link to Home Page

Re: Planet X: NOT a Star

> josX writes:
> It's being too convenient.  You have no way 
> of knowing what is supposedly uninterpreted 
> information straight from the source, and what 
> has been interpreted by Nancy in an attempt to 
> help explain things.  She doesn't tell you that
> up front.

You are a proven liar as of now, Tholen. Enjoy it.

Why do I believe ZetaTalk is right? Because they are the only ones 
making sense, that is why.

You read that right, they make sense.

And too much of science DOESN'T.

If some small parts of cutting-edge science were wrong, that wouldn't
be a problem, that's normal. But if the holy of holy, mister Einstein
himself is nothing but a lowgrade total crackpot (in his SR), that
SHOULD make you think. No?

Then go ahead, disproof my SR disproof. Or disproof other things I've
said. Can't? Why do you think you can't? oh, you can but you just don't
want to show it?  Or you think that someone who says an object is both
2nd and 11th is disproven by that very statement, and there is nothing
rational that is be meant by it?

ZetaTalk isn't The Cult here (I say), it's something altogether
different that is The Cult (that's at least a sure thing), but you
won't see it. It's too close to your eyes, and you guys swallowed
it as your initial belief-system from which to disproof all that
contradicts it.

Please, when someone comes along that is going to explain you SR or
escape-velocity or whatever, you don't ask for proof, you slam it
in your brain as if it were a fact. When ZetaTalk comes along you ask
for proof on the other hand, but you guys really don't know how to
make conclusions from proof, and how to be scientifically honest in
following up on the proof and change what you believe, because you have
all your lives just believed what the teachers told you to. And the
teachers believed what the experts told them.

You guys will NEVER believe something on proof, only on AUTHORITY,
the authority of someone part of The Cult, and as known to be a priest
in that Cult and acknowledged as such to you by means of diploma's or
magazine publications, or pointers from other priests. That is what you
are going to believe. Line, hook and errors, it doesn't matter, it's all
candy to you.

What about Tunguska, now there is this German scientist coming along,
suddenly you will begin to think "hmmm, could be both". Why? because
he is acknowledged /authority/, that's why....  What if the
Scientific-American publishes next month a review of the case removing
the Tunguska impact theory as "proven wrong after much study" (or better,
they stage a growing dispute and establish first it's controversiality,
then after many month move on to establish the methane-theory as a
`promising new candidate to the nagging Tunguska mystery'), and
running the story of the German scientist instead. Can happen can't
it? Remember, this German scientists is has a DIPLOMA!, he works at
this and gets paid for it (ah, that helped didn't it). Then you all
suddenly believe Tunguska was a methane-gas explosion. You won't?
Don't make me laugh, sure you will.

... You don't care about the proof either way, you will just run stories
against whatever does contradict the official line. If the Zetans say
it is methane, but the official science says it is an asteroid, all of
a sudden you can come up with funny anecdotal stories about how asteroids
explode in the air, and that witnesses saw it, and "shut up with your
pseudo-science". But if the official line was reversed, and the Zetans
said it was an asteroid (which they don't), you'd come up with evidence
suporting the methane, like the lack of an impact-crator etc. (actually
you could use the real evidence, since this is the real story so it

There is a LOT of GOOD science - honest science - TOO, but you only
use it to enhance the PR of *all* of science in your own mind, as if
somehow what one good person is doing makes everything the establishment
coughs up true.

I know there is too much to investigate, but in sci.astro, you should at
least be able to investigate astronomy and related matters.

And if Nancy talks about gravity having a repulsion force, and you are
presented LOGIC that the solar-system is in fact unstable otherwise (or
at least in the current theory), and you are presented facts that
simulations show the solar-system to be unstable, you don't care, you say
"yeah sure, you are a Cult and Nancy wants to make money". But if some
quantum-mechanics person comes along saying there is a theory about
gravity repulsion all are groking it in as "interesting" and "tantalizing",
and when astronomers come up with evidence there must be some repulsion
force you jump up and say "gee, more!". But you don't care about their
evidence at all, only about their authority.

ZetaTalk doesn't give you authority, it is transmitted through an "old"
lady with an "implant" remember? ZetaTalk only gives you reasons.
It's very easy to spot who likes what, authority or reason. And it's
interesting to think that both camps accuse the other of being wrong
in what they are themselves claiming being right: ZetaTalk "followers"
claim modern science is illogical, NASA "followers" claim zetatalk is
a misdirected authority (Cult).

I am not at all unsympathetic against the ppl who actually think ZetaTalk
is a Cult, and who try to diffuse the logic for sake of truth. Just asking
for those to take a second leave and look what you are defending, and if
it is worth defending. I say "magic-bullit", "SR", "escape-velocity+gravity
law", "unstable planet orbits", "perturbations warranting a planet-search
can't be explained by better masses for known planets". That is what you
are defending like a mindless trained dog, but you have no clue to it's
merrits and you guys don't even care (do you?, then THINK).

In effect, you are pseudoscientists, or the folks who make them powerfull.
All in the name of the very truth that is raped by them.