Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 1,484 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 740,582
Pageviews Today: 936,102Threads Today: 179Posts Today: 3,321
06:29 AM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

ZetaTalk LIVE Chat May 15

 
Nancy Lieder (OP)

User ID: 971682
United States
05/15/2010 09:33 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: ZetaTalk LIVE Chat May 15
Actually, this is what we recommend people DO to see that things are NOT normal. In particular, track the Moon as to where it should be. This should, within the span of a month, prove without a doubt that something is amiss. And in addition, PROVES that the astronomy community has a silence imposed on them, national security not to cause panic.If NOT so, then why are they not talking about how tilted the Moon's orbit is? How can this NOT be news in the media?


Go outside right now and look at the crescent moon and Venus...right exactly where it's been predicted to be tonight for weeks.

Nancy wrong again.


At Full and new Moon, will be positioned where expected, but between New and Full, way too far NORTH, and beween Full and New, way too far SOUTH. And watch the face of the Man on the Moon skew. It is only supposed to move 7 degrees for any given latitude. Watch that face MOVE over hours to 30-90 degrees, showing a highly tilted Moon orbit.
[link to www.zetatalk.com]


Nancy, you are trotting out your old, tired stuff claiming that the moon shouldn't appear to "rotate" as it crosses the sky. It is utterly normal for it to do that any anyone can see that by simply watching the sky or by using a sky program which show the Moon in detail. It ALWAYS seems to rotate relative to us, watching from the ground.
 Quoting: Menow 935048


[link to www.zetatalk.com]
Moon FACTS are that the Moon will appear to be upside down if viewed from the S. Pole vs the N. Pole, and every change in latitude skews this view. But the view for any given latitude should vary only by 7° 7 minutes, a movement called Lunar Libration, equivalent to the hour hand of a clock moving a mere 1/2 hour.
First they ignore you,
then they ridicule you,
then they fight you,
then you win. -Mahatma Gandhi.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 971798
Brazil
05/15/2010 09:34 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: ZetaTalk LIVE Chat May 15
This is unbelievable BULLSHIT

poop

when the Megatsunami hits, Brazil from the North! you will be dead...

and reincarnte as an Octopuss!


 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 971795



alone
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 954151
United States
05/15/2010 09:34 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: ZetaTalk LIVE Chat May 15
the moon is definately off cycle

it is never where it should be

last 2 months especially


Please explain in detail how you know "where it should be".
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 971780

lived same place, for many years

this time of year, it always shines thru my bedroom window

is no where near my house now, NO WHERE NEAR IT!
Menow
User ID: 935048
United States
05/15/2010 09:35 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: ZetaTalk LIVE Chat May 15
Actually, this is what we recommend people DO to see that things are NOT normal. In particular, track the Moon as to where it should be. This should, within the span of a month, prove without a doubt that something is amiss. And in addition, PROVES that the astronomy community has a silence imposed on them, national security not to cause panic.If NOT so, then why are they not talking about how tilted the Moon's orbit is? How can this NOT be news in the media?


Go outside right now and look at the crescent moon and Venus...right exactly where it's been predicted to be tonight for weeks.

Nancy wrong again.


At Full and new Moon, will be positioned where expected, but between New and Full, way too far NORTH, and beween Full and New, way too far SOUTH. And watch the face of the Man on the Moon skew. It is only supposed to move 7 degrees for any given latitude. Watch that face MOVE over hours to 30-90 degrees, showing a highly tilted Moon orbit.
[link to www.zetatalk.com]


Nancy, you are trotting out your old, tired stuff claiming that the moon shouldn't appear to "rotate" as it crosses the sky. It is utterly normal for it to do that any anyone can see that by simply watching the sky or by using a sky program which show the Moon in detail. It ALWAYS seems to rotate relative to us, watching from the ground.


[link to www.zetatalk.com]
Moon FACTS are that the Moon will appear to be upside down if viewed from the S. Pole vs the N. Pole, and every change in latitude skews this view. But the view for any given latitude should vary only by 7° 7 minutes, a movement called Lunar Libration, equivalent to the hour hand of a clock moving a mere 1/2 hour.
 Quoting: Nancy Lieder


No, Nancy. You are misstating the definition of "libration". It has nothing to do with the phenomenon of apparent rotation. Take any sky program which shows the moon in detail. It will appear to 'rotate' as you run time forward. You are simply wrong, nancy.
White Dragon

User ID: 961241
United States
05/15/2010 09:36 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: ZetaTalk LIVE Chat May 15
can you give me the coordinates for planet x?

Last Edited by White Dragon on 05/15/2010 09:36 PM
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 971798
Brazil
05/15/2010 09:40 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: ZetaTalk LIVE Chat May 15
Why don't octopi fly to the moon?
Menow
User ID: 935048
United States
05/15/2010 09:44 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: ZetaTalk LIVE Chat May 15
The "accuracy" of Zetatalk

1) All of your claims can be and have been disproved by any one who takes your advice and actually checks for themselves, yet you still claim to have a perfect record on predictions and information.


As to the "all of your claims" claim, see [link to www.zetatalk.com] for some (some) extraodinary accuracies.

As to the star maps issue (which you also mentioned, but I removed from the quotation for the sake of brevity), you are genrally right, but the Pole Star is off, as I covered in a post replying to Menow a few minutes ago.

Best wishes. (Am not being sarcastic).


