" I guess that's one reason I stay around and try to be as honest as I can, at least

about what I believe.”

ABC

 

 

 

Another of the Zeta “faithful,” known fondly on sci-astro as “sock puppets or zeta drones” barely able to construct a sentence let alone carry any debate or argument. He first appeared on the usenets alt.business spamming and touting for business.

 

From: ABC (none@nospam.com)

Subject: Free Mortgage Analysis

Newsgroups: alt.business, alt.business.home, alt.business.home.pc, alt.business.misc, alt.business.misc.entrepreneurs, alt.business.multi-level

Date: 2002-08-14 16:56:55 PST

Free Mortgage Analysis


Hi,

Would you be interested in saving a ton of money on your home loan? Then I would like to hear from you today. It's a great program for homeowners wanting to get ahead and pay off their loan sooner. I promise, you'll be glad you did!


Send your mortgage information, including current balance, interest rate, expected payoff date, etc to robbie507@lycos.com for a free analysis.


Thanks alot!

------o------

 

Later he appeared on sci-astro as Anonymous Coward doubling as ABC but was discovered possing as yet another called Glen.

 

From: Glenn (none@nospam.com)

Subject: Re: Nancy Followers: Look for Yourselves

Newsgroups: sci.astro

Date: 2002-08-05 21:22:07 PST

Steve,

Shame on you for calling it a cult. I prefer the term "enlightened bunch". How's the blind faith you have in your science coming right along? Hmm?


Steve wrote:

The members of Nancy's cult are blind.  Even if planet x was right in front of their face, they won't be able to see it (unless Nancy told them it was there).



From: Anonymous Coward (none@nospam.com)

Subject: Grow up guys, Zetatalk is true

Newsgroups: sci.astro

Date: 2002-08-04 18:26:19 PST

 

Just wait until later this year and you can verify for yourself that the planet is out there. At some point, it will be undeniable. So shut up with your "nancy is a loon" arguments.

Zetatalk makes a great deal of sense, more than anyone I have ever come across.

The proof is in the pudding, it is there on the website. For those with the intellectual ability to understand what it says, you can't deny its truth. There's just no denying it. As much as we all wish it weren't true.


Most of the people on this message board seem to be of the opinion that it is a bunch of hogwash and stuff like that. Well that's fine but the problem is why do I not feel convinced? Why should I believe a bunch of individuals that cohesively don't make any sense when put together with their arguments. I know what is true. Zetatalk is true. What you are is nothing.


Even if the 12th planet fails to arrive on time or at all, the other information on the site deserves careful reflection and stands on its own, which means that I would still believe all the other shit. So put that in your telescope and smoke it. :-)


I've tried pretty hard to find all the arguments against Zetatalk and I am still not 100% convinced that I can stop believing Zetatalk. Your arguments, as a whole, don't pull as much on the inside, where it matters. All you care about is measurements. Well, I care about everything, all the details outside of your little realm of expertise. Which was?

------o------

Funnily enough ABC, Glen and AC were saying exactly the same things, alleging that “they” hadn’t quite decided on the concept of the 12th planet and were visiting on sci-astro to hear the contrary arguments. However it soon became obvious that none of them had any intention of even considering any opposing views dismissing attempts to counter Nancy’s claims, but these similarities didn’t go unnoticed by the group, who challenged ABC’s identity, to which Glen and Anonymous Coward quickly disappeared never to be heard from again. ABC remained proving him/herself to be a liar when challenged over alleged degree credentials. When questioned he then claimed to have graduated Texas A&M with a maths degree only to be proven another liar when checked by various sources within the group. Mentioned here because of his sheer resistance and staying power despite much ridicule and insult. (There are those that believe ABC is Nancy under another guise, although there is no evidence to substantiate that fact.)

 

From: ABC (none@nospam.com)

Subject: Re: I know this is off topic, but

Newsgroups: sci.astro

Date: 2002-08-09 09:51:52 PST


Why does it matter? Why does it matter if I attended A&M? Will that make you believe that Zetatalk is true, just because I believe it?


