| Users Online Now: 2,264 (Who's On?) | Visitors Today: 1,030,140 | |
| Pageviews Today: 1,383,011 | Threads Today: 351 | Posts Today: 5,460 |
| 11:19 AM | ||
| Users Online Now: 2,264 (Who's On?) | Visitors Today: 1,030,140 | |
| Pageviews Today: 1,383,011 | Threads Today: 351 | Posts Today: 5,460 |
| 11:19 AM | ||
ZetaTalk: Christmas Hammer | |
User # 78/68  User ID: 341591  Canada01/03/2008 02:54 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Halcyon Dayz User ID: 337024  Netherlands01/03/2008 02:57 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | A sorted list of EQs mag 7+: 25 1995 24 1992 23 1999 22 1996 20 2007 20 2000 20 1997 18 2001 18 1991 18 1990 17 2003 17 1976 16 2004 16 1998 16 1993 16 1978 15 1994 15 1975 14 1985 14 1983 14 1980 14 1974 13 2002 13 1981 13 1979 13 1977 13 1973 12 2006 12 2005 11 1987 10 1982 8 1988 8 1984 7 1989 6 1986 With the exception of 2007, all the years with 18 or more were before 2002. 'Nuf said.  Reaching for the sky makes you taller. Hi! My name is Halcyon Dayz and I'm addicted to morans. |
| Boomerang User ID: 299985  United Kingdom01/03/2008 02:58 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Circuit Breaker User ID: 297320  United States01/03/2008 03:02 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | "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." Quoting: User # 78/68Kind of makes a fool out of you again, eh, CB? They don't call you Circuit Stupid for nothing! Really? I see now that you've been proven wrong, you're ranting and raving about magnitude 7 and greater earthquakes and claiming that they're on the increase. Funny how your data only goes back so far. Let's go back further shall we? 1900 13 1901 14 1902 8 1903 10 1904 16 1905 26 1906 32 1907 27 1908 18 1909 32 1910 36 1911 24 1912 22 1913 23 1914 22 1915 18 1916 25 1917 21 1918 21 1919 14 1920 8 1921 11 1922 14 1923 23 1924 18 1925 17 1926 19 1927 20 1928 22 1929 19 1930 13 1931 26 1932 13 1933 14 1934 22 1935 24 1936 21 1937 22 1938 26 1939 21 1940 23 1941 24 1942 27 1943 41 OMG!! It MUST be Planet X!! 1944 31 1945 27 1946 35 1947 26 1948 28 1949 36 1950 39 1951 21 1952 17 1953 22 1954 17 1955 19 1956 15 1957 34 1958 10 1959 15 1960 22 1961 18 1962 15 1963 20 1964 15 1965 22 1966 19 1967 16 1968 30 1969 27 1970 29 1971 23 1972 20 1973 16 1974 21 1975 21 1976 25 1977 16 1978 18 1979 15 1980 18 1981 14 1982 10 1983 15 1984 8 1985 15 1986 6 1987 11 1988 8 1989 7 1990 18 1991 16 1992 13 1993 12 1994 13 1995 20 1996 15 1997 10 1998 12 1999 18 2000 15 2001 16 2002 13 2005 11 2004 16 2003 15 2004 16 2005 12 2006 12 2007 20 Wow, 20 7 or greater magnitude earthquakes in 2007. But wait!! Look at the years that I've bolded. Why, those years have more magnitude 7 quakes than 2007. How can that be Loser? Is the data wrong? And look at the years in the 30s and 40s!! Was "Planet X" responsible for them? Or were you just cherry picking data? Let us know when you're done cleaning yourself up. You have a lot of mud on your face. I guess it's because you're a simple...ton. Ouch!! It's okay, Loser, don't cry. But, we do call you Loser for a reason. A voice of reason in a world of woo-woos. |
| Circuit Breaker User ID: 297320 United States01/03/2008 04:54 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 119892 United States01/03/2008 04:58 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 119892 United States01/03/2008 04:59 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | "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." Quoting: User # 78/68Kind of makes a fool out of you again, eh, CB? They don't call you Circuit Stupid for nothing! Hey, 78/68...how about those earthquake numbers! Decreasing, eh? Or do you STILL claim that they are increasing? What a dumbass! |
| User # 78/68 User ID: 341591 Canada01/03/2008 07:31 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Menow User ID: 146757 United States01/03/2008 07:48 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Stretch that data out government boys ... you'll make sense of it somehow??? Quoting: User # 78/68Fact is ... all of you brainiacs said many times in 2004 AND 2005 that earthquakes were not increasing and that the data showed NO such increases at all. ALL OF YOU LIED! How fitting is that? An increase from one year to the next is a gelogical non-event, you loon. We went back for a broader range of data then, exactly as we have now. There was NO statistically balanced increase. Then or now. Why don't you go nuts whenever there is a single quake one day and claim that there is an increase since there wasn't one the day before? By the way, Nancy was claiming a "dramatic increase" in the late 90's. Was that true? She is claiming an EXPONENTIAL increase now. Is that true? No, on both counts. |
