NASA's Cassini and IBEX Prove Zetas RIGHT Again!!!

Wow, Zetas right again! Do they EVER get anything wrong?

Wouldn't the Zetas be getting pretty bored with being proved right over and over again? Poor bloody Zetas!

One member of the imaging team does speak for the whole imaging team.

It's silly excuse...



Speaking of silly excuses, Steve... Remember when "Zetas" told you that you had seen PX by naked eye in a scope only capable of capturing objects down to mag 11? Also remember that "Zetas" had claimed PX would be imaged at mag 10-11? Why are you squalling about alleged objects which are nowhere NEAR that level of brightness?



The fact that objects were showing up at those coordinates is IMO a significtion indication of evidence of PX.


Objects WERE NOT showing up at those coords, Steve. NOT! Why don't you GET that?? It was NOISE, man!!


The initial images I took in September of 2002 showed barely anything noticable but from there on started becoming larger, brighter,


No, it didn't. That was just Dell's inane, incompetent "pixel analysis" crapola. The NOTHING didn't get any brighter, since it was NOTHING!



seen over more images and by December were quite obviously apparent on the images even by taking a casual look.


Huh? A "casual" look? What does that mean? Nancy could have picked as many bits of fluff and noise as she wanted to. They were ALL OVER THE IMAGES, Steve, and they NEVER rose above the level of NOISE, since that is what they were, except when Nancy picked out known asteroids or pre-existing stars.


I described what I saw in the scope at the observatory in Vancouver. If there was nothing there then why would the vice president of the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada admit to me the next week they were aware of PX and invite me to look for it with some astronomers at an observatory outside the city the next week.


I have no idea what you or he may mean by "aware of PX". There has been a search for more planets since the beginning of astronomy. That has NOTHING to do with Nancy's planet. NOTHING!

So, did you go back?


Of course, the next week NASA came into town with a big presentation a the Vancouver planetarium, the telescope in the observatory was completely dismantled and my contact at the RASC would no longer talk to me.


I think you are exaggerating. What do you mean, "...the telescope in the observatory was completely dismantled"??


And that was after he called me and invited me to the presention. When I went to speak with him after the presentation he turned away from me and walked into the womens bathroom. A few weeks later that gentleman was no longer listed in affiliation with the RASC and I never heard from him again. The telescope remained dismantled for about two years.


What does ANY of that have to do with what I asked you? I asked you why what you were told you had seen(mag 11), and what was predicted(mag 10-11) bore NO RESEMBLANCE to what Nancy called PX in the later images?

Would you care to name the observatory outside the city of Vancouver? I think I know which one you speak of and if it is, I can probably get confirmation or denial from a trusted source inside.


Sorry, never knew the name of that one.


You can't name the observatory you claim you went to???

GAWD!


The name of the observatory (the one of the sighting, the one which was dismantled) is the Gordon MacMillan Southam Observatory which is located very much in Vancouver. The one outside the city is the one I never went to and never claimed to have visited.

The name of the observatory (the one of the sighting, the one which was dismantled) is the Gordon MacMillan Southam Observatory which is located very much in Vancouver. The one outside the city is the one I never went to and never claimed to have visited.

you realize we are on the internet and can vaery easily verify that the observatory is still open and functioning???
[link to www.hrmacmillanspacecentre.com]

Would you care to name the observatory outside the city of Vancouver? I think I know which one you speak of and if it is, I can probably get confirmation or denial from a trusted source inside.


Sorry, never knew the name of that one.


You can't name the observatory you claim you went to???

GAWD!


The name of the observatory (the one of the sighting, the one which was dismantled) is the Gordon MacMillan Southam Observatory which is located very much in Vancouver. The one outside the city is the one I never went to and never claimed to have visited.

So you are saying that the observatory at the Planetarium was closed for 2 years? When was this, because I don't remember that, and I am a longtime fan of the planetarium.

Well my observation is that there aren't a whole lot of observatories in BC, and even fewer "outside Vancouver". Something isn't adding up with your story. I lived across the bridge from the planetarium between 96 and 06, could see it from my balcony, and was a regular visitor. I can't remember it being closed at all, much less for 2 years.

Well my observation is that there aren't a whole lot of observatories in BC, and even fewer "outside Vancouver". Something isn't adding up with your story. I lived across the bridge from the planetarium between 96 and 06, could see it from my balcony, and was a regular visitor. I can't remember it being closed at all, much less for 2 years.


The planetarium and space centre were still open. Just the observatory was closed. That is fact my friend!

Yes of course, never mind the hundreds of CCD images taken lol


With nothing but noise and hot pixels being pointed out. You don't know your ass from third base when it comes to CCD imaging, my boy.

Well my observation is that there aren't a whole lot of observatories in BC, and even fewer "outside Vancouver". Something isn't adding up with your story. I lived across the bridge from the planetarium between 96 and 06, could see it from my balcony, and was a regular visitor. I can't remember it being closed at all, much less for 2 years.


The planetarium and space centre were still open. Just the observatory was closed. That is fact my friend!

Well it should be easy to verify. I do remember going to the observatory during that time, but hey, I might be wrong. I have a friend that has been a member since the 70s and if anyone would know, it would be him. I will send him an email and report back about it. I have just looked at the annual reports between 2001 and 2002 and there is no mention of closures.

Menow, despite your use of exclamation marks and simulated yelling, something was showing up on those images which changed over the course of those months as is clearly evidenced on the images. Repeatedly saying something is nothing does not make it so.