A&M is a great school but I don't see what it has to do with our discussion. Just because someone has a college degree, even one in Applied Mathematical Sciences, doesn't make them right or wrong. Just like all of you are wrong and some of you have more letters after your name than are IN your name and I don't hold that against you.


Glenn Mullikin, '89

Gig Em Aggies

------o------

 

From: ABC (none@nospam.com)

Subject: Re: what about john edwards?

Newsgroups: sci.astro

Date: 2002-08-14 21:09:40 PST

------Chosp wrote:  Is there any doubt that this guy's work is for real? Your credibility just returned to absolute zero.<<<


Absolute zero is cold. I didn't realize there was a difference between zero and absolute zero but what would I know, I just graduated from Texas A&M with a degree in Applied Mathematics. Parents paid for it.


But I really do believe John is the real deal. Can you scientifically prove that he is not for real? If so, I would believe you but I don't think any of you could put up a scientific argument that proves this. You can do that, to an extent with nancy and her claims because you have newton's laws and others to help you, but what laws would u use to do that with Mr. Edwards?


I know this is not on topic so I know that's why no one will offer the necessary proof.


However, I can offer proof (or very strong circumstantial evidence) that he IS for real. So this is not a case where no proof exists either way. We could line up hundreds, if not thousands of people whose lives have been changed for the better by john and they could give their testimonies about the details of john's personal communications with them. Is this aconspiracy? Is it people being duped? All those people? Where are all the people that John served who said "This guy is a bunch of shiite?" I don't see too many. If he served you, you would change your mind too, I bet. Just my opinion.


I think it's been the case that many people who did not believe changed their mind when John relayed a message from beyond to them. Science goes out the door and reality sets in. The reality that there is a spirit world. I guess, I mean what else could it be? Is there a simpler explanation that makes more sense? Con job doesn't match up with the situation, as I see

------o------


From: ABC (none@nospam.com)

Subject: Re: Curious (CeeBee)

Newsgroups: sci.astro

Date: 2002-09-29 09:51:22 PST

------Earl Colby Pottinger wrote: $1000 that you don't have a college degree in math. Earl Colby Pottinger<<

 

>> Opps small mistake.  $1000 that you don't have a college degree in advanced math (ie not a high school upgrade course).  After all that was you original claim that you had a degree in Advance Math. Earl Colby Pottinger<<


Absolutely. A college degree in applied math. Not just high school.


But I am worried. How do I know that you aren't just taking advantage of me here? How do I know that if you do indeed lose the bet that you will pay me my $1000? Am I supposed to just trust you? Are you supposed to just trust me? Would it be unreasonable to have an attorney of some kind hold everything in escrow so that the winner could be confident of receiving what was due them?


Or am I supposed to just send you a post dated check and you send me nothing? And then I send you the needed proof and then wait for you to return my post dated check uncashed along with your payment for $1000? How do I know that I wouldn't be screwed?


I am not suggesting that you are that type of person, Earl, but I once lost $10,000 to a man who I invested it with. I just want to make sure that I get paid if I fullfill the proof requirements that we agree upon beforehand. I do not necessarily require anonymity once the proof has been given, although, prior to the completion of the bet, it would be desireable.

 

I am open to what type of proof you would prefer. You name it. If it is reasonable and obtainable without undue expense, or even with a little expense, that is no problem. I'll make sure that you're taken care of, Earl. Maybe we could split the escrow fee or something.

------o------


From: Michael L Cunningham (bogeystar@earthlink.net)

Subject: Re: Planet X not visible after October.

Newsgroups: sci.astro

Date: 2002-10-16 09:42:11 PST

------ABC wrote: Maybe nancy kicks back to him $500 every time he lies. Is that what you think? But really. What possible motive would someone have to lie?<<


For the same reason YOU lied about your math degree from Texas A&M... you want to be accepted here, but ONLY on your terms.


