Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 2,708 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 1,281,255
Pageviews Today: 2,067,346Threads Today: 654Posts Today: 14,166
05:37 PM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

ZetaTalk: Christmas Hammer

 
Free Store
User ID: 142819
Canada
01/01/2008 07:45 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: ZetaTalk: Christmas Hammer
Does that include the recent yrs. of installed Quake detector?
Boomerang

User ID: 299985
United Kingdom
01/01/2008 07:47 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: ZetaTalk: Christmas Hammer
Do tell what the average is for the planet's quakes overall.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 142819


You are joking????

I'm looking forward (with relish and glee) to the near future that shows Nancys Zeta buddies to be talking crap again. Nancy is insisting that there are PX moons near Sol. I thought she was a bit smarter, she should have stayed away from that thread......but there again, it would show that she is hearing voices in her head and is simply mentally ill.

Either way........looking like......

Debunkers (will be) right again
Free Store
User ID: 142819
Canada
01/01/2008 07:48 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: ZetaTalk: Christmas Hammer
Menow doesn't know the world's Quake average. I thought you said there is an average? Am I right or wrong?
Menow
User ID: 169333
United States
01/01/2008 07:49 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: ZetaTalk: Christmas Hammer
Do tell what the average is for the planet's quakes overall.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 142819


That is exactly what we have been discussing. What universe do you inhabit?
Free Store
User ID: 144456
Canada
01/01/2008 07:53 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: ZetaTalk: Christmas Hammer
Are you discussing this with USER 75/68? I see. But when you get done finished let me know what the average is.
Menow
User ID: 169333
United States
01/01/2008 07:54 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: ZetaTalk: Christmas Hammer
Menow doesn't know the world's Quake average. I thought you said there is an average? Am I right or wrong?
 Quoting: Free Store 142819


Ever think of reading the thread you are posting to?
Free Store
User ID: 144456
Canada
01/01/2008 07:55 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: ZetaTalk: Christmas Hammer
Sorry there 78/68. a little type o.
Menow
User ID: 169333
United States
01/01/2008 07:56 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: ZetaTalk: Christmas Hammer
Are you discussing this with USER 75/68? I see. But when you get done finished let me know what the average is.
 Quoting: Free Store 144456


No one "discusses" ANYTHING with Luser, since he will never "discuss" back.

What is the average number of quakes? Ever think of reading the very thread you are posting to?
Boomerang

User ID: 299985
United Kingdom
01/01/2008 07:56 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: ZetaTalk: Christmas Hammer
Sorry there 78/68. a little type o.
 Quoting: Free Store 144456


A fucking demotion, no surprize.
Free Store
User ID: 144456
Canada
01/01/2008 07:57 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: ZetaTalk: Christmas Hammer
So menow refuses to back himself up with some averages. O well you know..
Menow
User ID: 169333
United States
01/01/2008 08:04 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: ZetaTalk: Christmas Hammer
So menow refuses to back himself up with some averages. O well you know..
 Quoting: Free Store 144456


Averages over certain periods are posted on this very thread, you loon. READ them. Or you can go to the sites we are referencing and do averages for yourself. What is wrong with you?
The Lone Ranger

User ID: 345915
New Zealand
01/01/2008 08:05 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: ZetaTalk: Christmas Hammer
Ms LIEDer has NOW claimed, early on in the pinned thread that......drumroll.....that Planet "eX" has been discovered once again.

And only because NASA were too lazy to cover it up :horse laug:

---------------------------------------------------------
Thread: Breaking *** NASA ** Sunspot C-class explosion , shows a strange object orbiting the Sun (Page 2)

Nancy Lieder
Forum Moderator
User ID: 348420
1/1/2008 7:41 AM

Re: Breaking *** NASA ** Sunspot C-class explosion , shows a strange object orbiting the Sun Quote


Someone needs to show the Zetas this planet that no one knows what it is shown on the video!

