Planet X Simple Question

2 skatījumi
Pāriet uz pirmo nelasīto ziņojumu

Augusto

nelasīta,
2002. gada 22. okt. 22:12:4022.10.02
uz
Hello
I'm far away from you all but have been following debates about Planet
X. I am not an astronomer, nor even have any degree in science and my
English is not so good. But what I cannot understand is why not just
put an end on this subject just showing the guys on Zetatalk are
really wrong.
What a comon person can figure out is that nobody around here can
really say they are wrong or even they are right. If the pics they
have are so simple to prove not true, why not simply showing that to
all of us. In the other side if they are so simple to prove true just
do it.
In my way it's totally stupid thinking that it is right and everybody
is trying to say the contrary. Most of the members here must be
astronomers amateur or professionals or some sort of it, so why not
simply stopping talking a lot about people being this or that, and
show us what you really found and why these guys keep saying there is
a PLanet X. Your debates are read by people who want just an answer
for that and I think it's reasonable to ask you experts in the matter
just show us the answer and we will thank you all for the information
and continue forward with our life.
Do you realize some people, without any knowledge about astronomy feel
like a little afraid about what those guys have been talking?? Well,
just help us understand and make us happy uh??
Regards From Brasil
Augusto

John Popelish

nelasīta,
2002. gada 22. okt. 23:13:5522.10.02
uz

Evidently, you arrived late to the party. Planet X has clearly been
shown to be a physical impossibility years ago. The fact that Nancy
refuses to discuss any of the impossible physics she attributes to her
magical planet has made the scientific types peevish, to say the
least. The only discussion, now, is about how long she can sustain
the credulity in her followers. The debate over the existence of
Planet X has been over for a long time. Her followers just keep
whining about that and acting silly. It is impractical for the
astronomy professionals to debunk her story in detail every week or
so, for those who just found out about this newsgroup.

There is an archive of every post to this group that you can search
for with the key words [planet x] or [Nancy] or anything else you wish
to read about at:
http://groups.google.com/
Select advanced search and put [sci.astro] in the Newsgroup box (5th
one down) and any other search key words in the top box. You can also
specify a date range for the search. Happy reading.

Have a nice life.
Find something real to worry about if worrying is what you like to
do.

--
John Popelish

ABC

nelasīta,
2002. gada 22. okt. 23:44:4922.10.02
uz
John Popelish wrote:

On the other hand, John, perhaps the original poster needs to worry a bit
longer just to make sure that planet X doesn't exist. I think that has
always been one of my pet peeves about many of the people here. They want
to end the debate and make it final now, but now may be too soon. Clearly
it isn't for many of you but for the more discriminating person that allows
for the possibility that Nancy is somehow correct, it is not necessarily
over yet.

But hopefully in a few short months, it will be, with no planet x showing
up. I just think it is too soon to say for sure.

I cringe everytime I read someone say "But the fact that Nancy's object has
a velocity greater than the escape velocity of the sun proves that planet x
does not exist, therefore no pole shift is possible." That's some twisted
logic. But that's what you find here, sometimes. :-)

John Popelish

nelasīta,
2002. gada 23. okt. 00:39:3223.10.02
uz
ABC wrote:
>
> John Popelish wrote:
(snip)

> > Have a nice life.
> > Find something real to worry about if worrying is what you like to
> > do.
> >
>
> On the other hand, John, perhaps the original poster needs to worry a bit
> longer just to make sure that planet X doesn't exist. I think that has
> always been one of my pet peeves about many of the people here. They want
> to end the debate and make it final now, but now may be too soon. Clearly
> it isn't for many of you but for the more discriminating person that allows
> for the possibility that Nancy is somehow correct, it is not necessarily
> over yet.

I understand that you will not be convinced till May 2003 and who
knows how long after has passed and no Planet X has appeared. But
unless the laws of physics are suspended especially for this case (a
miracle of hideous proportions occurs) the case is already closed.
Something unexpected may appear from space at any time, and terrible
consequences may follow (it has certainly happened many times in the
past), but it also certainly won't be Planet X as described by Nancy.
If you worry about disaster from space support the searches for near
Earth objects and the science and technology that might (and I
emphasize might) allow us to survive the next big one. But you can be
quite confident that it will have no magical properties like weird red
light that acts differently than red light from everywhere else, and
have no trailing swirling moons, and cause no pole shift caused by
magnetic fields. It will just make a big hole and lots of vaporized
rock and a very loud noise as it hits.



> But hopefully in a few short months, it will be, with no planet x showing
> up. I just think it is too soon to say for sure.

You will never accept that you have been bamboozled and will keep
making excuses for a con artist. You want to be fooled.



> I cringe everytime I read someone say "But the fact that Nancy's object has
> a velocity greater than the escape velocity of the sun proves that planet x
> does not exist, therefore no pole shift is possible." That's some twisted
> logic. But that's what you find here, sometimes. :-)

Physically impossible is physically impossible. Deal with that or not
as you wish.

--
John Popelish

JTRIV

nelasīta,
2002. gada 23. okt. 02:08:1223.10.02
uz

That has been done. Check these out:

http://de.geocities.com/otto_zork/zetaNoise.html

http://us.geocities.com/openmindxx/

They show and explain how there is nothing in the images.

The "debate" is just a front by the Zeta people pretending
that something is seen in the images, which it isn't. That
is why Mr. Dell keeps playing his silly game.

Jim
http://www.planet-x.150m.com/

J.William Dell

nelasīta,
2002. gada 23. okt. 06:00:5623.10.02
uz
Greetings;

Augusto

The issue is the return of Planet X on its 3600 year orbit, expected
in May/June 2003.

The debunker group here does not have the ability to show the premise
is wrong. Only the return or non-return in May/June 2003 will decide
that issue.

At this point it can be said,
the only images taken of that area of the sky, done with digital
imaging that cannot be modified without being seen as being modified,
have been taken by a crew hired by Steve Havas. The Debunker group
here has made no effort to shoot or provide other images of their own.

Within those images ( 3 sets taken over 3 weeks) is evidence to
indicate a planetary object inbound towards the Sun at a high rate of
speed.

The Debunkers of Sci.Astro would have you believe it is either imaging
noise, cosmic rays, or processing errors. Nothing you should be
concerned with.

I would say that it would be prudent to consider the possibility and
plan accordingly.

Cooperative efforts on a community level can and will ensure great
success in surviving a poleshift. With enough communities cooperating,
rebuilding a civilized society afterwards is also achievable.

The following websites pertain to the Planet X images

http://www.zetatalk.com/teams/tteam342.htm

http://www.midbc.com/personal/jwd/index.htm

For an indepth look at the future possibilities see

www.zetatalk.com


Kindest Regards

J.William Dell


orott...@hotmail.com (Augusto) wrote in message news:<267b7321.02102...@posting.google.com>...

tho...@antispam.ham

nelasīta,
2002. gada 23. okt. 06:35:2723.10.02
uz
J.William Dell writes:

> The issue is the return of Planet X on its 3600 year orbit, expected
> in May/June 2003.

Where was June mentioned? Is Nancy starting to hedge?

> The debunker group here does not have the ability to show the premise
> is wrong.

Incorrect; the so-called premise is wrong because of the mutually
contradictory claims that have been made for it. For example, it
is impossible, under gravitational forces, for the object to be at
distance claimed, in a periodic orbit, and capable of getting here
by May 2003.

> Only the return or non-return in May/June 2003 will decide
> that issue.

Incorrect; the issue has already been decided.

> At this point it can be said,
> the only images taken of that area of the sky, done with digital
> imaging that cannot be modified without being seen as being modified,

Incorrect; I can easily modify a digital image without any trace of
modification. If you knew anything about image processing, you'd
know that the standard practices of bias subtraction and flat
fielding are modifications. Without a basis of comparison, how
could you know whether they had been done? There is no requirement
for any remarks about the processing being retained in the header.

