ZetaTalk LIVE Chat May 2

>> "Common" sense ...

That's actually a GOOD thing.

Common sense = Sheeple sense

The shills hate the light ... they hate common sense ... they hate the fact that most can see them ... I mean come on, who has thousands of hours of extra time to devote to a supposed crazy lady? Nobody, could do this without some kind of compensation. Especially these selfish guys!

MeNow and CommonHater prove, yet again, they cannot have any other jobs but here on GLP. Just take a look how much time they spend here on their posts, almost every single day and most of it spent right here on Nancy's threads. Countless hours every single week... every single year. Nobody has this much free time ... NOBODY!

Somebody should do a time study on these guys to show how much actual time they spend here every week. I betcha it's way more than people would even guess? I betcha some of em are working here in close to full time hours. Hmmmm?

Such a "planet" and the POLE SHIFT it causes PERFECTLY accounts for ALL geological observations.


Find one actual modern geologist who will support that claim.



Just one.


He tries to bring forth a stale 37 year old book that has been superceded time and again by much more modern discoveries. No modern geologist pays it any attention. But this is "good" evidence for the idiot bunkers like Nancymax.


I contacted the author of that "ancient" article. He didn't want to discuss it.

That does not surprise me. Frankly, I doubt he's even alive - would have to be SUPER old by now if he was. That means that the odds that this statement is a complete



are QUITE high.

Such a "planet" and the POLE SHIFT it causes PERFECTLY accounts for ALL geological observations.


Find one actual modern geologist who will support that claim.



Just one.


Nowadays that would be difficult. Most geologists work for large oil companies or mining companies. Relatively few are employed in academia. All large organizations have their employees sign non-disclosure agreements, and bar them from talking to any media without company approval - even and especially during "off" hours. Any geologist who is not independantly wealthy and HAS to work for a living, will not risk his welfare by diseminating opinions that will threaten his employment. Academia does not have the same prohibitions, but having earned two degrees myself, and having gotten to know more than a few academics, including one who offered to make me his protege in sociology - I can tell you with authority that the vast majority are not boat rockers. Before one becomes a rebel, one must first get TENURE - and that takes time. So - either one bites thier lip through a Phd program, and continues to do so for ten years afterward, or one "awakens" after tenure is acquired.

There are indeed "some" rebels out there, but surviving as one is extremely difficult, and more difficult today than at anytime since the middle age inquisitions.

[link to www.physics.uwaterloo.ca]

He's not "super old".

[link to en.wikipedia.org]

He wrote that article one year after he graduated from the University of London.

Shows how little actual research you do.

Just like the hilarious claim he makes that all astronomers are somehow "controlled".

Just like the hilarious claim he makes that all astronomers are somehow "controlled".


Here's Paul S. Wesson's original article published before he graduated from the University of London.

[link to adsabs.harvard.edu]

Title: The Position against Continental Drift
Authors: Wesson, Paul S.
Publication: Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society, Vol. 11, p.312
Publication Date: 12/1970
Origin: QJRAS
Comment: A&AA ID. AAA004.081.040
Bibliographic Code: 1970QJRAS..11..312W

Paul S. Wesson is not a geologist by trade. His field is astrophysics.

I can guarantee that in the thirty-nine years since the publication of the original article that his opinions have changed considerably.

Science does not sit still - theories change and in thirty-nine years the theory of plate tectonics has changed significantly.

As for scientists and astronomers being "controlled" that's a complete laugh and it's one of the prime claims that the bunkers make when they cannot prove their beliefs with scientific fact.

Just like the hilarious claim he makes that all astronomers are somehow "controlled".


Here's Paul S. Wesson's original article published before he graduated from the University of London.

[link to adsabs.harvard.edu]

Title: The Position against Continental Drift
Authors: Wesson, Paul S.
Publication: Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society, Vol. 11, p.312
Publication Date: 12/1970
Origin: QJRAS
Comment: A&AA ID. AAA004.081.040
Bibliographic Code: 1970QJRAS..11..312W

Paul S. Wesson is not a geologist by trade. His field is astrophysics.

