eleven
> ages of 65 to 125 years each ... In the last, the eleventh age of each
> cycle, the Avatar is present."
> If Baba [the Avatar] was born in 1894, and each age can be a maximum of
> 125 years, then our age is scheduled to come to a close at 2019, at the
> latest. An entirely new cycle of time begins thereafter.
Is Baba still alive? If not, then by his own claim, the last age of
the previous cycle is already past - and we are in either the first
or second cycle of another age.
> Lastly, the Mayan calendar's end date is an enigma. I admit the subject
> is over my head, so I do not consider it a crucial piece of evidence,
> although it is noteworthy.
From my readings, the Mayan calendar is also a cycle. I don't recall
any authorities stating that the end of one cycle is equal to disaster.
>> Velikovsky was not a geologist. Nor did he have training in the physical
>> sciences. His imaginings have been well debunked as impossible - given
>> what we know about the physical functioning of the universe.
> If they are well-debunked, I would very much like to see the evidence for
> myself. Thusfar, I've spoken with two CMU (astronomy) professors, and
> perused "Velikovsky and His Critics", as well as "Worlds in Collision" and
> "Earth in Upheaval". Compelling stuff, imho. I welcome you to give me an
> equally compelling refutation.
Did the astronomy professors say that Velikovsky's theories were
"reasonable"?
--
Bill Nelson (bi...@peak.org)
Bill Nelson
>>
>> Your explanations become even less possible as you add
>> more detail. Compared to gravity, the magnetic attraction
>> is very small.
> Oh? What is the largest magnet mankind has that you could point to?
> How far does another magnet have to be, from that magnet, before
> escaping the influence? And note, this other magnet must be FREE to
> move, not nailed down, as a planet in space is free to move, rotate,
> etc.
What does this have to do with the matter.
The largest magnet in our solar system is the Sun.
>> Before there could be any "gripping" of the North/South
>> magnetic poles, the Earth and your Px would be ripped
>> apart by tidal forces.
> And what do you base this on? Experience?
No, scientific knowledge based on experiment and what has been
observed with other planets and satellites.
>> To verify that the magnetic force is small - just take out
>> any magnetic compass. Set it on a table top. Does it go
>> scooting off towards the North Magnetic Pole?
> An itsy-bitsy compass? Put this into perspective and size the compass
> to a PLANET. What is the distance one magnet needs to be from another
> before it is influenced? Size this distance between planets, and THEIR
> size. I read from my Britannicas that magnetic influences are based on
> an inverse square rule, like gravity. At what distance would a planet
> sized magnet influence another planet sized magnet?
Not nearly as far as the gravitational forces - as I posted before.
Your "itsy-bitsy compass" comment is immaterial.
--
Bill Nelson (bi...@peak.org)
Bill Nelson
>>
>> Oh? What is the largest magnet mankind has that you could point to?
>> How far does another magnet have to be, from that magnet, before
>> escaping the influence? And note, this other magnet must be FREE to
>> move, not nailed down, as a planet in space is free to move, rotate,
>> etc.
> http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/14-tesla-magnet.html
> About 15 Teslas. The Earth's magnetic field strength varies
> from point to point on the surface, but ranges from about 20,00
> nanoTeslas at the magentic equator, to about 65,000 nT at the
> poles. *Nano* Teslas, Nancy. That's 10^-9 Teslas. The
> Earth's magnetic field is some 300,000 times weaker than the
> strongest magnetic field we've produced so far.
Careful. Lieder said "largest", not "strongest".
To her, the two are probably synonymous.
Just another example of her lack of knowledge.
--
Bill Nelson (bi...@peak.org)
Bill Nelson
> In Article <3cb34614...@news.mindspring.com> Greg Muncill wrote:
>> No, the solid core is rotating slightly faster than
>> the crust. They think it is essentially an electric
>> motor effect from the magnetic field. See:
>> http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/press_releases/song/pr.html
> Yes, another point for ZetaTalk Accuracy. The Zetas have ALWAYS stated
> that rotation is not simply momentum, continuing, but DRIVEN by the
> liquid core. Below, the ZetaTalk on Rotation, written on or before Dec
> 15, 1995 (http://www.zetatalk.com/index/z94.htm)
He did not say "liquid core", he said "solid core".
The solid core is surrounded by the liquid core.
--
Bill Nelson (bi...@peak.org)
Duncan Carroll
> Duncan Carroll <dun...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
>
> > "In each cycle of time, which ranges from 700-1400 years, there are eleven
> > ages of 65 to 125 years each ... In the last, the eleventh age of each
> > cycle, the Avatar is present."
>
> > If Baba [the Avatar] was born in 1894, and each age can be a maximum of
> > 125 years, then our age is scheduled to come to a close at 2019, at the
> > latest. An entirely new cycle of time begins thereafter.
>
> Is Baba still alive? If not, then by his own claim, the last age of
> the previous cycle is already past - and we are in either the first
> or second cycle of another age.
Preface: This is another one of my posts which started as a gentle
rebuttal and became a major essay! As always, I feel and hope that it is
illuminating at best, and thought-provoking at the least.
