Re: Planet X: Messenger's CHOICE

[email protected] wrote in news:[email protected]:

> On Sat, 20 Apr 2002 06:48:36 GMT, Garrett <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
>>In Article <[email protected]> Michael L. Cunningham wrote 
>>
>>> Nancy Lieder wrote:
>>> 
>>>>     This course requires me to be exhuasted, insulted, 
>>>>     broke, and in the situation of being attacked as the 
>>>>     messenger BEFORE 2003 and burned at the stake 
>>>>     if I'm wrong AFTER 2003.  Does anyone think I'm 
>>>>     getting rich?  Having fun?  Can escape in either 
>>>>     case?  This is the DIFFICULT path, which I as the 
>>>>     messenger have chosen.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> You have no one to blame then after May 2003 for the reception
>>> you'll receive here. It will amount to an internet burning at
>>> the stake and I think we'll be joined by most of the individuals
>>> on tt-watch with the bare exception of Jan, Milly, Steve Havas,
>>> and David Storiey. Jan might be stupid enough to stand behind you.
>>> Milly most likely will be too embarrassed to acknowledge being
>>> associated with you. Steve will claim he was duped (foolish as he
>>> is). David is just too plain stupid to figure it all out on his
>>> own.
>>> 
>> If Nibiru doesn't show up, I'll admit I was wrong about it and will
>> surely be one of those in line to strke the match. :)  I think the
>> situation favors Nibiru and Nancy's Zetas at the moment.
>>
>> Samsara2003
> 
> How does the situation favor this?  You've read the arguments. You've
> seen people do the math.  This is a scenario that doesn't even loosely
> hang together.  The physics of it are impossible.  The socio-political
> implications (like the whole world covering it up) are the definition
> of suspect.  Even the proponents of Nibiru are hiding behind fallacies
> and other forms of the lamest rhetoric imaginable.  So, Samsara2003,
> how does the situation favor this?  How do you draw your conclusion,
> scientifically or otherwise?  Do you base your opinion on anything
> real or factual, or are you wont to believe whatever constitutes the
> bullshit new age flavor of the month because you feel alone and
> insignificant in this world?  Stand up pal.  Think for yourself.
> Strike the match now and get a life.  
> 
> And no, nanzeta, I'm not giving you or your cult legitimacy by
> posting.  I'm providing an alternative point of view for those who
> would give you the opportunity to do some really scary thinking on
> their behalf.
> 
Well, now - such hostility.  I will not respond likewise... but I WILL
stand up. 

I understand that the ideas in Zetatalk are truely shocking for many.  I
don't have time to present all the research that I have done on this
site, but will discuss some of them here.  And considering that I am a
gradute student in the field of psychology, I do plenty of my own
thinking, which probably runs contrary to your assumption that everyone
who takes to the Zetatalk message to any degree are ignorant and
gullible cultists.... 

I think the first problem most people have with Zetatalk is the most
probablamatic and is where most people stop thinking.  The existance of
extra-terrestrial life in the universe hsn't even been accepted yet. 
However, the UFO conspiracy, for which the evidence so numerous I hardly
can present it here, is, in my opinion, overwhelmingly in favor real ET
existance, alien abduction, and a real global goverment coverup. 

That established... it's easier to accept that they may have abducted
Nancy and given her impants to communicate with her. 

To bolster that claim, cropcircles, which are becoming so numerous that
they are defying explanation, certainly point to an event on the
horizon.  Hollywood is finally picking up on this with "Signs-Mel
Gibson" coming out in August with the subtitle "don't claim they didn't
warn us..."[about a poleshift??]).  Any of you on Sci.astro going to go
and watch that movie without thinking about Nancy?? :) (Mr Cunningham,
are you listening?) 

The Chilbolton formation even has a pic of Nancy's Zetas in it!
(http://www.cropcircleresearch.com/articles/arecibo.html)

Cropcircles an obvious hoax, you say??? Well, it certainly would have to
be or otherwise - aliens WOULD EXIST... what choice does the scientific
community have but to claim it is a hoax - they're backed in to a
corner... it really doesn't matter HOW good the evidence is.  I think
this formation is genuine and one of the many genuine messages mankind
has been receiving. 

Those of the scientific community that are still in doubt about crop
cicle authenticity and keep referring to the widely circulated 1991 Hoax
family that admitted to certain crop circle formations, should know that
the vast majority of CS's are unexplainable - in size, complexity, and
chemical reactions of crops in the 'authenticate' circles, in comparison
to the few very simple and poorly constructed human made formations. 