Nancy you have talked and talked! Look at this!!!
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 3908


"Planet X is now visible on LASCO C2, yes, showed up on 12/23."(Nancy Lieder)
---------------------------------------------------------

DESPERATION is a word that springs to mind. The fun continues.
Life Is But A Dream!!
Therefore, "'Tis better to have dreamed and lost than never to have dreamed at all."
------------------------------------
Disclaimer:

DON'T​ BELIEVE A DAMN WORD YOU READ ON THIS THREAD!....USE DISCERNMENT!!
Free Store
User ID: 144456
Canada
01/01/2008 09:03 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: ZetaTalk: Christmas Hammer
So how would averages factor the the 18 7,0 and greater quakes worldwide for 2007.

If i remember the record to beat was like 14 7.0 and greater and am looking for the record chart for 2000 to 2007

Averages in quakes are bogus. They are installing more Quake monitoring stations all the time since the first one in the beginning of recorded Quakes.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 144456
Canada
01/01/2008 09:03 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: ZetaTalk: Christmas Hammer
[link to neic.usgs.gov]
Menow
User ID: 169333
United States
01/01/2008 09:35 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: ZetaTalk: Christmas Hammer
So how would averages factor the the 18 7,0 and greater quakes worldwide for 2007.
 Quoting: Free Store 144456


You need to learn to express yourself in clearer English. I don't understand your question. What do you mean?

If i remember the record to beat was like 14 7.0 and greater and am looking for the record chart for 2000 to 2007
 Quoting: Free Store 144456


The "record to beat"? You mean the year with the most quakes? Why don't you just look it up instead of guessing?

Averages in quakes are bogus. They are installing more Quake monitoring stations all the time since the first one in the beginning of recorded Quakes.
 Quoting: Free Store 144456


Why don't you tell Nancy and the other "bunkers" that? By the way, quake monitors have always picked up some quakes which occur in far away places if they are strong enough. It is the smaller quakes that were mostly being missed.
Free Store
User ID: 144456
Canada
01/01/2008 10:13 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: ZetaTalk: Christmas Hammer
OK it beat the yr. 2001 which had 15 Quakes 7.0 and greater, was the one to beat.

2007 had 18 quakes greater than 7.0.

Guess User was right. The Quakes are increasing.
Halcyon Dayz
Contrarian's Contrarian

User ID: 337024
Netherlands
01/01/2008 10:35 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: ZetaTalk: Christmas Hammer
[link to neic.usgs.gov]
At the bottom of the exact same page it says that 18 is the annual average.
So 2007 wasn't remarkable.
book
Hatred is a cancer upon the world.
It rots the mind and blackens the heart.


Hi! My name is Halcyon Dayz and I'm addicted to morans.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 348411
United States
01/01/2008 11:29 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: ZetaTalk: Christmas Hammer
OK it beat the yr. 2001 which had 15 Quakes 7.0 and greater, was the one to beat.

2007 had 18 quakes greater than 7.0.

Guess User was right. The Quakes are increasing.
 Quoting: Free Store 144456


Wrong genius and luser. 1999 is the year to beat with 20 earthquakes 7.0 and greater and 1995 with 18 earthquakes 7.0 and greater.

I'm not surprised that the bunkers are too stupid to do their own research or data analysis.

These numbers generated from ANSS data and counted with the countif function available in MS Excel.

5 1980
6 1981
3 1982
4 1983
2 1984
4 1985
2 1986
4 1987
1 1988
2 1989
3 1990
2 1991
7 1992
8 1993
12 1994
18 1995
17 1996
16 1997
12 1998
20 1999
16 2000
15 2001
13 2002
15 2003
16 2004
11 2005
11 2006
17 2007
Free Store
User ID: 144999
Canada
01/02/2008 12:53 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: ZetaTalk: Christmas Hammer
The most shakers of 7.0+ so far for the 2000 to 2010 decade is 2007

The USGS site gives slightly different numbers though for some yrs. No 20 x for 1999 yr and others. .