> have been taken by a crew hired by Steve Havas. The Debunker group
> here has made no effort to shoot or provide other images of their own.

None are necessary, given that the mutually contradictory descriptions
are sufficient to disprove the existence of the object.

> Within those images ( 3 sets taken over 3 weeks) is evidence to
> indicate a planetary object inbound towards the Sun at a high rate of
> speed.

Incorrect; those images contain evidence of cosmic ray hits. You
cannot fit the positions with a gravitational orbit that brings it
to the vicinity of the Earth by May 2003. But given that you made
the claim, please present your orbit solution, complete with
residuals so that the quality of fit can be determined.

> The Debunkers of Sci.Astro would have you believe it is either imaging
> noise, cosmic rays, or processing errors. Nothing you should be
> concerned with.

With good reason.

> I would say that it would be prudent to consider the possibility and
> plan accordingly.

What you would say is irrelevant. There is no possibility, therefore
there is no reason to consider it.

> Cooperative efforts on a community level can and will ensure great
> success in surviving a poleshift.

You're erroneously presupposing that a poleshift will occur as a
result of the passage of the alleged object.

> With enough communities cooperating,
> rebuilding a civilized society afterwards is also achievable.

You're still erroneously presupposing that a poleshift will occur as
a result of the passage of the alleged object.

Fin Fahey

nelasīta,
2002. gada 23. okt. 08:01:2123.10.02
uz
"Augusto" <orott...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:267b7321.02102...@posting.google.com...

Well, tell everyone not to worry, Augusto. There is no Planet X (at least in
the sense of being an object that will cause death and destruction). Nancy's
object is impossible. Her descriptions of it contradict themselves - she
cannot make up her mind as to whether it is a large planet, a brown dwarf or
a neutron star. Plus the way in which it is said to move is plain impossible
within established physical laws - those laws can be seen to work for
objects many light years away, and we have no reason to mistrust them. The
supposed images of Planet X are merely a product of incompetence and
deliberate deception by the Zetatalk crew - they are quite incapable of
distinguishing noise from a real image.

The thing is that astronomers cannot show you what they've 'really found',
in this context, because they've found exactly nothing. This is why so many
posts concern the Zetas' supposed 'evidence'.
--
Fin
---------------------------------------
fin@albédo.demon.co.uk
---------------------------------------

(please Tippex out the acute accent to reply)

Knut Ove Hauge

nelasīta,
2002. gada 23. okt. 09:18:3523.10.02
uz
JTRIV <JTR...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<3DB63CCC...@hotmail.com>...

Its no doubt that a hidden planet excist claimed by me years ago and
according to the fractal chaos theory of the universe.However I
disagree with Zetas about the period time and orbit.The mass and
colour(surface temp) fit with my
calculations.In my opinion it will not change the magnetic field on
the earth next year although it will be visible at the time Zeta
pointed out.So the domesday prophetic is wrong and make no sence.

Knut Ove Hauge
http://home.no.net/~knutove/gravity/indexg.html
Author of the Fractal Grand Unified Theory.

Jon Kvebaek

nelasīta,
2002. gada 23. okt. 10:25:3623.10.02
uz
tuchof...@hotmail.com (Knut Ove Hauge) writes:
>
> Its no doubt that a hidden planet excist claimed by me years ago and
> according to the fractal chaos theory of the universe.

Well AFAIK, you're the only one who believes in your theory. To quote
Oliver Wendell Holmes:

"You may have genius. The contrary is, of course, probable."
--
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."
-- Philip K. Dick, "How to Build a Universe"

yo

nelasīta,
2002. gada 23. okt. 10:57:1823.10.02
uz
jak...@midbc.com (J.William Dell) wrote in message news:<b18a2f40.02102...@posting.google.com>...

> Greetings;
>
> Augusto
>
> The issue is the return of Planet X on its 3600 year orbit, expected
> in May/June 2003.

Many thanks to IM for taking the time to create an image that contains
the exact locations that Nancy and Dell/Steve's Zeta extraterestril
have provided:
http://us.geocities.com/openmindxx/exactPos.htm
As you can see, Nancy and Dell/Steve's coordinates DO NOT match the
coordinates of the hot pixels that they claim is Planet X, lol. Read
them and weep! Yet more proof that Planet X does not exists.

I would suggest that you get some serious counseling with the money
Nancy L. paid you for lying about your Planet X. You're so brave that
you can't even take me on. So I'll ask my questions again. And when
this Planet X does not arrive, your career will end! Who will hire
you? I have a feeling news reporters around the world will be calling
you day and night :))
---
Mr. Dell,
If there is a Planet X and you provide facts, not lies, then
I'll be one of the first to admit it! But all I've seen from you so
far is not only false, but blatant manipulation. It's so obvious to
me that you know you are wrong. So I am to believe that you are
either being paid by Nancy to lie or you're too stubborn to admit you
were wrong.

Mr. Dell, you continue to evade my questions. Everyone at sci.astro
sees right through your tricks. In reference to your image:
http://www.midbc.com/personal/jwd/Composite%20of%20Planet%20XFrame1Source1.htm
*** I find it very sad that you did not include the third location of
your
fictitious Planet X as described by your Zeta extraterrestrial. For
those new to the forum please take a look at my web page and you will
see that the third location (a single dot in the image) darts at an
angle.
http://www.geocities.com/yotango/analysis1.html
So why did you not put the third Planet X location in your image Mr.
Dell. Do you really think people will notice Mr. Dell? Planets just
outside our solar system don't make sudden 80-degree turns. Fact: the
three dots you've pointed out in the three images make a sudden
80-degree turn.

Another topic I would like to discuss with you. Your Zeta
extraterrestrial friends claim that Planet X can be seen in two
locations at once. A red Planet X and a white Planet X. Are you
familiar with a prism Mr. Dell? Do you notice that there is more than
one red frequency? If there is a magical phenomenon that splits an
image just outside our solar system into two images then I ask you at
what frequency does this split suddenly switch from 0% to 100%? Are
you suggesting that ALL the red light frequencies bend to ONE SINGLE
location and all of a sudden ALL frequencies beyond the red do not
bend AT ALL? Sound ridiculous when one puts it that way Mr. Dell.

Also, you keep mentioning the exact location of the Zeta
extraterrestrial. Another lie Mr. Dell? Why don't you back up your
claim and place a nice red dot exactly where these three locations
are! You will notice that they do not align up with the three dots
you claim to be Planet X. That is, the Planet X that travels in a
line and then makes a sudden right turn. For those new to this
ridiculous debate, you will notice that I found numerous dots where I
could claim an object is traveling. Gee Mr. Dell, do we have hundreds
of Planet X's, lol.

Last but not least, where's an updated picture of this Planet X? Will
it be yet another single pixel DOT Mr. Dell? Your photographers are
running a little late aren't they Mr. Dell?

Listen, if there is a Planet X and you provide facts, not lies, then
I'll be one of the first to admit it! But all I've seen from you so
far is not only false, but blatant manipulation. It's so obvious to
me that you know you are wrong. So I am to believe that you are
either being paid by Nancy to lie or you're too stubborn to admit you
were wrong.

pl

ABC

nelasīta,
2002. gada 23. okt. 12:48:5923.10.02
uz
John Popelish wrote:

Maybe this planet has a velocity less than the sun's escape velocity. And
maybe it's out there. We can arrive at mathematical problems or shall we
say, contradictions but those are mathematical. What the main concern is
that there is something out there, going to cause a pole shift.
Mathematical impossibility, John, not physical because nancy might be wrong
on the numbers but right on the basic idea. While that is not acceptable to
those of us that want to hold nancy to a 100% accurate claim, it is
certainly reasonable to consider this as a possibility.

