by Nancy Lieder
explanation. A pleasant pastime, both in publications and when meeting each other socially or at conventions, is to
debate scientific theories.
Where do humans go wrong, in their search? Where are they on target and where off? How can they better direct their
energies? A key fault in the debates that humans conduct is allowing the debate to address a limited scope. This is
done many times to allow any discussion at all to progress, but when pertinent aspects of the subject under discussion
are excluded, then the results will invariably be twisted in some manner. Human scientists are so used to limitation
being the rule that they become furious when the scope is broadened. Since humans, intellectually, are not really
capable of dealing with many factors at once, it is best to admit where human explanations falter. In this way, at least, one is not led astray or time spent arguing absurdities.
All rights reserved: [email protected]
http://www.zetatalk2.com/beinghum/b52.htm[2/5/2012 1:28:09 PM]
ZetaTalk: Human Infallibility
Mail this Pageto a Friend.
ZetaTalk: Human Infallibility
Note: written on Jan 15, 2002
In any discussion about human science there is more than discussion about facts, assumptions, and theories. There is also posturing and the need for comfort. Postulating a theory becomes, too often, a matter of ownership and pride. The
theory thereafter cannot be wrong, or the owner is somehow discredited and falls in stature. Then there is the structure
built around a theory - published books, lectures and curriculums, clubs meeting regularly and discussing the matter.
All this is like a web, holding the theory up, and any attempt to change the theory brings howls of distress from the web which must likewise change. Thus, in human society, one has the Catholic Church apologizing only recently for
dismembering and burning alive those who pronounced the Earth round, not flat, and the Flat Earth Society still in
existence today.
How are the sciences, in human society, treated any differently today? Einstein’s works, when first presented, were not
only pronounced wrong, but were shouted down. They were treated by those whose posture required the existing
theories to continue as a threat, which Einstein’s work was. The worst garbage could be calmly discussed, but
Einstein’s lectures were disrupted by shouting sessions and physical assaults. This was, one was to assume, because
Einstein was wrong, but in fact the heat of the debate was the opposite, because he was, compared to the existing
theories of the day, correct. But Newton is still taught in the schools, to the young, along with Einstein’s theories, and when they contradict the students are expected not to notice. This is because the professors require a posture of being
all-knowing and infallible, and any student implying otherwise suffers at their hand.
Then there is the comfort factor, the need to feel that sudden calamity will not descend, as the facts are known and thus the future somewhat predictable. Lighting strikes, and strokes fell strong and stout humans like a lightning bolt, but the factors surrounding lightning and strokes can be analyzed and thus the likelihood of occurrence somewhat predictable.
How, beyond the comfort of sameness that a posturing professor or scientist requires, are current scientific theories
tied to the human comfort factor? If the theories on how lightning is produced were to change, then this implies that those smug in their assumptions about the likelihood of a strike might be wrong, and thus vulnerable. If the theories on the cause of stroke were to change, then this likewise implies that those smug in their assumption that they are
immune might be wrong. Thus, discomfort with change causes resistance to change, and theories often develop
solidity for no other reason than this.
All rights reserved: [email protected]
http://www.zetatalk2.com/beinghum/b83.htm[2/5/2012 1:28:09 PM]
ZetaTalk: Independent Thinking
Mail this Pageto a Friend.
ZetaTalk: Independent Thinking
Note: written on Jan 15, 1997
Students who think for themselves are on the right track, when they grope into areas that are not discussed or presented
in school as they sense that they are only being given part of the picture, when they reject rigid explanations they have been given of how things work, or explanations that were based on only part of the puzzle and not the whole. This can
never be wrong, but they are treated otherwise. The student is expected to accept the rigid explanation and toss away
any new pieces of the puzzle they discover because it upsets the rigid explanation. Thus the anger of professors when
they are asked questions that seem to counter or contradict the going theory. In truth, more bright students, the thinking type, leave school than stay in, and those that stay in are in pain.
Where most humans like to think of themselves as intelligent creatures, and even the only such creature so gifted in God's creation, they are more often willing to accept the conclusions of others than to think for themselves. This is
because emotionally they are children. Look to the discussion on why the planets continue to revolve as an example.
It's Newton's law. Once motion starts it continues unless stopped. When there is obvious contradiction to this so-called
law, which in fact is not law but only describes behavior, the children are discombobulated. It is not that Newton
cannot be challenged, it's that the children cannot think for themselves.
Look about you, at how small children deal with the complexities of life. They ask their parents to explain, and
whatever reason is given out becomes the answer, is repeated to other children, and is angrily defended. The child
needs the parent there to explain matters, and the emotional overtone of desperation overrides any capacity for logical thought the child may possess. Having been raised to the level of gods, the parents can do no wrong, until adolescence
arrives and new gods are clung to with the same desperation - gang leaders, movie stars, athletes. Most adult humans,
grownup on the outside only, are still children on the inside, clinging to whomever acts like a self-proclaimed god by
either claiming to take care of the adult child or claiming to have the answers.
