Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!

To support her fantasy and its repeated revisions, she has concocted the most amusingly absurd replacement theories for almost everything in human science.

I see there was a large earthquake off the coast of American Samoa.
Just an observation on this unstable area and looking for discussion.
When looking at the topography of the Pacific Ocean, it sure is broken up and faulted. Big scars running North South.
Then considering the Continental drift of continents from an original Godwanaland.
And the existance of the rubble we call the asteroid belt
Does make me wonder whether something clipped our planet eons ago.

Kindest Regards
JWD


and what does that look like?
right, Zetas RIGHT Again!

Care to point out what in all that you consider science?

By science I don't mean applied business math or computer programming. I'd hardly call a CPA or CFO or Business Manager or a Statistician a scientist. I'd hardly call a computer programmer a scientist. I don't think they'd call themselves "scientist" either.


BTW - that is not to denigrate those professions. They are every bit as useful as scientists - sometimes much more useful. It is just that they are not science.

By your answer I see I was correct. You haven't published a scientific paper and haven't a clue what science is all about. By "hard-science" I mean what everyone else means - the natural sciences: Biology, Chemistry, Physics and their subgroups. By "soft-science" I mean the social-sciences, those having their foundation in human activity. One generally has theories that are very precise, the other has theories that are generally fuzzy, subject to the actions of humans. One tries to detatch the human element from tainting its inquiry, the other *requires* the human element.

PX is purported to be a physical, non-human body. It is not a psychological or social entity. It should be amenable to scientific investigation if it weren't that it also seems to have magical properties.

If you want to discuss the percentage of people who will irrationally panic in an enclosed space when subjected to stress, you may have the education to do that.
If you want to discuss implementing JIT across an international corporate structure, you may have the education to do that.
You obviously do not have the education to discuss natural science.

Care to point out what in all that you consider science?

By science I don't mean applied business math or computer programming. I'd hardly call a CPA or CFO or Business Manager or a Statistician a scientist. I'd hardly call a computer programmer a scientist. I don't think they'd call themselves "scientist" either.


BTW - that is not to denigrate those professions. They are every bit as useful as scientists - sometimes much more useful. It is just that they are not science.

By your answer I see I was correct. You haven't published a scientific paper and haven't a clue what science is all about. By "hard-science" I mean what everyone else means - the natural sciences: Biology, Chemistry, Physics and their subgroups. By "soft-science" I mean the social-sciences, those having their foundation in human activity. One generally has theories that are very precise, the other has theories that are generally fuzzy, subject to the actions of humans. One tries to detatch the human element from tainting its inquiry, the other *requires* the human element.

PX is purported to be a physical, non-human body. It is not a psychological or social entity. It should be amenable to scientific investigation if it weren't that it also seems to have magical properties.

If you want to discuss the percentage of people who will irrationally panic in an enclosed space when subjected to stress, you may have the education to do that.
If you want to discuss implementing JIT across an international corporate structure, you may have the education to do that.
You obviously do not have the education to discuss natural science.


Whether you accept my scientific background and credentials as HARD SCIENCE or not is really not the issue. I am and was considered a Scientist by title and profession. I have repeatedly been a member of executive boards and even served as chairman that made decisions on who or what would be funded (or promoted) for researched in Academia, Business and Government. These included Biology, Diagnostic and Laboratory Medicine, Engineering, Robotics, Imaging, Artificial Intelligence, etc. ) I am also the guy that approved, supervised, and applied scientific design, fought for funding at all levels, participated in and managed research efforts, formulated, edited, and sponsored publication. I also used and applied the technology I conceptualized in the real world. My comments do not come from someone who fought the good fight and lost but from someone who won and won big.

The original discussion was: Did Andrew have a point regarding the possibility that science (by your definition HARD SCIENCE) was NOT, near perfect, without blemish, and superior and closer to ‘TRUTH’ than other human endeavors. I basically chimed in and said: If one were to look under the hood of your Porsche you will find the same mechanical flaws that exist elsewhere . . . greed, envy, jealousy, control mania, political alliances, personal preferences, political correctness, fear of liability, and the like. You will find them smoldering in the shadows of your engineering excellence. Yes they exist within the hallowed halls of HARD SCIENCE. I contend that the Hard Sciences are just as influenced by internal and external human frailties as any other human endeavor.

Whether you accept my scientific background and credentials as HARD SCIENCE or not is really not the issue. I am and was considered a Scientist by title and profession. I have repeatedly been a member of executive boards and even served as chairman that made decisions on who or what would be funded (or promoted) for researched in Academia, Business and Government. These included Biology, Diagnostic and Laboratory Medicine, Engineering, Robotics, Imaging, Artificial Intelligence, etc. ) I am also the guy that approved, supervised, and applied scientific design, fought for funding at all levels, participated in and managed research efforts, formulated, edited, and sponsored publication. I also used and applied the technology I conceptualized in the real world. My comments do not come from someone who fought the good fight and lost but from someone who won and won big.