The pole star is "off"? How do you figure? By the way, if it was "off" that would be demonstrated by EVERY long-exposure shot taken of that region of the sky, and long-exposure astrophotography would be impossible.


Not impossible, but skewed, not round.

[link to www.zetatalk.com]
 Quoting: Nancy Lieder



Nancy, if the sky really moved in an oval, all astrophotograpy would be impossible. No telescopes would be able to find anything in the sky, much less track them.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 971780
United States
05/15/2010 09:45 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: ZetaTalk LIVE Chat May 15
Actually, this is what we recommend people DO to see that things are NOT normal. In particular, track the Moon as to where it should be. This should, within the span of a month, prove without a doubt that something is amiss. And in addition, PROVES that the astronomy community has a silence imposed on them, national security not to cause panic.If NOT so, then why are they not talking about how tilted the Moon's orbit is? How can this NOT be news in the media?


Go outside right now and look at the crescent moon and Venus...right exactly where it's been predicted to be tonight for weeks.

Nancy wrong again.


At Full and new Moon, will be positioned where expected, but between New and Full, way too far NORTH, and beween Full and New, way too far SOUTH. And watch the face of the Man on the Moon skew. It is only supposed to move 7 degrees for any given latitude. Watch that face MOVE over hours to 30-90 degrees, showing a highly tilted Moon orbit.
[link to www.zetatalk.com]


Nancy, you are trotting out your old, tired stuff claiming that the moon shouldn't appear to "rotate" as it crosses the sky. It is utterly normal for it to do that any anyone can see that by simply watching the sky or by using a sky program which show the Moon in detail. It ALWAYS seems to rotate relative to us, watching from the ground.


[link to www.zetatalk.com]
Moon FACTS are that the Moon will appear to be upside down if viewed from the S. Pole vs the N. Pole, and every change in latitude skews this view. But the view for any given latitude should vary only by 7° 7 minutes, a movement called Lunar Libration, equivalent to the hour hand of a clock moving a mere 1/2 hour.
 Quoting: Nancy Lieder


Nancy, this has NOTHING to do with libration. You obviously don't even know what the definition is. Our point of view changes nearly 180 degrees as the earth rotates. That's why Orion rises in the east on his left side and rotates with him standing almost upright in the south and on his right side by the time it sets in the west. The moon does the same thing.

Can't you understand something this simple?
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 971780
United States
05/15/2010 09:46 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: ZetaTalk LIVE Chat May 15
Libration has to do with the moon appearing to rock back and forth as it orbits in its elliptical orbit. It has nothing to do with the moon normal apparent rotation as it moves acorss the sky.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 971744
Canada
05/15/2010 09:51 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: ZetaTalk LIVE Chat May 15



Its a time-lapse image. It recorded stars you can't see naked-eye. That's what I meant by visible.

Okay, let's back up. I was saying that when a time-lapse of the Pole Star is taken, it should show the Pole Star (very bright, by the way, compared to most near it) and nothing in the centre of its circle-sweep. When you said what you said about "visible" I thought you meant that of course there are other stars beyond the Pole Star which would be nearer the Pole, but they would be invisible in time-lapse, not showing in the centre of the photo sweep by the 1-degree-off Pole Star.

As to all of the "invisible" stars being visble in time-lapse: no. You could get a very sensitive film and it might register some stars that you hadn't noticed. But time-laspse doesn't refer to the sensitivity of the film. The point I think you're making is that if you have a long-term exposure of a stationary object with very low light, you will pick up more details on it, yes. And to some degree this is true of stars too, as they will be able to get more light onto the film before they've moved somewhat. Yes, you would thus pick up more stars than the eye would notice, but not by much unless you had excellent film.

Anyway,
In the photo I linked to, the Pole Star is the brightest one. Yet the circle-sweep is of many stars to its left. In any time-lapse the Pole Star would be obvious because it is by far the brightest in the direct region of the Pole. And it normally leaves a blank black space circle (with perhaps some very far-away faint traces in the middle from nearby stars, as you mentioned).

Either way, it is basically the centre of the sweep (or rather its circle is). It is not the centre circle, not even close by quite a margin, in this photo.

But in a norma time-lapse photo, or for navigation, Polaris sweeps around an "empty" circle near the centre of true North, thus it is the centre (center, for Americans) circle in the photo, and all other visible stars will become circle rings around that centre circle by Polaris, whose own centre is empty.


Who told you that? How many long exposures of Polaris have you done?

Actually you can look it up on Astronomy pages about Polaris and time-lapse. I did once, but all it takes is applied brain (applied science). It is at the centre, almost, so its sweep will be almost the centre of the whole (and if a very faint faraway star were visible on the time-lapse it would be even closer to the Pole and make a tinier sweep, but inside the 1-degree-away-from North circle of the much more obvious Pole Star circle.

And yes, I've done photography, but it's moot here. We all can figure out where circles should be. Spin around the Pole, with the 1-degree slightly off-Pole Pole Star, and even more off-pole other stars, and you will have concentric circles. This photo shows the beginnings of the concentric circles but the brightest dot in the immediate region of the North Pole (the Pole Star) is not the centre circle by a long shot. Now, it is possible that the shot is of another star there, but where is the very bright Pole Star then? Just sayin.

I don't for sure know it is Polaris, but Polaris would be bright and near the centre of the sweep. The implication by Wikipedia is this is the Pole Star, too.