| The Lone Ranger User ID: 345915  New Zealand01/03/2008 07:50 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | :Ha: I keep telling ya Luserboy that your aim is AWFUL..... :78_68: You definitely do not IMPRESS anyone with your delusional  ing. Not even Nancy has your back big boy!!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: 88145 United States01/03/2008 11:30 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Stretch that data out government boys ... you'll make sense of it somehow??? Quoting: User # 78/68Fact is ... all of you brainiacs said many times in 2004 AND 2005 that earthquakes were not increasing and that the data showed NO such increases at all. ALL OF YOU LIED! How fitting is that? They are and were not increasing...the long term data shows that. Can't you even read? |
| --=LaZe=-- User ID: 314849  Australia01/03/2008 11:39 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Stretch that data out government boys ... you'll make sense of it somehow??? Quoting: User # 78/68Fact is ... all of you brainiacs said many times in 2004 AND 2005 that earthquakes were not increasing and that the data showed NO such increases at all. ALL OF YOU LIED! How fitting is that? BULLSHIT, EVERYTHING NANCY LIEDR HAS SAID HAS BEEN PROVED WRONG IN RELATION TO PLANET X. THE BUNKERS ARE REALY STRUGLEING TO KEEP THIS BULLSHIT GOING. DEBUNKERS WERE AND ARE AND WILL BE RIGHT ABOUT ALL THIS ZITA CHAT  It's time for us to fight back against these socialist scumbags |
| Free Store User ID: 142947 Canada01/03/2008 11:52 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | "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." Quoting: Circuit BreakerKind of makes a fool out of you again, eh, CB? They don't call you Circuit Stupid for nothing! Really? I see now that you've been proven wrong, you're ranting and raving about magnitude 7 and greater earthquakes and claiming that they're on the increase. Funny how your data only goes back so far. Let's go back further shall we? 1900 13 1901 14 1902 8 1903 10 1904 16 1905 26 1906 32 1907 27 1908 18 1909 32 1910 36 1911 24 1912 22 1913 23 1914 22 1915 18 1916 25 1917 21 1918 21 1919 14 1920 8 1921 11 1922 14 1923 23 1924 18 1925 17 1926 19 1927 20 1928 22 1929 19 1930 13 1931 26 1932 13 1933 14 1934 22 1935 24 1936 21 1937 22 1938 26 1939 21 1940 23 1941 24 1942 27 1943 41 OMG!! It MUST be Planet X!! 1944 31 1945 27 1946 35 1947 26 1948 28 1949 36 1950 39 1951 21 1952 17 1953 22 1954 17 1955 19 1956 15 1957 34 1958 10 1959 15 1960 22 1961 18 1962 15 1963 20 1964 15 1965 22 1966 19 1967 16 1968 30 1969 27 1970 29 1971 23 1972 20 1973 16 1974 21 1975 21 1976 25 1977 16 1978 18 1979 15 1980 18 1981 14 1982 10 1983 15 1984 8 1985 15 1986 6 1987 11 1988 8 1989 7 1990 18 1991 16 1992 13 1993 12 1994 13 1995 20 1996 15 1997 10 1998 12 1999 18 2000 15 2001 16 2002 13 2005 11 2004 16 2003 15 2004 16 2005 12 2006 12 2007 20 Wow, 20 7 or greater magnitude earthquakes in 2007. But wait!! Look at the years that I've bolded. Why, those years have more magnitude 7 quakes than 2007. How can that be Loser? Is the data wrong? And look at the years in the 30s and 40s!! Was "Planet X" responsible for them? Or were you just cherry picking data? Let us know when you're done cleaning yourself up. You have a lot of mud on your face. I guess it's because you're a simple...ton. Ouch!! It's okay, Loser, don't cry. But, we do call you Loser for a reason. How did they record more Earthquakes back 60 yrs with far fewer Quake recording stations then. Rudimentary low tech to boot compared to now. Some of the numbers from a USGS site differ though. Compare the two. I don't recall hearing of Tsunami's during the war. |
| --=LaZe=-- User ID: 314849 Australia01/04/2008 01:57 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Free Store User ID: 142947 Canada01/04/2008 02:12 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Pecos Bill Rides a Tornado Now everyone in the West knows that Pecos Bill could ride anything. No bronco could throw him, no sir! Fact is, I only heard of Bill getting' throwed once in his whole career as a cowboy. Yep, it was that time he was up Kansas way and decided to ride him a tornado. Now Bill wasn't gonna ride jest any tornado, no ma'am. He waited for the biggest gol-durned tornado you ever saw. It was turning the sky black and green, and roaring so loud it woke up the farmers away over in China. Well, Bill jest grabbed that there tornado, pushed it to the ground and jumped on its back. The tornado whipped and whirled and sidewinded and generally cussed its bad luck all the way down to Texas. Tied the rivers into knots, flattened all the forests so bad they had to rename one place the Staked Plains. But Bill jest rode along all calm-like, give it an occasional jab with his spurs. Finally, that tornado decided it wasn't getting this cowboy off its back no-how. So it headed west to California and jest rained itself out. Made so much water it washed out the Grand Canyon. That tornado was down to practically nothing when Bill finally fell off. He hit the ground so hard it sank below sea level. Folks call the spot Death Valley. Anyway, that's how rodeo got started. Though most cowboys stick to broncos these days. |