I can guarantee that in the thirty-nine years since the publication of the original article that his opinions have changed considerably.

Science does not sit still - theories change and in thirty-nine years the theory of plate tectonics has changed significantly.

As for scientists and astronomers being "controlled" that's a complete laugh and it's one of the prime claims that the bunkers make when they cannot prove their beliefs with scientific fact.

Just like the hilarious claim he makes that all astronomers are somehow "controlled".


Here's Paul S. Wesson's original article published before he graduated from the University of London.

[link to adsabs.harvard.edu]

Title: The Position against Continental Drift
Authors: Wesson, Paul S.
Publication: Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society, Vol. 11, p.312
Publication Date: 12/1970
Origin: QJRAS
Comment: A&AA ID. AAA004.081.040
Bibliographic Code: 1970QJRAS..11..312W

Paul S. Wesson is not a geologist by trade. His field is astrophysics.

I can guarantee that in the thirty-nine years since the publication of the original article that his opinions have changed considerably.

Science does not sit still - theories change and in thirty-nine years the theory of plate tectonics has changed significantly.

As for scientists and astronomers being "controlled" that's a complete laugh and it's one of the prime claims that the bunkers make when they cannot prove their beliefs with scientific fact.


Great info. I'll be sure to bookmark this so that the next time Max pulls out that crap, he'll have to explain this.

Just like the hilarious claim he makes that all astronomers are somehow "controlled".


Here's Paul S. Wesson's original article published before he graduated from the University of London.

[link to adsabs.harvard.edu]

Title: The Position against Continental Drift
Authors: Wesson, Paul S.
Publication: Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society, Vol. 11, p.312
Publication Date: 12/1970
Origin: QJRAS
Comment: A&AA ID. AAA004.081.040
Bibliographic Code: 1970QJRAS..11..312W

Paul S. Wesson is not a geologist by trade. His field is astrophysics.

I can guarantee that in the thirty-nine years since the publication of the original article that his opinions have changed considerably.

Science does not sit still - theories change and in thirty-nine years the theory of plate tectonics has changed significantly.

As for scientists and astronomers being "controlled" that's a complete laugh and it's one of the prime claims that the bunkers make when they cannot prove their beliefs with scientific fact.

>> I can guarantee that in the thirty-nine years since the publication of the original article that his opinions have changed considerably.

YOU can "guarantee" that - but he has "no comment".

Hmmm - seems like if he really had "come around" he would freely admit it.

Interesting.

Just like the hilarious claim he makes that all astronomers are somehow "controlled".


Here's Paul S. Wesson's original article published before he graduated from the University of London.

[link to adsabs.harvard.edu]

Title: The Position against Continental Drift
Authors: Wesson, Paul S.
Publication: Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society, Vol. 11, p.312
Publication Date: 12/1970
Origin: QJRAS
Comment: A&AA ID. AAA004.081.040
Bibliographic Code: 1970QJRAS..11..312W

Paul S. Wesson is not a geologist by trade. His field is astrophysics.

I can guarantee that in the thirty-nine years since the publication of the original article that his opinions have changed considerably.

Science does not sit still - theories change and in thirty-nine years the theory of plate tectonics has changed significantly.

As for scientists and astronomers being "controlled" that's a complete laugh and it's one of the prime claims that the bunkers make when they cannot prove their beliefs with scientific fact.

>> I can guarantee that in the thirty-nine years since the publication of the original article that his opinions have changed considerably.

YOU can "guarantee" that - but he has "no comment".

Hmmm - seems like if he really had "come around" he would freely admit it.

Interesting.


Can you guarantee that he has no comment for any reason other than not caring to address a subject that he wrote about all those years ago, especially if he no longer defends what was done early in his career? I bet you can't.