Good night.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 942234
United States
05/15/2010 09:51 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: ZetaTalk LIVE Chat May 15
Actually, this is what we recommend people DO to see that things are NOT normal. In particular, track the Moon as to where it should be. This should, within the span of a month, prove without a doubt that something is amiss. And in addition, PROVES that the astronomy community has a silence imposed on them, national security not to cause panic.If NOT so, then why are they not talking about how tilted the Moon's orbit is? How can this NOT be news in the media?


Go outside right now and look at the crescent moon and Venus...right exactly where it's been predicted to be tonight for weeks.

Nancy wrong again.


At Full and new Moon, will be positioned where expected, but between New and Full, way too far NORTH, and beween Full and New, way too far SOUTH. And watch the face of the Man on the Moon skew. It is only supposed to move 7 degrees for any given latitude. Watch that face MOVE over hours to 30-90 degrees, showing a highly tilted Moon orbit.
[link to www.zetatalk.com]


Nancy, you are trotting out your old, tired stuff claiming that the moon shouldn't appear to "rotate" as it crosses the sky. It is utterly normal for it to do that any anyone can see that by simply watching the sky or by using a sky program which show the Moon in detail. It ALWAYS seems to rotate relative to us, watching from the ground.


[link to www.zetatalk.com]
Moon FACTS are that the Moon will appear to be upside down if viewed from the S. Pole vs the N. Pole, and every change in latitude skews this view. But the view for any given latitude should vary only by 7° 7 minutes, a movement called Lunar Libration, equivalent to the hour hand of a clock moving a mere 1/2 hour.


Nancy, this has NOTHING to do with libration. You obviously don't even know what the definition is. Our point of view changes nearly 180 degrees as the earth rotates. That's why Orion rises in the east on his left side and rotates with him standing almost upright in the south and on his right side by the time it sets in the west. The moon does the same thing.

Can't you understand something this simple?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 971780


Mewow, you're rants are becoming tiresome.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 971816
United States
05/15/2010 10:01 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: ZetaTalk LIVE Chat May 15
I had a similar dream about five years ago; everybody was wet and aid workers were attempting to get able-bodied people to move, in line, to another, safer location. Only a few people were making an effort at comfort and aid. Most people sat numb, staring straight ahead, or just slumped down and whimpering. People were not freezing, but were cold because they were wet and there was no way to get dry. There was nothing to burn for a fire. This single file march of wet and cold people went on and on, all night in my dream. I never knew where they were being sent, it was supposed to be a safer place.


I had a dream in 1973 that wore me out it was all night in detail of everyone evacuating from Connecticut, and the roads were impassible as everyone had what they thought was important and all the bridges were out. But I was a pilot and I flew back to where I grew up and the funny thing is every tide was higher than the last and the area was going under water soon [600 ft in elevation]. So flash forward to Zeta talk and every tide after the pole shift will be 6" higher until all the ice melts and the final height will be 675 ft. I don't care if it was telepathy I knew it was real as I felt I lived it. I always thought of it as psychic, but maybe the aliens showed that to me on a visit and I thought I lived it. But I was worn out for days and very sad over all the people who were shot because they were in the way of others trying to escape.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 902604
Menow
User ID: 935048
United States
05/15/2010 10:08 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: ZetaTalk LIVE Chat May 15
Its a time-lapse image. It recorded stars you can't see naked-eye. That's what I meant by visible.

Okay, let's back up. I was saying that when a time-lapse of the Pole Star is taken, it should show the Pole Star (very bright, by the way, compared to most near it) and nothing in the centre of its circle-sweep. When you said what you said about "visible" I thought you meant that of course there are other stars beyond the Pole Star which would be nearer the Pole, but they would be invisible in time-lapse, not showing in the centre of the photo sweep by the 1-degree-off Pole Star.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 971744


No, there are MILLIONS of stars which become visible during longer exposures.

As to all of the "invisible" stars being visble in time-lapse: no. You could get a very sensitive film and it might register some stars that you hadn't noticed. But time-laspse doesn't refer to the sensitivity of the film.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 971744


Of course it doesn't. It refers to the exposure time, which means that the light from dimmer stars becomes strong enough to register on the film. Nothing else has changed.

The point I think you're making is that if you have a long-term exposure of a stationary object with very low light, you will pick up more details on it, yes. And to some degree this is true of stars too, as they will be able to get more light onto the film before they've moved somewhat. Yes, you would thus pick up more stars than the eye would notice, but not by much unless you had excellent film.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 971744


See above. The film doesn't have to change. The amount of light did. Try it.

Anyway,
In the photo I linked to, the Pole Star is the brightest one.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 971744


You know this, how?

Yet the circle-sweep is of many stars to its left.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 971744


What do you mean by "left"? There are star tracks all over the image.

In any time-lapse the Pole Star would be obvious because it is by far the brightest in the direct region of the Pole.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 971744


How many times do I have to ask you what the scale of that image is? How do you know that is Polaris? Maybe the image is showing less than 3/4 of a degree.

By the way.. what is the origin of that image and what is all that red stuff in it? That is a really crappy and questionable image. You can get any number of better shots of Polaris. Why are you obsessed with this one?

And it normally leaves a blank black space circle (with perhaps some very far-away faint traces in the middle from nearby stars, as you mentioned).
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 971744


You are contradicting yourself. Either it should be blank inside Polaris, or it should not. Make up your mind. Truth is, you really don't know.

