Re: [OT] Planet X: Magnitude (Revisited)

In article <[email protected]>, Ahmet wrote:
>"josX" <[email protected]> skrev i meddelandet
> news:[email protected]...
>> In article <[email protected]>, Ahmet wrote:
>>>>
>>>> It's in Orion and also a bit in Taurus, check the path here
>>>> http://www.zetatalk.com/theword/tword03h.htm .
>>> 
>>> It is imposible for an object to make a path as described in that
>>> link. How can an object move in sky like that without a propulsion
>>> system. Nancy describes her object´s orbit as very eccentric, almost
>>> like a railway to and fro. Even if it was perturbated by the other
>>> planets in solar system it should not move like descibed in that
>>> map. Can you imagine an object coming straight towards you without any
>>> sort of propulsion and making such incredible manoeuvres like Nancy´s
>>> planet? That is an impossibilty. It should not be difficult to realize
>>> that. And if Nancy really searches for followers, she should seek it
>>> somewhere else and not in a science forum.  Here she is only making
>>> fun out of herself.
>>> 
>>> Ahmet
>>
>> So, doesn't this provide an EXCELLENT, and I mean   E X C E L L E N T
>> way to check if she is right, when an object is sighted that will follow
>> this impossible path ?...
>
> What Nancy describes is an imposibilty. Why would anyone with credibility
> waste time with such nonsense?

It is an theoretical imposibility, where theory means the current theory
of gravity.
This theory is shown to be somewhat wrong: why are planets in stable orbits
(this will not happen with only gravity, as simulations show), and why
do planets return to their familiar orbit after a perturbation, and not
gain a new perhelium/aphelium (these two problems are related).

>> It's very hard to get this right, it being contrary Science and all...
>
> Yes indeed. And Nancy has never got it right, and nor will she.

She is saying there will be this big object coming close to the sun, even
inside the inner-planets orbits. She is also saying it will behave contrary
modern theory, and she gains the information alledgedly from aliens who have
investigated this.
As a scientist you must ignore the source and accept anything as a valid
hypotheses for testing. You can't be subjective about what hypotheses you
will allow and from whom and what not.

So, she is saying this object will come in, and it will behave contrary
theory. So far, so good, because if you look closely at the theory you will
know it is flawed. This is kindof like a double-blind experiment: she is
portraying an object but very likely didn't know gravity-theory was wrong.
But she describes the object as correctly not following this law. How can
that be!

More credibility heaping up on Nancy, that's what *I* see...:).

>> I haven't plotted the exact provided coordinates, but I read something
>> like "tick up", "tick back", so the link may just be the rough idea
>> of her prediction, and the precise prediction even more interesting.
>> 
>> But when NASA comes along, and this object is sighted, trucking EXACTLY
>> the way Nancy describes, you still won't believe it will you ;-)
>> (you will?).
>
> Why would I not believe NASA? 

As a scientists or critical person, you should investigate everything and
take nothing for granted...

That certainly doesn't mean you should not think NASA is right, or continue
to think that while investigating it.

But that personal belief should not prevent investigating the matter when it
is brought up. It is then a simple matter of looking at the arguments and
determining if they are logical, if they are, follow up on it.
For instance this "principal investigator" that has been brought many times.
One person says "hell, what are they keeping from us, and why", and another
says "ofcourse not dummy, they paid for it so they have first crack at it's
results".

...investigate... :-)).

Personally, this would not be enough for me to distrust NASA, but the
perturbations story goes a very long way in that. It just doesn't add up
having more precise masses can explain a 100+ year search for a planetary
object like they did when searching for Neptune. And then we have this
gravity-theory which predicts an unstable solar-system (then I'm starting
to raise some question-marks), and then when you learn more about the
world, you notice how politics never solves problems in a real decisive
manner, and then suddenly top-ranking politicians in respected countries
(Germany? France?) turn out to have corruption-charges brought against them,
and the European-commision turns out to be corrupt!

Let that add an exclamation-mark to the questionmarks in my head about it all.
And NASA is a government orgenization, the government which supports the
magic-bullit theory which has become a household-saying "yeah, and you believe
in the magic-bullit, too, right? (;-)". So, then you start wondering.

Time to investigate.

Oh wait here's another: I read on ZetaTalk the establishment has had their
eye on Mars for a while, to escape this "poleshift".

Then you (I) walk in a local bookstore and buy a Scientific-American. Lo
and behold? A story about a sophisticated Mars-base simulation (June 2001
`North to Mars').... and we haven't even gone back to the ol' Moon. Let's
set up camp there first (and please let me work on the systems :))) ).