Would you care to name the observatory outside the city of Vancouver? I think I know which one you speak of and if it is, I can probably get confirmation or denial from a trusted source inside.


Sorry, never knew the name of that one.


You can't name the observatory you claim you went to???

GAWD!


The name of the observatory (the one of the sighting, the one which was dismantled) is the Gordon MacMillan Southam Observatory which is located very much in Vancouver. The one outside the city is the one I never went to and never claimed to have visited.

Assuming I am not a complete liar

All hearsay without a shred of evidence to back you up.


Yes of course, never mind the hundreds of CCD images taken lol


"Hundreds"?? Har!


If you count the images on this page:

[link to zetatalk.com]

There are well over a hundred.

Basically, you're telling us what we already knew. Yipee!

:starb:

Menow, despite your use of exclamation marks and simulated yelling, something was showing up on those images which changed over the course of those months as is clearly evidenced on the images. Repeatedly saying something is nothing does not make it so.

The objects were far above the level of noise

and were showing up across the sets of images taken ie. over a course of three or four hours 10-20 images might have been taken, when the objects are consistently showing up across the images it makes me think they are not likely random noise or hot pixels.

You ask " I think you are exaggerating. What do you mean, "...the telescope in the observatory was completely dismantled"?? "

I mean the telescope was gone, ie. as in out of the building, no where to be seen - only some screws sticking out of the floor. Saying it was dismantled is somewhat an assumption on my part as it was a fairly large telescope and likely would have had some dissambly to facilitate removal from the observatory. Alternately, it could have remained largely intact if removed by a crane. The observatory was not opened again until late April of 2002.

Menow
"I have no idea what you or he may mean by "aware of PX". There has been a search for more planets since the beginning of astronomy. That has NOTHING to do with Nancy's planet. NOTHING!

So, did you go back?" "

No I did not go back because I was no longer able to get a hold of my contact at the RASC.

Menow
"What does ANY of that have to do with what I asked you? I asked you why what you were told you had seen(mag 11), and what was predicted(mag 10-11) bore NO RESEMBLANCE to what Nancy called PX in the later images? "

The CCD images, especially those in December 2002 show several scattered objects trailing a larger set of objects.

The Zeta's described it as being part of the PX complex composed of two light personas of PX (red and white) and numerous moon swirls.

ie. [link to zetatalk.com]

there should be a big picture of a Zetas fail again!

and Nancy you fail too

[link to failblog.files.wordpress.com]

Yes of course, never mind the hundreds of CCD images taken lol


With nothing but noise and hot pixels being pointed out. You don't know your ass from third base when it comes to CCD imaging, my boy.


Yes I find it amazing how hot pixels were able to show up in the same place on multiple frames of image taken over a period of hours.

What are the odds? And as far as how you eloquently put it me not knowing my ass from third base as to CCD imaging - astronomy is admittingly not my field and I did find the some of the technical aspects challenging and time cosuming. I did however learn as much as I could in the time I was taking those images and did shell out lots of money to take them. I learned as fast as I could and am not without some degree of intelligence having a diploma in mechanical engineer and a bachelor of science degree with honours. Not much but some education...

SHADDAPPP!!!!!!



Zetas RIGHT Again!Zetaa RIGHT Again!

Yippeee!



Even if you were right, to so casually celebrate the forthcoming death of 5.4 BILLION human beings, while aliens that could easily move things out of the way and save the species merely play with the emotions of what few humans have heard of them seems to be the height of cruelty, Nancy. Yippee, indeed.

Your pet aliens could theoretically save ALL of humanity from the PX threat. It is TRIVIAL for them. They choose not to. They choose to hide the truth from the common man. They are as bad as anything the government has ever done, times ten. They are monsters.

And you are on the Wrong Side.

Assuming I am not a complete liar



That's a pretty big assumption that we need to make, based on your track record.

So you were already aware of this data that NASA just released on Oct 15th? Wow, you must be the smartest guy on Earth.

Any time someone feels the need to constantly assert how
right they are it's obvious that they are insecure in what
they believe in. Just saying you're right doesn't make it so.





SHADDAPPP!!!!!!


Zetas RIGHT Again!Zetaa RIGHT Again!

Yippeee!

:braingone:


I see I'm not alone in this. It's almost childish, this
"I'm right, I'm right!" stuff.


I actually feel sorry for Nancy. Only a few trolls keep
egging her on. The hundreds of followers she had up until
2003 have all faded away. 2012 is coming very soon and she
has made too many claims about that year being "too far out".
I've seen signs that she's trying to come up with another
Great White Lie to cover up her many 2012 declarations but
I really don't see how she can make up anything good enough.

that makes no sense...she's posting a link proving she was right. You're pathetic and nowhere near as funny as you think.

that makes no sense...she's posting a link proving she was right. You're pathetic and nowhere near as funny as you think.

Explain how it proves she's right.

If a bunch of asswipes spent countless hours attempting to tell the world you're a liar, I think even someone obviously as high and mighty as yourself would find a little joy in bit of I told you so.

you spend way too much time on here.

You are a total ASS. This is the best you can do? Your getting paid too much !!! (no....maybe not, tell me, what does a person with an IQ of a slug makes these days?) Your an idiot. Get a new line or better yet...GET A JOB !


Why don't you tell us...apparently you have the IQ of a slug since you can't properly make use of the word you're. So, you're the one getting paid too much and you're the idiot. Perhaps you should follow your own advice.

Assuming I am not a complete liar,

pointing out spelling? OK Mrs Breaker. Thanks for the lesson.