| |
|
Article: <5cmmto$mh1@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>
From: saquo@ix.netcom.com(Nancy )
Subject: Re: NanZeta still ignores requests for proof!
Date: 29 Jan 1997 05:24:08 GMT
In article <32E923ED.1F24@worldnet.att.net> Christopher
writes:
> Nanzeta,
> Why do you keep ignoring my requests for proof? ...
> Why not at least try something new or different?
> Christopher Scott <CJScott@worldnet.att.net>
Something new or different? The Zetas are here talking about light particles, gravity particles, sweeping arms from the Sun and a repulsion force, all of which match what humans observe better than the traditional explainations, and they're being STAID? The Zetas wish to speak to that, and you're complaint about proof.
(Begin ZetaTalk[TM])
Since we seem to be going in circles here, Christopher, lets turn
this around and see if we can get started again. YOU tell ME what
you consider proof, and we'll address that. Exacting
measurements? Observations by humans rather than aliens? In
accordance with the current math being taught your young at
school? You have NONE of these. You don't have exacting
measurements of astronomical events, the weight or composition of
planets or suns, etc. You're guessing, and all the time modifying
your guess! Observation? We are addressing the same observations
that humans speak to on these message boards, which are hardly
under dispute except, it seems, when WE address them. Your math?
Your math has undergone vast change periodically over this very
millennium you are in! Toss out this master's mathematical edicts
and cling to another master. Einstein was resisted for some time
and is STILL, as he contradicts other masters. Your math is no
PROOF, it is an elaborate description, as we keep pointing out.
If a small child sees the post man come round at 10:00 in the
morning each day except Sunday and works up a type of
mathematical formula to account for this, with factors for days
and hours, and then declares this to be a LAW even though he has
factors in there that are nonsensical but just happen to fit, is
this then proof of what the child happens to believe? Say the
child has factors in there, based on his theory, that the post
man must morph into a bird and fly around at night, and as he has
designed his formula to balance out so the formula seems to fit,
the post man being regular in his rounds, the child claims the
morphing has ALSO been proven! This is what you're doing here.
You're insisting that we document our statements in your math,
which you yourself regularly toss out! Please, lets move on! YOU
tell US what you consider to be a proof, and we'll show you why
that is NOT proof. At least we'll stop going around the bush
endlessly then.
(End ZetaTalk[TM])