Re: Planet X: Alternative Explanation 2

Michael L Cunningham wrote:
> 
> Nancy Lieder wrote:
> 
>> In early 1995, when ZetaTalk was born, they stated that another pole
>> shift would be caused by the close passage of Planet X on May 15, 2003.
>> The date of May 15, 2003 was given as a target date, the actual shift
>> happening a few days later and the exact day and hour not given.
>>
>>     Regarding the accuracy of our prediction, late spring, early
>>     summer, in the year 2003. This cannot be pinned down to
>>     the day. Where the comet and the Earth are interacting, and
>>     in proximity of each other...
>>
>>     The Earth will go through physical cataclysms in the near
>>     future. ...  There is truth in the rumors of what is called
>>     [Planet X], a giant comet.
>>
>> ZetaTalk also stated in 1995 that Star Wars is not for missile defense,
>> but as a faint hope of diverting or neutralizing the passing Planet X,
>> in order to spare Earth.
> 
> Ok, now I'm confused! It's a planet, now it's a comet, then it's a planet.
> 
> Come on already Nancy! Which is it?!!!
> 

Oh, please.  Now here was a reasoned and considered argument.  There are
an enormous number of semantic arguments being thrown about in these
Planet X threads, and it is just all bullshit.

What does it really matter?  If it exists, and acts even remotely as
described, it is a planet that behaves like a comet.  Its a floor wax. 
Its a desert topping.

I mean really, call it a framastammer or a squigablitz, it just doesn't
really matter.  Any definition is going to be ambiguous anyway.  Where
*EXACTLY* do we draw the distinction between a comet and a planet? 
Based on size? Orbital period? Outgassing?

Make up any definition, (say diameter) and my response will be to ask
"Well, suppose I make it one micron larger in diameter, is it still an
XYZ?" and I can quickly micron you to death.

There is only one basic issue.  Is there a thingy and is it inbound? 
These ridiculous semantic argument postings do little to either support
the intelligence of the poster or to make a counter argument to Nancy's
postings.  Nancy clearly lacks a hard core science background but
constantly berating her about it clearly serves no purpose other than to
give the poster a false sense of superiority.

In fact, only one thing can counter Nancy's postings - pictures.  I have
been advocating the posting of raw images around Nancy's coordinates for
months now and nobody seems willing to humor the request (but many will
engage in endless semantic arguments about the definition of terms).

Many people have argued (in essence) that there is no point in looking
for something that is not there, and my counter to that is "why not?" 
What is the harm in posting images?  Isn't that the single most
effective way to counter Nancy?  I mean, there are significant
investments in serious experiments looking for the proton decay that
many physicists do not believe exists.  Real science is not about
attitude, it is about careful observation and analysis.

The only difference between science and religion is data.  Both require
belief.  I must believe in God, in the absence of absolute proof.  I
must also believe in the electron.  The only difference is that I know
how to run experiments and accumulate data that consistently suggest the
existence of an electron and I do not know how to do this with God. 
That I can or cannot run these experiments does not unambiguously prove
anything about either God or the electron, it only increases an
objective sense of confidence.

The bottom line is that I do not trust anyone who says "I have looked
myself and there is nothing there".  I trust them when they say "Look,
here is the image.  Notice for *yourself* that there is nothing there. 
Notice that there continues to be nothing there for repeated postings of
the same viewpoint taken at different times.  Notice that differential
processing of successive temporal images do not suggest a moving
object."

Comet, planet, floor wax, desert topping.  It just doesn't matter.

The Small Kahuna