insane
Barry (guest) 01 Jul 2009 19:32
jesus she must be insane
Nancy Lieder / Discussion
Forum
» General Discussion / Per page discussions
» Nancy Lieder
This is the discussion related to the wiki page Nancy Lieder.
Barry (guest) 01 Jul 2009 19:32
Deep research into this character on Usenet reveals she was psychologically tortured in mkultra…or that she consumes a hell lot of dextromethorphan syrup ;)
I'm surprised that she hasn't said "2003? I meant that the market will crash in 2008. You see, it really did happen".
She says a lot of self-contradictory things, and I don't monitor her that closely, so she may have said something like that. I don't know.
she needs to go to an asylum. maybe she can go to arkham with the joker and penguin. she can brinb the vampire man with her
She had her healthy puppy dog put down, according to a video on YouTube, because she said it would suffer during the 'pole shift', and she was advising people to take their dogs to Puppy Lake and drown them. It really upset me
Sue;
Yes, she said that, and apparently she did have her dog put to sleep. If I recall correctly it was an 18-month old German Shepard, in perfect health.
"Do you ever think about things you do think about?" - Henry Drummond to Matthew Harrison Brady in Inherit the Wind
ahh omg, please forgive me for this post but here it goes.
I hope that dumb B**ch takes her own life on Dec 20 2012.
2012 - The year of the jackpot.
Simon;
I'm sorry, but while I understand your sentiment, I can't allow that post to remain as is. Please edit it or remove it.
"Do you ever think about things you do think about?" - Henry Drummond to Matthew Harrison Brady in Inherit the Wind
Unfortunately not a lot of the links indicated actually work:
http://website.lineone.net/~brian_gillbanks/nastynancy.htm, http://website.lineone.net/~brian_gillbanks/charlinc.htm, http://website.lineone.net/~brian_gillbanks/hazelwoodsaga.htm, http://website.lineone.net/~brian_gillbanks/tttakeover.htm, http://website.lineone.net/~brian_gillbanks/withchhunt.htm, http://website.lineone.net/~brian_gillbanks/invasion.htm
sorry; no linky, you stinky…
I expect most of the posters take what you say as fact without doing their own research, that is unfortunate.
Aside from linking to six 404's, what did you want to say about this topic?
Edit Ah, now I see. They're still available through Google caching, but yes, dead links otherwise. Anyone got backups or alternative links?
Uh, what is chell going on about? Yeah a bunch of dead links but… I'm confused. Are they a Nancy supporter? A Nancy debunker? Wasn't Gillbanks someone who dived into the Zeta crap and more or less ripped it a new one?
Ugh. Confusing people.
sorry; no linky, you stinky…
Or maybe you're just a lazy troll, trying to be cute and failing, who won't do his own homework. That is unfortunate.
Thanks for alerting us to the broken links.
I've now archived copies of those pages thanks to archive.org. I'll have to see if I can make contact with Gillbanks to see if we can republish them here.
"Do you ever think about things you do think about?" - Henry Drummond to Matthew Harrison Brady in Inherit the Wind
I get that Nancy is a bit touched just from reading her website zetatalk
However, that does not mean Planet X does not exist just because she is crazy.
I would like to challenge everyone and myself to do some research into this. There
is an object on google earth version 5.2 at these coordinates - 6h 9m 47.47, 22 27 54.52
that some think is the brown dwarf. It is visible with an infared telescope as these kinds of
bodies emit heat more than light. Think about it - with an accusation of this magnitude
it behoves us to at least do some due diligence, as you and I both know the elite nor the
intelligencia would never tell us something like this was coming! Their excuse "we didn't want
to start a panic!" Of course, they think we are ALL imbeciles.
There is an object on google earth version 5.2 at these coordinates - 6h 9m 47.47, 22 27 54.52 that some think is the brown dwarf.