I'm not sure I follow that statement, but please bear with me on this
explication, as I believe it to be noteworthy:
Baba states that the Avatar is present in the 11th age, not the 1st age or
the 10th age. By this statement I have reasoned that the date of Baba's
birth (1894) must roughly coincide with the beginning of the 11th age.
He lived for 75 years, and since ages can be as long as 125 years, I place
the end of the current cycle at 2019.
Note that I am not saying, "Baba says PX will arrive before 2019". I am
explaining why I feel there is little dissagreement on the issue that we
are living on the cusp of a new beginning of time, *whatever* that means.
If this new beginning must by it's nature be preceded by, "unprecedented
suffering ... universal in application and drastic in nature", as Baba has
noted, then so be it! Frankly, the apocalypse isn't really the core of
Baba's message to humanity anyway, it's more like one footnote in his
encyclopedia... I imagine that either character in this debate,
so-called Zeta True Believers or Hard-Boiled Skeptics, may find their
priorities jumping swiftly into focus. Hint: This focus may not involve
Usenet ;)
I think this will be my last round in this debate, as I have a lot on my
plate as an undergrad at CMU (a school just behind MIT for total number of
insomniac students), but before I go, I'll carry this line of thought
further to demonstrate the sound nature of Baba's cycles.
Baba states that for each age there is an Avatar who appears in flesh and
blood sometime during the 11th age. Baba's list of Avatars("God in human
form"), chronologically: Krishna, Buddha, Christ, Mohammed, and
himself. Quoted from Discourses,
"Avataric periods are like the spring-tide of creation. They bring a new
release of power, a new awakening of consciousness, a new experience of
life-- not merely for a few, but for all. New qualities of energy and
awareness ... Life, as a whole, is geared to a new rate of energy. The
transition from sensation to reason was one such step; the transition from
reason to intuition will be another."
At the risk of pissing off the "sci" in "sci.astro", I will say that I
believe this statement to be revealing of the nature of the debate that we
are experiencing *right now* in this group. Quoting further,
"He [the Avatar] knows that men do not cease to exist when they die, and
therefore is not concerned over death. He knows that destruction must
precede construction, that out of suffering is born peace and bliss."
These statements are telling. And for those who are curious as to how
Baba maintained his vow of silence yet still authored books: He developed
among his close disciples his own system of gestural, body-language based
communication. On occasion, concepts were spelled out via an alphabet
board. Don't try this at home, kids! =)
If the Avatar before Baba was Mohammed (born in 571), I place the eve of
the *last* Kali Yuga 65-125 years later, somewhere between 636 and 696.
Taking a brief look at historical events, this period lies in the wake of
the fall of the Han and Gupta dynasties, and is a few hundred years after
the fall of Rome. The period directly coincides with the "Dark Ages" of
Europe as well as the fall of the Olmec culture in Mesoamerica. There
were no great geological catastrophes that I am aware of. This is
important.
Destruction precedes construction. Sometime near the death of Mohammed,
all of humanity should have experienced the first push of a surging of a
force of "divine love" which Baba explains, serves to propel humanity
through the *next* cycle. And propel us it has, through the Postclassical
period, through the enlightenment, through the industrial age, to the
contemporary, and it is here that mankind stands or rather, sits. =)
What is to come? I would like to think we can predict. If Baba is
correct, part of the effects of living through the kali yuga or the age of
the avatar is a major creative surge that follows the avatar's
manifestation on earth. Baba claimed that he would cause this effect on
the world when he would "break his silence", which he held for over 40
years. This brings us to one of the most curious things about Baba:
He repeatedly stated that he would break his silence "soon". He states,
"The breaking of my silence--the signal for my public manifestation-- is
not far off. I bring the greatest treasure which is possible for man to
recieve... be ready to recieve it."
Then he passed away in 1969 without so much as a whisper, leaving his
followers and admirers a bit of a puzzle. Is this "breaking" to be
metaphorical, or otherwise effected by him while disincarnate? If the man
is as he said he was, namely God incarnate, it's a fair assumption. =)
I believe that the breaking of his silence, whatever form it may take, is
as he says, still, "not far off". Destruction precedes construction.
Keep your ear to the ground, and remember to use your heart as well as
your head.
My hopes and prayers to all,
Duncan Carroll
jrla...@shell.golden.net
they're drinking the Koolaid! :-)
--
john R. Latala
jrla...@golden.net
Jeff Root
to messages about Nancy Leider and planet X, and asking to
clarify what is was that he disliked about my posting.
Duncan,
Thank you for answering my questions clearly and fully.
I appreciate it.
I hadn't garnered from your first post to me that you put any
credence in Nancy's stories. It seemed more likely that you
were disgusted with the bickering, and hoped that if we stopped
replying to Nancy, she would go away, or at least that there
would be less garbage in sci.astro than there is now.
> Tim Leary has a saying that goes, "You can't talk to a caterpillar
> in butterfly language", and I have found this to be accurate,
> insomuchas I have found it quite hard to convey spiritual or
> intuitive experience and concepts to scientists (mainly CMU
> professors) with whom I have spoken.
course, but there are an awful lot of things going on in the
kind of communication you're talking about, and I see many
different problems that can arise.