J.William Dell

nelasīta,
2002. gada 23. okt. 13:31:3823.10.02
uz
tho...@AntiSpam.ham wrote in message news:<PXut9.199264
DrS...@greeneggsand.HAM wrote
> J.William Dell writes:
>

The Wizard of Oz has spoken;

1) Your confusion thrown in as to modification of images. any change
of media requires modification. different media, different
modification. Brightness/Contrast etc. Basic level shit.

>> At this point it can be said,
>> the only images taken of that area of the sky, done with digital
>> imaging that cannot be modified without being seen as being
modified,

>Incorrect; I can easily modify a digital image without any trace of
>modification. If you knew anything about image processing, you'd
>know that the standard practices of bias subtraction and flat
>fielding are modifications. Without a basis of comparison, how
>could you know whether they had been done? There is no requirement
>for any remarks about the processing being retained in the header.

What I am talking about is tampering.
Care to explain how you can get away with that Tholen, without it
being recorded.
What method was used on the star charts back in January 2002?

2) You have tried noise, bad photo processing, and now cosmic rays to
try to overturn what is clearly on those fits files. What will you
think of next?
I know. How about SHavas has tampered with the images and added PX
onto the film.
Perhaps you would give us your opinion on the images.
Are they unaltered? Or has someone tampered with them?
How about it Tholen?
You stick your nose in, this time we want clear answers, not your
obfuscation.

3) Now here is 2 mouth fulls

a) assert Cosmic rays cause the red & white image echos on film 3
summaries over 3 weeks,at coordinates given by source.

>Incorrect; those images contain evidence of cosmic ray hits.
> You cannot fit the positions with a gravitational orbit that brings it
to the vicinity of the Earth by May 2003.

b) Jump back to assertion that PX must meet your expectations for
orbit or it can't exist.

Are you confused or just trying to be confusing?

The jigs up
Mr. "Wizard of Oz"


Regards

J.William Dell

Sherilyn

nelasīta,
2002. gada 23. okt. 13:46:5023.10.02
uz
orott...@hotmail.com (Augusto) writes:

> Hello
> I'm far away from you all but have been following debates about Planet
> X. I am not an astronomer, nor even have any degree in science and my
> English is not so good. But what I cannot understand is why not just
> put an end on this subject just showing the guys on Zetatalk are
> really wrong.

Probably the best place to visit for a summary of the Planet X affair
is the website at the URL below. There is a little real discussion of
the science here, but not much. Mostly it is just one side or the
other calling each other names. That can be fun, but if you want an
introduction to the science (or in the Zera Reticulan case, the
anti-science, pseudo-science or just plain non-science) the web is
probably the place to look.

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/planetx/

--
Sherilyn

Greg Neill

nelasīta,
2002. gada 23. okt. 13:54:5923.10.02
uz
"ABC" <no...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:urdknda...@corp.supernews.com...

> Maybe this planet has a velocity less than the sun's escape velocity. And
> maybe it's out there. We can arrive at mathematical problems or shall we
> say, contradictions but those are mathematical.

Are you saying that you can drive 100 miles in under one hour
while at all times remaining at less than 30 miles per hour?

> What the main concern is
> that there is something out there, going to cause a pole shift.

No, there's not. If you think there is, prove it.

> Mathematical impossibility, John, not physical because nancy might be
wrong
> on the numbers but right on the basic idea. While that is not acceptable
to
> those of us that want to hold nancy to a 100% accurate claim, it is
> certainly reasonable to consider this as a possibility.

It is also responsible to consider that she's entirely wrong in all
particulars.


Jon Kvebaek

nelasīta,
2002. gada 23. okt. 14:57:0223.10.02
uz
jak...@midbc.com (J.William Dell) writes:
>
> 2) You have tried noise, bad photo processing, and now cosmic rays
> to try to overturn what is clearly on those fits files.

There's no way to see whether a couple of hot pixels are due to noise,
bad processing or cosmic rays. One would think that an "expert" as
yourself would know that. I guess you have the "original film", eh?

John Popelish

nelasīta,
2002. gada 23. okt. 16:20:4923.10.02
uz
ABC wrote:

> Maybe this planet has a velocity less than the sun's escape velocity. And
> maybe it's out there. We can arrive at mathematical problems or shall we
> say, contradictions but those are mathematical. What the main concern is
> that there is something out there, going to cause a pole shift.
> Mathematical impossibility, John, not physical because nancy might be wrong
> on the numbers but right on the basic idea. While that is not acceptable to
> those of us that want to hold nancy to a 100% accurate claim, it is
> certainly reasonable to consider this as a possibility.

The velocity is just one of many impossibilities for Planet X. If you
want to worry about, it, it is up to you to dismiss all the other
impossibilities, also. A skeptical person sees a few impossibilities
and discards the source. What makes you think that Nancy is a
credible source for any information, when so many things she says are
easily proved to be nonsense, unless you decided she is credible, in
advance, before you hear what she has to say? Only a sucker would do
that.

--
John Popelish

The Commentator

nelasīta,
2002. gada 23. okt. 16:22:0523.10.02
uz
"J.William Dell" wrote:
>
> Greetings;
>
> Augusto
>
> The issue is the return of Planet X on its 3600 year orbit, expected
> in May/June 2003.
>
> The debunker group here does not have the ability to show the premise
> is wrong. Only the return or non-return in May/June 2003 will decide
> that issue.
>

The issue is decided, and there is no planet x.

Care to explain to us how is manages to defy the laws of orbital motion?

> At this point it can be said,
> the only images taken of that area of the sky, done with digital
> imaging that cannot be modified without being seen as being modified,
> have been taken by a crew hired by Steve Havas. The Debunker group
> here has made no effort to shoot or provide other images of their own.
>
> Within those images ( 3 sets taken over 3 weeks) is evidence to
> indicate a planetary object inbound towards the Sun at a high rate of
> speed.
>

No, you found a CCD defect, probably a cosmic ray event.

If you wanted to settle the issue you would take an image of the same
area with conventional film.

Of course you won't do that, your 'planet' disappears when you do that.

> The Debunkers of Sci.Astro would have you believe it is either imaging
> noise, cosmic rays, or processing errors. Nothing you should be
> concerned with.
>
> I would say that it would be prudent to consider the possibility and
> plan accordingly.
>

I did plan for the event that loons would mistake a cosmic ray event for
a planet. I got an ample supply of popcorn and am watching the kooks,
mainly you, do acrobatics trying to explain away reality.

it is very entertaining.

> Cooperative efforts on a community level can and will ensure great
> success in surviving a poleshift. With enough communities cooperating,
> rebuilding a civilized society afterwards is also achievable.
>

Ain't gonna be a poleshift Sparky.

>

tho...@antispam.ham

nelasīta,
2002. gada 23. okt. 16:56:0423.10.02
uz
J.William Dell writes:

> The Wizard of Oz has spoken;

Also incorrect. No wizard has spoken.

> 1) Your confusion thrown in as to modification of images. any change
> of media requires modification. different media, different
> modification. Brightness/Contrast etc. Basic level shit.

Irrelevant; the issue here is modification of the digital image, not
the change of media.

>>> At this point it can be said,
>>> the only images taken of that area of the sky, done with digital
>>> imaging that cannot be modified without being seen as being
>>> modified,

>> Incorrect; I can easily modify a digital image without any trace of
>> modification. If you knew anything about image processing, you'd
>> know that the standard practices of bias subtraction and flat
>> fielding are modifications. Without a basis of comparison, how
>> could you know whether they had been done? There is no requirement
>> for any remarks about the processing being retained in the header.

> What I am talking about is tampering.

