Most of the mirror sites are down, and zetatalk is down. This is up, however:
http://www.zetabc.com/index/c2cphil.htm

(just because I'm a suspicious little disinfo agent, I'm posting the questions and feedback here for everyone to play with. Heck, if she's going to try this stuff, we can debunk her debunking.
(the pictures, of course, don't copy.)
[/quote]

El Nino years. The argument is denied.

Nany Leeder wrote: "On Jan 23, 2003 debunker Sara McIntyre made the statement on her web site that all objects within the circle made by the Sighting Team were "noise". The objects included an existing star, a debunking Faux Pas. So much for Sara's discerning objectivity. "

I'm going to start spelling her name incorrectly, since she seems consistently unable to spell mine correctly. And it was not the 23rd, it was the 25th.

I can't speak for anyone else's quotes, but this one is patently false. J William Dell took a JPG image off my site, then manipulated the contrast and brightness. He then drew circles and arrows and text all over the 400% enlarged image, and posted the image to ZetaTalk. In the image he circled a JPG artifact and claimed it was *not* a star as Nancy claims, but was the "white persona" of Planet X. Neither the star on the DSS2 image, nor planet X was in that image. What J William Dell and Steve Havas circled was in fact, a cosmic ray hit and a single hot pixel.

Exactly what Phil has claimed their errors to be.

One of the major problems that Dell and Havas had with their analysis is that they used no astrometric or photometric tools whatsoever. By using the USNO A-2 and SA-2 catalogs, along with software, it was obvious that the "spot" was not the star in question - it was far off the coordinates. By blinking the frames, it was quite aparent that the "star" and "planet X" were actually a hot pixel and a cosmic ray hit. Dell's "pixel analysis" would have astronomers rolling on the floor (in fact, it did). Dell and Havas (and Nany Leeder) have always claimed anything they could find within an arcminute was game for her planet - even though she stated her coordinates to hundredths of arcseconds.

Why debate the past?

Sure, its good stuff to dig through but the present speaks for itself loud and clear.

The most obvious is to ask, where is it now. Where is the large reddish object in the sky. The news all over the world would be showing it at one time or another. Weathermen would even go out witha TV camera to record the event in the morning or evening, what ever flips their switch.

It isn't, all the hubba hubba over these old pics is meaningless drivel compaired to the present truth. :roll:

Point well taken, however, you know as well as I do that Nancy intends to use that poor excuse for evidence in the past as proof of a cataclysm tomorrow. That's quite evident from the page she wrote. Nancy is obviously doing her homework, Phil should be prepared for what she's going to throw at him.

But I agree, the BA should keep as "up to date" as possible, and try to keep Nancy from rambling on to unrelated past topics, as is her normal methodology. "Talk long enough about nothing, and people will forget the question they asked you". :wink:

A-men SarahMc Well spoken indeed. This is an art form well practiced today.

8)

Thank you Sarah. I need to look into these claims, as she will no doubt raise them during the show. Then I can state "You are wrong" and point her to this board.

Can anyone comment on the earthquake data?

Well, I'm not too hot on figures, but I do know that she should consider all the data, not just certain parts. Where are the figures for 2000, 2001, 2002? Why doesn't she take figures over the whole year, only different periods throughout those years. These figures are in no way evidence of increasing Earthquakes, only that there were a few grouped around those dates in each of those years.

Also:
How come the USGS charts show that there are 800 5.0 - 5.9 EQs each year. Onces every 3 days? Nope.

LOL, one more thing, her stats are inaccurate for the 29th. Here's all the significant EQs for the 29th April:

You can see for yourself here: http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/qed/

There were only 4 +5 EQs on the 29/04/03, 2 is the exact same region.

....if you haven't seen it yet, here:
http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=5269

Check the readings I found above: Nancy has found the wrong info somehow.

Ah, I see she is saying that the database is 'gutted'. She got her results from the seismopgraphs. What I want to know is who taught her how to use one? Where are proof of her results? Between Nancy and the USGS, I know who I believe.

[quote="Greenhalgh"]LOL, one more thing, her stats are inaccurate for the 29th. Here's all the significant EQs for the 29th April:

....One thing that is obvious, and what I've seen pointed out to several PXers is the double recordings of what very likely are the same quakes.......Such as the Alaska readings.....If these are the readings from several different graphs in the area, some being closer to the activity than others, they could still be recording the same activity even if one registered 3.0 and another 2.9......Several PXers have counted up every recorded quake (even those double, or even triple recorded) and the proclaimed that the 'disinfo agents' were under-reporting because the total numbers didn't add up.....Which they wouldn't when you remove the multiple records of the same quake......
.....Or, at least, that's the way I've read the explainations on some of the TT Yahoo sites........

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/faq/myths.html#8

found this to be informative and it links to some similar sites as above...
http://www.drudgereport.com/quake.htm

Look first then fuss later ha :wink:

Tried to get to the Zetatalk web site but it's still down. Can we blame this on Planet X, too?

__________________
Terry K.
-------------------------------------------------------
Breaking up is hard to do, must defrag myself!