> I will give you nancy but when it spreads to other people, you can't just assume built in motive, can you Greg? When you do that, it kind of stretches the bounds of my belief.


What was the motive that caused you to lie? You must first earn respect from others before you'll gain acceptance. Lying about a college degree will only earn you scorn and insults!


Michael L. Cunningham

------o------


From: Michael L Cunningham (bogeystar@earthlink.net)

Subject: Re: Planet X: MOVED Again, per Zeta Coordinates

Newsgroups: sci.astro

Date: 2002-10-18 07:11:38 PST

------ABC wrote: How am I supposed to know? And how can you definitively prove something like that to someone like me, that you aren't? How could I prove that I  didn't have a math degree from a university? I could prove I did but it would be harder to prove I didn't. And make you believe it.


For $6 USD and your name that you supplied yourself, I found that you were nonexistant in the Texas A&M archives. It's a very simple thing to do these days.


Word of advice... don't lie about degrees. Most employment applications have fine print about misrepresenting one's self. It's a felony to lie on Government employment forms, not that you'd pass the basic entry tests anyway!


Michael L. Cunningham

------o------

 

From: ABC (none@nospam.com)

Subject: Re: Planet X: a NEW Zetan Emissary?

Newsgroups: sci.astro

Date: 2002-08-19 18:35:27 PST

Jan wrote:

I seem to remember that at one time, you used to be showing a somewhat more decent attitude than your fellow "debunkers" and opponents here on sci.astro. However, reading your other recent postings, I think you have defined a new, lower standard for yourself, sort of en par with CeeBee and Chosp. Is there any specific reason for this?<<<<<

 

"Thomas McDonald" wrote:

I am not sure to what you refer as "at one time." I have always found Zetatalk to be lacking in both intellectual credibility and basic honesty. At the beginning, IIRC, I did post some specific  responses to some issues with which I was very familiar.  I remember especially the thing about the "flash-frozen" mammoths as proof of a physical shift of the earth's crust.  (I have the education and the scientific resources to show that the 'flash-frozen mammoth' issue that Nancy uses to be misunderstandings at best, and misrepresentations at worst.) I also remember that Nancy's responses to me were oddly  _non-responsive_ to my posts (although she appeared to be responding to my posts, she was in fact writing for the Zetatalk website.)<<

 

>>>>> If you check the ZetaTalk web site, you will find that Nancy claims to be telepathically communicating with aliens. (I suspect you already knew this, right?) She indicates this with [Begin ZetaTalk] and [End ZetaTalk]. Nancy herself has but a high school education, and has numerous times stated this, and that her lack of education sometimes limits her own understanding of things as well as what she can relay from her alien friends.

 
There has been discussions here on sci.astro about the obvious difference in style and content of the ZetaTalk material vs. Nancy's own postings, as she often calls "Nancytalk". Whatever the source of the ZetaTalk information, this difference should be obvious to everybody.


Most of her opponents here display a low class behavior and/or other peculiarities like our nit-picking friend (who may be one of the few real scientists around here), making Nancy in fact stand out of the crowd in a positive manner. Still, she may be difficult to discuss with, as you have experienced, sometimes avoiding the issues. Her style would not survive in upper management levels, nor in scientific settings. While she may be unable to defend the information in such a scientific setting, she has never pretended otherwise, and her primary agenda is to bring forward the information for others to digest.


