Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!

Yeah, there HAVE to be people there who are just playing Nancy.

"When some objects move, and others remain solid, this indicates they have a different source."

This is bizarre, even for Nancy. It's really easy to see that both objects ARE equally affected by the camera's motions.

Classic!

Comment by Nancy Lieder 13 hours ago
Oh Benito! Look, there is NOTHING there, per Skymap. NOTHING. So what is that planet!!! Wow

Comment by Nancy Lieder 13 hours ago

We have been looking in the wrong place. NOT by Venus/Jupiter at all, but just to the right of the rising Sun. These objects are NOT lens flares!

Comment by Nancy Lieder 12 hours ago

Oops! Might be droplets dried on the lens. Here's at another hour, not sunrise.


That's from:

[link to poleshift.ning.com]

Looks like she's getting real shy in stating that such-and-such shows planet eX and it's moons.

Once bitten, twice shy!

And if it does turn out to be a dried water spot, naturally, it won't be Nancy's fault for jumping the gun. She'll blame someone else.

Yes, it's outrageous that they don't clean the webcam lenses on an hourly basis, so that poor Nancy mistakes the droplets for her eagerly awaited Planet X.

But "Benito Maray" gives new candidates on a per diem basis: [link to poleshift.ning.com]
(Just dumb, a troll or a trojan?)

BTW: members down to less than 1500



.

>> And if it does turn out to be a dried water spot, naturally, it won't be Nancy's fault

That's rather obvious ...

Their latest hoax is another picture of that weird Alberto Cardin. He even defeats Nancy Liar and Gerard Zwaan in being stupid. Like always he is presenting some lame lense flares and claims that this is a moon swirl.

This freaks have neither basic knowledge about photos nor about astronomy. Such an object would be visible to everybody on the our whole planet with the naked eye. Besides that the gravity of a planet of this size would have devastating effects on the sun and all the other planets. We would already be in the middle of Armageddon. Lense-flare-Albeto is a fascinating hoaxer. He must either be totally insane or a nobrainer. Well so he is a good assistance for Astrogal50 and Nancy Liar.

It is no shame to be stupid, but sooo stupid. And hey, if this was a moon swirl (a thing that for sure does not exist in reality) how big would their planet X be. Two times the size of the sun? Three times? And nobody could detect apart from some madmen with floppy disks and other funny objects they put in front of their cameras. Wake up. Nancy`s freak show has got a bunch of very bad hoaxes lately. Well, it always was a bunch of bad hoaxes, but now she produces them weekly and they are so evident.

IMAGE ( [link to api.ning.com] )

Comment by Nancy Lieder 4 hours ago
Not a lens flare nor a ghost, these Moon Swirls are so bright they have been seen and filmed lately, naked eye! This is a wake-up call, world! Thank you Alberto!

Gawd, Nancy... How do you "film" something, "naked eye"?!

Looks like she's going mealy-mouth - at one moment saying one thing then leaving the door slightly cracked.

"Comment by Nancy Lieder 6 hours ago

They appear to be water droplets dried on the lens. They stay stationary, despite the skyview rolling up continuously. So far we have discovered NO Planet X objects from this cam. I note that when the Sun rises, the cam is not overwhelmed. This means that they are suppressing the light received, overall, and this would eliminate the light from Planet X itself, I think.

An observatory would not be allowed to display evidence of Planet X. Venus is a planet that reflects light, where Planet X is dust shrouded. The Moon Swirls are very close around the Sun, as they require sunlight to be funneled down them, therefore would be lost in the overall glare of the Sun, I suspect.

This is certainly a challenge!"

This is exactly the type of thing I was asking the guy from the ning about.

"...require sunlight to be funneled down them..."

It's pure gobbldygook- made up bullshit of the purest form- utter nonsense. How can anybody read that sort of thing and not have alarm bells go off? Nancy's story is comprised of layer after ridiculous layer of inane crapola like this which make no sense at all.

I once challenged a person at, I think TT-watch, about something like that and she said that she assumed that it didn't make sense to her because she wasn't as smart as the "Zetas". Sheesh!

"An observatory would not be allowed to display evidence of Planet X."

Yet she has consistently pointed out images from various observatories which she says show her planet. Again... it makes NO SENSE AT ALL.

But it IS her fault - she's the one that claimed it to be "Planet X." No one else.

I see she still thinks and claims that a planet shrouded in dust wouldn't reflect light and, therefore, wouldn't be visible. Apparently, her believers are stupid enough to believe it...and don't even see the MAJOR contradiction. If "Planet X" doesn't reflect any light - then how the f**k does it show up in all these images she claims show it?

Another major contradiction.

