Re: Planet X: ZetaTalk ACCURACY

Michael L. Cunningham wrote in news:3CC300E4.7050007@earthlink.net: 

> Garrett wrote:
> 
>>> Are you the best Nancy can muster up to send to this group? You're
>>> doing a very poor job of convincing yourself much less anyone else
>>> who reads your dribble.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Shut up, cummingham.  What you're really afraid of is addressing any
>> of the evidence that is starring you in the face.  It's easier to
>> engage in childish character assasination.  
>> 
>> Grow up!
> 
> 
> Not very astute for a student of of your stature! What evidence? All 
> you've presented is the same bullshit every other believer of Zetatalk
> has presented. You've presented zero evidence other then personal 
> conjecture. You have to do a hell of a lot better than that!
> 

You are the who admonished me and failed to address any of the evidence
I did present.  You insulted me without basis--who's the astute
individual here?.  Your assumption that I was somehow sent here by Nancy
was also wrong, I have come her on my own accord. 

I originally posted as I am trying to open up the field of
science to the more open minded world around us and help
you understand that something of much greater significance 
than science can allow for is happening right now.

If you are still unconvinced, tell me that the scientific research
conducted by Carolyn North in the book Crop Circles is flawed. 

From her book:

["Didn't two guys do it?" one still hears when the subject come up.  In
the years since their confession much of the Western media has been
silent on the subject, even though new formations appearing in Japan
receive fron-page coverage in Japanese newspapers"]

I seek the same as everyone on this group - I want to get to the truth
of the world around us.  That's the endevor of science.  We're in two
different schools of thought, Mr. Cunningham.  I believe that there is a
shift in public consciousnes that is really now occuring that is
impossible to quantify scientifically.  You're so used to associating 
the occult with ideas that do not fit in to your scientific way of
thinking that, as intelligent as you and your associates here are, fail
to do any real thinking when things like Zetatalk, come along because
you've been conditioned to be skeptical and thus you are backing
yourself in to spot where comprehension of any of the evidence becomes
impossible. 

Crop circles, UFO's, and observations of past-catalysms by Veliskovsky
are all evidence science chooses to deny, ignore or discredit for the
above reasons.  

When all else fails, shoot the messenger.  You thus conclude that I must
somehow must be guided by some deathwish or some cult phenomenon, as my
words couldn't be guided by any other motive.  I did my senior thesis on
the most devious of all cults in this world today...the so-called
'Church of Scientology", and am very familiar and aware of what makes up
and does not make up a cult and the psycholgoy of a person who becomes
susecptible to its allure. 

A cult, by the classic definition, Nancy and zetatalk are not.  There
have been others here that are quite readily willing to admit that much
of what Zetatalk discusses, though not likely, IS possibile and could
potentially represent the way the Univesrse really is, as controversial
and unbelievable as that may be. 

I'm not defending Zetatalk as much as I'm lashing out at what I think is
an unwillingness by science to come to terms with brand new and
unpresedented shift in awareness that is happening now and around the
world.  A new mode of awarness and change that will leave the scientific
community dumbfounded and speechless. 

IMHO,
Garrett