I am not saying all of NASA is a big lie, of course not, they put out great
stuff. But some tiny bits don't seem to come together, and I like to know
why. They can't be that stupid, so what's the reason...

I constantly see this kind of a thing: Nancy is saying something. It seems
far-out and far fetched. Then suddenly you see this magazine, and damn is
she ever hitting the nail on the head (so it seems). (Still with me?;-) ).

And she is saying this "Counsil-of-Worlds" which protects developing worlds
etc isn't allowing the establishment to reach Mars.
Next thing what happens is a mysterious Mars-probe failure.

She is saying the Oceans heat up from below.
I recently read, El-niño is back.

Media projects that El-niño has always been around.
It hasn't! It just hasn't godd*mmit! even I am old enough to know that,
suddenly it is there!.

Although the list is a hell of a lot longer than this, the list is NOT
endless, the list is finite. But it is still growing, and as long as it is
growing, and not shrinking or counter-evidence pops up that is more
than Disney-tales, I have very little choice than to say she is right.

Who knows, maybe my measurements will show something different, and the
Earth is not slowing down. Could be, that one is still open.

Oh, damn, there is already evidence from the other experiment that an
assortment of clocks is running faster as time passes.

You see?

And what are the counter-arguments:

Tunguska was a meteor-impact.
* there is no shrapnel
* it is not possible (not known behaviour of meteors)
... and here we go *again*, German scientist etc.

It is Magnitude 2nd and 11th.
* this is so lame it isn't worth talking about anymore

It is not a brown-dwarf
* lame: you got to call it something, it's a planet that gives out light,
  and sometimes they call it `brown-dwarf' sometimes planet, wow, big deal
  (not).

Scopes don't zoom
* **Extremely** lame, because scopes do when you plug in different eye-pieces
  as if nobody knows that. Man this is LAME.

You cannot set equipment for magnitude
* But you can.

...anything more... erm...

oh yes:
the mammoth wasn't flash-frozen
* also virtually too far-fetched to take serious

"Perturbations were caused by Pluto", or "Perturbations were an illusion
within the error-bars".
* yeah, whatever.

She is out to make a quick buck
* quick?
* why put it all on a website when you want to sell a book

She doesn't believe it herself
* doesn't appear so, does it.

TT is a Cult
* no get-togethers
* why do they enhance strengthening the individual with self-started
  projects like growing your own crops. Is it dangerous to have ppl
  do gardening?

Nancy is crazy
* Then does she seem to be hitting so many nails on their heads, and
  why is NASA missing so many.

Yes sure, this is how I see it, perhaps it is skewed a bit?

>                              They present the facts, and if they say there
> is something out there, it would take my attention. Just because Nancy says
> NASA is unreliable does not make it so.
>> You may think Nancy is a NutCase, and NASA and established Science
>> are all completely substantiated and proven from the smallest to the
>> biggest item, it's all fine with me. But let me tell you Nancy is
>> NOT a NutCase, just to see how it sounds....
>
> I don´t know what Nancy´s intentions are, 

You don't know what anybodies intentions are, or are you a psychic.

>                                         but out from what she has talked
> here, she is a very unreliable person.

Substantiate/arguments.

>> Here's another I think
>> Is true: there are debunkers here who ARE nutcases and who DO try
>> to degrade this NG, the thing everybody seems to accuse Nancy Lieder
>> off, while she is patently right about this Tunguska-thing, and what
>> about the Mammoth, she's right there too: it was flash-frozen. How
>> can anybody deny such things? Yeah, when they are paid to, $3000 a
>> month or something, to keep the media behaving and enhance stability
>> in the country or whatever.
>
> What is wrong with questioning false claims?

?

>                                             And how can you be so sure
> about one thing when there are so many possibilities? Just because Nancy has
> an explanation doesn´t mean she has right.

Absolutely correct. But it add's up.
Any one thing might be reasonably explained away, and if only one piece
of the puzzle were there I would discard it I think and search for more
rational/down-to-earth explanations.

>> Now you probably think "wow, what a WackJob"? (seen it before at
>> least).  *IF* so, please, look in yourself to see WHY you would think
>> that (or, if not, why somebody would, when reading the governments are
>> not what they seem).  You would discover that the ONLY reason to think
>> the media and politics and all are all genuine is that... if you would
>> tell other people you think otherwise at the burger-stand, ppl would
>> laugh at you, turn their backs and call you crazy, or they simply cannot
>> stand the thought and throw it away instantly. And not out of some high
>> morals and "oh, I am so patriotic, I don't doubt Bush is a good man for
>> one second", but because of the real possibility it may actually be true.
>> Then what! What hell would break loose then...  you would need to question
>> all kinds of things all over again (for instance, the liquor-ban made the
>> Maffia, why is there a Drug-war then now and an endless list if items most
>> would know perfectly I think)
>> Everybody (most) want to fit in, and to fit in is to belief the same
>> things; nonsense or no nonsense...
>
> Rambling?

