Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [tt-watch] Re: 14 slides

Expand Messages
  • Michael L Cunningham
    ... Instead of asking others to provide evidence for something they never presented as reality to begin with is misleading on your part. You d do better to
    Message 1 of 54 , May 31, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      At 03:03 AM 6/1/2003 +0000, you wrote:

      > So I should just take your word for it because you know all
      > this stuff?
      > Yes, I'd believe you or the guy at the observatory or your average
      > amateur astronomer sooner than I'd believe Nancy, but that's no
      > compliment. I'm trying to stay away from "belief" here entirely
      > and look at the evidence. There's zero that it's Planet X, to be
      > sure, but what have we got to support the hypothesis that it's the
      > Moon and a reflection, other than some authority's say-so (and the
      > lack of a reasonable alternative)?
      >
      >> The other responses to my comment were better in that they provided
      > additional evidence that I could see for myself. I'm not really
      > arguing the conclusion (which is eminently reasonable), just trying
      > to work out how strong the evidence really is.

      Instead of asking others to provide "evidence" for something they never
      presented as reality to begin with is misleading on your part.

      You'd do better to ask Nancy for the evidence rather than take her word as
      truth as so many others have done.

      The main reason I've stayed with tt-watch these many years and stood my ground
      against Nancy since 1995 is to offer an alternative to her "truth". It is
      better to educate one's self with the knowledge to refute these fake "truths".

      Evidence for Internal reflections is best learned by reading about them in
      any optics book found at your local library. Questions can then be posed to
      the group as to the why should we accept such reflections in optics
      as "evidence" for the proof of someone's outlandish claim.

      Michael
    • Michael L Cunningham
      ... I wasn t big on Nancy either and our mutual love/hate relation has been going on since 1995. I do believe a lot of people fear scientists. For what reason,
      Message 54 of 54 , Jun 2, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        At 02:35 AM 6/2/2003 -0400, you wrote:
        >I have to agree with reggie, there is a lot of wantta-be "scientists", who
        >some, nancy referred to, as the debunkers. She was'nt big on michael. But the
        >point that might not be getting through here is the bad date by nancy. I
        >fully
        >understand why an other worlds people could'nt give us that precise data, it
        >would alter the natural course of events. It would be like going back in time
        >and making alterations. Without zeta help, we would'nt know to be
        >preparing at
        >all, but look how many are not anyway, even with all the strange weather and
        >such. Maybe some forget that nancy predicted this type of weather, for this
        >time, this year, 8 years ago... Solon----vermont.

        I wasn't big on Nancy either and our mutual love/hate relation has been going
        on since 1995.

        I do believe a lot of people fear scientists. For what reason, that remains
        to be seen. [Insults deleted.]

        The climate has been predicted to get worse with global warming and green
        house gases (that's not clean air your car spews out it's tail pipe).
        [Further insults deleted.]

        Michael
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.