Scientific principles, once stated by such a god, are not allowed to be challenged unless this is done by another god.
No matter how illogical the scientific principle becomes, the precepts of the religion are repeated mindlessly, and any
challenge to this devotion meets hostility. How dare you challenge the god's laws! This tendency to behave as a
mindless child is most dramatized in scientific communities, where logic and the ability to think matters through is
assumed. In stark contrast to what humans expect from their scientists, the adult child prates the laws of their gods and refuses to put obvious contradictions alongside of these laws. They look the other way. They throw insults. They walk
off in a huff. Anything but be forced to grow up and think for themselves!
All rights reserved: [email protected]
http://www.zetatalk2.com/beinghum/b68.htm[2/5/2012 1:28:10 PM]
ZetaTalk: Context
Mail this Pageto a Friend.
ZetaTalk: Context
Note: writen during the May 25, 2002 Live ZetaTalk IRC Session
When the giant comet positions itself exactly between the Earth and its Sun, things change. The Earth then
has its greatest advocate for its previous alignment, the Sun and its magnetic alignment, negated. The
Earth hears only the magnetic voice of the giant comet, so to speak, which stands between the Earth and
its former magnetic comman
der, the Sun.
ZetaTalk: Pole Shift
When approaching the point of passage, the shift suddenly happens, and this is before the point when ...
Planet X is actually between the Earth and Sun. After the passage, Planet X exits as quickly as it
approach.
ZetaTalk: Stop Rotation (May 18, 2002 Addition)
The sticking point is the use of the word exactly in the Pole Shift write-up, in 1995, when more detail given that same year explains the angle and position and distance such that exactly between the Earth and Sun do not seem appropriate.
The one write-up was an overview, focusing on what occurs on earth during the shift, and why it happens (magnetic alignment) and the others were focusing on positions between the planets and Sun. If one goes to the store, for
groceries, and Mother says "Father will be right back, he went shopping", and then Father does not come back for an hour as he also gassed up the car and chatted with a neighbor, does this make Mother a liar? Her point was, he will be
back, soon, and she felt no need to explain all possible diversions he might make. If Mother is approached by a cop, explaining that her husband is in danger of being shot as a kook with a gun has issued a death threat, her answer would
not be in that context. She would then state that he went shopping and give the address of the grocery. She would also list all possible side trips or activities he might make. She would provide addresses, phone numbers, details on what he
was wearing, the license plate number, and color of car. Is there a difference in the context, the focus, in these two settings? Yes!
All rights reserved: [email protected]
http://www.zetatalk2.com/beinghum/b91.htm[2/5/2012 1:28:11 PM]
ZetaTalk: Event Timing
Mail this Pageto a Friend.
ZetaTalk: Event Timing
Note: writen during the May 25, 2002 Live ZetaTalk IRC Session
On a live radio show with New York this past year, there were questions about the missing Congressmans
girlfriend, the one who was going to return to California but went missing. The Zetas said she was
amnesiac, not dead, and was in Mexico, and would likely not ever be found. Of course I hold my breath,
with the intensity of this investigation, looking for her body, but this has not been found.
TT-Watch, Dec 12, 2001
The park is not far from where Levy lived, and she was known to jog there. Last summer, police conducted
an extensive search of the park without finding Levy. The park cuts through some of the city's more
upscale neighborhoods and includes jogging and bicycle paths. Police said Levy had looked at a Web site
that included information about the Klingle Mansion, an 1823 farmhouse now used as park offices, the
day she disappeared. Ramsey said it is too soon to know if Levy's body was there at the time, nor do
investigators yet know whether she died at the scene or was killed elsewhere and placed in the park.
CNN, May 22, 2002
The body was not buried. It looks like it was lying on the floor of the forest there, and it was covered with
what would accumulate over a year. ... And the fact is the D.C. police did search it, as you know, with 50
police recruits over a period of days, then went back, searched again, went back, searched again. Can you
be a lot more specific about how you didn't find this body and a dog walker did? We actually spent some
three weeks up there with recruits. ... But given the information we had from her computer, that was a
natural place to look and we spent quite a bit of time. What we did was go to different groves and parking
areas and paths, drawn concentric circles out of there and had our troops fan out from there to try to find
it.
CNN, May 24, 2002
The missing person episode of the year, perhaps of the decade, was the Chandra Levy case. On major media, night
after night, in the scandal rags, on Oprah, and with a web site devoted to the search, active for the entire time she was missing until her body was found. This hit the international news also, as CNN and FOX and other media giants go
global. Did they not use dogs during the concentric circles they drew from her likely path outward, through the park?