Do you still defend your essays from high school? Have you not developed past the limitations you had when you wrote essays drawn from the depth of experience of a 17 year old?

Not the same Max. The law papers were based on Law and precedent, I am sure. That doesn't change. Science is different. Each new discovery leads in new directions, old theories are improved upon, revised or discarded as the knowledge grows. For someone with a law degree, your grasp on the use of logic is tenuous. You surely are a BS artist, albeit not a very convincing one. If you really do have a degree in law, which I doubt, it is understandable that you changed careers. To be a successful barrister, you need to gather and present evidence to support your case, something you have repeatedly failed to do to back up your claims here.

Well, near sighted fool that he is, he doesn't realize there is NO NEED to do that, as SOHO and LASCO are doing it for us!

See the Winged Globe image taken on March 27, 2009, detailed on this newsletter at section two, the Winged Globe.
[link to www.zetatalk.com]

And a second Winged Globe image taken on April 19, 2009 by SOHO, again in this newsletter on Second Sun Returns.
[link to www.zetatalk.com]

Note in BOTH cases you can see the tail of Planet X down below the complex, and that tail looks remarkably like the tail in the LASCO image captured on Dec 23, 2007. See Sign 1681 for that image.
[link to www.zetatalk.com]

And have we gotten photos of the Second Sun, now returned to view? Yup, and more coming.

The Second Sun also sets before the Sun, at 6:38 or so. If it were a reflection, then WHERE DID IT GO AT 6:38? It set, and thus is gone. The Second Sun has independence from the Sun.

So does it rise after the Sun in the morning as well?

Yes. There is a recent SUNRISE photo taken in Alberta, CA at this link.

[link to www.zetatalk.com]

So, let me get this straight. PX sets before the sun sets, and rises after the Sun rises. Is that correct?

I want to make sure I am understanding you.

It is along the Ecliptic to the right of the sun and slightly below the Ecliptic both rising and setting, yes. In the view from the northern hemisphere. Be aware that the Ecliptic is at an angle from your view both at sunrise and sunset, a different angle. So 'to the right' is a tad different for sunrise and sunset.

What the fuck does the above have to do with your imaginary planet and your apparent substance abuse and obvious delusional behavior?

Such a "planet" and the POLE SHIFT it causes PERFECTLY accounts for ALL geological observations.

Such a "planet" and the POLE SHIFT it causes PERFECTLY accounts for ALL geological observations.


Find one actual modern geologist who will support that claim.



Just one.


Nowadays that would be difficult. Most geologists work for large oil companies or mining companies. Relatively few are employed in academia. All large organizations have their employees sign non-disclosure agreements, and bar them from talking to any media without company approval - even and especially during "off" hours. Any geologist who is not independantly wealthy and HAS to work for a living, will not risk his welfare by diseminating opinions that will threaten his employment. Academia does not have the same prohibitions, but having earned two degrees myself, and having gotten to know more than a few academics, including one who offered to make me his protege in sociology - I can tell you with authority that the vast majority are not boat rockers. Before one becomes a rebel, one must first get TENURE - and that takes time. So - either one bites thier lip through a Phd program, and continues to do so for ten years afterward, or one "awakens" after tenure is acquired.

There are indeed "some" rebels out there, but surviving as one is extremely difficult, and more difficult today than at anytime since the middle age inquisitions.

Additionally, - i would like to point out James Randis 1 Million Dollar challenge, where enybody proving to be any sort of psychic can take the pice. Nobody got it, a few tried and failed miserably , often being caught cold on fraud.
Since that little more challengers show up - the all to good know why.


I'm not sure that "channelling" and "psychic" can be defined as the same thing. I suppose the predictive aspect which seems to go with channelling does put it in the area of claiming to be psychic. However, does the fact that predictions seem to fail mean that "channelling" has not taken place? I'm not sure it does. like I have been saying, "fake" or "fraud" as opposed to "real" just doesn't adequately cover the possibilities, IMO.