As to the flash-frozen mammoths, I find the ZetaTalk explanation intriguing, especially in light of the fact that there has never been an icecap in the Siberia area. (I will not enter into any debate about this at this time, though.)<<<<<


>> When I figured out that my name, and some edited versions of my posts, were finding their way to the Zetatalk website as part of Nancy's supposed "discussions" or "debates" on sci.astro, I realized what Nancy was really on this NG to do.<<


>>>>> I have not read those saved postings myself. Given the insults and off-topic personal attacks here on sci.astro, I have no problem with Nancy leaving out some postings and include others.<<<<<


>> She was using my posts in such a way as to make me seem to be saying things I was not saying, or taking positions I was not taking.  When I raised this issue with Nancy, she blew me off.<<


>>>>> Personally, I think this may have been unwise of Nancy. However, if you compare that to the numerous insulting web postings and web sites about Nancy, you can experience a "light" version of the harassment and abuse she is being subject to due to her ZetaTalk information.<<<<<


>> This duplicity on her part, combined with the poor history and poorer science led me to read further into the Zeta stuff.  What I found was worrisome.<<


>>>>> I definitely don't agree with you on this one. Having read everything I could get hold of since I was a small child, I soon realized that we live in a pseudo-reality, where we explain away things that should be obvious to everybody. Having fathered 5 children, whereof the last 3 in 3 years, I would have to be blind, dumb & deaf to accept the scientific position that the personality is based on genes and environmental influences only. Each one has a fully developed personality upon arrival. The closest I was to the real explanation before I found ZetaTalk was Rudolf Steiner's Anthroposophy or Theosophy, but ZetaTalk actually filled in all the missing bits and pieces.


Same thing with the UFO issue, ancient buildings we still do not have the technology to construct and build, where the official explanations are nothing but crap. I enjoyed many of Erich von Däniken's books, even though as most amateur scientists, he got one-eyed and tended to squeeze everything into his framework. I have later heard that he has been caught in fraud, producing his own evidence. No big surprise if this is true, but it does not in any way reduce the value of his research and documentation, if you can sort out some of his obviously incorrect conclusions. Then ZetaTalk comes along, and again, the missing bits and pieces are filled in.


A more recent example is the constant moon hoax debate. Until I for the first time read a posting somewhere a few years back (not by Nancy and ZetaTalk) that the moon was indeed not a dead rock in space, but that there was in fact an atmosphere there, that vegetation grows on the back side of the moon etc., I had no doubts whatsoever about the space program and the official explanations of things. However, based upon that posting, I started digging into this myself, bought some of the original books about the space program (used at >USD 200 a piece for some of them), got a truck-load of videos etc. I had not expected what I found.


There are tons of evidence for an atmosphere on the moon, artificial structures etc. I plan to post my research about this later here on sci.astro. In the meantime, I would encourage you to download a copy of the Virtual Moon Atlas from http://astrosurf.com/avl/UK_download.html. Make certain you download the Lopam images as well. Then start examining all the images. E.g. Plato, where there are 3 perfect circular cones spread around the actual crater, Archimedes where there are two such cones, Al-Marrakushi, Ammonious, Angstrom, Bancroft, Biot, Carlini, Chladni etc. where the craters themselves are such perfect circular cones. There seems to be hundreds of them! Anyone that can prove these are natural deserves at least one Nobel price. Again, ZetaTalk comes along with an explanation which makes the most sense of them all.<<<<<


>> You deny that the Zeta business is a cult. However, the issue of "densities," and the "lifting" of certain humans at the time of the purported PX catastrophe, and some of the other writings in Zetatalk and TT, sure seem to be of a piece with other New Age woo-woo.<<


>>>>> As far from it as you can get. To the point and precise, even though it is out-of-the-box with respect to today's accepted scientific explanations. Is this your problem with ZetaTalk?