Eit
her way, it is basically the centre of the sweep (or rather its circle is). It is not the centre circle, not even close by quite a margin, in this photo.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 971744
\

GADS, man!! What is the friggin' SCALE of the image?? You DON'T KNOW... GET IT???

But in a norma time-lapse photo, or for navigation, Polaris sweeps around an "empty" circle near the centre of true North, thus it is the centre (center, for Americans) circle in the photo, and all other visible stars will become circle rings around that centre circle by Polaris, whose own centre is empty.


Who told you that? How many long exposures of Polaris have you done?

Actually you can look it up on Astronomy pages about Polaris and time-lapse. I did once, but all it takes is applied brain (applied science). It is at the centre, almost, so its sweep will be almost the centre of the whole (and if a very faint faraway star were visible on the time-lapse it would be even closer to the Pole and make a tinier sweep, but inside the 1-degree-away-from North circle of the much more obvious Pole Star circle.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 971744


Read this sllloooowwwwwlllyyy.. WHAT.... IS.... THE....SCALE... OF.....THAT.... IMAGE...??????

And yes, I've done photography, but it's moot here. We all can figure out where circles should be. Spin around the Pole, with the 1-degree slightly off-Pole Pole Star, and even more off-pole other stars, and you will have concentric circles. This photo shows the beginnings of the concentric circles but the brightest dot in the immediate region of the North Pole (the Pole Star) is not the centre circle by a long shot.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 971744


Read this sllloooowwwwwlllyyy.. WHAT.... IS.... THE....SCALE... OF.....THAT.... IMAGE...??????

Now, it is possible that the shot is of another star there, but where is the very bright Pole Star then? Just sayin.

I don't for sure know it is Polaris, but Polaris would be bright and near the centre of the sweep. The implication by Wikipedia is this is the Pole Star, too.

Good night.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 971744


Read this sllloooowwwwwlllyyy.. WHAT.... IS.... THE....SCALE... OF.....THAT.... IMAGE...??????
Menow
User ID: 935048
United States
05/15/2010 10:11 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: ZetaTalk LIVE Chat May 15
Its a time-lapse image. It recorded stars you can't see naked-eye. That's what I meant by visible.

Okay, let's back up.




Good night.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 971744


Why don't you back up and answer this?

By the way... Nancy claims that Earth is WOBBLING, not that there has been some consistent deviation of the NCP. That image you are touting shows no such thing.

Oh... you ran away before I could respond. How typical.
2010
User ID: 854024
United States
05/15/2010 10:15 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: ZetaTalk LIVE Chat May 15
Thread: A GRIM look at our future, using Timewave Zero. Dates to look out for.
2010
User ID: 854024
United States
05/15/2010 10:21 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: ZetaTalk LIVE Chat May 15
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 896329
United States
05/15/2010 10:30 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: ZetaTalk LIVE Chat May 15
Planet X appeared on SOHO C2 this week (see links below):

C2 image: [link to api.ning.com]

Zoomed: [link to api.ning.com]


PX has appeared on the SOHO C3 coronagraph in recent months, but the above link is the first sighting I've observed on the C2.

Below is a C3 image captured on February 26th:

C3 image: [link to api.ning.com]

Zoomed: [link to api.ning.com]


According to the SOHO website, the C3 captures the Sun's corona from 3.5 to 30 solar radii, but the C2 captures only 1.5 to 6 solar radii.

At first I thought this would suggest that PX is now closer to the sun than when the C3 image was taken. However, when I scaled PX's distance from the Sun, it is approximately 2 solar radii away from the Sun in both the C2 and the C3 image.

Is this a coincidence or will PX remain roughly 2 solar radii away from the Sun until it rises toward the ecliptic?

SOZT
Most of what you are seeing is NOT Planet X but various Moon Swirls, which wend in and out of view as the tail of Planet X wafts between the Earth and Sun. This is a 2D representation of a 3D situation, so distance cannot be surmised from SOHO images.
EOZT


Nice cosmic ray hits. Those type of artifacts have been appearing on SOHO LASCO C2 and C3 images since SOHO started sending images.

I've got examples from the late 1990's and early 2000's.


Proving you're part of the paid debunker crowd by that statement. Here's the PROOF.
[link to www.zetatalk.com]
 Quoting: Nancy Lieder


You're don't have one bit of evidence to prove that statement.

You are so full of shit it's laughable.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 825663
United States
05/15/2010 10:33 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: ZetaTalk LIVE Chat May 15
Nancy relies on the ignorance of basic science of her followers. This forum tonight is a perfect example.

I noticed the sun tracked differently over my location, but I couldn't figure out why.

But you really don't know where the sun is supposed to 'track'. You are just guessing.

My daughter and I noticed the sun was brighter and whiter, but we didn't know why. I had never even heard of Zetatalk when we noticed the differences. My carefully laid out garden was responsible for us noticing a change in the sun.

But you never actually made permanent marks to indicate where the shadows were on a specific date and time. You are only guessing.
 Quoting: Menow 935048


When my daughter and I first moved into this apartment building in the spring of 1989, we immediately began marking where the sunlight fell throughout the day. It was our intention to plant a large flower bed and we needed to understand where the sun would be brightest and if the building would make a shadow. We were immensely pleased over the months of study that our two-story building didn't cast much of a shadow at all.