> The difficulty with clear communication in these ongoing debates
> is, to me, that those who feel qualified to tackle the nitty-gritty
> of the ZTalk scenario, in doing so, necessarily shut out the larger
> picture.
First, discussing or even arguing about details in no way shuts
out seeing, appreciating, or understanding "the big picture".
It just doesn't. There is no mechanism by which discussion of
the spectra of butterfly wing scales diminishes an appreciation
of the magic of butterflies. There is no mechanism by which
discussion of a particular aspect of a particular philosophy
shuts out appreciation of life as a whole. I don't think I can
prove that assertion, but I have a high degree of confidence
that it is true.
Second, I believe that familiarity with the details of a
subject is the *ONLY* way that one can see "the big picture".
It is the *ONLY* way that one can appreciate or understand
a thing or a subject as a whole. Without getting into the
details, one misses almost everything that is important.
Without knowing the details, one cannot really know much
about anything.
Without seeing the trees, all one can see is a large, dark
green smudge, not a forest.
Without the details, you can have only a vague impression of
a thing, and you miss seeing "the big picture" completely.
I just got a CD of Carmina Burana by Carl Orff. The lyrics
are taken from 13th-century poems and songs written in Latin
and German. I found an English translation on the web, and
knowing what is being said has increased my appreciation and
enjoyment of the music immensely. It is almost a completely
different experience.
> But this works both ways, of course, as I do not feel qualified
> to tackle the grit,
yourself intelligently. I doubt that you are too stupid.
Do you lack knowledge of the details? It is never too late
to learn. Learning is a very large part of what discussion
groups are about. And there are vast resources for learning
beyond the Internet. True, you can't learn everything. But
you can pick something that intrigues you, and begin there.
> but I do feel that I have a perspective on the "larger picture".
whether you comprehend any "larger picture". However, I won't
presume that you do not.
> Having lurked around a bit in these threads, I see a lot of valid
> points being made, but I also see much room for uncertainty, and it
> is this that I refer to broadly as the possible subconscious
> expression of "anxious doubts".
you mean that people such as myself or "OpenMinded" (whoever he
is) or David Tholen or Sarah or the other people who are bashing
ZetaTalk are uncertain about ZetaTalk being a bunch of hooey,
and have anxieties (concious or unconcious) that there just
*might* actually be a big planet headed toward Earth from out
beyond the orbit of Pluto, threatening to shove continents
around and end "life as we know it", then you are totally wrong.
Completely, utterly wrong.
We understand the details well enough to know that such a
scenario is absolutely impossible. Nancy thinks that aliens
have implanted something in her brain so they can communicate
with her. (Some people assert that she's just pulling a scam,
but I believe that she believes what she says.) She thinks
that the aliens are explaining science which is beyond what
is known to humans. Almost every statement she makes about
this "science" is wrong. Absurdly wrong. Demonstrably wrong.
She is so *FAR* wrong and so *obviously* wrong about so *many*
things that she comes across as totally ridiculous.
It continually astounds me that anyone could put any credence
in such inane babbling. Yet I know that millions of people
hang on the words of people who write or talk like her. That
bothers me, but it doesn't cause me anxiety.
> One point I feel needs to be made clear: You will find that
> there is little dissagreement among recognized authorities in
> this matter, that we are living in, or are very close to much-
> prophesized "End Times".
little disagreement among recognized authorities in this matter
that acorns grow into hippopotamuses." It comes across as
pretty loony: disconnected from reality, with little apparent
basis in fact. Acorns *do* grow into something very large,
but they do not grow into hippopotamuses.
I don't know who the "recognized authorities in this matter"
are, but I can be sure that they are crackpots. Predictions
of the end of the world are greatly exaggerated. They have
been greatly exaggerated throughout recorded history.
Some people just *like* the idea of the world coming to an end.
It makes them feel good to think about it. So they make up
stories and then believe those stories are true. Many children
get a kick out of stories about the world being blown to
smithereens. Some of them grow up to become adults who get a
kick out of stories about the world being blown to smithereens.
> In Vedanta scripture this age is known as the Kali Yuga. Here
> I quote Meher Baba from volume III of "Discourses"
>
> "Those who are spiritually awake have been aware for some time
> that the world is at present in the midst of a period such as
> always precedes Avataric manifestations [The Avatar, or the
> incarnation of God on earth, is said to arrive before times of
> unusually great suffering]. Even unawakened men and women are
> becoming aware of it now ... For the moment [written in 1938]
> they must be patient. The wave of destruction must rise still
> higher, must spread still further ... The disease of selfishness
> in mankind will need a cure which is not only universal in its
> application but drastic in nature ... It is so deep-rooted that
> The present chaos and destruction will engulf the whole world,
> but it will be followed by a very long period in which there
> shall be no war ... What will the present chaos lead to? How
> will it all end? It can only end in one way. makind will be
> sick of it all. Men will be sick of wanting and sick of
> fighting out of hatred...THe way out of the dead-lock will be
> found through selflessness ... Great suffering awakens great
> understanding ... Unprecedented suffering leads to unprecedented
> spiritual growth."
