Re: Nancy/Zetas

Article: <[email protected]>
From: [email protected](Nancy )
Subject: Re: Nancy/Zetas
Date: 13 Feb 1997 16:31:15 GMT

In article <[email protected]> Lamont Granquist writes:
>>> A back-of-the-envelope calculation puts the 12th planet
>>> less than 50 AU out if it is due in 6 years. We'd know it
>>> was there. It isn't.
>>> [email protected]
>>
>> (Begin ZetaTalk[TM])
>> You're making assumptions on how far out it is! Did we
>> SAY it was 50 AU out? We did NOT. Do you know its speed,
>> the uptick on its speed as it approaches? You do NOT.
>> Do you have any prior experience with such a comet, a planet
>> that acts as a comet? You do NOT!
>> (End ZetaTalk[TM])
>
> Just to give you the benefit of the doubt I assumed the thing
> was screaming past us on a dive straight into the sun, and
> neglected the fact that it's going to be moving much slower
> as it is further out. Taking both of those into account would
> put the 12th planet *closer* to us than 50 AU. Furthermore,
> taking into account the period of a couple thousand years
> would make it move even slower and that would place it a bit
> closer still.
> [email protected]

(Begin ZetaTalk[TM])
Your assumptions are not to give us the benefit of the doubt, they are to CONFUSE THE ISSUE.

1. You have the 12th Planet moving at a consistent speed, either at the high speed we have given, where it traverses your solar system within a 3 month period, or at the sedate pace it assumes when midway between its foci. Is this how comets behave? They have a consistent speed, without variance? They don't speed up upon approach to the Sun? You KNOW better than this, and any fool can see your motives here!
2. You have the 12th Planet at your hypothetical distance of 50 AU out, while giving it the maximum speed we have indicated. An AU is the distance between the Earth and the Sun, and the Earth's orbit it near the Sun. Does this compute? If this were the case, passage would be upon us in WEEKS, not in the year 2003!

(End ZetaTalk[TM])

In article <[email protected]> Lamont Granquist writes:
>>> Look, we know about *actual* conspiracies (e.g. the
>>> Chinese government using people it executes as organ
>>> donors, or Vietnam) because these operations are so large
>>> that people leak information about it (e.g. the Pentagon
>>> Papers). Where is the information leak?
>>> [email protected]
>>
>> (Begin ZetaTalk[TM])
>> You admit to prior conspiracies, which were obviously
>> KEPT from the public for years and only revealed due to the
>> courage of a few, who often are killed for their courage, yet
>> another conspiracy is an impossibility?
>
> No, they actually leaked like sieves, and rather than being
> killed they were sued (at least in the case of the Pentagon Papers,
> I don't know exactly how the information about the Chinese
> govt was leaked...)
> [email protected]

(Begin ZetaTalk[TM])
Oh, no one has been killed to preserve a conspiracy? DOLT! The conspiracies up DON'T hear about are the ones where murder has been used as a threat or has been imposed! What do you think the Kennedy assassination was all about, or do you think a single bullet passed through two men and wandered about through Kennedy's body while doing so, coming out intact! And what about the investigative journalist who supposedly committed suicide in West Virginia, his body cremated almost instantly, even before his family was notified, just as he reported to friends and family that he had located the witness he needed to prove that George Bush was lying about the October Surprise.
(End ZetaTalk[TM])

In article <[email protected]> Lamont Granquist writes:
>> (Begin ZetaTalk[TM])
>> In fact a conspiracy like the Hale-Bopp fraud or the Planet X
>> (a.k.a. the 12th Planet) cover-up requires FEWER conspirators
>> because those in control of the most powerful viewing
>> equipment, NASA and JPL and the handful of astronomers
>> allowed to work at the major observatories, HAVE ALREADY
>> AGREED TO COOPERATE AS A CONDITION OF THEIR
>> JOBS!
>
> There are more than a handful of telescopes that are sufficient
> to do the observations that it would require to confirm what
> you've predicted. ... There are at least hundreds of telescopes
> that could observe what you think they're trying to hide. It
> would take a conspiracy of *thousands* of people.
> [email protected]

(Begin ZetaTalk[TM])
There is a vast difference between observing a diffusely glowing object that could be mistaken fro a fading nova and having the high powered equipment to prove that it is NOT a distant fading nova. Telescopes can do the former, but it takes the equipment at the major observatories or the Hubble or the IRAS team to do the latter, and it is THESE facilities which are under the control of NASA or other arms of an establishment that wants to prevent panic at all costs. Better the man on the street should die than panic, as this is overall less messy for the establishment.
(End ZetaTalk[TM])

In article <[email protected]> Lamont Granquist writes:
> (Incidentally, give me the RA and DEC of the 12th planet
> and I'll snap a few CCD images if you want to...)
> [email protected]

You can take it from the graphic at
http://www.zetatalk.com/theword/tword03h.htm

which diagrams the RA and Dec as viewed fron Earth from the present time until it's approach to passage. However, given the games you played with the speed and distance of the 12th Planet, I don't expect you, Lamont, to be helpful here.