Planet X: the Zeta REASONS
At the Aug 24, 2002 Live ZetaTalk IRC Session issues related to
sci.astro becoming alt.flame.zetatalk were brought up. The Zetas also
stated some of their REASONS for not providing Planet X coordinates
until Sep 15th. I'll share ...
Agenda Items included:
1. What is behind the new slant on the xfacts.com site
"Don't believe the hype! Planet X returns in 2003!
This is not true! Show me the proof!" and the audio
statement by Zecharia Sitchin on that site that
Planet X will not return in 2003?
2. On sci.astro someone posted a link to a NASA Kid
Story titled "The 10 planets of our solar system,
including Nibiru (planet of the passing)"
Was this just a submitting by a concerned child or
was it an intentional write-up by someone in NASA?
3. Space.com is now officially debunking Planet X
destroying earth in 2003! It seems like everyone is
trying to get a piece of the action saying it isn't
coming next year :-)
1. This Oleg from Russia says the Norlok space
probe from Russia took these photos of Planet "X"
and that Zetas are accurate. Is this a disinformation
hoax, or was there a real Norlok probe?
Session Start: Sat Aug 24 16:39:25 2002
(Grimbot) Welcome and g'day to you Nancy and the Zetas!
(NancyL) G'day to you, Grimbot.
(Matt) Oh dear a bot greeting
(Jeremy) Nancy: Could the Zetas provide their own distance
timetable for PX to us, or would that contravene any
rules they abide by?
(NancyL) Jeremy, they have their reasons for relying on
human distance measures. They explained WHAT the
differences are, that it zooms in faster, then slows more
while going past the Sun, etc.
(NancyL) Jeremy, the Z's are very skilled at playing games
with humans that would disinfo you to death. Often a
stumble is a deliberate bait and switch.
(NancyL) I've seen this so often as to recognize a game
plan when it evolves. Refusing to give THEIR maths
re distance and size has all the signs ...
(Jeremy) Nancy: Thanks for that, since they [Zetas] said
the tt chart was not accurate I was wondering if
providing distance figures to us it would help amateur
astronomers determine visiblity of PX easier.
and I prefaced the Zeta answer by:
(NancyL) This is combined asking about trends noticed.
Along these lines I added a table in the 2003 Source link
under the ZT banner, saying who is Pro and Con.
(NancyL) For instance, Norlock is saying ZT is right, but
the images are clearly fake (no dust cloud or moons, etc.)
(NancyL) For instance, McCanny stated on the PX Video
that 2003 will NOT be the date, and now supposedly
is saying it IS the date but it will come from opposite
direction from Orion.
(NancyL) For instance, Sitchin and Martell stating NOT in
2003, and NASA always in that stance (their stance is
no PX at all).
(NancyL) For instance, sci.astro has turned into, as Jan
stated, alt.flame.zetatalk, with so many threads
generated and posting that fully 1/2 of all new postings
on sci.astro are about ZT being a pile of poop.
(NancyL) This, in spite of the fact that I've hardly been
posting, weeks go by with no posting, and then one or
two about estimated size math.
(NancyL) Clearly, from my view as well as noticed by
others, a campaign to say NOT 2003 NO WAY AND
ZT IS A PILE OF POOP!
(NancyL) By staying away, a Zeta ploy, this campaign is
more obvious. Now the Z's comments.
And the Zeta answers, now on ZetaTalk as new pages titled
were as follows on the next two postings:
Session Close: Sat Aug 24 18:28:33 2002