Just like the hilarious claim he makes that all astronomers are somehow "controlled".


Here's Paul S. Wesson's original article published before he graduated from the University of London.

[link to adsabs.harvard.edu]

Title: The Position against Continental Drift
Authors: Wesson, Paul S.
Publication: Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society, Vol. 11, p.312
Publication Date: 12/1970
Origin: QJRAS
Comment: A&AA ID. AAA004.081.040
Bibliographic Code: 1970QJRAS..11..312W

Paul S. Wesson is not a geologist by trade. His field is astrophysics.

I can guarantee that in the thirty-nine years since the publication of the original article that his opinions have changed considerably.

Science does not sit still - theories change and in thirty-nine years the theory of plate tectonics has changed significantly.

As for scientists and astronomers being "controlled" that's a complete laugh and it's one of the prime claims that the bunkers make when they cannot prove their beliefs with scientific fact.

>> I can guarantee that in the thirty-nine years since the publication of the original article that his opinions have changed considerably.

YOU can "guarantee" that - but he has "no comment".

Hmmm - seems like if he really had "come around" he would freely admit it.

Interesting.


Can you guarantee that he has no comment for any reason other than not caring to address a subject that he wrote about all those years ago, especially if he no longer defends what was done early in his career? I bet you can't.

Do you still defend your essays from high school? Have you not developed past the limitations you had when you wrote essays drawn from the depth of experience of a 17 year old?

I wrote papers in law school that I wouldn't change a single sentence in - even today.

Someone else posted this im going to repost it i liked it so much.

Going through an old hard drive tonight, I found this message from five years ago...early 2004. I believe it was from TT-Watch. Very interesting reading...FIVE YEARS hence with ZT still being one huge FAILURE.

From: Jonathan
Date: May 15th, 2004
Subject: PX the Doomsday that Never Came

Hello,

So, we have reached it at last: the first of two important PX-related dates, assuming any date related to this event could be called ´important.´ Today, the first anniversary of the failed prediction comes to pass: PX did not appear on May 15th, 2003, and thus the debacle of Nancy Lieder’s White Lie began.

Since then, during the last year, a virtual cornucopia of excuses and failed predictions has followed. Interest had waned and fallen off, radio interviews and articles have diminished in both quantity and quality, and it appears that the fourteenth minute of fame is just about to expire.

In the midst of this, Nancy Lieder’s faith remains unshakable. PX will come; it *must* come. The Zetas are real; they *must* be real. Nancy must have some importance; *any* importance. The delusions continue, because Nancy Lieder is too afraid and too weak to simply admit that she may be wrong.

It takes strength to admit when one is in error. Grant, another of the believers, has admitted error to a limited degree. Nancy, because of the trap she laid for herself with the ´100 percent accuracy´ claim, has no such recourse. That is why, as an example, back on March 4th, the Zetas talked about the movements of Venus, when they were in fact misidentifying Mercury. Thus came the claim of ´jerking Nancy around.´ The inevitable explanation: We are testing the faith of the believers. Convert and you will be saved.

It is a powerful, seductive message, and the centerpiece of many successful religions around the world. And, like those other End Times religions, Zetatalk has the same failing: the world stubbornly refuses to end as advertised. Thus, larger and more elaborate conspiracy theories need to be spun to protect the core idea, and when they are big enough or believed in strongly enough, disaster can come, not in the end of the world, but in the self-destruction of the believers.

It isn’t a matter of intelligence, who buys into these ideas and who doesn’t. It is some other quality, more elusive, which defines those who will believe the idea versus those who will question it. Thus, the best way of dealing with that is, in my humble opinion, the careful examination of the idea, and its supporting evidence.

One thing we, as people of science, must follow is the core rule of science. Always allow for the possibility that you are wrong. If you cannot do this simple thing, then you will start making excuses and fudging facts so that you can “explain or excuse away” anything that does not support your theory. The facts are now bent to support the theory, rather than the theory being bent to conform to the available facts.