Our first flower bed covered half of the END of the building. There was absolutely nothing nearby to cast a shadow, with one exception. In the late afternoon, the building caused some shadow. However during the day, that area was bathed in glorious sunshine, so we planted flowers which needed full sun.

That bed (#1) flourished with minimal care until 2004, when I was too ill to plant. My daughter eventually bought five flowering shrubs for that space. We have taken down the decorative fence that enclosed that space...the space that was carefully blocked out in 1989 to get maximum sun most of the day.

Flower bed (#2) wasn't planted until late May 1990 because we took extra time to study our yard. We used stakes and the sun itself to determine where to dig. The area had never been dug up before and we anticipated finding construction debris, clay and lots of rocks. We marked off the area and took our time removing soil down to a predetermined depth.

During that period we were both outside in the sun and we looked up at various times to note where the sun was in relation to our prestaked corners. It was hot and tiring work, so from time to time we stopped to hydrate ourselves. We sat on the stone steps, often leaning on the metal railing, while we rested and drank fluids.

We often sat and ate our dinner while watching the sun go down between two low, distant hills. It pleased us to see that the chosen area was bathed in sunshine until the very last rays of sun disappeared from view. It was also apparent that the sun tracked over us and a bit to the northern part of the nearby town.

It was the habit of several of the tenants in my building to sit outside in the sunshine on MY SIDE of the building. They usually sat on the cement sidewalk or patio area near my flower bed. They told me how they looked forward to watching the sun go down in the evening, since the sunset was often quite beautiful.

We all had an unobstructed view of the sun as it set. The sun moved a bit left or right, but it always was bracketed by those two distant hills. There is a radio tower quite a distance to the left of those hills. At no time during the growing season did the sun ever go near that radio tower.

In 2004 I was too ill to plant or maintain the #2 flower bed. In 2005, as my daughter began to loosen the soil for planting we noticed a change in the track of the sun. Bercause we were cautious, we went back to checking if the bed would have enough sunlight. We took a chance and put full sun flowers in the bed. They didn't thrive as in previous years. We put in plants that were not full sun and they thrived.

I noticed right away that the sun wasn't following its usual route. Over that growing season I made daily observations of where the sun was located and where sunset took place. I had to be out walking and picking up trash anyway, so the observations came as a bonus at first.

After I discovered Zetatalk I started a practice of deliberately observing, weather permitting. As I posted before, in order to view a sunset, I have to leave the property and walk quite a distance. No body sits outside my building to watch the sunset any more. Those same individuals have taken their lawn chairs to another location down near the other end of the apartment complex...but on the OTHER SIDE of that building.

Practically every day, I purposely go outside and I stand briefly where I USED to watch the sunset. Then I laugh and walk around my building and off the property until I see the sun. It sets so far from those two distant hills that Stevie Wonder could see the distance.

Remember that tall, distant radio tower that used to be to the left of the hills and the original sunset? Well, it's now to the right of the "new" sunset. When I first noticed the change in 2005, the radio tower was equidistant between the original sunset position and the "new" sunset position. Once in a while, the sunset takes place closer to the radio tower, but it has never passed back to the original location. That "jump" in location was interesting.

I realize that my observations mean nothing to many of you. So be it. I don't need to to care or believe. I was taught to observe in my science classes. I trust my eyes over a stranger's comments.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 971744
Canada
05/15/2010 10:40 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: ZetaTalk LIVE Chat May 15
Hi, Menow. I made a comment by the end of the exchange, which indicated that I don't know for sure the scale of the image, and you could be right, that the bright star is not Polaris. However, a) the implication is that it is, and was what I was going on. However, you could be right and all is normal. But then we have to account for the image's scale and what that bright star would be.

b) When I said that the space inside the Polaris circle sweep would be a black void, I did not contradict myself by admitting also your point that some stars very nearby could be inside its sweep. They would still be far less bright (bright objects sweeping will outshine even the newly visible dimmer objects which show up even more because of the time-lapse). Well, unless you let the image burn "forever", in which case both an originally bright object and a not-so-bright one (or naked-eye invisible one) would come to be equal eventually on the film. (But this extreme is a picayune argument, as you know, so I'll just leave that situation aside.)

No, there are MILLIONS of stars which become visible during longer exposures.
 Quoting: Menow 935048


Yes. Dealt with above. We do need scale.

As to all of the "invisible" stars being visble in time-lapse: no. You could get a very sensitive film and it might register some stars that you hadn't noticed. But time-laspse doesn't refer to the sensitivity of the film.

Of course it doesn't. It refers to the exposure time, which means that the light from dimmer stars becomes strong enough to register on the film. Nothing else has changed.
 Quoting: Menow 935048


I already said I agree. BUT strong starlight (from the Pole Star) would be much more evident than other stars which were not even naked-eye-visible to start with.

See above. The film doesn't have to change. The amount of light did. Try it.
 Quoting: Menow 935048


Agreed.

Anyway,
In the photo I linked to, the Pole Star is the brightest one.


You know this, how?
 Quoting: Menow 935048


I have conceded I do not know for certain but it is the implication of the use of that photo in Wikipedia.

Yet the circle-sweep is of many stars to its left.


What do you mean by "left"? There are star tracks all over the image.
 Quoting: Menow 935048


Imagine the sweeps (with their direction arcs) closing a circle (a full polar rotation). Then you will see that the bright star is way to the right of the centre of the pole (centre of all implied circle-sweeps).

