Re: Another Night in Vancouver aka Planet X

In Article <Xt6K6.154$qa5.2539@read1> Steve Havas wrote:
> It appears that NASA now believes that there is a
> REPULSION force which exists in conjunction with
> gravity based on observations from the Hubble
> according to Mr. Villard. This sure should be
> news to Nancy!

I went back into the 1998 sci.astro debates, where the Zetas first
presented the Repulsion Force as a factor of gravity particle flow, and
were roundly treated ... in the same manner they are being treated NOW,
and by the same FOLKS - David Tholen, Chris Franks, Greg Neill, and at
that time and for a brief time, Jim Scotti. I’ll include the URL where
these articles are maintained on the ZetaTalk web site, though I’m sure
they’re in the archives, and the relevant parts of the quotes.  
Come’on guys, SAY YOU WERE WRONG!
Come’on the rest of you guys, GO LOOK AT THE MAY COORDINATES!  
The Zetas are right!

http://www.zetatalk.com/usenet/use00637.htm
Article: <6icl9f$s22@sjx-ixn4.ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Challenge to Jim Scotti
Date: 1 May 1998 14:13:03 GMT

In article <35465F01.64DD@nospam.sc.hp.com> Chris Franks writes:
>> You conclude that all binaries must be in motion as SOME are,
>> and ascribe the motion to an imperceptibly slow orbit. Why?
>
> Because if there were no circular motion around a common
> point, called a barycenter, then the mutual gravitational
> attraction between the 2 suns would cause them to draw towards
> each other and collide, resulting in no more binary system.
> The slower the motion, the farther apart they must be in order
> to stay there.

    What you are missing is the compliment of gravity, what
    we call a repulsion force, caused by the same sub-atomic
    particles that create what you refer to as the force of gravity.
    The gravity force presses in toward the center of a large
    mass, but what goes in must come out, and out it does go,
    as we have explained, in intense bursts of escaping gravity
    particles that bump into each other when two large bodies
    come close.  Your Moon is out there, floating on a level of
    escaping gravity particles as though on air. Small object
    do not emit a large enough repulsion force to keep them
    from falling, and falling fast and hard, as humans are
    quite painfully aware.

    We will ask our emissary, Nancy, to post our existing
    words on the Repulsion Force, again.  Do these not address
    the issue of why the Moon floats up there more effectively
    than you silly assumption that it is moving so fast that it
    can hardly keep from flying off into space?
        ZetaTalk™

http://www.zetatalk.com/usenet/use00643.htm
Article: <6ii97d$ln1@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Challenge to Jim Scotti
Date: 3 May 1998 17:23:57 GMT

In article <6ieq20$ft4@news.Hawaii.Edu> Dave Tholen writes:
> Repeating asteroids are also attracted to the Sun, are heading for
> it during half of their orbits, but miss, and they don't have dust
> clouds and gasses like comets.  That fact alone should tell
> you something.

    Dave, come together on this thing.  In your zeal to
    just brush us away like you would an offending cloud
    of mosquitoes, you are losing it.  Is there no difference
    between what you term asteroids and the dirty snowballs
    you term comets?  Their angle of entry into your Solar
    System?  The degree of time they spend in a death brush
    with the Sun, versus the degree of time they spent out in
    space, drifting slowly?  Their composition?  Perhaps
    you would like to restate.  Comets behave as they do
    BECAUSE of their composition, not in spite of it.
    Attraction AND REPULSION are at play, in the case
    of a comet, the repulsion is not due to gravity particle
    flow but due to the push of the solar wind.
        ZetaTalk™

http://www.zetatalk.com/usenet/use00646.htm
Article: <6iooo3$hmp@sjx-ixn4.ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Challenge to Jim Scotti
Date: 6 May 1998 04:25:39 GMT

In article <6iisib$4i4$1@news.ccit.arizona.edu> Jim Scotti writes:
> Then that "second attractant" will come crashing down into
> the sun if it doesn't orbit.

    By what asinine logic do you conclude THAT?
    One of your planets might vere TOWARD another
    attractant, and because it does not go ROUND that
    attractant this means an inevitable crash?  Your
    Solar System has planets that lean this way and
    that, pulling in different directions depending upon
    their composition and what else is out there to
    influence them.  Clearly, their leaning does not pull
    whatever they are leaning toward into the Sun!
        ZetaTalk™

http://www.zetatalk.com/usenet/use00651.htm
Article: <6j1vio$97a@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>
Re: Challenge to Jim Scotti
Date: 9 May 1998 16:17:28 GMT

In article <j9141.5404$av.9684463@carnaval.risq.qc.ca> Greg Neill writes:
> Spelled out like this, we can see where Nancy pulls off her
> miracle of illogic.  She has declared a new law of physics at
> line number 3, and then invoked it to make her argument.

   The fact that the Moon does not drop to Earth in short
   order is NOT due to any orbital mechanics held sacred
   by humans, but due to factors you have not yet discovered.
   This is one way science is supposed to work, new concepts
   evolving to address an obvious hole.  That you chose to
   close your eyes and be rigid is not science, it is anxiety.
   Open up a bit and THINK!  You're among friends here.
        ZetaTalk™