Planet X is now supposed to have been hovering next to the Sun, from Earth’s perspective, for months. As such, it has defied the behavior of every other object we have ever observed. None of the other planets behave this way. As a matter of fact, they continue to behave as though there were no new massive object anywhere close to them. Likewise, Planet X has supposedly had the ability to decelerate, something that also has never been observed naturally.

Planet X has now supposedly stopped the Earth from rotating around the Sun, stopping us roughly at the beginning of this year. New and untested forces, completely at odds with traditional physics and supposedly impossible to test, have halted Earth; have done so in such a way that no person felt a thing, and nothing untoward happened with such an unpredictable braking. Yet, Nancy has not come up with an adequate explanation as to why the other planets continue to move in the constellations they are predicted to normally, nor why the constellations continue to rise and set on time. She is forced to imagine huge conspiracy theories, again and again, to explain that all the clocks worldwide are being secretly manipulated, so that the Sun appears to rise and set on time. She postulates a nine million mile movement, itself undetected, without considering the consequences of such a move; she merely states that she had an out of body experience, and that is all the evidence she nee!
ds.

Planet X has a second cousin, known as the Earth’s Dark Twin. Amusingly, she talked about the EDT some years back, and then the idea was sort of dropped. It took, of all things, a debunker to find it the original idea and post about it; then suddenly the Zetas were talking about it again. That always struck me as quite convenient, and I have often wondered if that little nugget hadn’t appeared until June, what her response would then have been.

The simple fact of the matter is that right now, everything in the skies is accounted for and tracks precisely where it is supposed to be. The instruments designed to do this (sextants, telescopes, and even Sundials) all demonstrate that all the various physical objects we can perceive are precisely where they have been predicted to be, from a year ago, to a decade ago, and in some cases a century or more ago.

But that doesn’t stop the believer, fascinatingly enough. Regardless of absolute concrete evidence completely contradicting the veracity of the idea, they continue to trumpet the idea unimpeded. After all, why let reality interfere? Why bother with those pesky laws of physics? Why bother to even *consider* the idea one might be wrong? Why not stay with the warm, comfortable, blanket of irrationality, rather than face reality’s cold, hard facts?

So, I understand Nancy’s absolute reluctance to deal with such issues. The idea is too important, and she is far too weak and cowardly to entertain the idea that she may be wrong, or set up any situation in which the idea of PX could be falsified. It is a pity, but it is certainly not unexpected: it is, in fact, the same pattern that cults follow all the time.

So, Nancy will continue. Some people, but far fewer than before, will continue to listen, and some, like myself, will continue to point out missteps. She will absolutely deny reality when it doesn’t conform to what the voices in her head tell her what ought to happen. She will continue to obfuscate, lie when it suits her, and forget her misses in favor of her hits. She will and has, in fact, adopted every bit of the behavior she finds so detestable in others. She has met the enemy, and it continues to be her own delusion, weakness, and cowardice. She has not the strength, nor the will, to even entertain the idea of error, and will go to her grave continually persuading herself that she was right.

The world will give her all the attention she was due, and even a quarter century from now, will have forgotten the name of one Nancy Lieder. But she need not worry; there will be a new and improved prophecy of disaster just over the horizon then; and the pattern will start anew.

I figure I may as well post some of the questions Nancy has failed to address regarding observable phenomena that thoroughly contradict her claims: there are many people who have contributed to these questions over the last few months, but Trebob did a great job of organizing them.

=Zetatalk in general:

1-.. What do starburst candy and aliens have to do with each other?

2-.. I’ve found a few pieces of unwrapped candy myself. Isn’t it possible that one piece of starburst being unwrapped was just a random occurrence?

3-.. How are the "zetas" 100% accurate, when most of their predictions have failed?

4-.. Why do you demand that issues be addressed, and then ignore any type of reply when they are?

5-.. Why do you continue to demand an issue be addressed when you have offered no evidence for it?