... Now, I agree, as I've said, we have to be certain that the bright star is the Pole Star. The scale would be important (or a comparative star-map). I don't have the time resource to check that out in detail of comparing to find "landmarks" (skymarks! ha ha) between visible and less-visible stars which we could use to figure out the scale. (By less visible, I mean stars which are not visible naked-eye but could be visible on film in shorter time-lapse, such as this photo.)

... And I agree, given the "appearance" of "new" stars, ones not otherwise visible, when conducting time-lapse photography, we would have to determine not only the scale, but if we found that that bright star IS the Pole Star, we'd have to determine if it was too far away from the centre. Usually, Polaris is the only star near the Pole even in time-lapse. There are only a few suggestions usually of other stars inside the much brighter little circle of Polaris, so I called it "black". There was a link once on this, from an astronomy class, which I found. But I was surfing and :( don't know it. Anyway, someone could figure out scale.

In any time-lapse the Pole Star would be obvious because it is by far the brightest in the direct region of the Pole.


How many times do I have to ask you what the scale of that image is? How do you know that is Polaris? Maybe the image is showing less than 3/4 of a degree.

By the way.. what is the origin of that image and what is all that red stuff in it? That is a really crappy and questionable image. You can get any number of better shots of Polaris. Why are you obsessed with this one?
 Quoting: Menow 935048

Obsessed? Because if that big star is Polaris, you have here an off-kilter Earth. It would be a test.

But of course we have to know the scale.

The origin of the image is, as you know if you are Wikipedia-savvy, available in the embedded link under the image. I gave that link. But here it is again (the image Wikipedia page, not the Pole Star Wikipedia page): [link to en.wikipedia.org] -- and here is the actual source, which that page will give you, if you find yourself too busy to bother with clicking: [link to www.jelder.com] ... but actually it's now forbidden. I used to be able to access it. Weird. Cover-up? Dunno.

And it normally leaves a blank black space circle (with perhaps some very far-away faint traces in the middle from nearby stars, as you mentioned).

You are contradicting yourself. Either it should be blank inside Polaris, or it should not. Make up your mind. Truth is, you really don't know.
 Quoting: Menow 935048


Dealt with above. Depends on the length of the exposure AND the F-stop AND the film, actually. Normally the Pole Star is not close-up so in fact its one-degree-off circle really does leave bare space in the film, not really suggestions of other stars inside.

Either way, it is basically the centre of the sweep (or rather its circle is). It is not the centre circle, not even close by quite a margin, in this photo.

GADS, man!! What is the friggin' SCALE of the image?? You DON'T KNOW... GET IT???
 Quoting: Menow 935048


I actually like you Menow. And I do get it. I am not stupid. Nor am I an acolyte but I do like testing things and also not jumping on mistakes; we can sort this out about Planet X. We can ask good questions, do our best to sort out mistakes from striking good facts/predictions from the ZetaTalk chats, and many other sources. And I'm not a man. :) But thanks, since men aren't (all) bad! Lol. cool2
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 971744
Canada
05/15/2010 10:50 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: ZetaTalk LIVE Chat May 15
Its a time-lapse image. It recorded stars you can't see naked-eye. That's what I meant by visible.

Okay, let's back up.




Good night.


Why don't you back up and answer this?

By the way... Nancy claims that Earth is WOBBLING, not that there has been some consistent deviation of the NCP. That image you are touting shows no such thing.

Oh... you ran away before I could respond. How typical.
 Quoting: Menow 935048


1. That the image "shows no such thing" is not yet determined, Menow. We were DETERMINING IT TOGETHER, as far as I could see, in our debate here. And really, btw, we cannot fully determine it without star-maps to, as you so rightly pointed out, determine scale. However, I was right that the Pole Star circle is blank and small at or if very blown up, would show other stars faintly inside, for it is much brighter than the others which are invisible right at the Pole, to show up INSIDE the Pole Star's time-lapse circle, and show if it's a close-up: for the circle of the Pole Star is only from being 1 degree off, and makes a relatively small circle for any other, usually invisible stars to show up in, nearer to the Pole.

2. I suppose you really feel people are stupid or cowards and hey, some are. Some also get exasperated with you as you do with them; and some are justified just as you are sometimes (not always) justified.

I had already written "good night" because some things happened and I thought I had to go away from the computer for a long while. I was actually trying to be very fair and civil and show you that even if you had good points (ah ha! I am not scared of good points) I was not running from them, but had to go.

However, fyi, I came back to see if you were still there, and you had replied. Sorry, btw, about that one post where the quotations messed up. It all became same-type, and looked messy-horrible as to which comments were yours and which were mine!

If you're still on, hope you post. But then I gotta do some stuff and go off line. :)

hf (Corny, but nice.)

P.S. I can understand why you assumed I'd split and run, not merely split. You get that a lot. However, you do jump too quickly with animosity sometimes, not merely with reason. As you can probably tell, I am very reasonable -- though I have my emotions too, of course. Anyway, ttywyp (talk to you when you post)! Ha ha!
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 660493
United States
05/15/2010 10:54 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: ZetaTalk LIVE Chat May 15
I had a similar dream about five years ago; everybody was wet and aid workers were attempting to get able-bodied people to move, in line, to another, safer location. Only a few people were making an effort at comfort and aid. Most people sat numb, staring straight ahead, or just slumped down and whimpering. People were not freezing, but were cold because they were wet and there was no way to get dry. There was nothing to burn for a fire. This single file march of wet and cold people went on and on, all night in my dream. I never knew where they were being sent, it was supposed to be a safer place.