| The Lone Ranger User ID: 345915 New Zealand01/04/2008 02:18 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| The Lone Ranger User ID: 345915 New Zealand01/04/2008 02:19 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| The Lone Ranger User ID: 345915 New Zealand01/04/2008 02:21 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | It was hauling a battle command of Zorgon ships behind it.......just in case the locals aren't friendly.  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!! |
| --=LaZe=-- User ID: 314849 Australia01/04/2008 02:24 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | It was hauling a battle command of Zorgon ships behind it.......just in case the locals aren't friendly. Quoting: The Lone Rangerthese zitas will meet my barret, HK CAWS, SLAW or maybe my Five seveN if they come close to me. It's time for us to fight back against these socialist scumbags |
| Free Store User ID: 142947 Canada01/04/2008 03:44 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Circuit Breaker Would you post a link to the Quake page. Interesting to see where in 1943 the 41 countries that where struck. Also quakes are suppose to be on the increase according to the USGS web site. It says the increase is due to the fact that more installations of quake recording stations are installed. Something does not fit the pic with that statement. |
| The Lone Ranger User ID: 345915 New Zealand01/04/2008 04:11 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Circuit Breaker Would you post a link to the Quake page. Interesting to see where in 1943 the 41 countries that where struck. Quoting: Free Store 142947Also quakes are suppose to be on the increase according to the USGS web site. It says the increase is due to the fact that more installations of quake recording stations are installed. Something does not fit the pic with that statement. NO!! There is no coverup. You are running out of ideas, aren't you. Maybe you need to go back to confusing yourself about our moon's position in the sky. The earthquake "thing" just isn't working for ya.......  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: 142947 Canada01/04/2008 04:23 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Halcyon Dayz User ID: 337024 Netherlands01/04/2008 05:34 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Circuit Breaker Would you post a link to the Quake page. Interesting to see where in 1943 the 41 countries that where struck. Quoting: Free Store 142947Also quakes are suppose to be on the increase according to the USGS web site. It says the increase is due to the fact that more installations of quake recording stations are installed. Something does not fit the pic with that statement. Not so much an issue for high magnitude EQs. You can measure those from the other end of the planet. It is the small quakes that get detected more because of better coverage. That is not an increase in quakes, but an increase in the number of reported quakes. Do you understand the difference? Reaching for the sky makes you taller. Hi! My name is Halcyon Dayz and I'm addicted to morans. |
| Prof-Rabbit User ID: 148352 Australia01/04/2008 05:48 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I guess I shall kick that lowly debunker ass some more as I have a few more minutes to do so. Quoting: User # 78/68A BIG YES to you agent # 88145 and MeNow. Earthquakes have increased and the data says so! "I did a little data mining on the above USGS site, and to my own surprise what Nancy claims about the increase in EQ'S is actually...accurate!!!!!!!!!!! I am not saying she is right about PX or not, as no one truly knows...yet. HERE ARE THE FACTS FROM THE USGS ON RECENT EARTHQUAKES: I RAN THE SEARCH FOR ALL EQ'S OF A 5+ mag or bigger, going back and running it for each year to 1975; I will summarize each year's total: 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. YOU CAN VERIFY THESE NUMBERS, BUT THEY SHOW A HUGE INCREASE! HERE IS ONE DATA-VERIFIED STATEMENT FROM THE VIDEO FROM NANCY, SO NOT ALL OF HER CLAIMS CAN BE SO EASILY DISMISSED FOLKS...JUST MY 2 CENTS. Look at the 70's .... now look at the 80's ... now look at all of the 90's data. And what do we see? OH BOY! More deflunker lies, pasted in all of their glory. 