Nancy has found a new home for her "predictions".

This is just one of four areas
End of Days

She's basically found a new place to post her claims that IRAS discovered planet X in 1983 and that her imaging team photographed it.

__________________
I feel a hot wind on my shoulder
And the touch of a world that is older

Anywhere that people are not likely to ask her the tough questions.

That and it's 2 years late......

__________________
"On this ship you will refer to me as idiot not "you captian".....I mean....you know what I mean."

^ Me 2 Nancy

^ Her 2 Me

^ Me 2 Her -- Any bets on responces?

__________________
[F.A.Q Zone - For everything theres questions about]

NOTE: Thats my new, Family friendly Blog which deals with questions about everything and anything, Check it out!

Hello,

Nancy has also brought the 'Moon is out of place' ideas back out of mothballs. I can only read/post seldomly due to real life; but I put up a piece there regarding upcoming eclipses in April. She will, of course, fail to address these simple points.

Perhaps her post should be crossposted to Lunar Conpiracies; now that the Moon is another cornerpiece of her amazingly unstable structure of an idea.

Thank you,

Jonathan
-It doesn't matter what I believe. What matters is what I can prove.-

Howdy all. I posted links to the pages of IMO, Sarah Mac and Otto to demonstrate that Nancy never actually imaged PX. I was labeled a troll. Nancy then lied saying that IMO(John Oliver) is not an image expert (right) and my post was then rendered inaccessible. Board admin., when asked about it, stated that they only wanted "truth" posted on their site.

And so it goes...

H

Truth? Give me a break.

__________________
I feel a hot wind on my shoulder
And the touch of a world that is older

FWIW, Nancy has tried this "woo^2 Only" approach before. Once on her own website (ca 1997) and once on her own IRC Channel. They have never worked out.

I'll speculate on the reasons:

1) They deny her the attention and exposure she'd get from a more mainstream site.

2) The extremely heavy-handed moderation provokes DDoS attacks (never by me, BTW), and drives-off the open minded people to whom she claims to speak.

3) Without any sort of counter-arguments, Nancy will inevitably blow her own foot off in short order. She got kicked off her own IRC channel for her outrageous conduct.

__________________
Olsen the moderator.

Interesting. Do you have a link to the forum? I have some questions to ask Nancy and the Zetas.

__________________
Do not think all you see is "real".

__________________
Olsen the moderator.

Hello,

Well, I just posted over there, and expect to be banned shortly. Here is the transcript of my post.




Hello,

I shall probably be banned from this board and my posting removed for asking my polite questions; but such is life.

Sigh.

Nancy will continue to make the claims that the Moon is out of place; yet she will continue to FAIL to explain how my pair of GoTos has been unerring in locating the Moon whenever I have used them; how anyone using GoTo or equatorially mounted scopes can also find the Moon unerringly; how old charts and timetables are still absolutely accurate in predicting the rising, setting, transit, and movement of the Moon; how astrologers can still pick out which constellation the Moon is going to be in months, years, and decades in advance; how the tides have continued throughout this entire time to be predictable; how sailors can still use ancient techniques and charts to exactly determine their latitude by taking lunars; and how the upcoming eclipses this year will be exactly on time and exactly as predicted by mundane science, which continues to have the accuracy rates that Nancy and the Zetas cannot hope to match.

This issues will, of course, remain unaddressed; and further excuses, such as the Zetas moving planets to make the sky appear to be normal, will continue to be the cornerstones of her claims. That makes for a rather unstable structure; wouldn´t you agree?

In fact, I shall go a step further; once again demonstrating my unerring predictive record; still standing at 100 percent accuracy while remaining white-lie free; a record the Zetas cannot hope to attain because of continued white lies; misidentifying planets; and other statements that can be called many things, but not accurate.

I shall predict that there will be two eclipses in April; one solar and one lunar. The solar eclipse will occur on April 8th; and although it is not as rare an event; nor as widely visible; as the Venus Transit, it will be seen by enough people to confirm that it is happening as predicted. The second eclipse will be a lunar eclipse on April 24th; which will only be a penumbra eclipse, just so there is no misunderstanding. The eclipse will be visible for most of the United States; although for the Eastern half of the U.S. the eclipse will be occuring at Moonset.