The original discussion was: Did Andrew have a point regarding the possibility that science (by your definition HARD SCIENCE) was NOT, near perfect, without blemish, and superior and closer to ‘TRUTH’ than other human endeavors. I basically chimed in and said: If one were to look under the hood of your Porsche you will find the same mechanical flaws that exist elsewhere . . . greed, envy, jealousy, control mania, political alliances, personal preferences, political correctness, fear of liability, and the like. You will find them smoldering in the shadows of your engineering excellence. Yes they exist within the hallowed halls of HARD SCIENCE. I contend that the Hard Sciences are just as influenced by internal and external human frailties as any other human endeavor.

Just because Zetatalk borrowed theories from others like Sitchen to fill it's pages, doesn't give Zetatalk ownership of those theories.

little human scientists and their mindless wannabe experts making serious look at their faces and pretending to know about everything, aka "eh, just grab a reference book and see how it was" [Earth's geological past].

This is a quote from Andrew . . . he is sometimes rather emotional I admit. However, he has been responding to some rather enthusiastic assaults delivered with glee. I try to give him some slack. He is trying to defend his position without much support from his fellow Zetas who base their positions on quasi-scientific, unsupportable, non-verifiable evidence. I give him an "E" for effort and know that you always stick him with a sharp stick to see him respond.

little human scientists and their mindless wannabe experts making serious look at their faces and pretending to know about everything, aka "eh, just grab a reference book and see how it was" [Earth's geological past].

This is a quote from Andrew . . . he is sometimes rather emotional I admit. However, he has been responding to some rather enthusiastic assaults delivered with glee. I try to give him some slack. He is trying to defend his position without much support from his fellow Zetas who base their positions on quasi-scientific, unsupportable, non-verifiable evidence. I give him an "E" for effort and know that you always stick him with a sharp stick to see him respond.


He is attempting to defend the indefensible. That is bound to attract ridicule.

I have an idea Nancy is so submerged in her apocalyptic fantasy that even yet more proof to the contrary just drives her further inward.

Whether you accept my scientific background and credentials as HARD SCIENCE or not is really not the issue. I am and was considered a Scientist by title and profession. I have repeatedly been a member of executive boards and even served as chairman that made decisions on who or what would be funded (or promoted) for researched in Academia, Business and Government. These included Biology, Diagnostic and Laboratory Medicine, Engineering, Robotics, Imaging, Artificial Intelligence, etc. ) I am also the guy that approved, supervised, and applied scientific design, fought for funding at all levels, participated in and managed research efforts, formulated, edited, and sponsored publication. I also used and applied the technology I conceptualized in the real world. My comments do not come from someone who fought the good fight and lost but from someone who won and won big.

The original discussion was: Did Andrew have a point regarding the possibility that science (by your definition HARD SCIENCE) was NOT, near perfect, without blemish, and superior and closer to ‘TRUTH’ than other human endeavors. I basically chimed in and said: If one were to look under the hood of your Porsche you will find the same mechanical flaws that exist elsewhere . . . greed, envy, jealousy, control mania, political alliances, personal preferences, political correctness, fear of liability, and the like. You will find them smoldering in the shadows of your engineering excellence. Yes they exist within the hallowed halls of HARD SCIENCE. I contend that the Hard Sciences are just as influenced by internal and external human frailties as any other human endeavor.

little human scientists and their mindless wannabe experts making serious look at their faces and pretending to know about everything, aka "eh, just grab a reference book and see how it was" [Earth's geological past].

This is a quote from Andrew . . . he is sometimes rather emotional I admit. However, he has been responding to some rather enthusiastic assaults delivered with glee. I try to give him some slack. He is trying to defend his position without much support from his fellow Zetas who base their positions on quasi-scientific, unsupportable, non-verifiable evidence. I give him an "E" for effort and know that you always stick him with a sharp stick to see him respond.


He is attempting to defend the indefensible. That is bound to attract ridicule.


Do you want to stick me with a sharp stick for defending Andrew?

I assume one participates here to engage in discussion. That is what I was attempting to do. Just because one disagrees with another does not mean they are stupid . . . it means they disagree.

I would like to know if Andrew is old enough to remember the Cold War, etc. If he is philosophically socialist in political orientation, etc. I do think he is intelligent and wishes to understand what the whole thing is about. I see an inquiring and thoughtful person. He maybe jumped on the wrong horse with the Zetas; however, most have been bamboozled at one time or another in our lives.

little human scientists and their mindless wannabe experts making serious look at their faces and pretending to know about everything, aka "eh, just grab a reference book and see how it was" [Earth's geological past].