2004, 2005, then 2006 and now 2007 have more earthquakes then previously reported for all of the decades listed before , year-to-year. You lying twerps need your heads examined! Your own data destroys you! MeNow's shill status right out there and as obvious as leopard spots. Climb back under that rock agent-boys! Consider yourselves exposed, yet again! Lets repeat the information for the slow and dull witted, over the last 20 to thirty years the number of seismic data recorders installed across the planet has increased by a factor of 10, since your so thick consider losing your keys on a sports field, which is better 10 people or 100? |
| Circuit Breaker User ID: 297320 United States01/04/2008 07:48 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Stretch that data out government boys ... you'll make sense of it somehow??? Quoting: User # 78/68Fact is ... all of you brainiacs said many times in 2004 AND 2005 that earthquakes were not increasing and that the data showed NO such increases at all. ALL OF YOU LIED! How fitting is that? Earthquakes are not increasing...for someone who claims to understand the scientific process, you sure don't act like it. Two years worth of data does NOT constitute a trend. And your OWN DATA showed that in 2007 there were fewer earthquakes than in 2005 and 2006. And you never said there WAS an increase...you were saying that earthquakes ARE increasing. The data provided shows otherwise. This is a rather pathetic attempt at back pedaling there, Loser. You're desperately trying to spin earthquake data every which way you can instead of just admitting you're wrong. And the fact remains that the 1930s and 40s were FAR more active than it is now. Are you going to tell us that "Planet X" was hovering near the sun back then? Or are you going to tell us that the data is falsified? You've been wrong...are wrong and will continue being wrong! How fitting is that? A voice of reason in a world of woo-woos. |
| Circuit Breaker User ID: 297320 United States01/04/2008 07:55 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Circuit Breaker Would you post a link to the Quake page. Interesting to see where in 1943 the 41 countries that where struck. Quoting: Free Store 14294741 countries? What are you talking about? The data shows there were 41 magnitude 7 or greater quakes detected. There's no mention of countries. Also quakes are suppose to be on the increase according to the USGS web site. It says the increase is due to the fact that more installations of quake recording stations are installed. Quoting: Free Store 142947They never said any such thing as there being an increase. What they said, and you didn't comprehend, is that the increase in sensors is detecting smaller magnitude earthquakes that went undetected before. These smaller earthquakes were always there...they just weren't detected or recorded. Large quakes aren't a problem for a smaller network of sensors. Something does not fit the pic with that statement. Quoting: Free Store 142947Everything fits just fine...you just don't understand the information. A voice of reason in a world of woo-woos. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 348369 Australia01/04/2008 08:02 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Circuit Breaker User ID: 297320 United States01/04/2008 08:03 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 188423 United States01/04/2008 09:10 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Circuit Breaker Would you post a link to the Quake page. Interesting to see where in 1943 the 41 countries that where struck. Quoting: Free Store 142947Also quakes are suppose to be on the increase according to the USGS web site. It says the increase is due to the fact that more installations of quake recording stations are installed. Something does not fit the pic with that statement. The quakes listed are mag 7 or greater quakes...very large quakes that can be detected worldwide. The increase in detected quakes comes in the smaller localized ones that are picked up because of more monitoring stations scattered around. In other words, more monitoring stations means more small localized quakes that are detected, but the large ones could be detected anyway with many fewer stations in the past. |
| Halcyon Dayz User ID: 337024 Netherlands01/04/2008 09:24 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Im in the mood to hear more of your fairy tales