That can be done without someone knowing it has been done, contrary
to your claim.

> Care to explain how you can get away with that Tholen, without it
> being recorded.

Simple. I can read the image into a computer program, add 1 DN to one
pixel, for example, and then write the image back out, even into the
original disk file, and then use a system utility to change the file's
time stamp back to the original. There would be no way for you to
know that the image has been changed.

> What method was used on the star charts back in January 2002?

You're presupposing that some star charts were tampered with.

> 2) You have tried noise, bad photo processing, and now cosmic rays to
> try to overturn what is clearly on those fits files. What will you
> think of next?

I don't need to think of anything next.

> I know. How about SHavas has tampered with the images and added PX
> onto the film.

Tampering is unnecessary; cosmic rays can already explain the images.
That doesn't change the fact that the images CAN be tampered with,
without you knowing it.

> Perhaps you would give us your opinion on the images.
> Are they unaltered? Or has someone tampered with them?

I cannot comment, because I haven't seen the image, nor do I need to,
to know that Nancy's object does not appear in them.

> How about it Tholen?
> You stick your nose in,

Incorrect; the corrections I've provided to your claims having
nothing to do with my nose.

> this time we want clear answers, not your obfuscation.

I already have provided clear answers. Nothing was obfuscatory
in nature.

> 3) Now here is 2 mouth fulls
>
> a) assert Cosmic rays cause the red & white image echos on film 3
> summaries over 3 weeks,at coordinates given by source.

We've been talking about digital images, not film. Furthermore,
"film 3 summaries" isn't even grammatical.

>> Incorrect; those images contain evidence of cosmic ray hits.
>> You cannot fit the positions with a gravitational orbit that brings it
>> to the vicinity of the Earth by May 2003.

> b) Jump back to assertion that PX must meet your expectations for
> orbit or it can't exist.

My expectations are nothing more than the laws of physics.

> Are you confused or just trying to be confusing?

Neither. You are simply lying. Note that readers are still awaiting
an orbit solution, complete with residuals.

> The jigs up
> Mr. "Wizard of Oz"

The "jig" was up when Nancy posted her first contradictory claim.

Mike Bagneski

nelasīta,
2002. gada 23. okt. 17:14:4523.10.02
uz
ABC <no...@nospam.com> wrote:

> On the other hand, John, perhaps the original poster needs to worry a bit
> longer just to make sure that planet X doesn't exist.

But Nancy. You haven't made a convincing case for the exisitence of anything.
I just hope that no one is gullible enough to worry because you say they
should. Sowing fear where there is nothing to fear for personal gain is a
despicable, pathetic way to make a buck. Shame on you.

> I think that has
> always been one of my pet peeves about many of the people here. They want
> to end the debate and make it final now, but now may be too soon.

There's no debate. There's no evidence.

> Clearly
> it isn't for many of you but for the more discriminating person that allows
> for the possibility that Nancy is somehow correct, it is not necessarily
> over yet.

When did "discriminating" start to mean "gullible?"

> But hopefully in a few short months, it will be, with no planet x showing
> up. I just think it is too soon to say for sure.

How are the book sales, by the way?



> I cringe everytime I read someone say "But the fact that Nancy's object has
> a velocity greater than the escape velocity of the sun proves that planet x
> does not exist, therefore no pole shift is possible." That's some twisted
> logic. But that's what you find here, sometimes. :-)

I agree, Nancy. An object could very easily have a hyperbolic orbit. You're
right in this case. This one case. All you other posts add up to nothing
more than "twisted logic." But then that's your hobby, isn't it? Twisting
logic?

Mb

O'Brother

nelasīta,
2002. gada 23. okt. 17:35:4923.10.02
uz

"J.William Dell" <jak...@midbc.com> wrote in message
news:b18a2f40.02102...@posting.google.com...
Why don't you go out and buy a book on astronomical image processing,
you are so full of crap. If only you knew how totally clueless you
look, in front of the world, and on a sci newsgroup. lol!

Light doesn't bend from gravity's effects to the extent that it creates
multiple landing sites, hence no multiple images. Period. I suggest
you read a little bit about stars being occulted by major planets to
understand just exactly what effect the gravity well has on light.

In addition to that Oh purveyor of scat, Havas stated that the images
were made with a RED FILTER. That being the case, all that was
imaged was red. Where did the white light come from?

Lastly, fits headers can easily be tampered with, as can the
image contents since it all is processed in the computer's memory
in the image's creation. Another clueless comment.

You're batting a thousand bubba

O'

ABC

nelasīta,
2002. gada 23. okt. 18:44:2823.10.02
uz
John Popelish wrote:

> ABC wrote:
>
>> Maybe this planet has a velocity less than the sun's escape velocity. And
>> maybe it's out there. We can arrive at mathematical problems or shall we
>> say, contradictions but those are mathematical. What the main concern is
>> that there is something out there, going to cause a pole shift.
>> Mathematical impossibility, John, not physical because nancy might be
>> wrong on the numbers but right on the basic idea. While that is not
>> acceptable to those of us that want to hold nancy to a 100% accurate
>> claim, it is certainly reasonable to consider this as a possibility.
>
> The velocity is just one of many impossibilities for Planet X.

That's right. But it still doesn't prove anything. It just proves maybe
that the numbers provided are incorrect for some reason. I couldn't say
what that reason is, as I am not privy to that process but it seems
reasonable to think that even with contradictions, if history provides
evidence of this occuring periodically in the past, we might want to look
past some of the inconsistencies in numerical results to the bigger picture
of whether or not this is going to happen.

But maybe not.

> If you
> want to worry about, it, it is up to you to dismiss all the other
> impossibilities, also. A skeptical person sees a few impossibilities
> and discards the source.

In your opinion.

> What makes you think that Nancy is a
> credible source for any information, when so many things she says are
> easily proved to be nonsense, unless you decided she is credible, in
> advance, before you hear what she has to say? Only a sucker would do
> that.
>

What makes me think she is not? People here.

CeeBee

nelasīta,
2002. gada 23. okt. 19:14:4123.10.02
uz

"J.William Dell" <jak...@midbc.com> wrote:

> Basic level shit.

You're too modest.
If there was a higher degree in shit you would have earned it by now.

> Are you confused or just trying to be confusing?

Are you a turd or just acting like a turd?
It's important, as turds can not receive degrees in shit.

It's like giving a math equation a Texas A&M degree in applied maths.


--
CeeBee

----
http://geocities.com/ceebee_2/


O'Brother

nelasīta,
2002. gada 23. okt. 19:22:1823.10.02
uz

"ABC" <no...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:ure9huh...@corp.supernews.com...

> John Popelish wrote:
>
> > ABC wrote:
> >
> >> Maybe this planet has a velocity less than the sun's escape velocity.
And
> >> maybe it's out there. We can arrive at mathematical problems or shall
we
> >> say, contradictions but those are mathematical. What the main concern
is
> >> that there is something out there, going to cause a pole shift.
> >> Mathematical impossibility, John, not physical because nancy might be
> >> wrong on the numbers but right on the basic idea. While that is not
> >> acceptable to those of us that want to hold nancy to a 100% accurate
> >> claim, it is certainly reasonable to consider this as a possibility.
> >
> > The velocity is just one of many impossibilities for Planet X.
>
> That's right. But it still doesn't prove anything. It just proves maybe
> that the numbers provided are incorrect for some reason. I couldn't say
> what that reason is, as I am not privy to that process but it seems
> reasonable to think that even with contradictions, if history provides
> evidence of this occuring periodically in the past, we might want to look
> past some of the inconsistencies in numerical results to the bigger
picture
> of whether or not this is going to happen.