Kick butt on C2C tonight Phil! Anyone with a minimal sense of reality will see her for what she is, either a nut or an opportunist who is employing the P.T. Barnum philosophy (i.e. a fool born every minute.) The inimitable Richard C. Hoagand said of her, "At least I don't pretend to speak through aliens." Of that one quote of her's on C2C.
"...This for us is only like...kindergarten...this is the end of Zeta Talk."

Gee, our miserable U.S. school system is used throughout the universe. In that case, please bring on Planet X.

From another section of her Zetatalk sites (by the way, for the curious person who wants to verify this, there is a "web archive" site that saves web pages back to 1996 or so. Many of Nancy's Zetatalk pages are there. The "wayback machine" is located at www.archive.org - note: the site loads slowly!)


From http://www.zetabc.com/teams/rogue/jdistanc.htm
Planetary Diameters

Earth has a diameter of about 8,000 miles.
Mars has a diameter of 4,200 miles.
Uranus has a diameter of 32,600 miles.
Jupiter has a diameter of 88,729 miles.
Venus has a diameter of 7,521 miles.
Venus is about 26 million miles from Earth (roughly)

Nancy's comments about the size:
(rough estimates)
Nancy has said that the 15th is the closest approach with a distance of around 14 million miles.

Putting it all together

* On the 15th, "Planet X" will be almost exactly halfway between the Earth and Venus.
* Nancy's site says "Planet X" is about 4 1/2 times the size of Venus.
* Nancy's site says that the "red swirl" is 16 times the diameter of Venus (larger than the moon)
* Nancy's site says there are moons strewn all over behind it and that the area where these moons orbit is 256 times the size of Venus.

Hold your arm out in front of you. According to Nancy, right now, the planet is a spot of light that's a little smaller than the end of your little finger, the "red corona" about the size of 3 fingertips or so, and the area of rogue moons is spread across most of the sky.

You couldn't miss that, even with eyesight as bad as mine.

Go outside and look. See anything?

Me niether.

even with eyesight as bad as mine? :P

__________________
I must not PX. PX is the mind-killer. I will face my PX. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the PX has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.

Doing a quick pop in and pop out after the debate.

The point about the "Mammoths" mentioned by Nancy is inaccurate. Here's a link... I can explain tomorrow if it ins't clear:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mammoths.html

She seems more worried about Phil than the end of the world. She must be crazy. Does debunking Phil, make PX magically appear? She's soooo reaching here, a total act of desperation.

__________________
"There is no greater illusion than fear. Whoever can see through all fear will always be safe. " --Lao-Tsu

In retrospect, Phil, do ya kind of feel like the kid who studied all weekend for the big Chemistry exam, only to find on Monday morning that it was going to be an open book test--and on Disney movies instead of on Chemistry?

Actually, that's a rather apt analogy. While she did throw some curve balls (mammoths, fer criminy sake??) I was expecting to have to bring up her "rebuttal" page on weather and earthquakes, and she brought them up herself. Several other big, wet, softballs were lobbed my way as well. When she jumped on the RAND corporation release as if all astronomers went along with it, I almost laughed out loud.

It went better than I could have hoped.

Whats annoying about her is that everytime someone says something intelligent and backs it up with facts she always throws a curve stating that humans are dumb and do not know anything about science? Is that supposed to be some kind of joke? I have never believed anything she has ever said but what is so annoying about people like her are the fact that they make money off lies, gain attention, and then the ruin the lives of the people who believe them. Hah, one last thing, I was paying attention to the amount of times nancy and Phill connected their sentences and used um's or uh's. I remember back to the days of my fifth grade teacher when she said that people who put too many um's in their sentences don't know what they are talking about. Phil worded his facts nearly perfectly and from what I can recall, you did not even use um once in a sentence besides a couple uh's but that was when you were connecting one fact to another. nancy on the other hand...well you know.

It's been talked about before, but this makes me wonder again how so many people fall into..um, Zetaism. I wonder if she is somehow psychologically a good speaker in spite of the facts, perhaps even a bit hypnotic? Or if people just like having something interesting and intense to believe in, more than reality. Or to put it another way, why is there so much "BAD" Astronomy these days.

__________________
I must not PX. PX is the mind-killer. I will face my PX. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the PX has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.

I think a century ago Nancy would have been locked up somewhere or at least her damage would have been limited to a small group of people visiting her "salon." Her access to the internet has allowed a decidedly fringe idea to gain national attention, as it allows all sorts of looney ideas to take root. From there to quasi-legitimacy on the telly. And pretty soon it's "common knowledge."

Not just national: I think international too.

Y'know, one thing that nobody's really hammered on about Planet X:

Nancy says it's a comet.
http://www.zetabc.com/science/s04.htm

And by the way, the planet glows so it should be brighter than your average planet, in case you wondered:
http://www.zetabc.com/science/s22.htm

So back when it was supposed to be as far from us as Jupiter, it would have been much brighter than Jupiter (yeah, I know I'm preaching to the choir...)