>
> I implore you to read these words carefully. They are the words
> of a man who spend his *entire life* in charitable service [dare
> I say Service-to-Other?], in addition to keeping a vow of silence
> for 40 years of his 60 year life, in keeping with his saying,
> "I have not come to teach [verbally], but to awaken".
"unusually great suffering".
Science, technology, co-operative effort, and business have
provided us with sanitary sewers to carry away smelly and
disease-promoting waste; roads and vehicles to transport food
from distant places to where it is needed; water-treatment
facilities for safe drinking water; hospitals, medicine, and
medical proceedures to cure illnesses; books and telephones
and television and the Internet to make communication between
people fast, efficient, and widespread. As a result, we live
in a time of unprecedented health and longevity. A 15-year-old
boy in Greece or Rome 2000 years ago had an average expected
lifespan of 36 years. A 15-year old boy in the US today has
an average expected lifespan of over 73 years. That has
created problems of overpopulation, crowding, obesity, and
pollution, but it reflects the generally better conditions
today than at any time in the past. People live longer than
ever before because the conditions they live in are better
than they have ever been before.
Your quote above is a valuable record of how a man felt and
what he thought. If there is any reason to think that his
description of the future was any more accurate than, say,
my description of the future, I see no indication of it in
the quote, in what you wrote, or in the world at large.
I'm not saying that terrible catastrophies won't happen, nor
am I saying that the world will go on forever. But the stories
you refer to are nothing but stories. When you look at the
details, you can begin to understand what they mean, and thus
begin to understand "the big picture". When I look at the
details of such stories, I see nothing to support the idea
that they are anything but stories.
Perhaps you think I am blind not to see what is obvious to
you.
I suspect that intelligence is principally the ability to
see connections between things. Sometimes people see
connections where no connection exists. That is not
intelligence, but delusion.
Things exist which are not seen; Things are seen which do not
exist.
Perhaps I see less than you do, because I see more.
> If not a pole shift type scenario, what else could induce
> "unprecedented suffering, universal and drastic in application"?
death in the mid-14th century? The last ice age? You can make
it anything you want. Some stories are more realistic than
others, of course, but you can make up all kinds of causes for
imagined events.
> (and to those who do not "buy" the Pole Shift theory of
> geological change, I ask, how do you refute Velikovsky?)
just like Nancy's meaningless babbling.
Of course, one must have some knowledge about the real world
in order to see that Velikovsky's writing is nonsense and that
Nancy's is meaningless. Without knowledge of the real world,
one can do nothing useful without being directed by others,
who *do* have that knowledge.
> A side note, Baba has also written about the fate of the
> continent of India, stating that near the end the rivers will
> run red, and India will suffer disproportionally greater than
> the remainder of the world. I point you to ZTalk's statements
> that the continent of India is predicted to go underwater,
> Atlantis-style.
you are easily impresssed. Similarly for the other examples
you cite.
> So, when I say "I have only seen such posturing in naive children",
> what I am getting at is that, with all due respect, who are you to
> pass judgement on mental stability?
me (in this case, the writings of Nancy Lieder) and use my
knowledge of the world to draw logical conclusions about it.
Based on Nancy's posts and on my general knowlege, I can say
that Nancy is probably paranoid schizophrenic, the same way
that, based on my seeing smoke coming out of the top of a
building, and my general knowledge, I can say that the building
is probably on fire. (I had never seen the building before.
Walking by it after dark, I saw the smoke and pointed it out.
My father thought it was coming from a chimney, based, I'm,
sure, on the idea that it was unlikely to be anything else.
On the evening news we learned that it was a furniture store,
which was destroyed or heavily damaged by fire.)
There are clues to what is going on, and you can learn to
read them. The clues are in the details. You can't always
read them correctly. I don't always read them correctly.
But if you don't read them at all, you are unlikely to know
what is going on, and you will be unable to take any useful
action to deal with it.
[Much that is worthy of reply snipped here]
> Even our most cherished and long-standing physical theories can
> be called into question. Just look at Kepler and Newton's laws
> in regards to the problem of Dark Matter.
laws. Yours is the first suggestion I have seen that there
might be any consequences.
It is common for people to assert that General Relativity
showed Newton's laws to be invalid, but that is incorrect.
Newton's laws are incomplete, but they are not invalid.
My guess is that you have read that the orbital speeds of
stars in galaxies do not follow the expected curve predicted
by Kepler's and Newton's laws. If so, you have mistakenly
interpreted that to mean that there is a possible flaw in
those laws. It does not. It means that there is matter in
galaxies which is not seen.
> Do I have a problem with your brash statements regarding your
> conception of what is "sane", and what is "not sane"?
message, ever.
> Most certainly, and I do hope that the above has presuaded
> you to not write ZTalk off as the hallucinatory, delusional
> fantasy of a deranged yet strangely otherwise mild-mannered,
> middle aged mother.
