Re: ZetaTalk Bashing: Cuts Both Ways

Bill Nelson wrote:
> Ian wrote:
>
>> Nancy is not an astronomer, as pointed out here numerous times. She has
>> herself said that seeing it through a scope wouldn't help much. FWIW, she
>> claims to be relaying the information from better informed sources, and
>> is busy enough with that.
>
> What "better informed sources"? Just about everything she has written is
> either wrong or misinterpred by Lieder.
>
>> She wouldn't have to try personally, but some of us that do take her
>> seriously would of course want to give it a try.
>
> You mean you still take what she says seriously?

My reasons for taking the ZetaTalk information on Planet X seriously are
related to:
a, The comprehensiveness of the ZetaTalk information.
b, No con artist would be able to cook up such a comprehensive & detailed
   story on such a vast amount of areas. Just because of the detailed
   information, the people here at sci.astro have been able to respond back,
   mostly claiming that her information does not fit in with today's
   theories, which some of the guys here seem to have a religious relation
   to.
c, Research done by Hapgood, Sitchin, Velikovsky, von Däniken (even though
   he blew it when he started creating his own evidence) and others have all
   provided pieces to the puzzle that indicate that
   - we are not alone, and
   - violent pole shifts have happened before, and may be expected again.

If one can accept (if only for the sake of the argument) that something is
speaking trough Nancy, as she claims the Zetas are, it is obvious that
sometimes things get distorted by "NancyTalk". People here on the list have
been notoriously trying to link these together, and use that as "evidence"
that the ZetaTalk information is wrong.

When Nancy herself has gotten degrees mixed up with hours & minutes, or when
she's been on a steep learning curve as to magnitude etc., it has been taken
as "proof" that the Zetatalk information is cooked up by Nancy. To me, it is
more an indication that there must indeed be two sources of information.

Ian