Surely you aren't serious. If I were to tell you that gravity was going
to stop working at the end of the week, would you nail your shoes
to the floor? This has to be a classic statement "But it still doesn't
prove anything ..." Do you think its as easy as just
changing your mind? Prove to us that:

1. Your planet exists (none of the images have shown it).
2. Your Zetan Physics is demonstrated in all things (for example,
show us other cases of known objects with multiple red and
white images.
3. The infallibility of your prophetess. She's made how many
predictions of the planets appearance?

You're unable to prove any of the above, so the actual
translation of what you're saying is

"(ABC/Nancy) hasn't the slightest idea of what is right and
wrong, so (ABC/Nancy) chooses to believe Zetatalk as a
replacement for conventional reality. Don't bother
(ABC/Nancy) with contradictions, its what (ABC/Nancy)
believes, right or wrong"

In fact, you sound more and more like someone who
has to defend their dogma not because you're 'seeking the truth'
but to keep the book and tape sales up no matter what.

At first I didn't think Earl was right lumping you with Nancy, but I
admit now the probability seems pretty high he's right.

Does the ZetaPhilosophy have any guidance about lying, duplicity
and deceit? Why not post that link as well so that everyone can
have your own dogma's rope to lynch you with.

O'

>
> But maybe not.
>
> > If you
> > want to worry about, it, it is up to you to dismiss all the other
> > impossibilities, also. A skeptical person sees a few impossibilities
> > and discards the source.
>
> In your opinion.
>
> > What makes you think that Nancy is a
> > credible source for any information, when so many things she says are
> > easily proved to be nonsense, unless you decided she is credible, in
> > advance, before you hear what she has to say? Only a sucker would do
> > that.
> >
>
> What makes me think she is not? People here.

You're reduced to gainsaying the opposite just to keep the
thread going.


John Jones

nelasīta,
2002. gada 23. okt. 19:37:2223.10.02
uz

"ABC" <no...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:ure9huh...@corp.supernews.com...
> John Popelish wrote:
>
> > ABC wrote:
> >
> >> Maybe this planet has a velocity less than the sun's escape velocity.
And
> >> maybe it's out there. We can arrive at mathematical problems or shall
we
> >> say, contradictions but those are mathematical. What the main concern
is
> >> that there is something out there, going to cause a pole shift.
> >> Mathematical impossibility, John, not physical because nancy might be
> >> wrong on the numbers but right on the basic idea. While that is not
> >> acceptable to those of us that want to hold nancy to a 100% accurate
> >> claim, it is certainly reasonable to consider this as a possibility.
> >
> > The velocity is just one of many impossibilities for Planet X.
>
> That's right. But it still doesn't prove anything. It just proves maybe
> that the numbers provided are incorrect for some reason.

No, given that Nancy and her imaginary Zeta friends claim 100% accuracy, it
proves that they're internally inconsistent. That means "full of sh*t" for
you Zetacult accolytes.

> I couldn't say
> what that reason is, as I am not privy to that process but it seems
> reasonable to think that even with contradictions, if history provides
> evidence of this occuring periodically in the past,

It does not

> we might want to look
> past some of the inconsistencies in numerical results to the bigger
picture
> of whether or not this is going to happen.

It is not.

>
> But maybe not.

No maybe about it.

>
> > If you
> > want to worry about, it, it is up to you to dismiss all the other
> > impossibilities, also. A skeptical person sees a few impossibilities
> > and discards the source.
>
> In your opinion.

An *informed* opinion, as opposed to yours.

>
> > What makes you think that Nancy is a
> > credible source for any information, when so many things she says are
> > easily proved to be nonsense, unless you decided she is credible, in
> > advance, before you hear what she has to say? Only a sucker would do
> > that.
> >
>
> What makes me think she is not?

Are you kidding? She is profoundly ignorant of nearly every aspect of
physical science you might care to name. She equivocates, lies, and
misrepresents her interlocuters at every opportunity. She's a kook, and
so are you if you believe her.

A lot of people think you (ABC) are indeed Nancy. I haven't made a
decision one way or the other, but I believe that a case could be made that
you and she are one and the same.


John Ladasky

nelasīta,
2002. gada 23. okt. 22:23:4623.10.02
uz
tuchof...@hotmail.com (Knut Ove Hauge) wrote in message news:<4c45772f.02102...@posting.google.com>...

> Its no doubt that a hidden planet excist claimed by me years ago and
> according to the fractal chaos theory of the universe.However I
> disagree with Zetas about the period time and orbit.The mass and
> colour(surface temp) fit with my
> calculations.In my opinion it will not change the magnetic field on
> the earth next year although it will be visible at the time Zeta
> pointed out.So the domesday prophetic is wrong and make no sence.
>
> Knut Ove Hauge
> http://home.no.net/~knutove/gravity/indexg.html
> Author of the Fractal Grand Unified Theory.

Wow, Nut!

If I understand your beliefs correctly -- that a previously-unknown
planet will be visible to the naked eye from Earth next year, WHEN the
Zanies predict but not WHERE the Zanies predict -- they you are
eligible for my bet! Please watch for my upcoming post in sci.astro
entitled "A wager proposal for Zetadroids". Consider investing $1000
in your beliefs. It could be fun.

--
John J. Ladasky Jr., Ph.D.
Department of Biology
Johns Hopkins University
Baltimore MD 21218
USA
Earth

John Popelish

nelasīta,
2002. gada 23. okt. 22:33:3923.10.02
uz
ABC wrote:
>
> John Popelish wrote:

> > The velocity is just one of many impossibilities for Planet X.
>
> That's right. But it still doesn't prove anything. It just proves maybe
> that the numbers provided are incorrect for some reason.

The most obvious one being that Nancy is clueless. Duh.

> I couldn't say
> what that reason is, as I am not privy to that process but it seems
> reasonable to think that even with contradictions, if history provides
> evidence of this occuring periodically in the past, we might want to look
> past some of the inconsistencies in numerical results to the bigger picture
> of whether or not this is going to happen.

History does not provide any evidence of a crustal pole shift in the
last 4 billion years, at least. Such a process would destroy all
fossils and stratigraphy of previous eras by melting almost all of the
crust, and we have good fossils and strata back at least that far. So
your favorite backing doesn't exist. You have been lied to but you
wanted to believe. How does it feel to know deep down that everything
important you know is wrong?

> But maybe not.
(snip)

Ya think?!

--
John Popelish

Jeff Root

nelasīta,
2002. gada 23. okt. 22:43:0223.10.02
uz
"ABC" wrote:

>>> I cringe everytime I read someone say "But the fact that Nancy's
>>> object has a velocity greater than the escape velocity of the sun
>>> proves that planet x does not exist, therefore no pole shift is
>>> possible." That's some twisted logic. But that's what you find
>>> here, sometimes. :-)

John Popelish replied to "ABC":


>> Physically impossible is physically impossible. Deal with that or
>> not as you wish.

"ABC" replied to John:


> Maybe this planet has a velocity less than the sun's escape velocity.

In that case, it won't reach the inner solar system for more
than 300 years.

Over that long a time, even the Zetas can't predict exactly
when the encounter will take place or how far apart Earth and
planet X will be when the two planets pass each other, so they
can't predict what the effects of the encounter will be.


> And maybe it's out there.

Maybe it has a velocity less than the sun's escape velocity,
but isn't out there?

Your GPA of 2.7 must have been brought way down by your grades
in math. In math, it is necessary to use logical reasoning to
derive correct answers to problems.


> We can arrive at mathematical problems or shall we say,
> contradictions but those are mathematical.

For example, your electric bill indicates that you owe $600 for
15,000 kilowatt-hours of electrity used during the last 30 days.
If you used electricity at a rate high enough to use 15,000
kilowatt-hours in a month, your wiring would have melted, so
it is physically impossible that you used 15,000 kilowatt-hours
in a month. That is a mathematical problem or shall we say,
contradiction, but that is just mathematical, so you probably
really did use that much electricity, and you owe $600.