Now once again; *I* am providing the dates in question; and making these inescapable predictions; that if I am wrong will prove Nancy and the Zetas right about unpredictably moving heavenly objects. By contrast, when these eclipses occur as predicted, will Nancy admit Zetan error? Of course not; she will claim the Zetas are moving all these objects so they appear to be moving correctly; for some alien reason we cannot hope to understand. The Zetas move in strange and mysterious ways.

Thus; once again, by these predictions, know that Nancy and the Zetas speak falsely; and the Earth, the Moon, and Sun continue to be precisely where predicted by mundane science.

Thank you,

Jonathan
-It doesn´t matter what I believe. What matters is what I can prove.-

I am curious ... can you post links to this stuff? I have not figured out navigation and/or serach on this site.

IMO aka John Oliver

I just peeked-in and added a comment or two.

Nancy is deleting contradictory posts as fast as possible, and ranting at a near melt-down level.

This won't last long.

__________________
Olsen the moderator.

She hasn't spotted latimer's post yet, though.

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

First of all, to IMO who asked for links to what I posted there- they have rendered my posts unreachable. The post appears to be there on the index page, but they have made it simply link back to the index page.

They also did it to my orignal "Not Expert?" post that begins the thread where you reply to Nancy. It makes the thread kind of nutty since you can't see what started it, only Nancy's reply. Here is what I originally posted to start that thread:

>>>>>>>>>
In the interest of accuracy I feel I should set the record straight for the readership. Someone posted in response to my image analysis link, saying that the creator of the analysis pages was "not expert" in that field. Nothing could be further from the truth. Here is a brief outline of Professor Oliver's qualifications:

"IMO is John Oliver, Associate Chairman of the Department of Astronomy, University of Florida. My home page is at http://www.astro.ufl.edu/~oliver/ . I have been doing astronomical research (including imaging) for more than 40 years and have extensive experience and publications on photographic processing, the design and implementation of electronograhic cameras, and the use of CCD cameras. I am, in fact, open to ideas that are out of the main stream and my work on ways that ancient peoples could have determined longitudes has recently appeared in print in both books and journals."

The same poster also launched into a personal attack on Professor Oliver, claiming that his work is intended to "...discourage examination" of the subject at hand. I beg to differ. Prof. Oliver's work is quite thorough and carefully explained including references to support his methods and conclusions. I think that can be clearly seen by reviewing his analysis pages.

I feel that the readership should have the opportunity examine his offerings and dermine their validity for themselves.

One may contact Professor Oliver directly at this email at the U.of F. : oliver@astro.ufl.edu

One may confirm Professor Oliver's credentials at the U. of F. Astronomy Dept. http://www.astro.ufl.edu/

And for those wanting to make up their own minds, Professor Oliver's analysis pages are here: http://us.geocities.com/openmindxx/


Regards, H
>>>>>>>>>>

They allowed Nancy to refute, but removed access to my OP. They have done it to all my posts there.

They removed this one completely(but you can still access it if you are a bit tricky):
>>>>>>>>
PS: I encourage those who origanally aquired the images to
come forth and explain their methods and how they arrived at
their conclusions as to what is shown in the images.

H
>>>>>>

John Oliver originally posted this to Nancy today:
>>>>
What can I say? The facts are well laid out on my web pages. I will be happy to discuss or expand on any points with anyone who wants to enquire. In fact, the object Nancy circled is still there, at that location, years later. It is not and was not Px.


IMO's web pages [link]
>>>>>

But they edited it to read this and removed his link:
>>>>
The star Nancy circled is still there at that same location years later.
>>>>


I was then banned.

And so it goes... H

The poster who saidl that IMO was not expert was, of course, Nancy. She never responded to my calling her on that lie. In another post today she surmises that "Ham"(me) and Oliver are one and the same and brays: ZETAS RIGHT AGAIN! Whoops... wrong. She also goes back to her old ploy of saying that John Oliver is hiding even though his email is in the very post to which she is replying- priceless... All his info was also in my original post (which the Admin. felt should be resrticted from the readership!).

