~~~~IMPORTANT !!!! NASA is now FOLLOWING an "OBJECT"!!!!! ~~~~

Hm,...


Z

Last Edited by zacksavage on 04/06/2011 01:19 PM

Prove I lied then. It's easy to just ASSume anyone who provides information that contradicts your beliefs is just lying. It has no bearing on reality though.

Nice going Astronut, you've got them frothing at the mouth and gibbering.

Here you go AC1289877:

SOHO C3 VENUS:

2006 -
[link to sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov]

2005 -
[link to sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov]

2003 -
[link to sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov]

2001 -
[link to sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov]

2000 -
[link to sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov]

1998 -
[link to sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov]

1997 -
[link to sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov]

Look about the same to me, certainly no huge increase today:
2009 -
[link to sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov]

You can now resume stamping your feet and shouting "Is too! Is too!"
Maybe laying on your back on the kitchen floor and flailing your arms and legs while shrieking would help.

It seems to with my 3 year old nephew.

Tard.


R.

Wrong.

Your evidence does not go back far enough in time.

I already told you this, stop acting like you didn't hear it.

Astronut and the other paid shills here do everything they can to hop, skip, and jump around my questions
and use sleight of hand in attempt to fool anyone else watching this conversation.

Purposely omitting parts of my discussion when answering me (Astronut)
and inserting false statements in the quote box with my user ID # (Reality420)
are only two of the myriad of ways that they do this.
I hope everyone else is paying as close attention as I am to this as to how they operate.

Heads up!

Sorry, you made the claim but you did not show any evidence that venus' brightness was any different back then. I showed evidence that it is currently normal. Its up to you to orove your claim that it was different 20 years ago.

Calling me a liar and a piad shill is not a question, it's a claim. Now prove your claim. It's put up or shut up time.

I omit irrelevant nonsense that doesn't need any kind of response. You know, so your nonsense doesn't clog the thread. There's only one thing you need to put into your next response to me. Proof that Venus' brightness is abnormal compared to 20 years ago. It's your claim, it's your job to prove it. I provided evidence that there's nothing wrong with the brightness, it matches what it's supposed to be, you didn't do a thing to discount that evidence, thus it stands. Your demands for evidence from an earlier timepoint are meaningless since you yourself provided no such evidence.

That said, since I'm such a generous person, here's data from over 50 years ago that shows Venus was just as bright back then as it is today:
[link to articles.adsabs.harvard.edu]

Last Edited by Astromut on 04/07/2011 12:07 AM

Sorry but I asked you first!

You show me proof from 20 years ago or earlier that Venus appeared as the same brightness.

Where's your answer, you avoiding the truth?

I know your motto, Never Admit or Say Anything!

What are you? 2 years old? It's not my job to prove a negative, it's your job to prove a positive.

Already did. From 50 years ago.
[link to articles.adsabs.harvard.edu]

The post above yours.

It's not my job to prove that Venus was brighter 20 years ago, it's your job to prove that it was the same because YOU are making that claim. Which is total and complete BS btw because I saw it with my own eyes many times and looked through telescopes. And your stereo "evidence" from 2008 - 2009 is weak because it's too recent, too close to the stero evidence showing Venus's abnormal brightness today.



And finally, your astrophysics data tells me nothing, because it is incomplete in regards to proof between then and now, and additionally there are no photos.

So I give you your 3rd BS flag.



Three strikes and you're out!



......of course at this point there may be only one other conclusion.....

Maybe what we're looking at is not Venus after all?






Actually, I'm really starting to wonder at this point....



Because one thing is for certain, there is definitely more to this than meets the eye....

I see, so your "evidence" is anecdotal. I already posted quantitative evidence showing it's same as it was 50 years ago. You lose.

I already established the magnitude as it is now and I just showed you photometry from 50 years ago showing it was the same back then. Photometry is a much higher standard of evidence than "photos."

I see, you are two years old.

It is. Furthermore, Venus' brightness hasn't changed.

I win because you produced nothing of the sort.

You are only displaying incomplete quantitative evidence by sleight-of-hand by showing different sources of information,
making your conversation merely appear credible in writing to all who are viewing this.

You are wrong about Venus appearing brighter, however, you are good at what you are assigned to do, I can tell you that.
You are not entirely FOS 100% of the time, Astronut. When necessary you mix truth with lies in order to hide secrets,
after all that is the NASA way. And your posts are definitely an interesting read.

Who can blame you under the circumstances anyway?
You guys have something really big to hide, and it's headed our way.

So don't worry, I won't try to force you into telling the truth about that, which I know you never will because you can't.
I wouldn't want you to risk losing everything you built up until now.

So I'll leave you with this.....




Because it has been intriguing sparring with you, as always.

Actually I did. Venus' magnitude is the same today as it was 50 years ago.

That I used multiple sources is irrelevant; the quantitative measurements from 50 years ago confirm my own measurements made today. The quantitative evidence stands. There's nothing wrong with the brightness of Venus.

It is credible. There are multiple sources out there from 50 years ago or more that all show the magnitude of Venus at those times, and they all show that it was just as bright back then as it is today. I tested the current brightness myself and it's right where it should be, therefore I know for a fact that you are absolutely wrong.

I'm not "assigned" to do anything here at all. I'm here because I want to be here. I enjoy testing these claims, even if they are insane, and it gives me the ability to debunk these kinds of claims on the fly when I encounter them in real life when doing astronomy outreach.