> What the main concern is that there is something out there,
> going to cause a pole shift.

That is not "the main concern". It MAY be YOUR main concern.
However, since planet X is physically impossible, it is not the
concern of anyone else.


> Mathematical impossibility, John, not physical because nancy
> might be wrong on the numbers but right on the basic idea.

So you are saying that when Nancy says the Zetas tell her that
planet X will pass Earth next May, what they are really telling
her might be that it will be coming past Earth 300 years from
next May.

Odd that the Zetas haven't corrected such a serious error in
all the years that they have been talking to Nancy, isn't it?


> While that is not acceptable to those of us that want to hold
> nancy to a 100% accurate claim, it is certainly reasonable to
> consider this as a possibility.

Why don't the Zetas correct the huge mathematical errors in
Nancy's statements? There are many such errors, and the Zetas
have had years to point them out to Nancy. One error means the
difference between a planet coming close to Earth next May, and
a planet coming close to Earth in 300 years. Do you consider
that to be a minor difference? Does Nancy? Do the Zetas?

Do you think it is "reasonable" to consider the difference to
be unimportant?

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

.

Jeff Root

nelasīta,
2002. gada 23. okt. 22:46:1423.10.02
uz
jak...@midbc.com (J.William Dell) wrote:

>> 2) You have tried noise, bad photo processing, and now cosmic
>> rays to try to overturn what is clearly on those fits files.

Jon Kvebaek replied:


> There's no way to see whether a couple of hot pixels are due to
> noise, bad processing or cosmic rays.

I'm not sufficiently familiar with the terminology to know
whether you applied the term "hot" correctly. I will assume
that you did, and use the term here.

The hot pixels are obviously noise. All one needs to do to see
that is to look at them and compare them to the appearance of
stars on the same image.

What caused the noise is another question. It looks exactly
like hits from energetic charged particles. A common source of
energetic charged particles (by far the most common source in
astronomical CCD imaging) is cosmic rays. Hence it is probable
that those hot pixels were caused by cosmic rays.

Correct processing can reduce or eliminate many kinds of noise,
including hot pixels caused by cosmic rays. Bad processing can
leave them in. Bad processing cannot cause hot pixels.

Processing to eliminate hot pixels due to cosmic ray hits is
totally unnecessary to determine the presence or non-presence
of real objects. Just compare the individual images to each
other. Noise caused by cosmic ray hits will be obvious.

J.William Dell

nelasīta,
2002. gada 23. okt. 23:55:4623.10.02
uz
tho...@AntiSpam.ham wrote in message news:<E1Et9.199699$U7.54...@twister.socal.rr.com>...

> J.William Dell writes:
>
> > The Wizard of Oz has spoken;
>
> Also incorrect. No wizard has spoken.

I have better things to do than being Tholenized for the next dozen
posts, so I'll leave this thread here. I'd rather have a root canal
than put up with this shit.

Tholen, See you in May/June for the final countdown.

J.William Dell

ABC

nelasīta,
2002. gada 24. okt. 00:04:4824.10.02
uz
John Popelish wrote:

Just because I may be wrong about what I think about planet X that doesn't
have any implications that I can see about what I believe about other
things. Even though I got them off Zetatalk.

Of course, you could argue that if zetatalk is wrong about one thing, it
could be wrong about others. let me go think about that for a while!

The Commentator

nelasīta,
2002. gada 24. okt. 00:11:4024.10.02
uz

If it is in orbit, as nutter nancy says, it must have a velocity less
than solar escape velocity.

If you understood high school physics you would know this.

> And maybe it's out there.

Except that it isn't out there, it does not exist.

>

ABC

nelasīta,
2002. gada 24. okt. 00:07:3224.10.02
uz
John Jones wrote:

Some people take joy in being skeptical, as though nothing is good enough
to believe.

I know that might hurt some feelings here, but am I wrong? How am I wrong?
What do you believe, even though this is not sci.religion.

Sorry for this post.

Ben Sisson

nelasīta,
2002. gada 24. okt. 01:55:4624.10.02
uz
On 23 Oct 2002 20:55:46 -0700, jak...@midbc.com (J.William Dell) (if
that IS his real name) conspiratorially whispered:

Coward. :-)

A pretty pathetic admission of defeat, to boot. Why not just stand up
and shout "I am incapable of debating the facts!" at the top of your
lungs?


--

Ben Sisson

"Yes, Captain. I am a lying, boneless, toady dweeb
but I am YOUR lying, boneless, toady dweeb!"

-The Dnyarri, Star Control 2

tho...@antispam.ham

nelasīta,
2002. gada 24. okt. 05:16:4324.10.02
uz
J.William Dell writes:

>>> The Wizard of Oz has spoken;

>> Also incorrect. No wizard has spoken.

> I have better things to do than being Tholenized for the next dozen
> posts,

There is no such thing as being "Tholenized", Dell. But like the
character "Steven", I can warn other readers to whom you respond,
"Dude, you're getting a Dell."

> so I'll leave this thread here.

Classic evasion. You can't defend your position, so you wriggle your
way out with the above ridiculous excuse. Meanwhile, some readers
are still waiting for the astrometric positions derived from the CCD
imaging, complete with an orbit solution and residuals, proving that
it is inbound with a May 2003 close approach to Earth. Until such
time, your claim is completely unsubstantiated.

> I'd rather have a root canal than put up with this shit.

Since when is the truth about Nancy's alleged object "shit"?

> Tholen, See you in May/June for the final countdown.

And do you intend to apologize at that time?

Je...@passionforastronomy.com

nelasīta,
2002. gada 24. okt. 08:19:0624.10.02
uz

Note that tholen is erroneously presupposing that he speaks for the
readers of this newsgroup. How ironic! :)

So far I've only seen tholen ask for an "orbit solution, complete with
residuals". I for one, am NOT waiting on an "orbit solution, complete
with residuals" for an object that doesn't even exist!

Jeff
http://www.mindspring.com/~jeffpo


In article <E1Et9.199699$U7.54...@twister.socal.rr.com>, tho...@IfA.Hawaii.Edu writes:


>J.William Dell writes:
>
>> Are you confused or just trying to be confusing?
>

Michael L Cunningham

nelasīta,
2002. gada 24. okt. 11:16:0724.10.02
uz
Ben Sisson wrote:
> On 23 Oct 2002 20:55:46 -0700, jak...@midbc.com (J.William Dell) (if
> that IS his real name) conspiratorially whispered:
>
>
>>tho...@AntiSpam.ham wrote in message news:<E1Et9.199699$U7.54...@twister.socal.rr.com>...
>>
>>>J.William Dell writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>>The Wizard of Oz has spoken;
>>>
>>>Also incorrect. No wizard has spoken.
>>
>>I have better things to do than being Tholenized for the next dozen
>>posts, so I'll leave this thread here. I'd rather have a root canal
>>than put up with this shit.
>>
>>Tholen, See you in May/June for the final countdown.
>
>
> Coward. :-)
>
> A pretty pathetic admission of defeat, to boot. Why not just stand up
> and shout "I am incapable of debating the facts!" at the top of your
> lungs?

At least Dell KNOWS when he's out classed. :)

--
Michael L. Cunningham
AED Assault team - www.aedcentral.com
Infinite Creationz - 2001 Grand AM GT
Just one of the Dawgs... www.dawgslife.com
http://www.n-body.net/registry/bogeystar/
http://members.cardomain.com/
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.