No, the reasons why ppl usually belief what they believe in the mainstream.

>> Is it a big deal? We live in "the matrix"?, we are all slaves? Let's go
>> paranoid? No, of course not, you can think whatever you want, but it's still
>> there as an influence.  That's all.
>
> More rambling.

No, you are not critical enough.

>> Here is an example of the power of the media:
>>  Clinton's Lewinsky schandal, if the media decided it was not worth a
>>  word (wish they had) nobody woud give a damn, and what if they blew
>>  up the story about the ballot manipulation and the injust court-ruling
>>  (yes, saw it all live and it was not a just ruling). So now the USA is
>>  in effect a non-democracy, which equates to "dictatorship". What if the
>>  media were still running stories and background, followup-articles etc,
>>  "more intrigues discovered", etc on Bush having done a coup on the USA.
>>  They could run these stories for decades, talking endlessly about how
>>  it violates what the "founding fathers" envisioned. (yeah, recently even
>>  learned some `All American' history on Usenet).
>
> Don´t mix in Clinton here. He is innocent in this case ;)

, and Lewinsky, she a lamb too....(sigh)

>> The media have power and they use it. And it is the same power that's
>> brought against Nancy here, and nobody is believing her but she is right
>> on all counts as far as I can tell.
>
> Poor Nancy, a whole world against her.

Poor public, so entrenched in the present situation, and so little perspective,
so afraid to look.

You did not comment on the fact that the media has a great influence,
and that many ppl *just* *want* *to* *belong* so they will just belief
whatever makes them belong, and the problem that if you raise the real
issues here (USA facade-dictatorship, drugs-government connection etc etc)
that there is almost too much do deal with. It's a matter of revulotion
or going down slowly but surely in the One-World-Oppression system. Most
ppl chose the latter, and I have to say, I can't blame anybody for it.
But that doesn't make it right though, does it?

Do you notice the erosion of civil-right's?
Do you notice the increased employee pressure?
Do you notice the increasing globalization of corporations?
Have you ever noticed the ruthlessness of the top-dogs of these corporations?
No?

Have you noticed ppl need money to survive?
And that ppl will need to perform services to obtain this money (life)?
Have you noticed where the money is at?
What are this for kind of a people.

So, be happy that this poleshift is coming along, because if so, there
will be no One-World-Oppression (hell, call it the fourth-Reich perhaps,
the 1st being Romans the second being perhaps the Soviet-Union, the 3rd
being Nazies, the Fourth being Global.).

Oh, yeah sure, I understand, you just want to sleep(?)... history repeating
itself... over and over and over again. A damn shame this time it looks
to being a global affair, and with the increased weapon-capabilities, it
very well may be not possible to get underneath the control away to freedom
again.

Have you noticed the films about the future?
What picture do they paint, a happy one or a not-so-happy one. Figure it
out. At least you will have learned something, although you probably can't
do much about it except in your immediate surroundings.
Growing crops for instance reduces government control and enhances being
self-reliant. That's the kind of thing you CAN do. That the kind of
revolution that would be great: everybody producing their food where
possible, so there will be very little to control people with, and it will
increase the sense of self-worth in the public.

You start hell and destruction with a grand vision of paradise, you start
liberty and happiness with a small and insignificant action. 
Right now, it is growing a simple edible plant (food), do you believe it?

Am I right? (or at least logical?)

>> Remember WWII, more media-power:
>>  "wir haben es nich gewusst", "wir haben es nie glauben keunnen dass
>>  das wirklich stattfanden wird, hinter unsehren reucken" (in my broken
>>  German "we didn't know", "we could never belief this was happening
>>  behind our backs"). Everybody knows about the Jews now of course,
>>  but almost nobody knew then (I guess the internet wasn't around).
>>  The media has great influence, which is the reason for neverending
>>  add-campaigns for all kinds of silly stuff. Nobody would want it,
>>  but throw in an add campaign and here come the orders... Same with
>>  politics. (Not that it's anything new, but it's worth remembering,
>>  living in a world of constant media exposure.)

regards,
Jos