Users Online Now:
1,729
(
Who's On?
)
Visitors Today:
600,393
Pageviews Today:
945,468
Threads Today:
379
Posts Today:
5,221
10:22 AM
Directory
Adv. Search
Topics
Forum
Back to Forum
Back to Thread
REPLY TO THREAD
Subject
Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
User Name
Font color:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Indigo
Violet
Black
Font:
Default
Verdana
Tahoma
Ms Sans Serif
In accordance with industry accepted best practices we ask that users limit their copy / paste of copyrighted material to the relevant portions of the article you wish to discuss and no more than 50% of the source material, provide a link back to the original article and provide your original comments / criticism in your post with the article.
[quote:mclarek 971744:MV84MTQ3MzlfMTY5ODAwNzhfNzdCRUM3RkI=] [quote:Menow 935048] Menow: I said absolutely nothing about the magnetosphere. I said that I thought you were referring to a previously touted glitch in the monitoring system. Nancy commonly finds normal, but unusual-appearing, to the lay-person, bits of 'data' and misrepresents them as supporting her PX story. Again... don't you GET that? Clare: Yes. But I think it fools her too, maybe. I think she's got an image of PX in her head/soul, and knows of the electromagnetism at play at a distance, and the rest (mere claims from Zetas) is unknowable to us, believable to her. Menow: Nancy absolutely refuses to 'see' anything which would undermine her steadfast belief in "Zetas" and that they are 'always right'. That does not lead her to honesty, in the least.[/quote] I realize it means she's sticking to a position (due to being misled by Zetas?, or lying? or fanacicism plus misunderstanding some astronomical points?). I also see it in politics. HOWEVER, she has come up with some striking claims, and re. PX as a "big magnetic bully" and some of the photos from Stereo-Ahead (those pixel-flares/ anomalies), and other things I have since learned about the discovery of this planet AND a dark star ... and how in 1993 some gravity adjustments were "discovered" right after Harrington's death, which put to rest any need for a PX, but now BOTH A JAPANESE TEAM and THE SEDNA TEAM have come out saying there has to be another body because of those SAME perturbations that were, like a spy, sheep-dipped in gravity respectability in 1993. Well, who's right? The 1993 claim that it's all ordinary perturbations, or the pre-1993 and post-2007 claims that the perturbations on the outer planets are due to something else, other than each other (as NASA claims)? Hmm. [quote:Menow 935048] No. You said that the image showed Polaris to be too far 'off-center'... too far from the NCP. Even if that WAS what was shown by that image(it wasn't), that DOES NOT support Nancy's claim(or yours) of an abnormal 'wobble'. This is about the 4th time I have brought this up. Yes it would. It would be an off-centre pole (which is contained in the assumptions about a wobble: if there's a wobble, the pole is off). And if you want to split this up and say they're two slightly different things, Nancy's word wobble being an ongoing pole which moves around off-centre from the old one, but keeps going (like a mini chandler wobble) ... versus a NEW, STABLE off-centre pole, which still implies we "wobbled" or were "torqued" off centre. Fine. No, it shows, if you had been right, that there is a new NCP, since it shows no motion other than around one central point. That is NOT what Nancy claims. She claims an on-going, several times a day, abnormal re-orientation of Earth's axis. [/quote] I know. But in her material it implies -- to be generous here -- things being off about the pole. Well, in that sense it was part of a potential wobble-over. I have said that above. But perhaps I was unclear. I was saying her wording is sloppy and hyperbolic (plus has some misunderstandings in it). But this is emotionally tense for her if it's true and if she's not simply making things up. So this is how meaning is shared when people are enthusiastic: they are not punctilious all the time. Or slow enough to be careful. Hence my request for you to read about reasoning: you are slow enough to notice those literal points, but not slow in questioning your own questions, I notice. [quote:Menow 935048] It's not about a number of degrees. It's about what Nancy claims is happening. That image does not show what Nancy claims is happening, even if Polaris was too far from center. Get it now? Ohh.. and as far as a few degrees might be an issue... it would also be nowhere near Nancy's other absurd claim that aliens have tilted the Earth far enough to provide summer(N hemisphere) when Earth is in the fall/winter side of its orbit.