 

Had you been reading up and/or understanding what you were reading, you would also find that the so-called "lift" has been denied by most STOs, as they plan on staying with their loved ones. Also, that one cannot apply for such a lift, only the good-at-heart will qualify. The lift would only be to survive the pole shift as such, then they would be dropped down again in the sh** so they could be of assistance to their fellow people during the difficult times after the pole shift.<<<<<


>> The history of Nancy, the Zetatalkers, and Hale-Bopp,<<


>>>>> The Hale-Bopp issue has been beaten to death before. Is your memory failing you? What Nancy and ZetaTalk claimed was that Hale-Bopp was a combination of celestial bodies. The comet that eventually passed the Earth was of course a real comet, but according to ZetaTalk, not the same body as initially referred to as Hale-Bopp.<<<<<


>> along with the Heaven's Gate cult issue,<<


>>>>>Hogwash. The ZetaTalk message is to PREPARE for SURVIVAL. The Troubled Times Inc. is all about WHERE and HOW to survive, short term and long term. Any reference to Heaven's Gate or any other suicidal cult is plain dishonest and does not stand a 5 minute investigation.


With people spread around the world, Nancy living alone with her son and rejecting visitors, how on Earth could there be a cult?<<<<<


>> leads me to be concerned for the welfare of people who stumble on Zetatalk and TT, and may be scared into taking measures that could cause them great harm.


>>>>> Hogwash.<<<<<


>> This harm, BTW, I don't think is limited to mistaken financial and real estate transactions and social disruptions. I think some people might read the Zeta material and decide that a nice, simple suicide at the right time might be just the ticket to avoid the horrors of the pole shift.<<


>>>>>Again, you are reading ZetaTalk and Troubled Times as the Devil reads the Bible. The message is to PREPARE and SURVIVE.<<<<<


>> You, BTW, do not seem to be doing much to  counter this possible interpretation of Zetatalk and the TT stuff.<<


>>>>> Nobody in their right mind could ever interpret ZetaTalk and TT this way.<<<<<


>> Indeed, I think it possible that Nancy may indeed be setting up a sort of Heaven's Gate scenario.  (I don't think she will suicide, though.  I think it more likely that she, after setting up the conditions by which innocents might kill themselves, she will give a half-assed denial and skate away.)<<


>>>>> Had I been Nancy I would have sued you dry for any such allegations. I must say I admire the old grandmother that actually puts up with all the crap you guys make up about her, and still keeps on truckin'.<<<<<


>> So, Jan, what you call a "more decent attitude" really, in my opinion, boils down to "more amenable to co-option by Zetatalk/TT for our own purposes."<<


>>>>> Having read you allegations above, I find that your "more decent attitude" is long gone.<<<<<


>> I realize that my earlier patience with you and yours was not reciprocated in an open and honest discussion.<<


>>>>> When did I engage in any discussion with you that was not open and honest?<<<<<


>> My good will and 'decency' was repaid by Nancy, et al., with a duplicitous taking of my words and using them, and  misrepresentations of them, for your and Nancy's agenda, and in direct opposition to what I in fact did say.<<


>>>>> Which is why you now find it opportunistic to up the ante with your libel?<<<<<


>> If my posts are not so easily twisted to your ends now, and if my posts now warn people about how you and Nancy operate on these NG, that's all to the good.  Your good opinion means nothing to me because you and yours have proven to be STS in the highest degree. Spin that, if you can, Jan.<<


>>>>> The way you use terms like STS from ZetaTalk reminds me of 6 year kids having learned words they not yet understand, but find interesting to use.

 

 Having worked my way through your lengthy posting, I realize that you are far less of a man that I thought initially. Regards,Jan,<<<<<


They're all wussies. That's what they really are. They assault nancy personally saying things without any real basis, just to accuse. They can't prove it.


They can prove with their science that planet X has too much velocity to keep an orbital path around the sun but that doesn't prove their other accusations as well, because there are some pretty strange ones. It really speaks more about them than it does about any conclusions we might draw about nancy and hence, Zetatalk.


In fact, many of the statements some of them make are in direct contradiction to things I personally have observed about Nancy, TT by reading the minutes and irc logs and stuff like that. That's what I mean, they're cutting their own throats and reducing their credibility on the science by accusing of things that no one in their right mind would arrive at. But I guess that's just a reflection of many of their marriages!


Keep up the good work.