There are several very recent and excellent publications of of these
which I have read extensively. 

Another big problem with Nibiru is ol' Kepler that would like Planets to
behave in nice little elipses.  There are serious problems with orbital
mechanics that most astronomers don't like to talk about that are very
well illustrated in Ivars Peterson's "Newtons' Clock-Chaos in the solar
system".  

"In one way or another, the problem of the solar system's stability has
fascinated and tormened astronomers and mathematicians for more than 200
years. Somewhat to the embarrassment of contemporary experts, it remains
one of the most perplexing, unsolved issues in celestial mechanics." 

I find it amuzing that astronmers on this group can muster the hubris to
claim that NIBIRU couldn't orbit the way Nancy says it will, when you
can't even explain such a basic and fundamental component of modern
astro-physics. 

Admittedly one of the most difficult (for me) to accept notions is the
Zetan idea of orbital mechanics which gives Nibiru an exponential
increase in orbital velocity as it approaches the solar system.  I don't
rule out the possibilty that the very 'small' problems astronomers have
in explaining orbital stability (which I don't think is an insignificant
problem--but a HUGE problem) - could lead to HUGE differences in
accepted orbtial observances of planets with unfamiliar orbits.  It's at
least a possibilty. 

I think the most stunning evidence of all is Immanuel Velikovsky's
"Earth in Upheaval".  Without getting in to the evidence presented in
this book, as well as his book "Worlds in COllision".  I've come to the
conclusion that there really no good explanations for Ice Ages - and
Hapgoods evidence backs up that of Velikovskys. 

All in all, there is certainly a hell of a lot of work that would go in
to discrediting ALL of these occurances and paint a nice 'safe' portrait
of earth geographic history to my own satisfaction. 

Listen, I KNOW zetatalk is controversial, to say the least. I FULLY
understand the absolutely mindblowing ramifications of the realities on
that sight if even bothering to consider them.  I think I favor the
existance of Nancy's Zetans alone much more than I would favor Nancy's
site itself.  

I will go to war with anyone here who wants to tell me that we live in a
universe where we are the only intelligent life form and that
temperature inversion is what's responsible for crop circles - because
that's the sorry state of affairs that exist right now in conservative
scientific circles that are filled with admittedly bright, yet rigid
thinking professionals who have very little regard for that beyond the
scope of what science allows for.  

I don't know if Nibiru is out there - but it's a matter that I have been
taking increasingly seriously over the last 4 years.  I blew off
zetatalk in 1998 when I first ran in to it despite my avid interest in
ufology.  But just think for a moment if UFO's are real.  If that is
true, without a doubt, Zetatalk would seem much more likely.  It would
thus paint a picture of reality that would come as the greatest shock to
human civilization in the history of mankind--(okay so we're throwing
around some big ideas here ;)).  The point is - the message is so
profound that it can not be accepted. 

As I have quoted in a previous post, Dr Allen Hynek's letter to Science
magazine, 

"I have begun to feel that there is a tendency in 20th Century science,
to forget that there will be a 21st Century science, and indeed a 30th
Ventury science, from which vantage points our knowledge of the universe
may appear quite different than it does to us.  We suffer from temporal
provincialism, a form of arrogance that has always irritated posterity." 

> I hope you live to be one
> hundred years old and that, when your final day does ultimately
> arrive, you'll look back on a life well-lived--and not squandered on
> this Nibiru crap and other time and energy sinks that are just like
> it.  Just a thought...

I do hope to live a long life, and I tell you what... I choose in my life
what is and is not significant and make decisions as to what is wise and
what is foolish.  I have strong beliefs in many different areas of life
and one of my strongest is the belief that people should be allowed to
think independently.  What harm is it if I "waste my time" with Nibiru,
anyways.  If anything, I've increased by 10-fold my knowledge of
geology, rekindeled an old interest I have in astronomy, and made me
think alot about the world we live in.  

I have the utmost respect for those in the scientific community and will
pity them if Nancy is proven true, as most scientific circles will be
turned on their head and rewritten.  But at least they will then be
introduced to a little concept called HUMILITY. 

I'm not a scientist and not bound to think in the confines of what
science allows for.  But in any case I feel completely entitled to my
opinion of all of this.  It's the way I see it.  

I certainly hope Nancy is a hoaxer because if not, we're all in for a
rough ride next year, for sure.  If she's not, how many of you are going
to email her and thank her for her efforts? 

Regards,
Samsara2003