6-.. Why do you continue to demand an issue be addressed after it has been shown, based on all the available evidence that the issue does not exist?

7-.. Whenever someone points out evidence that you are wrong you repeat the same incorrect statement, change the subject, or throw around insults. How does this help you prove your case?


=Planet X:

8-.. Why do pictures, when taken from the same location on Earth, always show "Planet X" in different places in relation to the sun?
( [link to www.zetatalk.com] )
( [link to www.zetatalk3.com]
( [link to www.zetatalk3.com]

9-.. Why is "Planet X" only visible to cheap web cams?

10-. Why isn’t "Planet X" visible in equipment designed to look for similar objects?

11-. Why can I recreate all your "Planet X" photos using any available light source?
( [link to home.insightbb.com]

12-. Whether you trusted the source or not, how is it you were able to mistake a kite for a planet?
( [link to www.zetatalk.com]

13-. Why is a picture of a kite one of the best pictures you have to prove the existence of "Planet X"?

14-. You have made the claim that "Planet X" is 4 times the size of Venus "and it is probably at a distance that is not any closer than Venus gets to us in its normal transit" ( [link to www.zetatalk.com] The diameter of Venus is roughly 12,102 kilometers. Therefore "Planet X" would have to be 4 X 12,102 km in diameter. This would make "Planet X" 48,408 kilometers in diameter. Earth just for comparison is 12,756 km in diameter. You are therefore saying that "Planet X" is roughly the size of Uranus (51,118 km in diameter) or Neptune (49,528 km in diameter). Ground based telescopes are capable of seeing these planets as faint points of light. The maximum distance from Earth to Neptune is 4,686,510,980 km. The maximum distance from the Earth to Venus is 261,039,880 km. Neptune is roughly 17.9 times farther out than Venus. If it is so large and so much closer to us why can’t our ground based telescopes see "Planet X"?

15-. If "Planet X" is as large and close as you say it is, why isn’t it visible to the unaided eye at this time?

16-. How can something that large and close, dust cloud or not, give "an impression of something almost as large as the Moon"? ( [link to www.zetatalk.com]

17-. Why does light from "Planet X" behave differently than any other light in the observed universe?

18-. What evidence do you have to support the supposed behavior of light from "Planet X"?

19-. Why hasn’t there been even one picture or description of "Planet X" on your site that cannot be explained as a lens artifact, atmospheric effect, obvious fake, or man made object?

20-. In May 2003, on the Coast-to-Coast AM radio program, you made the claim that "Planet X" was "to the left of the sun at dawn and to the left of the sun at sunset". An object to the left of the sun at sunrise will be to the right of the sun at sunset. How is your statement possible?

21-. All of the phenomenon you point to here on Earth are perfectly normal and hardly evidence of another planet. Why have you never been able to offer any concrete evidence of "Planet X"?

22-. Every other observed planet continues to move exactly as predicted. Why hasn’t "Planet X" affected them, as you say it has affected Earth?


=Astronomy:

23-. Do you know how to set up astronomy programs for your latitude, longitude, time zone, and altitude above sea level?

24-. These programs when configured properly show that everything in the night sky is exactly where it should be, even when working with a database 6 or more years old. Why are all the stars, constellations, and planets in the right place if Earth isn’t moving along normally in its orbit?

25-. As we moved into the months of March and April in 2004, you made the claim that the Sun was rising higher in the sky. This is normal for the Northern Hemisphere at that time of year. How does this prove that Earth is not moving in its normal orbit?

26-. As the months started getting colder in 2003, you made the claim that the Sun was rising lower in the sky. Again, this is perfectly normal for winter in the Northern Hemisphere. How does this prove that Earth is not moving in its normal orbit?

27-. As we head towards autumn 2004 in the Northern Hemisphere, the Sun starts rising lower in the sky and the weather starts getting colder. This is once again a normal occurrence. Will you still make the claim that this is because of the influence of "Planet X"?