It's wild that she prattles on about how IMO is wrong, wrong, wrong, but then allows as to how that sort of thing is not to be discussed there.

H

I am endeavoring to remain quiet.

Jonathan
-It doesn't matter yadda yadda-

I am now banned as a nay-sayer but (they say) my posts in response to Lieder will remain as will the links to my web pages. I have asked that Lieder not be allowed to post further comments on my credentials and integrity since I am not allowed to respond.

I expect that none on that board will want to look at the actual images and draw their own conclusions but the material is there if they want to do so.

There are some URLs remaining in a post of yours, but they edited the one which contained the link to your main page and removed the link.
They removed the text saying that what Nancy circled is not and was not PX.

I think it's now been pulled - I don't see it any more.

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

Hello,

Yep, it's gone. The only thing that remains is the link on the page before, which now goes to a 'cannot be displayed' link at http://www.bloginservice.com/talk/en...sages/83.shtml.

Nancy dislikes me so much my entire NAME was removed. At least some of you have the name that leads to nowhere on that board...

Ah, well. So went the Y2K believers as well; those who refuse to examine contrary data are doomed to get it wrong; Nancy will inevitably continue to do just that. I shall have to make a post regarding the 2nd anniversary that PX failed to show for May.

Thank you, and keep smiling,

Jonathan
-It doesn't matter what I believe. What matters is what I can prove.-

"Nancy dislikes me so much my entire NAME was removed. At least some of you have the name that leads to nowhere on that board..."

Me too.

Remember the phrase 'Banned In Boston'? Placing that blurb on a book was guaranteed to boost readership.

I see a new Debunker Hall of Fame coming: "Banned by Nancy".

__________________
Olsen the moderator.

Glad to see my pages are still wreaking so much havoc amoung Nancy's faithful that they see them as a threat to their very core beliefs. I'm glad I left them up.

As is usually the case in such a cult-like environment. The only text or data accepted as factual is that which emanates from the "leader" - all else is seen as blasphemy and isn't even to be considered. The hypocrisy of such "end of the world" cults and factions is always visible the first time they claim you don't have an "open mind".

FWIW, John Oliver is most assuredly an authority on astronomy and astrophotography, and Nancy has admitted numerous times that she is not. I'd say it's pretty easy to determine who's playing with smoke and mirrors, and who's working with mirrors and lenses :D

Hi Sarah. Thanks for leaving your pages on the net. I like having them as a resource for when Nancy tries to start anew like she's doing now.

I wonder if there is still an archive of the old Saturday zetachats around. I looked the other day briefly, but didn't find anything.

H

http://www.skepticalmind.com/zetatalk.html

Have fun.

Jonathan
-It doesn't matter yadda yadda-

Link no workee.

__________________
Olsen the moderator.

Appears to be working now.

Have you seen her new one? Now she's claiming to have predicted the two earthquakes in Argentina (it's one of her "whammy points").

__________________
I feel a hot wind on my shoulder
And the touch of a world that is older

I still can't get through to that URL.

She predicted the Argentine quakes? The heck you say!

Did she happen to predict them before they happened?

She spent years predicting quakes and volcanoes in the Pacific Ring O' Fire, hurricanes in the Atlantic, and typhoons in the Pacific.

She even predicted tsunamis in the Indian Ocean mere days after the fact!

__________________
Olsen the moderator.

Weird. Try the cache...

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:w...tml+&hl=en

Jonathan
-It doesn't matter yadda yadda-

You can find the chat logs here on the skepticalmind.com website, as well as some of the "poleshiftdiscussion" logs.

They are a pretty funny read now, two years (and more for some) after the fact.

One of her followers is claiming that and it would appear that she is also.

tt-watch

Whammy

Note the odd correlation she has between winds and whammy points.

__________________
I feel a hot wind on my shoulder
And the touch of a world that is older