Jeff Root
> Nancy, If the Earth is to be affected, then surely the surface of
> Planet X will experience much the same problems?
more powerful than Earth's, so it will push Earth's core around
like a cat playing with a mouse. (My Nancyesque description.)
Bill Nelson
>>
>> Is Baba still alive? If not, then by his own claim, the last age of
>> the previous cycle is already past - and we are in either the first
>> or second cycle of another age.
> I'm not sure I follow that statement, but please bear with me on this
> explication, as I believe it to be noteworthy:
> Baba states that the Avatar is present in the 11th age, not the 1st age or
> the 10th age. By this statement I have reasoned that the date of Baba's
> birth (1894) must roughly coincide with the beginning of the 11th age.
> He lived for 75 years, and since ages can be as long as 125 years, I place
> the end of the current cycle at 2019.
But if the age lasted only 65 years - then it would have ended in about
1959.
Any more precision on your part is meaningless.
> Note that I am not saying, "Baba says PX will arrive before 2019". I am
> explaining why I feel there is little dissagreement on the issue that we
> are living on the cusp of a new beginning of time, *whatever* that means.
There may not be any disagreement among his diciples. There certainly is
disagreement if you ask a scientist.
As this is a scientific newsgroup - not one devoted to mythology or
mysticism - you are posting to the wrong group.
--
Bill Nelson (bi...@peak.org)
Chris Franks
"Duncan Carroll" <dun...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote
>
> Then he passed away in 1969 without so much as a whisper, leaving his
> followers and admirers a bit of a puzzle. Is this "breaking" to be
> metaphorical, or otherwise effected by him while disincarnate? If the man
> is as he said he was, namely God incarnate, it's a fair assumption. =)
>
complex, not the first, and certainly not the last.
Duncan Carroll
Thanks for your thoughtful responses,
> Duncan Carroll replied to my message explaining why I reply
> to messages about Nancy Leider and planet X, and asking to
> clarify what is was that he disliked about my posting.
snip
> > The difficulty with clear communication in these ongoing debates
> > is, to me, that those who feel qualified to tackle the nitty-gritty
> > of the ZTalk scenario, in doing so, necessarily shut out the larger
> > picture.
>
> I strongly disagree with this. I disagree in two ways:
>
> First, discussing or even arguing about details in no way shuts
> out seeing, appreciating, or understanding "the big picture".
> It just doesn't. There is no mechanism by which discussion of
snip
> Second, I believe that familiarity with the details of a
> subject is the *ONLY* way that one can see "the big picture".
> It is the *ONLY* way that one can appreciate or understand
> a thing or a subject as a whole. Without getting into the
> details, one misses almost everything that is important.
>
> Without seeing the trees, all one can see is a large, dark
> green smudge, not a forest.
Perhaps I should have phrased that better. I didn't mean that people
should ignore scientific evidence or other such details. What I meant to
convey was the sense that I have that a lot of us are getting
unnecessarily bogged down by minute details that do not serve the debate.
I find the ad hominem attacks especially frustrating. For example, the
statement is often made that Nancy is a kook, or otherwise deranged. I
think this is a rather cozy way of ignoring the larger picture, ie the
body of information that is credible on Zetatalk.com. Surely you
I find Zetatalk to be immensely intriguing, an enigmatic artifact of
mystery worthy of investigation, not dismissal! I *love* a mystery! To
that end, I have tried to bring to this discussion what I feel are
relevant arguments. First and foremost, I cautioned against questioning
Nancy's own grip on reality, thus dismissing her entirely. We can only
speak from our own experience. Her experience happens to include
compelling and intriguing information from "extraterrestrials", and I have
mentioned in prior posts the DMT research that seems to support her
statements by validating the existence of an independent, objective yet
normally invisible reality, inhabited by sentient beings. As crazy as it
sounds, I invite you or anyone to read Rick Strassman's DMT:The Spirit
Molecule. Jeff, if I had not read that book last year, I would be calling
her a nutjob, too. Excerpts of this book are available at
www.rickstrassman.com, and I think anyone who wants to be qualified to
debate this subject needs to read this book. The testimony of the
experimental subjects is compelling evidence that what "genuine
contactees" like Nancy experience is not merely subjective fantasy, or the
product of the subconscious imagination.
What a mystery! I'm telling you, investigate! This one is a doozy! I
don't think debunking this one is as straightforward a process as showing
that Nancy isn't up on contemporary astrophysics. I grant you that I
still have seen no evidence via telescope of Planet X, and call me crazy
too, but I am willing to give her the benefit of the doubt, here, I'll go
out on a limb: Nancy has claimed that one can see it in the sky with a
properly calibrated scope, but no one has made a positive ID as of yet.
So, she keeps revising the magnitude. Now, the scale of celestial
magnitudes is uniquely human. It's based on subjective measurements of
early astronomers, and it's proven itself so unwieldy for calculations
that my current Astronomy textbook doesn't even use it. Suspending
disbelief, is it a stretch to assume that even intelligent aliens would
have trouble with a measurement system that is based on what the human eye
sees? If the planet is a smoldering brown dwarf, it makes sense that is
not going to be visible in the same way a star is so easily visible.