[/quote] You may have noticed that I am not a follower of Nancy specifically. I am more interested in is PX here, and does anything offered by Nancy provide insight to what I know about planets IF they came close. Having said that, I got it. I know. I said that above -- in my comment about "being in a new pole" (NCP). That would mean it wobbled OVER and stayed. But I don't believe any of that; and the only proof I found for it was that photo, which might be it, but is highly unlikely to be, because there is not enough clearly wrong with it, though we don't have scale. [quote:Menow 935048] I could be like you, and ask nastily, "What's an 'anomoly'," or what does "have yet do show" mean! :)) You are so cruel it distracts from your argument. Or -- is that your point? I think it's just your manner and surety of what you say. You CAN be sure without being unopen of heart or mind to following things through, and being kind. You hve no idea how much inane, nasty, attacking, lying retorts I/we have had to field from Nancy and her followers over the years. Dozens upon dozens of claims made which, when followed up, have absolutely no basis in fact. Now you expect utmost courtesy when defending Nancy's claims when NONE has been forthcoming from Nancy's camp for literally years. Even YOU said that I was being PAID for my actions here. You expect to be given some slack? You'll have to EARN it, sweety.[/quote] I am sure you have. (As has Nancy, to be blunt with you, I am sure. Deluded or not, unless she is lying, she would feel all the insults and misinterpretations as well as what her OWN misinterpretations lead others to say. Even when she doesn't know they ARE misinterpretations and still believes them! -- unless she is lying deliberately.) I am sorry you have had to deal with that. But regarding me: Okay, Menow. If you are not paid, fine. I assumed, with your vitriol and off-the-cuff responses AND your intrepid presence at something you think is nonsense, that you were paid. If you were, you'd be lucky, I suppose. As for me, I could "earn" your respect, and as a human I am willing to. But you have not put yourself out there equally, so why should I? I have, but you have not seen it. Anyway, I am not "sweety" or "lady". I am me. Or more correctly, I am I! :) Used in those ways, "sweety" and "lady" are sneering sex-based insults. I could say, "dudola" or "mister" or "your lordship" or "bucko". So don't start that with me. Or you won't have earned my respect either. I will bet, however, that very few take a LONG EFFORT to share careful thinking with you. You have been dismissive as if those exposes of how to run an inquiry were just babbling. Or, worse, mere condescension. In fact, in order to get at the seriousness of any clue (or non-seriousness of any clue), including whole LINES of inquiry as clues in their own right (idea-clues), we must organize our inquiry, to be as fully multifaceted and clear-thinking as possible. And this means NO PRECONCEPTIONS, except what's possible. Then we whittle down to what we find, and the connections, and then we know what's probable and likely. If we go the other way, we will be dealing in what SEEMED probable. How come? Because what's probable may be due to some possibility you didn't realize was supportable with evidence, and with that evidence the larger hypothesis is not only possible but more likely. :) That's why building a case FOR, but really really clearly working the logic out, is the only way to know if something is likely NOT true!!!!!!!! How counter your method, it SEEMS. [quote:Menow 935048] Anyway, the Wobble has gone forward (slightly slowly or relatively faster), in ring-spiral mapping, since it was studied first in the 1940s. Also, we are not talking of standing still a while, or going a bit to the left or right; we are talking of a spinning top, with its own wobble GOING BACKWARDS IN WOBBLE. You have YET to.... [/quote] I know. It's a separate discussion and it will have to wait. I have been on for 2 days practically straight and have a life to live. But I will provide you with what I found, if I can find it again. It STILL looks anomalous, and on that basis it can go into possibly being a missing link, for a pro-PX side, as well as fitting into the non-PX side. Did that help you? Make you feel a bit better about my position? :) I hope so. [quote:Menow 935048] Like a jig-jog in space? Made it tip back as it spins? Hmm. Hope it's normal or something NON-PX related. But it could very well be from such a Planet, if such a planet is really here by the Sun, first entering our system. Hope not. The hypothesis does fit though. That's all I wanted to show on that. Then why are you not waiting until you can show an acutal anomoly, to go into such a tirade as this?[/quote] And why are you not waiting until you know if it IS or IS NOT an anomaly before you attack my concern about it? :) [quote:Menow 935048] In trying to mock me for ONE typo, in the middle of my excellent English (and having your own typos along the way) you look dumb and cruel. Huh? Where did I do that?[/quote] This "anomoly" stuff. I assume I typed "anomoly" instead of "anomaly", the correct spelling, and that you'd been making it into a big thing. But maybe YOU were misspelling it, and putting quotation marks around it only because you were doubting it was an anomaly in fact. Okay. Sorry I misunderstood. Your tone is so rough that I jumped to a conclusion. But at least you were not mocking me and thank you. :) [quote:Menow 935048] Answered again and again: seemingly it would be still by the Sun, and only visible to satellites ... some of which seem to have been showing it, along with cover-up. Ridiculous. Show any such satellite images. I already mentioned several. Most are not on line anymore; there are several at Zetatalk, however; and Bad Astronomy has that half-assed (pretend-to-be-scientific but then don't-do-the-key-test) page on some of them. So... like the other thing... you just claim that certain evidence exists, but don't provide it, or say that *I* should go looking for it. Priceless.