We have two more yrs to go still and I feel this yr is the yr Hell opens up.
[link to neic.usgs.gov]
[link to wwwneic.cr.usgs.gov]
The Lone Ranger

User ID: 345915
New Zealand
01/02/2008 01:45 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: ZetaTalk: Christmas Hammer
The most shakers of 7.0+ so far for the 2000 to 2010 decade is 2007

The USGS site gives slightly different numbers though for some yrs. No 20 x for 1999 yr and others. .

We have two more yrs to go still and I feel this yr is the yr Hell opens up.
[link to neic.usgs.gov]
[link to wwwneic.cr.usgs.gov]
 Quoting: Free Store 144999


Is this the same as your "Canadian Word"?

If so your feelings will be your worst enemy, eh?
Life Is But A Dream!!
Therefore, "'Tis better to have dreamed and lost than never to have dreamed at all."
------------------------------------
Disclaimer:

DON'T​ BELIEVE A DAMN WORD YOU READ ON THIS THREAD!....USE DISCERNMENT!!
Free Store
User ID: 144999
Canada
01/02/2008 02:06 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: ZetaTalk: Christmas Hammer
I don't know...is it?

Is there any subject here you know how to debate besides clownmanship?

Seems you are making no friends on the other thread there.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 348411
United States
01/02/2008 07:49 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: ZetaTalk: Christmas Hammer
Chew on this freestore and you other idiots:

The NEIC/USGS database (which Nancy claims is dumbing down the numbers) gives a different set of numbers for earthquakes magnitude 7.0 and greater (there are more):

13 1973
14 1974
15 1975
17 1976
13 1977
16 1978
13 1979
14 1980
13 1981
10 1982
14 1983
8 1984
14 1985
6 1986
11 1987
8 1988
7 1989
18 1990
18 1991
24 1992
16 1993
15 1994
25 1995
22 1996
20 1997
16 1998
23 1999
20 2000
18 2001
13 2002
17 2003
16 2004
12 2005
12 2006
20 2007
The Lone Ranger

User ID: 345915
New Zealand
01/02/2008 08:09 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: ZetaTalk: Christmas Hammer
I don't know...is it?

Is there any subject here you know how to debate besides clownmanship?

Seems you are making no friends on the other thread there.
 Quoting: Free Store 144999


Loneranger Have enough friends in "real" life thankyou.

And once again I refuse(usually these days) to debate with fools that CANNOT be objective with known truth and facts beyond their beliefs in things UNPROVEN and proven to be false countless times.
Life Is But A Dream!!
Therefore, "'Tis better to have dreamed and lost than never to have dreamed at all."
------------------------------------
Disclaimer:

DON'T​ BELIEVE A DAMN WORD YOU READ ON THIS THREAD!....USE DISCERNMENT!!
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 137069
United States
01/02/2008 01:10 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: ZetaTalk: Christmas Hammer
Chew on this freestore and you other idiots:

The NEIC/USGS database (which Nancy claims is dumbing down the numbers) gives a different set of numbers for earthquakes magnitude 7.0 and greater (there are more):

13 1973
14 1974
15 1975
17 1976
13 1977
16 1978
13 1979
14 1980
13 1981
10 1982
14 1983
8 1984
14 1985
6 1986
11 1987
8 1988
7 1989
18 1990
18 1991
24 1992
16 1993
15 1994
25 1995
22 1996
20 1997
16 1998
23 1999
20 2000
18 2001
13 2002
17 2003
16 2004
12 2005
12 2006
20 2007
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 348411


I thought Nancy and the bunkers said that strong earthquakes were increasing? It looks like there were more strong quakes in 1999, 1996, 1995 and 1992 than 2007.