This is a quote from Andrew . . . he is sometimes rather emotional I admit. However, he has been responding to some rather enthusiastic assaults delivered with glee. I try to give him some slack. He is trying to defend his position without much support from his fellow Zetas who base their positions on quasi-scientific, unsupportable, non-verifiable evidence. I give him an "E" for effort and know that you always stick him with a sharp stick to see him respond.


He is attempting to defend the indefensible. That is bound to attract ridicule.


Do you want to stick me with a sharp stick for defending Andrew?


Did I *DO* that? Are you just trying to stir the pot?

I agree that Nancy is a lost cause. She will NEVER see sense, unless she gets some major therapy!

Not necessarily, I do like a good discussion even when it gets a bit hot. However, to keep a discussion going one sometimes has to give some encouragement to your adversary.

Zeta Talk: Direct Answers from the Zeta Reticuli People

A CUSTOMER REVIEW
16 of 19 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars Puerile garbage, November 10, 2001
By A Customer

This book contains inconsistent and self-contradictory rubbish. All of the author's bizarre theories are easily debunked, and she seems unaware of even the most basic physics (not to mention the evident mathematical failings of an alleged "computer professional"). Indeed, scientific principles are grossly misrepresented from start to finish, either from ignorance or by design.

Her "facts" are also either incorrect or are interpreted in a facile and incompetent way. For instance, she asserts that the corals off Norway "prove" that it was recently in tropical zones. Actually, those corals (Lophelia) cannot survive in water warmer than 10 C or colder than 4 C, and are found below 200 metres depth off Norway, with some living colonies more than 7000 years old, and many older but deceased colonies at similar depths (they obtain nutrients in part from hydrocarbon seeps, which individually last only for centuries to millenia). They also occur in somewhat deeper waters in temperate zones, such as off Ireland. Lophelia even thrives in the tropics, but only at depths of 600-1400 metres, where the temperature range is suitable. So, rather than supporting her stupid theory about *physical* pole shifts or large crust movements every 3000 years, the distribution of these corals emphatically contradicts it. So does all the other evidence, but the author does not look for it or conveniently ignores or misrepresents it.

Updated ravings and commercial pitches for her paraphernalia are available on the author's web site, which conveniently ignores the fact that her predictions in 1996-1997 were utterly false. She thought comet Hale-Bopp was a supernova, which NASA was covering up(?!?!), and that some planet-X brown dwarf would arrive in the Solar System in 1998. Due to its repeated non-arrival, her infallible projected arrival date has now been revised to May 2003, but it will be visible to the naked eye in late 2001 - no, no, mid 2002 with a big telescope - um, make that late 2002 with a long exposure CCD image using the big telescope. To support her fantasy and its repeated revisions, she has concocted the most amusingly absurd replacement theories for almost everything in human science. Of course, her theories are contradicted by even the simplest experiments and observations.
[link to www.amazon.com]

I found this review of Nancy's above book quite well put. Especially the first paragraph.

Minutes of ZetaTalk Meeting, 10-2-2009:

Nancy Lieder brought the meeting to order after brief discussion with waitress concerning the large wire-and-paper model of the Inner Solar System Nancy hung from the ceiling. Model was unfortunately banned from Denny's when the motorized Planet X smoke bomb ignited prematurely ('another failure for Human Pyrotechnic Science!').

Nancy then recapped recent weather developments and explained their source as Planet X. Uproarious applause. Showers of Starburst candies followed until another visit by the waitress, who was obviously an STS Tool of the Elite out to squelch the Truth.

Meeting was briefly interrupted by an urgent channeled message from the Zetas, who were rather adamant that none of the attendees order the smoked ham breakfast special. Thanks were offered to the Zetas, who then proceeded to tilt the Earth another four degrees to further conceal the Orbit Halt and also to prove to the Romulans just who is boss when it comes to tilting planets.

Nancy closed with a poem entitled 'Debunkers Die Screaming as Dogs Eat Their Limbs,' which was again interrupted by the waitress and two off-duty police officers, who suggested the meeting move to a public space outside.

www.zetatalk.com

I hear that ZetaMax is busy crafting a 1/11111 scale model of Planet X using nothing but well-chewed Starburst candies!

I hear that ZetaMax is busy crafting a 1/11111 scale model of Planet X using nothing but well-chewed Starburst candies!



Please, I have to digest the news today that Chicago will not get the Olympics. I am sad and in a fragile emotional state. PLEASE - be more considerate.

I hear that ZetaMax is busy crafting a 1/11111 scale model of Planet X using nothing but well-chewed Starburst candies!



Please, I have to digest the news today that Chicago will not get the Olympics. I am sad and in a fragile emotional state. PLEASE - be more considerate.