[/quote] I have images downloaded, but we can't attach info to posts. And it takes some patience-savvy to think through all of the implications either way. Some are on ZT Website, too. I will try to find them. Remind me another day. [quote:Menow 935048] But okay, I already answered that about the images: I said there are some suggestions of PX on imges, and NO KEY TEST done by the debunkers, on their own claim that it's pixel flare. According to you. No link to alleged event.[/quote] For the Bad Astronomy page, which is changed now and doesn't have comments OR good photos of the image they put up, see http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/planetx/soho.html For some of the original image in better form, see this quoted use of it 1/2 way down the page at http://yowcrooks.wordpress.com/ (you can even see it originally had 11 comments, because at the latter place, it is mentioned in their quotation). The two reference pages linked (about the images and what they may mean, and pixel flares too) don't work, but there's one where it talks of these images as probably a UFO instead of PX works. For better copies of THESE images, with more context about them, see the middle SOHO photo in context, where the other two photos didn't have them. http://www.zetatalk.com/index/zeta550.htm See the blue images, and ignore the rest. Good info and mediocre or poor info -- or just unclear info -- is sometimes all mixed together, on the ZT site. They were sent by a friend of mine to a neutral site for analysis, a skeptics hang-out, and they said they were not photoshopped IN. (This was with better quality versions of the originals.) And even Bad Astronomy doesn't say they're fake ... just a pixel flare. But gives no comparative science test for their claim. (You could say they're as bad as some of Nancy's stuff there -- but she does at least give some sometimes.) I had the exchange with them 2 months ago, and they scrubbed my reasonable questions. I wanted a mutually exclusive test: show me a comparable (big, winged and round, not all squared-off centre) pixel flare, and it must be from before the PX claim says it was here. That way we know comparable flares were possible before the putative time PX was here. They didn't post even my questions! And now I don't see questions on it at all, on the actual site (the first link there). The centre image was taken down from the NASA site quickly. There are others I have, but I cannot link them. I got them from the same friend who's been following this question for a while, and got them off the servers originally, before they were taken down. I can attest to a recent one where that happened, for I was already interested at that time; it did not have a clear picture, and there was no other photo from all day. I am sure there is cover up in many things and it is entirely possible here -- especially if PX is real, we would have massive cover up, for many reasons, some of which Nancy talks of, some of which she doesn't. [quote:Menow 935048] They left themselves wiggle room (or know that they're lying, as you say Nancy does, so I'll copy you on that hypothesis). But hey, it means you and I simply cannot technically know if pixel flare could account for it. I doubt it was called "pixel flare" and since you admit to not knowing, why are you accusing them of falseness?[/quote] You never looked into this? Yes, it's what the ONLY DEBUNKERS came up with. Pixel flare. [quote:Menow 935048] In fact I am not arguing minutia: is a speck of dust on a sweater in a court case, a minutium? Of course not, if it COULD be critical to an hypothesis. Not if the question is whether the sweater exists.[/quote] Irrelevant context-change. My example was arguing about objects and witness claims and so on, from and about the same site, as to where a piece of information fits. In some cases, it wil fit only one argument or another, and the one it doesn't fit will say it is NOT evidence, yes. So then it "doesn't exist as evidence", as you suggest the Chandler Wobble doesn't: that it's NOT an anomaly. Thus it would be evidence for NO case, not even something naturally making it go different: you'd suggest it was somehow part of all normal processes which usually create forward-movements. But that wasn't the point: the point is the meaning we ascribe: you would likely at least say that most of these things are anomalies (except the Chandler Wobble backtrack of 2005-6). You would say the holes in the magnetosphere are -- but you would have a different MEANING for it. Not a NON-MEANING. So they would be both evidence, but not for the same case. That was my point. But yes, sometimes "a cigar is just a cigar", even in a court case, at least to one side or the other. And whether the sweater EXISTS is an interesting question: if you take out your snarkiness -- or maybe you were confusing the evidence discussion about the "pink sweater" with the actual Planet X, as if that's what I meant about the "pink sweater"? Anyway, sometimes the question of if there is evidence for evidence actually DOES come up in court. For instance, we are missing the body of a murder victim -- but we have witnesses about the body, and blood stains probably from it, and so on. So yes, sometimes, the "pink sweater's" existence is itself at issue. [quote:Menow 935048] Now, you and I CANNOT JUST LOOK for this elephant. I am not on a satellite; are you? So we MUST smell the dung, or in fact, we must use others' pieces of memos about having smelled dung, to go by. And I don't mean "just Nancy/Zetas", I mean by "memos" the tidbits from the earth and science which might relate to the case. BEcause the world's astronomers, and the ones who post on GLP are all in on the coverup of the PX thingy?