28-. If the Earth has been moved out of its normal orbit why do the go-to drives on telescopes continue to function and track perfectly?

29-. How can every amateur and professional astronomer be involved in a massive worldwide cover up without someone coming forward?

30-. How many amateur astronomers do you think there are?

31-. You have made the claim that SOHO pictures have been coming from archives lately. Why does the face of the sun when viewed with a telescope and solar filter match up perfectly with the newest MDI images from the SOHO website?

32-. You have claimed that NASA will post doctored SOHO images to show Venus passing across the face of the sun on June 8, 2004. This event will be visible to anyone with a telescope and the proper filters or viewing equipment, except for those living in the western United States, western Canada, Hawaii, Antarctica and the tip of South America ( [link to www.space.com] Why would NASA need to use doctored SOHO images for this event?

33-. How can different Space Agencies predict and plot spacecraft courses years in advance, within a few kilometers, without the "repulsion force" even figuring into their calculations?

34-. How would the skies behave differently without the "repulsion force"?

35-. Sir Isaac Newton’s laws of motion and universal law of gravitation explain why the Moon does not crash into Earth, why the planets do not crash into the Sun, and so on. Why is the "repulsion force" necessary in any of these models?


=Geology:

36-. You claim that you see "patterns" in the near real time data taken from the USGS website ( [link to aslwww.cr.usgs.gov] It says at the top of that page "this data updates automatically every 30 minutes". The data could be altered in that amount of time. You have also made the claim that archived data from the USGS is doctored to keep it looking normal. Why would the archived data be changed and not the near real time data?

37-. Why are you the only one who can see these "patterns" in earthquake data?

38-. How can you be certain that data from the USGS Live Internet Seismic Server has not been altered before it gets posted, as you claim has been done with pictures from SOHO?

39-. What year(s) are you using as your baseline to point out an increase in earthquake activity?

40-. You have recently claimed making predictions about EQ data. What patterns would have convinced you that you were incorrect?

=Earth’s Dark Twin:

41-. Why isn’t Earth’s Dark Twin visible now?

42-. If Earth has actually halted in its orbit, where do the Zetas say EDT should appear?

43-. Why don’t the other planets have dark twins?

44-. Why did you forget to mention EDT for months, until a debunker brought up an old post?

45-. And, finally: Is there any evidence you can imagine, of any kind whatsoever, that would allow you to come to the conclusion that you and the Zetans are mistaken?

At any rate, as in the past, Nancy’s answers to these observations will no doubt continue to be a resounding silence; speaking more eloquently than she or I could.

At one point, Nancy wrote: "The Earth’s dark twin, approaching from behind her, has scant months to reach her and create a crisis. Earth stopping on Dec 25 allows for a full half orbit by this twin by June 25, 2004, but the crisis will occur sooner and for many reasons."

Well, as of today, there are only 24 more days left until the Venus Transit on June 8th; an astronomical event that could *not* be taking place unless everything were moving exactly as predicted, from predictions over a century old; an astronomical event that Nancy implied would fail to occur altogether or be long after the supposed shifting of the poles. I am not certain what Nancy’s explanations will be; she has claimed in advance that past pictures will be used (even though none exist) and that SOHO pictures will be faked, even though SOHO is not necessary to view this event. I think the crisis she foretold is happening right now, but not for reality, nor the debunkers. The crisis that is happening involves the faith of the few believers Nancy has left.

And, thus, here we are. Reality has once again spoken, just as it did a year ago, and, alas, it seems to continually contradict Nancy and the Zetans at every turn. I shall continue to wonder at how much one can deny reality in spite of truly overwhelming evidence, but then I remind myself that there are, indeed, a few Flat Earthers still left, as well. I should wonder at why Nancy seems to so carefully, and so proudly, follow in such deluded footsteps.

PX: The Religion. It really is all that is left to the idea.

Jonathan
-It doesn't matter what I believe. What matters is what I can prove-