Re: Planet X Sighting Efforts 1
In Article <8vwW7.email@example.com> Greg Neill wrote:
> "Idon't" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote
> > "Greg Neill" <gneillRE@MOVE.sympatico.ca> wrote
> >> "Idon't" <email@example.com> wrote
> No, she makes claims about things like orbits which do not match
> observed phenomenon. A different "yardstick" would not change
> the underlying physics, merely the magnitudes of the observed
I believe "she" claims that your "underlying physics" IS your
"yardstick" and is incorrect.
> values. Her models do not produced the observed motions of
I believe "she" claims that your models are BASED on "observed"
motions but do not truly explain them, much like Earth-centric
theories which were based on observations that heavenly bodies APPEAR
to go around the Earth. I believe that "she" has pointed out how
comets do not follow YOUR model. I am unqualified to properly assess
all of this. You may claim that you ARE qualified, but the argument is
that your training was based on faulty assumptions from the get-go.
There is no way to refute such a claim, really, and certainly not in a
way which lay-people could follow. This is either a slick con
technique, or a new, higher level of understanding which obviates the
current one. But the latter is impossible and has NEVER happened
before, right? I can only observe that science (and religion)is always
invested in it's own "truth" and is VERY reluctant to admit error.
Beyond that, I am not placing all that much stock in any of the debate
between "you" and "her". That is not my area of experience and NOT my
main point of contention.
> real bodies. Her model for heat is unworkable. Her model
> for the motion of the Moon is contradicted by centuries of
> observation. Her model for gravity would produce all sorts
> of very obvious pehnomenon on the surface of the Earth which
> are clearly not observed.
This is interesting to me. I am vaguely familiar with her gravity
particle concept. What surface phenomenon would her model produce? I
thought "she" claimed that the effect occurred ONLY between large
bodies. You said something about the Moon being "observed for
centuries". That is silly in the context of the argument. You say that
"it's obvious that we're right because the Moon is up there - LOOK at
it!"- how does that prove anything? The fact that the Moon is in the
sky is irrelevant. "Her" claim is something about how the Moon could
not, under your model, orbit that "lowly" or "slowly", and that there
is another force required to keep it where it is orbiting. I believe
this is an accurate, though limited summation of the debate. I
remember following that debate a bit and not being overly impressed
with "your side's" moon arguments against "hers".
So again, you insist that little grandmotherly Nancy Lieder was just
"making up" all of that orbital mechanics theory? Just pulling it off
the top of her head or going for "study time" at the library before
each new post? I sincerely doubt it.
> >> <personal anecdotes snipped>
> > ULP! You don't even RESPOND to my main point? All this other stuff was
> > peripheral. My main premise was that you (and others) BEGAN with
> > assumptions of what is "impossible" and that that taints your ability
> > to clearly asses what is happening during "ZetaTalk". My personal
> > "anecdotes" were from my direct, experiential OBSERVATIONS of closely
> > related events. Do YOU have any such observations to contribute? You
> > have NO response to my main premise?
> Sorry, but I really have no basis upon which to comment about your
> personal mystical experiences.
Understood, but your lack of basis does not preclude my having
1) I am asking you to comment about my premise that you believe it is
IMPOSSIBLE for such other-being communication, as claimed, to be
occurring through Nancy Lieder. I contend that it is NOT impossible
and that it better explains the "Nancy phenomenon" than does your "con
2) I offered experimental data and observations about events very
similar to the "Nancy phenomenon". I had direct interaction with
actual Human beings who claim similar abilities as does Nancy. I
watched and participated as they performed the acts in question. I did
testing for accuracy and validity. Those are not "mystical
experiences" and are not subject to your dismissal as such.
3) You contend that Nancy is contriving ZetaTalk herself, and that any
original material is from her own imagination. You suggest that much
of her foray into deeper physics is just plain silly and was "the
first thing which came to her mind", yet you also claim her to be a
crafty con-artist. I mean, you want to say that she is both a loon,
AND able to orchestrate an elaborate six-year-long con intended to
separate the public from it's cash. OK, given the supposition that she
intends to "put one over" on the public, we have this unlikely
scenario: Nancy Lieder, of her own volition, decided one day to
declare that "the Hale-Bopp comet does not exist". Under this premise
we have her setting HERSELF up for an obvious, early crash and burn.
Why would she voluntarily make such a false claim which could be so
easily trashed? That is not the act of a "con artist" who wishes to
perpetuate the "con". Now you might say that this was an act of the
"loon" part of her, but you are describing a fairly impossible
combination of attributes within the same person. I contend that my
premise, that there ARE other entities calling the shots, better
explains her Hale-Bopp claim and other actions. What is your reaction
to the fact that she gives radio interviews and does the Z-speak thing
live? Like I said, I have seen others do this "live" many times, so
it's not necessarily a "tape delay" or "screened questions"
Again, my clear question is: do you insist that what Nancy claims is
occurring during "ZetaTalk" is impossible?