------o------

 

From: ABC (none@nospam.com)
Subject: Re: Planet X is a Cosmic Ray Event - Dell Disclaimer
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Date: 2002-10-19 19:03:01 PST
ABC <none@nospam.com> wrote

I guess nancy is obligated to some type of behavioral code that does not include accusing people of being pimps and hookers.

 

Sarah Mc wrote:

>Well, for starters, she's a world reknowned contactee, delivering the  message of catastophic disaster to the people of this planet, and she's the chosen Emmisary of the Zeta Reticulans - a whole race of beings.<


>> Well, I don't know why she would be. And besides, if it is true then what is she doing wrong?<<


> I beg you, or Nancy, to provide some proof of her intentional, malevolent slander.<


>>If it is not true then we have to ask ourselves who is it that is doing the accusing, Nancy or Zetatalk?<<


> Maybe we should ask for proof of her abilities to communicate with aliens to begin with. Did you notice at this specific "live" ZetaTalk, that the Zetas had no idea that the US congress had approved Bush's policy regarding Iraq? Maybe the Zetas don't watch television? FOr two whole days?<


>> If it is Nancy then that is one thing, but if it is Zetatalk then this is something to reflect upon seriously and, if not true, then this would reflect back upon Zetatalk's accuracy in a negative way, I would assume.<<


> It reflects back on neither. What it does reflect upon is the growing inability of Nancy to actually face reality. It may also reflect on a mental condition that needs attention, or, an absolute hatred of someone who has regularly called her morals into question and ponted out the neverending  flaws in her stories.


Who knows, maybe she just got a letter from the IRS last week. Either way, it has no bearing on ZetaTalk's accuracy - that has already been shown to be a falsehood, and most certainly, inaccurate.<


>> Of course, Nancy has been called just as worse by many of us here.<<


> Maybe so. But when May 15, 2003 comes next year, everything I've called her (liar, scam artist, hoaxer, cult leader, etc) will be realized as true; while everything she has called me over the years (extreme right wing, devout Christian, NASA lackey, paid disinformation agent,  whore, lesbian, prostitute, Irish) will never be shown to be accurate, because none of them are true and aren't based on actual observations.


It's one thing to label a person by their actions, it's another to label one when you have no reply to their justified questions, or when replying will out you as a liar. Nancy has backed herself into the corner of deception, and is now showing her teeth in an attempt to get the hounds of truth to back off. Sarah,<


She called you a real whore? Or was it some type of clarrified whore, maybe
an information whore or something? I can't imagine Nancy calling you a whore, a real one.

He's lying ABC reads the IRC chat logs and knows what Nancy meant.

------o------

From: ABC (none@nospam.com)

Subject: Re: Px Always?

Newsgroups: sci.astro

Date: 2002-12-05 09:48:43 PST

> Why do you keep making excuses for Nancy?<


I don't know but I guess it comes down to a need to discuss zetatalk with other people who are intellectuals. Not that I am considered one here but I like to think I am one.


Before I came on this group, I was 100% sure that everything in zetatalk, including the pole shift, was true. That's scary, isn't it? This group has caused me to realize that this view was possibly incorrect and to adopt a "wait and see" approach rather than sell everything I own and move somewhere. Not that I'm in a good position to do anything other than wait and see though.


But the group has certainly helped me in many ways, all of the people that offer good scientific reasons why zetatalk is not true on planet x, these are very helpful, not just for noble reasons (scientific to preserve truth) but to help the common man like me who needs a second opinion. :-)


I guess that's one reason I stay around and try to be as honest as I can,
at least about what I believe.

Another lie as he’s changed his mind as often as most change outfits.

------o------

 

Interestingly as you can see ABC claims the 12th planet does not fit largely in the scope of his/her Zetatalk belief, so why does he/she persist in haunting the group? Sci-astro is astronomy based where Nancy perpetuates her so-called “debates” about the 12th planet and Havas’s his images. If ABC isn’t concerned then what interest binds him/her to sci-astro?

 

Back