Of all the surveys that have scanned that area of the sky, I can only find that feature on the red plate of the POSSII survey, taken in 1990, leading me to believe it's an anomaly, a processing error of some sort - if it were a brown dwarf, we'd see it in other wavelengths too, and if it's that size in visible light, we'd see it an awful lot better in other wavelengths, but as I say, no other plates in any other wavelength show that feature.
as you and I both know the elite nor the intelligencia would never tell us something like this was coming
Try telling that to thousands of professional and amateur astronomers alike who all want to find the next big thing first. You think they'll have skipped over looking at Google Sky? The real sky not good enough for them? Because the real sky doesn't have that feature either…
That's interesting. My first gut reaction was that it was a flaw on a photographic plate. It frankly looks like a drop of developer or something on a film or a glass plate.
"Do you ever think about things you do think about?" - Henry Drummond to Matthew Harrison Brady in Inherit the Wind
Comparing sources, the original is as bare as the other wavelengths, whereas easy to find jpeg mashups for use in things like SkyView show the feature, but only on the red band (POSSII/F/DSS2 in the sidebar for that link).
So already then we can narrow it down to appearing in the image AFTER the sky survey recorded what was seen in space - that's one magic loogie-err brown dwarf…
I'm going to reply to myself because it's cool. And also because there are more cool things to talk about with regards to that image, despite it now veering off topic in a Nancy Lieder thread.
Anyway, doing a little digging through various archives, I can find three exposures of the red plate, the earliest in 1990, with nothing unusual, the next in 1996, again same old same old, and the third in 1997, on Jan 10th, complete with our strange blob. You can even find out how long it was exposed for - 55 minutes.
It appears in no other plates and at no other time, and is just typical that Google would use it. Guh. Of all the exposures to pick from, the one with the blob gets the go ahead…
Interesting stuff. Honest. It's just harder to do than whipping open Google Sky and screencapping a conspiracy theory.
That's not off-topic at all. We now have a firm date for the 'red blob'. Plus we can make some entertaining conjectures as to what it is:
1) evaporites from a drop of grad-student sweat
2) a squished bug
3) A squished grad-student brain
… etc.
"Do you ever think about things you do think about?" - Henry Drummond to Matthew Harrison Brady in Inherit the Wind
Actually, your description of a "red blob" made me think of the monster from the movie "The Blob".
Just thought that I would share that.
Wie Sie säen, so sollst du ernten.
Actually, when I look at it in skyview I know what it is.
It's another accidental daylight exposure or other light-leak. In skyview it greatly resembles the infamous 'blue blobs' found all over MS WWT.
The dark spot in the middle is the silhouette of the instrument package on the telescope.
"Do you ever think about things you do think about?" - Henry Drummond to Matthew Harrison Brady in Inherit the Wind
<sigh>
It is up to the people making the claim to prove their case, not up to the people questioning the claim to disprove it. This is the way it has always worked. This is how we separate the ideas with merit from those with none.
My questions are as follows:
1) Who says that this is an 'object' instead of an artifact? It looks like a developing or processing artifact to me.
1.1) Does this image appear in any other places other than in images from the DSS consortium?
1.2) What is the imagery source of that particular region?
1.3) Do you have any idea how old the imagery from the DSS (Digitized Sky Survey) is, typically? The primary source of the Northern hemisphere DSS data is primarily the glass plates from the Palomar Sky Survey of 1958.
2) You say that "It is visible with an infrared telescope"… please support this claim.
2.1) Whose infrared telescope does it appear on, and where can I find that imagery?
3) Who are these "elite" and "intelligencia" (sic)?
4) If we assume that the image is of an object, and not just a processing or developing artifact, then what is the evidence that this object is in any way, shape or form dangerous to us?
4.1) Let's assume that it is a 'brown dwarf'.
4.2) What is the distance?
4.3) What is its proper motion?
4.4) How long has it been observed?
Before you point at an unusual looking vaguely circular object in Google Sky and proclaim that it is a 'brown dwarf' and hint that it is connected to Lieder's claims about 'Planet X', how about you look up the coordinates of known brown dwarf candidates and see what they look like in Google Sky? How about you do some of the legwork that is expected of you when you make these claims?
"Do you ever think about things you do think about?" - Henry Drummond to Matthew Harrison Brady in Inherit the Wind
it behoves us to at least do some due diligence
Nothing you have said is indicative of "due diligence" on your part. In fact, what you have said is rather indicative of gullibility.