Nancy and the bunkers wrong again!
User # 78/68

User ID: 341591
Canada
01/03/2008 02:11 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: ZetaTalk: Christmas Hammer
The deflunkers own data ALWAYS betrays them. Here is some more!

MeNow, Agent #88145, Circuit Stupid etc. have been saying earthquakes did have a two year bleep up in 2004 and 2005 and after that, and more specifically 2007 that larger earthquakes were decreasing again.

And what do we have here?

The year 2007 has had many more larger earthquakes than both 2004 and 2005. Not decreasing ... but INCREASING!



OUCH!

These shills are as dumb as a bag of rocks, it seems.



"Chew on this freestore and you other idiots:

The NEIC/USGS database (which Nancy claims is dumbing down the numbers) gives a different set of numbers for earthquakes magnitude 7.0 and greater (there are more):

13 1973
14 1974
15 1975
17 1976
13 1977
16 1978
13 1979
14 1980
13 1981
10 1982
14 1983
8 1984
14 1985
6 1986
11 1987
8 1988
7 1989
18 1990
18 1991
24 1992
16 1993
15 1994
25 1995
22 1996
20 1997
16 1998
23 1999
20 2000
18 2001
13 2002
17 2003
16 2004
12 2005
12 2006
20 2007.



Read it and weep agency idiots!
Boomerang

User ID: 299985
United Kingdom
01/03/2008 02:33 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: ZetaTalk: Christmas Hammer
What about the other BIG years User?

User, do you believe that Earths orbit has been halted?
Circuit Breaker

User ID: 297320
United States
01/03/2008 02:35 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: ZetaTalk: Christmas Hammer
MeNow, Agent #88145, Circuit Stupid etc. have been saying earthquakes did have a two year bleep up in 2004 and 2005 and after that, and more specifically 2007 that larger earthquakes were decreasing again.
 Quoting: User # 78/68


Nice of you to come back to embarrass yourself again. Where did I say what you claim, Loser? Please provide supporting evidence. Or are you going to post and run as usual?
A voice of reason in a world of woo-woos.
Circuit Breaker

User ID: 297320
United States
01/03/2008 02:37 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: ZetaTalk: Christmas Hammer
Since you obviously missed it (more like ignored), from page 8...here is the data YOU were ranting and raving about:

2007-1939 YTD
2006-2033
2005-2135
2004-1799
2003-1414
2002-1361
2001-1385
2000-1518
1999-1252
1998-1108
1997-1263
1996-1405
1995-1537
1990-1763
1980-1418
1975-1509

If you look at all the data you provided, you can see that the number of earthquakes over the time period remained fairly constant, with a dip in the numbers in the 90's and an increase in 2004...with a peak in 2005...two years AFTER Nancy's make believe "planet" was supposed to be here. And then the numbers started going down again. Funny how you can't wrap your head around that. If "Planet X" were really responsible for any increase, then those numbers would be continuing to increase. They aren't. And how do you know numbers that high haven't happened before? The data provided only goes back to 1975. For someone who claims to be so educated, you should know that this hardly shows a trend. So, go ahead and keep spinning it anyway you want. No matter what you say or do, you're still wrong about "Planet X." End of story.

You lying twerps need your heads examined!

You certainly aren't doing a good job of earning the meager salary Nancy pays you.
A voice of reason in a world of woo-woos.
User # 78/68

User ID: 341591
Canada
01/03/2008 02:43 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: ZetaTalk: Christmas Hammer
"with a dip in the numbers in the 90's and an increase in 2004...with a peak in 2005...two years AFTER Nancy's make believe "planet" was supposed to be here. And then the numbers started going down again."


Kind of makes a fool out of you again, eh, CB?


They don't call you Circuit Stupid for nothing!
Boomerang

User ID: 299985
United Kingdom
01/03/2008 02:52 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: ZetaTalk: Christmas Hammer
Reality calling User........

Please respond.

Do you think that Earth is halted in her orbit?

Why will you not answer such a simple question?

News