I had a dream in 1973 that wore me out it was all night in detail of everyone evacuating from Connecticut, and the roads were impassible as everyone had what they thought was important and all the bridges were out. But I was a pilot and I flew back to where I grew up and the funny thing is every tide was higher than the last and the area was going under water soon [600 ft in elevation]. So flash forward to Zeta talk and every tide after the pole shift will be 6" higher until all the ice melts and the final height will be 675 ft. I don't care if it was telepathy I knew it was real as I felt I lived it. I always thought of it as psychic, but maybe the aliens showed that to me on a visit and I thought I lived it. But I was worn out for days and very sad over all the people who were shot because they were in the way of others trying to escape.

 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 971816


A reminder of the many uses for a good tarp. Compact, light and importantly water proof. Can be converted to poncho, tent, ground cover or even used to collect dew for a morning drink.
burkettgirl

User ID: 825663
United States
05/15/2010 10:54 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: ZetaTalk LIVE Chat May 15
I realize that my observations mean nothing to many of you. So be it. I don't need to to care or believe. I was taught to observe in my science classes. I trust my eyes over a stranger's comments.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 825663



This should read: I don't need you to care or believe.
Menow
User ID: 935048
United States
05/15/2010 10:58 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: ZetaTalk LIVE Chat May 15
You can get any number of better shots of Polaris. Why are you obsessed with this one?
Obsessed? Because if that big star is Polaris, you have here an off-kilter Earth. It would be a test.

 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 971744


Which leads us right back to this: You can get any number of better shots of Polaris.

And no... just because that BRIGHT star is Polaris, that does not mean there is anything wrong with Earth. You are grasping at the flimsiest of straws!
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 896329
United States
05/15/2010 11:05 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: ZetaTalk LIVE Chat May 15
The "accuracy" of Zetatalk

1) All of your claims can be and have been disproved by any one who takes your advice and actually checks for themselves, yet you still claim to have a perfect record on predictions and information.


As to the "all of your claims" claim, see [link to www.zetatalk.com] for some (some) extraodinary accuracies.

As to the star maps issue (which you also mentioned, but I removed from the quotation for the sake of brevity), you are genrally right, but the Pole Star is off, as I covered in a post replying to Menow a few minutes ago.

Best wishes. (Am not being sarcastic).


The pole star is "off"? How do you figure? By the way, if it was "off" that would be demonstrated by EVERY long-exposure shot taken of that region of the sky, and long-exposure astrophotography would be impossible.


Not impossible, but skewed, not round.

[link to www.zetatalk.com]



Nancy, if the sky really moved in an oval, all astrophotograpy would be impossible. No telescopes would be able to find anything in the sky, much less track them.
 Quoting: Menow 935048


The second long-exposure image was taken with a camera that has a fish-eye lens. A fish-eye lens distorts images.
Menow
User ID: 935048
United States
05/15/2010 11:06 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: ZetaTalk LIVE Chat May 15
Its a time-lapse image. It recorded stars you can't see naked-eye. That's what I meant by visible.

Okay, let's back up.




Good night.


Why don't you back up and answer this?

By the way... Nancy claims that Earth is WOBBLING, not that there has been some consistent deviation of the NCP. That image you are touting shows no such thing.

Oh... you ran away before I could respond. How typical.


1. That the image "shows no such thing" is not yet determined, Menow. We were DETERMINING IT TOGETHER, as far as I could see, in our debate here.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 971744


No, you missed the point. Nancy claims a WOBBLE, not a new NCP. That image does not show any wobble. What you claim it shows does NOT support Nancy's claims.

And really, btw, we cannot fully determine it without star-maps to, as you so rightly pointed out, determine scale. However, I was right that the Pole Star circle is blank and small at or if very blown up, would show other stars faintly inside, for it is much brighter than the others which are invisible right at the Pole, to show up INSIDE the Pole Star's time-lapse circle, and show if it's a close-up: for the circle of the Pole Star is only from being 1 degree off, and makes a relatively small circle for any other, usually invisible stars to show up in, nearer to the Pole.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 971744


And?

2. I suppose you really feel people are stupid or cowards and hey, some are. Some also get exasperated with you as you do with them; and some are justified just as you are sometimes (not always) justified.

I had already written "good night" because some things happened and I thought I had to go away from the computer for a long while. I was actually trying to be very fair and civil and show you that even if you had good points (ah ha! I am not scared of good points) I was not running from them, but had to go.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 971744


Understood. Thanks for being willing to have a discussion. that is VERY unusual for Nancy's followers.

However, fyi, I came back to see if you were still there, and you had replied. Sorry, btw, about that one post where the quotations messed up. It all became same-type, and looked messy-horrible as to which comments were yours and which were mine!

If you're still on, hope you post. But then I gotta do some stuff and go off line. :)

hf (Corny, but nice.)

P.S. I can understand why you assumed I'd split and run, not merely split. You get that a lot. However, you do jump too quickly with animosity sometimes, not merely with reason. As you can probably tell, I am very reasonable -- though I have my emotions too, of course. Anyway, ttywyp (talk to you when you post)! Ha ha!
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 971744


Care to comment on Nancy's tirade about how the moon should not appear to rotate as we watch it cross the sky?