Augusto

nelasīta,
2002. gada 24. okt. 14:54:2924.10.02
uz
Well after reading so many posts, visiting several urls, checking and
seaching a little around here, I don't think one could believe this
Planet X bullshit at all.
Sorry for the Believers, but this is totally nonsense.
Thank you all guys for posting and answering my question. I don't need
any science degree to understand and track the answer. It's simple. If
they could give us just the equation of the orbit and where is the
object right now, nobody could defeat that. But just telling me to
believe is not enough.
Regards to you all and don't mind answering anymore those crazy posts.
You are just feeding them and keeping them on the spot, just forget
it.
Better things all of us have to do in this life before and after may
2003.
Bye all
Augusto

Fin Fahey

nelasīta,
2002. gada 24. okt. 15:01:0724.10.02
uz
"Augusto" <orott...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:267b7321.02102...@posting.google.com...

> Well after reading so many posts, visiting several urls, checking and
> seaching a little around here, I don't think one could believe this
> Planet X bullshit at all.
> Sorry for the Believers, but this is totally nonsense.
> Thank you all guys for posting and answering my question. I don't need
> any science degree to understand and track the answer. It's simple. If
> they could give us just the equation of the orbit and where is the
> object right now, nobody could defeat that.

They never have been able to do that, and they never will.

>But just telling me to
> believe is not enough.

Damn straight.

> Regards to you all and don't mind answering anymore those crazy posts.
> You are just feeding them and keeping them on the spot, just forget
> it.
> Better things all of us have to do in this life before and after may
> 2003.

Heartily agreed, Augusto. They're just a very sad doomsday cult, and you've
seen right through them.

--
Fin
---------------------------------------
fin@albédo.demon.co.uk
---------------------------------------

(please Tippex out the acute accent to reply)

tho...@antispam.ham

nelasīta,
2002. gada 24. okt. 15:09:4124.10.02
uz
Jeff Polston writes:

> Note that tholen is erroneously presupposing that he speaks for the
> readers of this newsgroup.

Nowhere did I speak for the readers of this newsgroup, Polston. I was
simply stating a fact that the readers of this newsgroup have yet to
see any orbit solution from any of the proponents of the Planet X
images.

> How ironic! :)

Where is the alleged irony, Polston?

> So far I've only seen tholen ask for an "orbit solution, complete with
> residuals".

What you've seen is irrelevant, Polston.

> I for one, am NOT waiting on an "orbit solution, complete
> with residuals" for an object that doesn't even exist!

You're failing to make a distinction between Nancy's object, which
does not exist, and the high pixels on the CCD images, which do
exist, therefore it should be possible to perform the astrometry on
them, report the positions, and do the orbit solution. The claim
that Dell made is that those pixels represent Nancy's object, and
therefore an orbit solution would represent a crucial test of that
claim. I am encouraging that such a test be performed, for the
benefit of any readers that have not yet been persuaded either way
by the arguments presented. That the proponents of Planet X have
run away from this particular crucial test is a strong point in
favor of the claim that Planet X does not exist, which is something
that someone with an alleged "Passion for Astronomy" ought to be
encouraging, yet here you are criticizing it. Why is that, Polston?

Mike Bagneski

nelasīta,
2002. gada 24. okt. 15:13:5024.10.02
uz
ABC <no...@nospam.com> wrote:

> ... even though this is not sci.religion.

Nancy,

If you know this, then why do you post here?

Mb

Mike Bagneski

nelasīta,
2002. gada 24. okt. 15:22:4024.10.02
uz
Mike Bagneski <bagn...@execpc.com> wrote:

> ABC <no...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> I cringe everytime I read someone say "But the fact that Nancy's object has
>> a velocity greater than the escape velocity of the sun proves that planet x
>> does not exist, therefore no pole shift is possible." That's some twisted
>> logic. But that's what you find here, sometimes. :-)
>
> I agree, Nancy. An object could very easily have a hyperbolic orbit. You're
> right in this case. This one case. All you other posts add up to nothing
> more than "twisted logic." But then that's your hobby, isn't it? Twisting
> logic?

My assertion that Nancy was right about one thing was in error. The fictitious
"Planet X" is characterized as having a periodic orbit. Periodic orbits can't
be hyperbolic, and the speed of objects in periodic orbits can't exceed escape
velocity. If they did, they would no longer be in a periodic orbit.

Sorry about that!

Mb

CeeBee

nelasīta,
2002. gada 24. okt. 17:50:0724.10.02
uz

"J.William Dell" <jak...@midbc.com> wrote:

> Tholen, See you in May/June for the final countdown.

Oh, no you won't. By then we sure won't see you around here anymore, you
spamming twit.
Better quickly morph into another identity now, while you still can,
zetaspammer.

And go troll somewhere else.

CeeBee

nelasīta,
2002. gada 24. okt. 17:51:2724.10.02
uz

"ABC" <no...@nospam.com>

> Sorry for this post.


I wish you were, spamhole.

Chosp

nelasīta,
2002. gada 24. okt. 17:58:0124.10.02
uz

"J.William Dell" <jak...@midbc.com> wrote in message
news:b18a2f40.02102...@posting.google.com...
> Greetings;
>
> Augusto
>
> The issue is the return of Planet X on its 3600 year orbit, expected
> in May/June 2003.

Be it resolved the said planet does not exist.

> The debunker group here does not have the ability to show the premise
> is wrong.

It has been shown repeatedly and unequivocably in this newsgroup
that the premise is wrong. It has also been shown repeatedly
and unequivocally that all the premises underlying
the premise are wrong. Where the hell were you?

>Only the return or non-return in May/June 2003 will decide
> that issue.

That issue was decided here years ago.
All the trolling you wish to inflict won't change
the fact that there will be no pole-shift next
year because Nancy's planet x doesn't exist.
It will not materialize out of the noise.
You'll see that you've lost way before May of 2003.
I suspect you will stop posting here in the not too-distant
future. No one misses trolls.


Chosp

nelasīta,
2002. gada 24. okt. 17:58:0224.10.02
uz

"J.William Dell" <jak...@midbc.com> wrote in message
news:b18a2f40.02102...@posting.google.com...
> tho...@AntiSpam.ham wrote in message news:<PXut9.199264
> DrS...@greeneggsand.HAM wrote

> >Incorrect; those images contain evidence of cosmic ray hits.
> > You cannot fit the positions with a gravitational orbit that brings it
> to the vicinity of the Earth by May 2003.
>
> b) Jump back to assertion that PX must meet your expectations for
> orbit or it can't exist.

What is your understanding of escape velocity?


The Commentator

nelasīta,
2002. gada 24. okt. 18:05:3324.10.02
uz

On the contrary, many things are well supported by fact and
observation. The swill peddled by nancy and company simply is not in
the believable group.

> I know that might hurt some feelings here, but am I wrong? How am I wrong?
> What do you believe, even though this is not sci.religion.
>

I believe you are an idiot, and nutter nancy needs help, both the legal
and medical type of help.

> Sorry for this post.
>
> >>

The Commentator

nelasīta,
2002. gada 24. okt. 18:12:1824.10.02
uz
ABC wrote:
>
> John Popelish wrote:
>
> > ABC wrote:
> >>
> >> John Popelish wrote:
> >
> >> > The velocity is just one of many impossibilities for Planet X.
> >>
> >> That's right. But it still doesn't prove anything. It just proves maybe
> >> that the numbers provided are incorrect for some reason.
> >
> > The most obvious one being that Nancy is clueless. Duh.
> >
> >> I couldn't say
> >> what that reason is, as I am not privy to that process but it seems
> >> reasonable to think that even with contradictions, if history provides
> >> evidence of this occuring periodically in the past, we might want to look
> >> past some of the inconsistencies in numerical results to the bigger
> >> picture of whether or not this is going to happen.
> >
> > History does not provide any evidence of a crustal pole shift in the
> > last 4 billion years, at least. Such a process would destroy all
> > fossils and stratigraphy of previous eras by melting almost all of the
> > crust, and we have good fossils and strata back at least that far. So
> > your favorite backing doesn't exist. You have been lied to but you
> > wanted to believe. How does it feel to know deep down that everything
> > important you know is wrong?
> >
>
> Just because I may be wrong about what I think about planet X that doesn't
> have any implications that I can see about what I believe about other
> things. Even though I got them off Zetatalk.
>

Support just one thing you "got from zetatalk" that is factual, and
provide the proof.