"The elite nor the intelligencia". Oi. Did you have to throw out a fake word and the whole 'conspiracy!!!' card?
Anyway, someone with Google Earth mind checking this noise out? And even if it is some sort of dwarf star, prove that it's hurling at us in time for 2012?
Also, how would this prove Planet X exists anyway? Are you claiming it's coming at us? Because if not, couldn't I call any dwarf star "PLANET X!!!" and call it a day?
… and why are people called dwarf stars 'Planets' again? Did we forget the qualifications one needs to be a planet?
Whatever, someone check this out and let us know the results.
Err, calling dwarf stars… not called.
… A person called Dwarf Star would be funny.
I looked. I think. Uh… I don't get it. Is that, whatever it is, suppose to be the next Nibiru/Planet X? What about the thing away from it? Or that other thing? Or the other, other thing? Or that?
What about that?
Or THAT?
No?
That?
Seriously, what makes this Planet X? Granted I'm not very good with Google Sky. I'll leave it to someone else.
The good thing about Google Sky is that it makes a lot of this imagery available to the general public. I think that's really cool.
The bad thing about Google Sky is that some people spend a few hours with Google Sky and think that they are experts in deep sky imagery.
Most of them are astonished, and do not believe me when I tell them that the images in Google Sky are not live. Seriously.
"Do you ever think about things you do think about?" - Henry Drummond to Matthew Harrison Brady in Inherit the Wind
Nancy is never wrong (buzzer) it is impossible for everyone to be right all the time Aliens she's met
wow nancy met aliens that sounds very believable (not)
" Hale-Bopp is a hoax" um no it isnt and theres science to back it up "It's an exploding star" nope it isnt even remotely big enough to be an exploding star"NASA is slipping in tracking data to deceive you" why would they want to do that
Nancy is never wrong
Nancy Lieder claims to have a stranglehold on the truth, and that "if any human theory differs, it is wrong" said nancy
WHY NANCY IS WRONG?
How many times abnormal stuff happened on Earth and in the space????? What if nibiru/planet_x is going AGAINST everything we know about Kepler's laws and etcetcetc? Nancy would not lie! She talked to aliens!!!
The Zetas are doing a great job trying to warn us!!! But our mega-hyper-smart astronomers are saying that it does not exist! OH, IT MUST BE IMPORTANT.
How could she prove that she talked to aliens?? It's no way testable. Then she could be right and the aliens as well!! SORRY if I seem to be trolling but I ain't.
Zetas' knowledge on the space will revolutionate everything we know about it!! It'll be amazing!!! We are less advanced than the Zetas. Zeta Reticuli system has aliens!!! Lots of people are saying that there are aliens!!! But our always-right-scientists are saying otherwise, because they are the only ones that know what they are talking about!! They are SUPER-SMART and CANNOT be WRONG.
Do not ignore.
I AM NOT TROLLING! I AM SERIOUS!
Yes, you are Webgod.
This is a baseless claim. Nancy is not talking to aliens. She is claiming that because she wants to be more convincing, and aliens are known to be "more advanced than us" if they exist. Why trust in a person which claim is "aliens talked to the UN" and said that "Planet X would destroy Earth in 2003?"
Sorry, for me, she is like a baby feeling alone. ;-)
She has been wrong multiple times on the date so far, with the biggest remembered date being in 2003. Yeah, she has some secret super knowledge, but she can't get the date right… >.> If you aren't trolling then you aren't that bright, but I suspect you are trolling. BTW scientists do not say there aren't aliens, if they didn't believe in ET life then SETI wouldn't exist I imagine. ;-)
“In all matters of opinion, our adversaries are insane.” - Oscar Wilde
Why would anyone think that the aliens would help us? Why wouldn't they want to colonise us instead? I mean why are all these aliens so anxious to lead us into Utopia? Aren't they alien and we don't really know anything abut them?
The first thing the aliens would do is send garbage trucks to dump their toxic waste.
And build big assembly plants here to make cheap products because humans would be cheap labour.
Maybe they would put their call centres here and use humans ad call centre operator.
/forum/t-162385/nancy-lieder#post-