By the way, I suppose you believe that all the world's astronomers are in on a coverup or are afraid to talk? That would have to be the case if what you think that image shows was true.
Menow
User ID: 935048
United States
05/15/2010 11:10 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: ZetaTalk LIVE Chat May 15
The "accuracy" of Zetatalk

1) All of your claims can be and have been disproved by any one who takes your advice and actually checks for themselves, yet you still claim to have a perfect record on predictions and information.


As to the "all of your claims" claim, see [link to www.zetatalk.com] for some (some) extraodinary accuracies.

As to the star maps issue (which you also mentioned, but I removed from the quotation for the sake of brevity), you are genrally right, but the Pole Star is off, as I covered in a post replying to Menow a few minutes ago.

Best wishes. (Am not being sarcastic).


The pole star is "off"? How do you figure? By the way, if it was "off" that would be demonstrated by EVERY long-exposure shot taken of that region of the sky, and long-exposure astrophotography would be impossible.


Not impossible, but skewed, not round.

[link to www.zetatalk.com]



Nancy, if the sky really moved in an oval, all astrophotograpy would be impossible. No telescopes would be able to find anything in the sky, much less track them.


The second long-exposure image was taken with a camera that has a fish-eye lens. A fish-eye lens distorts images.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 896329


Yeah, I know, but why bother asking Nancy why the entire sky is warped, there? She denies the obvious, no matter what. Gawd... if Earth really was careening around like that, we would all be dead within an hour!
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 896329
United States
05/15/2010 11:10 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: ZetaTalk LIVE Chat May 15
Time-lapse photography? You're using the wrong term. Time-lapse photography involves taking multiple images of the same object at set intervals (i.e., one exposure every minute).

Your use of the term "time lapse photography" tells me that you don't know much about photography.

The correct term is long-exposure photography where you set the camera to "bulb" and keep the shutter open for an extended time be it minutes or hours.
Menow
User ID: 935048
United States
05/15/2010 11:13 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: ZetaTalk LIVE Chat May 15
I realize that my observations mean nothing to many of you. So be it. I don't need to to care or believe. I was taught to observe in my science classes. I trust my eyes over a stranger's comments.



This should read: I don't need you to care or believe.
 Quoting: burkettgirl


Then why are you posting about it?

By the way... there are damn few astronomers who could tell if things are out of place in the sky simply by looking, yet you think YOU can! Now THAT'S an ego!
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 971744
Canada
05/15/2010 11:18 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: ZetaTalk LIVE Chat May 15
You can get any number of better shots of Polaris. Why are you obsessed with this one?
Obsessed? Because if that big star is Polaris, you have here an off-kilter Earth. It would be a test.



Which leads us right back to this: You can get any number of better shots of Polaris.

And no... just because that BRIGHT star is Polaris, that does not mean there is anything wrong with Earth. You are grasping at the flimsiest of straws!
 Quoting: Menow 935048


I have come to the conclusion that you might be right, but without scale we won't know. That much is clear.

On the other hand, and probably SEEMING to be a deflection from this one issue, but I don't intend it as such, there is much more to the PX story than this.

Nancy/Zetas and all others who talk of an extra-wild wobble from PX could be wrong about this. We know NL is wrong about several things over time, and that's okay. If she's for real with the Zetas, then as we determine that hypothesis, we'd have to say, she could be for real about this and still get wrong messages, lying messages, or misunderstand the messages. So ... to continue with you on this, let's say the Pole Star is fine. I am not sure of the scale of this image and it might be that our Pole is fine.

And I'm sure you'd love to leave it there. "The rest is nonsense too," I'm sure you'd say. But detectives have been wrong about one lead and still the gang they originally suspected turns out to be the culprit; it was a misleading lead! So ...

In fact, the other evidence for a possible PX is far stronger: a torque-looking action on our Chandler Wobble in 2005-6, which wen tbackward and forward (not a small side step or different-sized circle). Could that be "just" a movement backward? I'd say possibly, except I don't actually know if it would even be possble: these are massive forces of our, shall we say, gyroscopic Earth; something gripping it with a magnetic-cum-gravitic tug would maybe over a few months actually pull on it.

Then there's the bee-line of the North Magnetic Pole out of Canada quite rapidly.

Now, I know these things look like "mere lines" on paper: oh it moves this way or that ...

No. These are forces, and to find them not only acting in striking ways together, but also certain TYPES of things going seemingly weird in certain relationships to each other, this is what is odd.

This post is getting long. I'll stop here or we could talk all night of PX putative evidence and hypothetical interrelationships (... "hypothetical" here not meaning mere "notional" interrelationships, a "lark", but meaning "suppositional interrelationships, which we must look at for the purpose of seeing the argument through fully and fairly").

Good night Me, now. :) I gotta go soon. If you post again I'll try to reply, but I'm not sure how much longer I'll be around tonight. You? How long are you gonna be on?

And do you receive a notice if I reply? Or have you been diligently checking back all this time, like me?

:)
mclarek
User ID: 971744
Canada
05/15/2010 11:20 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: ZetaTalk LIVE Chat May 15
Oops! That post above I forgot to put in my moniker. (I can't get my password to work and I can't get the renewal to work either!! So right now I've been typing it in, and forgot. Sorry, Menow.)

Clare

News