> Of course, you could argue that if zetatalk is wrong about one thing, it
> could be wrong about others. let me go think about that for a while!

Not really. Once the planet fails to appear, and the pole shift does
not happen the only followers nancy will have are loons, kooks and
twists.

Wait a second, that is the case now.

The Commentator

nelasīta,
2002. gada 24. okt. 18:14:0324.10.02
uz
"J.William Dell" wrote:
>
> tho...@AntiSpam.ham wrote in message news:<E1Et9.199699$U7.54...@twister.socal.rr.com>...
> > J.William Dell writes:
> >
> > > The Wizard of Oz has spoken;
> >
> > Also incorrect. No wizard has spoken.
>
> I have better things to do than being Tholenized for the next dozen
> posts, so I'll leave this thread here. I'd rather have a root canal
> than put up with this shit.
>
>

You are free to crawl back under your rock and worry about the
kooktrails.

Beware the door/ass interface.

John Jones

nelasīta,
2002. gada 24. okt. 18:20:0224.10.02
uz

"The Commentator" <gu...@whocares.net> wrote in message
news:3DB87042...@whocares.net...

You forgot about the cranks, crackpots, and woo-woos.


The Commentator

nelasīta,
2002. gada 24. okt. 22:00:4124.10.02
uz

I stand corrected! ;-)

EPC

nelasīta,
2002. gada 25. okt. 07:10:3425.10.02
uz
Mike Bagneski wrote:

No Mike, you should not be sorry. Your assertion is not wrong, it just
needs a little work. Let me help.


Jon Kvebaek

nelasīta,
2002. gada 25. okt. 07:52:2825.10.02
uz
EPC <nor...@noreply.com> writes:
>
> No Mike, you should not be sorry. Your assertion is not wrong, it just
> needs a little work. Let me help.

So "ABC" has morphed into "EPC" now? Trying to wriggle your way out of
a few killfiles?
--
If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby.

Je...@passionforastronomy.com

nelasīta,
2002. gada 25. okt. 09:12:5725.10.02
uz

Eeeewwwwww, I've been tholenized!

Definition: the arguing tactic used by tholen in which he will lie, tell
half truths, be hypocritical, argue semantics, dodge, evade, spin,
redirect, and do anything else within his powers in order to never concede
a point or admit an error.

Contrary to what tholen claims he said, tholen actually said,
"note that readers are still waiting an orbit solution, complete
with residuals". I'm a reader, therefore relevance is established. I also
have direct evidence to the contrary of tholen's claim, which establishes
even more relevance. So what I, the reader, have seen is actually quite
relevant and tholen is wrong, once again.

The irony is that when others generalize for the readers of newsgroup, tholen
is quick to chastise, but then he will turn right around and do it. I guess
I should have said how hypocritical! And to tholen's typical "what alledged
chastising", I'll respond with another tholen classic, "read the newsgroup".

The distinction between the pixels and the imaginary planet is that an
orbit solution ONLY applies to the planet, NOT the pixels. Leave it to
tholen to tholenize me with a semantic argument, once again.

tholen is erroneously presupposing that not providing an orbit solution
is a "crucial test". First of all, most of the astronomers I know (that
don't do it as a profession) haven't studied much oribital mechanics
so they wouldn't know if a solution is correct or not. And secondly,
the easiest way out for a proponent of Planet X is to simply state
that don't know celestial mechanics.

In my "passion for astronomy", I encourage people to get out there and
actually observe (something tholen has discouraged)
and not sit around waiting and whining for oribital solutions. Simply
point a telescope at the coordinates and note that a new object between
2nd and 10th magnitude is not there. Simple and easy and the person is
probably going to learn a lot about telescopes, stars, and constellations
along the way. Some may learn about astrophotography (tholen has said
"As far as I am concerned, taking a picture is a waste of time.").

My point of posting was to a) take a shot at tholen since I haven't done
it in a while, and b) to point out tholen doesn't speak for all readers
of the newsgroup. Besides, tholen has said that someone giving the "field
a bad reputation" is "sufficient reason to counter" them on the newsgroup.
That's why I counter him from time to time, especially since it's a fact
and I'm not erroneously presupposing. :)

Jeff
http://www.mindspring.com/~jeffpo

Michael L Cunningham

nelasīta,
2002. gada 25. okt. 11:18:1025.10.02
uz
Je...@PassionForAstronomy.Com wrote:
> Eeeewwwwww, I've been tholenized!
>
> Definition: the arguing tactic used by tholen in which he will lie, tell
> half truths, be hypocritical, argue semantics, dodge, evade, spin,
> redirect, and do anything else within his powers in order to never concede
> a point or admit an error.

Big snip..

> My point of posting was to a) take a shot at tholen since I haven't done
> it in a while, and b) to point out tholen doesn't speak for all readers
> of the newsgroup. Besides, tholen has said that someone giving the "field
> a bad reputation" is "sufficient reason to counter" them on the newsgroup.
> That's why I counter him from time to time, especially since it's a fact
> and I'm not erroneously presupposing. :)
>
> Jeff
> http://www.mindspring.com/~jeffpo

If you're looking for sympathy Jeff, you've come to the wrong place. My
opinion is you should keep your mouth shut. Your comments make it seem
as if you're jealous of Tholen.

John Popelish

nelasīta,
2002. gada 25. okt. 12:44:4925.10.02
uz
Je...@PassionForAstronomy.Com wrote:
>
> Eeeewwwwww, I've been tholenized!
>
> Definition: the arguing tactic used by tholen in which he will lie, tell
> half truths, be hypocritical, argue semantics, dodge, evade, spin,
> redirect, and do anything else within his powers in order to never concede
> a point or admit an error.
>
> Contrary to what tholen claims he said, tholen actually said,
> "note that readers are still waiting an orbit solution, complete
> with residuals".
(snip)

So if there are at least two readers who fit this description, he is
perfectly correct. Do you have knowledge that there are not at least
two readers who fit this description? You pretend he referred to all
readers.

Okay, now it is your turn to dodge, evade, spin or redirect.

--
John Popelish

Je...@passionforastronomy.com

nelasīta,
2002. gada 25. okt. 12:12:4325.10.02
uz

Nope. Not looking for any sympathy. But I don't believe in "yellow dawg"
politics so I will not support tholen just because he's against Nancy.
The definition was because every time someone complains about being
"tholenized", tholen claims it has not been defined.

As for your opinion, I sometimes have the same of you after reading some
of your posts. Isn't freedom of thought and expression great! Man, I
love America!

As for me seeming to be jealous of tholen, I just don't see the logic in
that, especially given the past exchanges tholen and I have had. I've
been very critical of tholen's tactics. So please elaborate on how you
came to your conclusion. Thanks.

Jeff
http://www.mindspring.com/~jeffpo

CeeBee

nelasīta,
2002. gada 25. okt. 15:57:1425.10.02
uz

"EPC" <nor...@noreply.com> wrote:

> No Mike, you should not be sorry. Your assertion is not wrong, it just
> needs a little work. Let me help.


EPC. The new batch.

Now what Texas A&M degree do *you* have? Applied "basic level shit", taught
by your boyfriend dell?

Go learn an honest trade, woman, and make a contribution to society instead
of this commercial crap.