> > Having lurked around a bit in these threads, I see a lot of valid
> > points being made, but I also see much room for uncertainty, and it
> > is this that I refer to broadly as the possible subconscious
> > expression of "anxious doubts".
>
> Correct me if I misunderstand what you are saying here, but if
> you mean that people such as myself or "OpenMinded" (whoever he
> is) or David Tholen or Sarah or the other people who are bashing
> ZetaTalk are uncertain about ZetaTalk being a bunch of hooey,
> and have anxieties (concious or unconcious) that there just
> *might* actually be a big planet headed toward Earth from out
> beyond the orbit of Pluto, threatening to shove continents
> around and end "life as we know it", then you are totally wrong.
> Completely, utterly wrong.
This was my gut reaction to the rather vicious ad hominems I've seen. It
is wholly subjective and I condede that it may be way off base.
> We understand the details well enough to know that such a
> scenario is absolutely impossible. Nancy thinks that aliens
> have implanted something in her brain so they can communicate
> with her. (Some people assert that she's just pulling a scam,
> but I believe that she believes what she says.) She thinks
> that the aliens are explaining science which is beyond what
> is known to humans. Almost every statement she makes about
> this "science" is wrong. Absurdly wrong. Demonstrably wrong.
> She is so *FAR* wrong and so *obviously* wrong about so *many*
> things that she comes across as totally ridiculous.
>
> It continually astounds me that anyone could put any credence
> in such inane babbling. Yet I know that millions of people
> hang on the words of people who write or talk like her. That
> bothers me, but it doesn't cause me anxiety.
"Absolute" is a very strong word. I would say that based on what we think
we know, based on our experiments with astrophysics, we hypothesize that
the PX/Poleshift scenario is impossible.
Also, although I think Nancy enjoys the spotlight as much as any other
human being, I find it implausible that her intent is to scam people. I
mean, honestly, if this is a scam attempt, it's the most bungled I've ever
seen...
Concerning what Nancy says about science... This is of course the major
point of contention in this debate. I simply do not feel qualified to
dissect these issues on my own. However, looking back at the track record
of the science of the last millenia, I do not think it is implausible that
we humans have become a bit arrogant in our assumptions about our
knowledge of the universe. After all, our soundest theories come from
such phenomena that is *local* and easily observable. Our senses are
really good at percieving a small slice of the EM spectrum, and our star
is one in a galaxy of billions, within galaxies of billions. Local
phenomena surely do not acount for the possibilities of phenomena that
exist.
> > One point I feel needs to be made clear: You will find that
> > there is little dissagreement among recognized authorities in
> > this matter, that we are living in, or are very close to much-
> > prophesized "End Times".
>
> You might as well have said, "You will find that there is
> little disagreement among recognized authorities in this matter
> that acorns grow into hippopotamuses." It comes across as
> pretty loony: disconnected from reality, with little apparent
> basis in fact. Acorns *do* grow into something very large,
> but they do not grow into hippopotamuses.
>
> I don't know who the "recognized authorities in this matter"
> are, but I can be sure that they are crackpots. Predictions
> of the end of the world are greatly exaggerated. They have
> been greatly exaggerated throughout recorded history.
>
<much that is worthy of reply snipped here>
For lack of time, I'll simply say that I've expanded on the subject of
so-called "end times" in my recent "Meher Baba and the Kali Yuga" post. I
do not assert that there *must* be a cataclysm.
> > If not a pole shift type scenario, what else could induce
> > "unprecedented suffering, universal and drastic in application"?
>
> World overpopulation? The 1918 influenza pandemic? The black
> death in the mid-14th century? The last ice age? You can make
> it anything you want. Some stories are more realistic than
> others, of course, but you can make up all kinds of causes for
> imagined events.
Point well taken.
> > (and to those who do not "buy" the Pole Shift theory of
> > geological change, I ask, how do you refute Velikovsky?)
>
> By reading Velikovsky. It is nonsense. It refutes itself,
> just like Nancy's meaningless babbling.
>
> Of course, one must have some knowledge about the real world
> in order to see that Velikovsky's writing is nonsense and that
> Nancy's is meaningless. Without knowledge of the real world,
> one can do nothing useful without being directed by others,
> who *do* have that knowledge.
Well, I'll have to re-read "Velikovsky and his Critics", but it didn't
seem like nonsense to me. And as always, to satisfy my curiosity I like
to have specific points of contention.
> > Even our most cherished and long-standing physical theories can
> > be called into question. Just look at Kepler and Newton's laws
> > in regards to the problem of Dark Matter.
>
> My guess is that you have read that the orbital speeds of
> stars in galaxies do not follow the expected curve predicted
> by Kepler's and Newton's laws. If so, you have mistakenly
> interpreted that to mean that there is a possible flaw in
> those laws. It does not. It means that there is matter in
> galaxies which is not seen.