[/quote] My understanding was that it was in front of the very bright Sun, rarely showing except in atmospheric distortions (maybe) in some (maybe) authentic videos. And that for a long time it was right near the corona, only visible on the Stereo satellites, and only allowed to leak in a very rare while/ or missed from time to time. Having said that, I AM open to their being no PX. But I think there's a lot of co-incidence which COULD have other explanations than one big total one, such as PX, but which would have to be very strange in how it all adds up, so to speak. Even a few suggestions, may a truth-hypothesis make. And may be accurate, but just a few things indicating the hint of the truth. [quote:Menow 935048] Hence we have to BUILD a case, before we can compare. Lady, I was doing no such thing. I was simply asking a question.[/quote] Glad to hear it. Dealt with the typo issue above. Also dealt with the "lady" address thing above. [quote:Menow 935048] Menow: Then why is Nancy lying about it? Clare: In claiming I follow her, merely because I pointed out that, and how, she could be possibly NOT lying: how that would work and what symptoms it would show in her claims ... which are not merely "more and more covers" but have a pattern of types of wording she uses. All this shows she is likely not LYING but CONVINCED most of the patterns are correct ... and has misunderstood pieces of the science along the way. Menow: The idea that Nancy is simply [i]misunderstanding [/i]is a reach of such vast proportions as to be beyond silly. She has avoided; obfuscated; falsified; twisted; perverted; contorted and outright lied, too many times to mentions. Menow: Yeah... it was all an [i]accident[/i]... [/quote] I know what you're feeling like when you say this. But I really don't think she's an attention-seeking psychopath. Could be, but I don't think so. Her patterns of doing the obfuscation, etc., have struck me, anyway, as always occurring when she already had a pre-conceived notion of what the science was -- from Zetas or her own off-the-cuff research into the Moon, and so on. She is not a scholar. I know scholars; they are different. You have a scholar side -- not entirely, but you do. And it's not "good" or "bad" to have such a side, but it is a personality (as well as a training -- though one can train it into yourself more or not do so). Anyway, she strikes me as less particular. She goes on gist. She DOES do research, it is clear; she has some knowledge of arcane (more specific jargon) terms and so on, as do you, e.g., lunar libration. But she misconstrues the meaning of some things in detail; she also is typing away in a bit of an off-the-cuff style sometimes. And it doesn't help that anyone with a heart can watch as people feel misinterpreted OR misinterpret her. It goes both ways. She is, therefore, in my assessment, more the type to be deflecting because she is sure of the general direction of her claims, and the fact that many people need to know them, and is open to some wild, unchecked-out or even misunderstood claims of others, because she is gung-ho in her belief. She is not altogether without a research-scholar-smarty-pants side. But her main thrust is SAVING PEOPLE from Planet X, she believes, I think. And so, when people "get it" about some aspect -- as I am pointing out about magnetics -- or simply when they start to prepare (or "buy her bullshit" as you would say ...) she is happy. I hope that makes an inroad as to some different way to think about this than that she's LYING. Sure, her ego DOES get in the way sometimes, I can see that. Sometimes she IS obfuscating, or nervous to be wrong. But I think mostly from her manner and content, she's energetically proselytizing with what she feels (and maybe, is told by Zetas) is the full truth. One thing's for sure: in case the GIST of what she's claiming is true, we should be careful about misattributing mistakes and ego, to outright psychopathic lying. Clare [/quote]
Original Message
Debunker Talk Live Chat May 15
Feel free to quote
ANY
poster from those silly SOZT...EOZT threads etc etc.
Or just post your thoughts/opinions.
Open Discussion on Zetatalk; Bunkers; and it/their inability, over the last
Six
years to provide
ANY
truthful Facts and Knowledge to support the absurd
Failed
predictions of the "Candy Wrapper Aliens".
Let's see how long the Three "bunker" Amigos can bounce off each other in their little padded room over there on
Zetatalk Jive Turkey Chat!!
PS: If any of you debunkers want to meet in the GLP text/voice chat for some LIVE audio conversation we should set a day/time to meet up in one of the rooms to have a discussion etc.
Would find it a pleasure to converse with some of you guys. I mean there's a wealth of different subjects to talk about besides this silly zetatalk stuff.
Pictures (click to insert)
General
Politics
Bananas
People
Potentially Offensive
Emotions
Big Round Smilies
Aliens and Space
Friendship & Love
Textual
Doom
Misc Small Smilies
Religion
Love
Random
View All Categories
|
Next Page >>