Was the body not above ground, where rotting would attract dogs and wildlife, if not call the body to the attention of passing joggers by the rot? Could the body not be seen after the leaves fell from the trees, by a small plane passing overhead, given the clothing supposedly nearby? Bodies left above ground are torn apart and carried about by dogs or
cats or other carnivores that live in city parks quite comfortably. Coyotes, for instance, are urban residents. An arm, a leg, a shoulder bone, found at a distance from the body. But none of this was the case, the skeletal remains intact!
Thus, one could conclude that:
1. 1. the body did not rot there,
2. 2. the body was moved there.
Who moved the body, and why? Given the media exposure, and the sensitivity of the Congressman who clearly
wished to return to Congress and be re-elected, this was an open invitation for blackmail and delivery. A blackmail
attempt was made, denied, and delivery done to embarrass the Congressman. Was she murdered to fulfill this threat?
Yes, and well in advance of the finding of the bones. Look to the viciousness of the Mexican drug cartels, for the
methods they would use. Chandra was identifiable, her face everywhere in the papers and on the web. The
Congressman was likewise identifiable, his district and Washington DC address in the media constantly. Thus, this
contradiction is not a contradiction, in that the statements given in the summer of 2001 were correct, but the situation http://www.zetatalk2.com/beinghum/b92.htm[2/5/2012 1:28:11 PM]
ZetaTalk: Event Timing
in the hands of man, subject to change, which it did. She was found on the streets in Mexico, dazed and confused, and
thus taken and used for blackmail. It was not deemed that contacting her parents would work, in that they feared a live
body being able to identify those demanding money. Thus she was quickly killed, and put out to rot in the sun.
All rights reserved: [email protected]
http://www.zetatalk2.com/beinghum/b92.htm[2/5/2012 1:28:11 PM]
ZetaTalk: Categorization
Mail this Pageto a Friend.
ZetaTalk: Categorization
Note: writen during the May 25, 2002 Live ZetaTalk IRC Session
The Earth, at close to 5 billion people, is approximately 25% Service-to-Other orientation, 7% Service-to-
Self orientation, and 68% undecided.
ZetaTalk: Photon Belt
Reincarnation will not be affected by the pole shift any more than normal life cycles. Humans died young
in the past. In the days of the cave man life was far shorter, so this is common to your species. There will
be much death, and this has horrified many people, but at the present time the majority of humans on
Earth, in fact four-fifths or more, do not have reincarnated souls but can spark new souls. This has
happened because of the population explosion.
ZetaTalk: Harvest
Why did we state, in the Photon Belt writeup, that there were close to 5 billion people, when the figure is closer to 6
billion? The billion excluded is those human bodies incarnated by other than terran born souls, in other words, Star Children. And who were we addressing when we stated the percentages of Service-to-Other, Service-to-Self, and
Undecided? Clearly not human bodies who were only a potential for a soul, not having sparked yet. Could these
humans be Service-to-Other, a non-existent soul having made this decision? Could they be undecided, if they were not
yet aware of themselve
s to the extent of realizing there was a choice? The percentages, reaching 100% in total, were
addressing those approximate 1 billion humans incarnated with terran born souls, sparked in past lifetimes. Thus, the
percentages, how the Earth's human population breaks down, is:
1 billion or so incarnated by terran born souls, which break down into 25% Service-to-Other, 7% Service-to-
Self, and 68% undecided.
1 billion or so incarnated by souls born elsewhere, assisting in the Transformation, in other words, Star Children.
4 billion fogged potentials, dazed and gap-mouthed, trying to sort out the world on their first tour.
All rights reserved: [email protected]
http://www.zetatalk2.com/beinghum/b93.htm[2/5/2012 1:28:12 PM]
ZetaTalk: Best Intentions
Mail this Pageto a Friend.
ZetaTalk: Best Intentions
Note: written on Jun 15, 1996
Most technological research is done with the best of intentions, unless it is done frankly in the name of weaponry
development. Even the atomic bomb started out in this manner, with a desire to harness the atom for mankind, for a
higher standard of living.
Where research is undertaken with the best of intentions, results cannot be hidden. New technologies inevitably come
under the scrutiny of the power hungry, if only through being marketed or widely used. Most often technology is
patented, and thus comes under scrutiny early in the process. Money is used as the vehicle to gain control of new
technology, with the establishment offering lures, rather than threats. Frank takeovers are rarely attempted, as the same results can be achieved in ways that draw less attention. Talk to the inventor who refused to allow himself to be
bought, and a different picture is drawn. Competition may be structured such that the inventor finds himself without a
market, with the aim that he should capitulate. The invention may be stolen and used, as those without money can
scarcely object effectively in the courts.
If a new technology can be used to boost weapons, the military has means at their disposal which allow them to simply