Well, it must have been my astronomy professor who is mistaken, because I
heard it from him. He said that because the orbital speeds do not follow
what we would expect based on Newton and Kepler's laws of diminishing
velocity as radial distance increases, and instead remain roughly
constant, that there are two possibilities: 1. That Newton and Kepler's
laws are not 100% correct, and 2. That there exists a kind of Dark Matter
than we cannot see, but that bosters the mass of galaxies such that
velocity does not greatly diminish.
This means that it's your word against his. As far as credentials go,
he's a PhD in astrophysics, and he frequently flies to Antarctica to
administer his NASA-funded research team investigating cosmic
background radiation.
> You have presented no argument, much less a persuasive argument.
You forgot to add, "Better luck next time." To me, this thing is still a
riddle.
with regard,
-Duncan
Duncan Carroll
With all due respect, yours is a typical repugnance. On the topic of
assumptions, I assume that you have not read any of his books. I suggest
that yours and mine are equally fair assumptions. He certainly could have
thought he was God so much that to himself, he became his own conception
of "God". However, I suggest that if you read his books or even just
scour the internet, you may find evidence that there is more than meets
the eye, or in this case the wit, when it comes to the man Meher Baba. Of
course, you may not, and in truth, it matters not.
sincerely,
Duncan
John Jones
"Duncan Carroll" <dun...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.43L-024.02...@unix1.andrew.cmu
.edu...
[...]
>
> I find Zetatalk to be immensely intriguing, an enigmatic
artifact of
> mystery worthy of investigation, not dismissal! I *love* a
mystery! To
> that end, I have tried to bring to this discussion what I feel
are
> relevant arguments.
You will probably like this one too - Madame Blavatsky. Another
kook cult-leader (or is cult kook-leader) like Nancy.
Duncan Carroll
Sir, I am drunk. In the morning I will be sober, but you will still be
spiritually naive.
College is great, isn't it?
regards,
Duncan
Dave Brodeur
Pardon me for jumping in, but I have been following your exchange with
Jeff with some interest.
Duncan Carroll <dun...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
>Perhaps I should have phrased that better. I didn't mean that people
>should ignore scientific evidence or other such details. What I meant to
>convey was the sense that I have that a lot of us are getting
>unnecessarily bogged down by minute details that do not serve the debate.
>I find the ad hominem attacks especially frustrating. For example, the
>statement is often made that Nancy is a kook, or otherwise deranged. I
>think this is a rather cozy way of ignoring the larger picture, ie the
>body of information that is credible on Zetatalk.com.
To anyone with a modicum of understanding of the science involved, the
scientific argument is quite compelling: Nancy's central premise (i.e.
Planet X) is physically preposterous. Not that there are things 200 AU
out that we don't know about, not that we could some day face
extinction from an interplanetary interloper, but the specific claim,
that something no one can currently see will blow through the solar
system late next spring and cause the earth to stand still and the
poles to shift.
>
>I find Zetatalk to be immensely intriguing, an enigmatic artifact of
>mystery worthy of investigation, not dismissal! I *love* a mystery! To
>that end, I have tried to bring to this discussion what I feel are
>relevant arguments. First and foremost, I cautioned against questioning
>Nancy's own grip on reality, thus dismissing her entirely. We can only
>speak from our own experience. Her experience happens to include
>compelling and intriguing information from "extraterrestrials", and I have
>mentioned in prior posts the DMT research that seems to support her
>statements by validating the existence of an independent, objective yet
>normally invisible reality, inhabited by sentient beings. As crazy as it
>sounds, I invite you or anyone to read Rick Strassman's DMT:The Spirit
>Molecule. Jeff, if I had not read that book last year, I would be calling
>her a nutjob, too. Excerpts of this book are available at
>www.rickstrassman.com, and I think anyone who wants to be qualified to
>debate this subject needs to read this book. The testimony of the
>experimental subjects is compelling evidence that what "genuine
>contactees" like Nancy experience is not merely subjective fantasy, or the
>product of the subconscious imagination.
I know people who claim to be in contact with angels, aliens, and
other non-physical entities. What distinguishes them from Nancy is
that they recognize these experiences as personal and subjective.
Julian Jaynes, in The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the
Bicameral Mind speculates that ancient encounters with gods, as
described in Homer, were ways in which man in an earlier cognitive
state integrated mental processes that he did not understand.
Contemporary contacts with angels and aliens might be understood in a
similar way, or they might be actual contacts with beings quite unlike
ourselves. Some mystics have said there is, at some level, no
difference between the two.
It seems to me that both my new-age friends and Strassman's DMT
subjects understand the essentially personal nature of such
experiences. I think this has to put some limit to how we accept this
sort of information. I see a big difference a friend telling me that
her Arcturian guide is helping her gain clarity in her meditation, and
my daughter claiming that the fairies stole her homework.
In Nancy's case, I see an alarming lack any attempt to integrate the
"channelled" material. Every time she posts here, she is greeted by a
chorus of replies telling her, in detail and in principle, why that
can't be so. She responds by repeating the same old arguments (notice
how many answers to zetatalk questions are answered by references to
old material on her web site), and declaring another victory for the
Zetas. I see denial, rather than engagement in this behavior.
There is also the matter of the the nature of the predictions. We have
had enough predictions of impending doom to give many of us
eschatological fatigue. Planetary alignments in 1962, 1962, and 2000;
Comets Kohoutek, Hale-Bopp, and Lee; bogus Fatima visions,
Nostradamus's "King of Terror", and Planet X. The stridency with
which these visions are promoted only adds to the sense that some
personal problem is being externalized.
> So, she keeps revising the magnitude. Now, the scale of celestial
>magnitudes is uniquely human. It's based on subjective measurements of
>early astronomers, and it's proven itself so unwieldy for calculations
>that my current Astronomy textbook doesn't even use it.
The magnitude scale had its origins in human perception of brightness,
but is now a precisely defines and measurable value. And the
calculations are simple enough to be easily approximated in your head:
a difference of one magnitude is ~2.5x, and 5 magnitudes is (exactly)
100x.
> Suspending
>disbelief, is it a stretch to assume that even intelligent aliens would
>have trouble with a measurement system that is based on what the human eye
>sees?
Intelligent aliens would understand when they are not being
understood, and attempt to find some common ground or reference point.
>Concerning what Nancy says about science... This is of course the major
>point of contention in this debate. I simply do not feel qualified to
>dissect these issues on my own. However, looking back at the track record
>of the science of the last millenia, I do not think it is implausible that
>we humans have become a bit arrogant in our assumptions about our
>knowledge of the universe. After all, our soundest theories come from
>such phenomena that is *local* and easily observable. Our senses are
>really good at percieving a small slice of the EM spectrum, and our star
>is one in a galaxy of billions, within galaxies of billions. Local
>phenomena surely do not acount for the possibilities of phenomena that
>exist.
The key point of contention is the predicted path of the planet. The
Zetas tell us that since we can't even explain how the moon stays in
orbit, we can't possibly understand the orbital mechanics of Planet X.
When confronted with a simplified mathematetical explanantion of how
the moon _does_ stay in orbit, Nancy showed that by the simple
expedient of making a boneheaded error (confusing gravitational force
with mass), the equation could be made to fail. Another "victory" for
the Zetas!
The Zeta arguments ignore that our understanding of celestial
dynamics, at least within the local scale of the solar system, is not
merely theoretical. This stuff is not just science to us, it's
technology: we can send hardware to the outer planets with a fair
degree of confidence. Much has been made of the discrepencies in the
trajectories of our most distant probes, but the difference from
theory amounts to ~6 mph per century. To me, this is a pretty strong
argument that within the scale of our solar system and environs, our
theories work quite well. The predicted trajectory of Planet X, OTOH,
exceeds theory by something like 1600 miles per second over the course
of a year!
>
>Well, it must have been my astronomy professor who is mistaken, because I
>heard it from him. He said that because the orbital speeds do not follow
>what we would expect based on Newton and Kepler's laws of diminishing
>velocity as radial distance increases, and instead remain roughly
>constant, that there are two possibilities: 1. That Newton and Kepler's
>laws are not 100% correct, and 2. That there exists a kind of Dark Matter
>than we cannot see, but that bosters the mass of galaxies such that
>velocity does not greatly diminish.
And there you have some real mysteries. The universe is full of them.
>
>with regard,
>
>-Duncan
>
David Brodeur
Thomas McDonald
Duncan,
Here's another old saw: an object 'looks like a duck, quacks like a
duck, and walks like a duck; it is probably a duck.'
In the case of Nancy Leider, and based solely on her own posts, she
not only looks, quacks and walks like a duck; she has duck feathers,
duck feet, duck bill, duck habits, duck tail, and duck DNA. At this
present moment, she is ducking a straightforward question (the current
magnitude of "Planet X") that she's answered many times in the past,
because now it is coming back to bite her in her duck ass.
IOW, it is not slander if it is true; and it is true that Nancy gets
almost all of her science wrong, and spins her ignorance and deliberate
mis-statements so as to avoid being seen to be wrong, at least in the
eyes of her flock. She has made claims to being 100% accurate ex
cathedra, so now she is riding the tiger and cannot admit fault.
In most people's book, I think that qualifies her as a kook. It
also, in her situation, makes a very good case for her being the leader
of a non-scientific, doomsday cult.
Tom McDonald
Bill Nelson
> Perhaps I should have phrased that better. I didn't mean that people
> should ignore scientific evidence or other such details. What I meant to
> convey was the sense that I have that a lot of us are getting
> unnecessarily bogged down by minute details that do not serve the debate.
> I find the ad hominem attacks especially frustrating. For example, the
> statement is often made that Nancy is a kook, or otherwise deranged. I
> think this is a rather cozy way of ignoring the larger picture, ie the
> body of information that is credible on Zetatalk.com. Surely you
Regardless of the comments that are made about Lieder - the fact is
that there is little on Zetatalk that is credible.
For example, she has claimed that these claimed pole shifts have
happened in the past. But that is impossible, as such occurances
would show up in the lava records on the ocean floor - and there
is no evidence there of such occurances.
--
Bill Nelson (bi...@peak.org)