+1000

I hope your skeptical heads aren't so far up your skeptical asses that you fail to comprehend the direction the future of man kind is headed. Humans and beings from Zeta Reticuli are intimately linked, they need us and we need them.

I like the pole shift ning. Better than the news that's for damn sure at least any way. Who cares if Nancy fucks up. The pole shift is still going to happen.

I am quite sure that the `sceptics' aren't the ones with their heads buried in shitte LOL

And I have no interest in being intimate with imaginary grey aliens (or real ones either)- as most aliens seem to have a rather unhealthy interest in anal probing people.

And as for the pole shift `still gunna happen'...

We know that it is still not going to happen, never has, never will and if by some miracle it did happen as nancy described then the Earth would be a mass of molten lava...

Bit hard to survive that, unless you pack a pair of asbestos wellies along with your sheet of corrugated iron to hide under from those thousands of kilometer of hour winds, and your packet of fur flavoured gravox for dinner with man's best friend

A Pole is about to Shift somewhere?...anywhere?......

Watch out for those freaken Poles I say.....they can sure be a dangerous thing!!......

According to John Moore's "sources", as SOON as August 17th! (When Niburu makes it's closest passage to the sun!)

Thread: Ed Dames’ Killshot Solar Flare coming next month August 2012 due to Nibiru

Last Edited by **ZetaMax** on 07/25/2012 10:00 AM

No. It's not.

Since 2003 shits been getting fucked up

2004 - Sumatra tsunami

2009 - Samoa Tsunami

2011 - Japan tsunami

After the new Madrid and California faults go = European tsunami = big death toll, more than the 250 000 who died in Sumatra.

When did "planet x" supposedly enter the solar system? 2003?

Since then 3 significant tsunamis, How many do you recall before 03?? lol.

I'm afraid ZetaMax might actually be right. Soon....

It's not the # of tsunamis that's of interest - it's the # of strong earthquakes:


Apr. 04, 1905 - 8.6
Jan. 31, 1906 - 8.8
Nov. 11, 1922 - 8.5
Feb. 01, 1938 - 8.5
Aug. 15, 1950 - 8.6
Nov. 04, 1952 - 9.0
Mar. 09, 1957 - 8.6
May 22, 1960 - 9.5
Oct. 13, 1963 - 8.5
Mar. 27, 1964 - 9.2
Feb. 04, 1965 - 8.7
Dez. 26, 2004 - 9.1
Mär. 28, 2005 - 8.6
Sep. 12, 2007 - 8.5
Feb. 27, 2010 - 8.8
Mär. 11, 2011 - 9.0
Apr. 11, 2012 - 8.7


What planet entered the solar system between 1950 and 1965?

Or could there be simply a 50 to 60 year EQ-cycle?

Seems to me more logical than an undetectable, immeasurable and invisible alleged Planet X.


I'm afraid ZetaMax might actually be wrong. Soon....
(Fixed it for you)



.

Last Edited by Hydra on 07/25/2012 07:47 PM

Um, certainly not in the way Nancy claims it will. There's a huge difference between a geological pole shift and a magnetic pole shift. One happens, the other does not.

Right...and yet no one can see this "planet?"





Last Edited by Circuit Breaker on 07/25/2012 08:01 PM

Seriously - when HASN'T the world been fucked up? And how do all those events you listed prove the existence of some "rogue planet?" You're drawing a conclusion based on circumstantial evidence at best because all these events could have other causes.

As for ZetaMax - the definition for "soon" in his world is a measurement of time equal to now and never. He's been saying "soon" for years and hasn't been right yet. And neither has his master Nancy.

You mean when did Nancy Lieder spin a bunch of obvious lies about a rogue planet entering the Solar System with absolutely no astronomical evidence to support it.

Nancy (Zetas) Wrong Again!

Her claim:

"In fact, the Sun should not even be visible, per Skymap, as it is Winter at the S Pole and they are within their 3 months of darkness there. "

Wrong - there is no three months of darkness at Mawson Station (67° 36'S/62° 52'E). The only time during this year the Sun does not come above the horizon is June 13 to 28.

As for the Sun here are the calculated rise/set times (all times are local (UTC+5)):

July 21 - 1053 1458
July 22 - 1049 1502
July 23 - 1044 1506
July 24 - 1040 1511
July 25 - 1036 1515
July 26 - 1032 1519
July 27 - 1028 1523

Learn how to use Skymap!

Here's a screen shot from Cartes du Ciel for Mawson Station on July 22, 2012

[link to www.zetasquawk.com]

Notice the Sun?

Last Edited by bob_909 on 07/25/2012 09:10 PM

I love it when the claim is made that earthquakes have increased since 2003. Have they really? Here's a breakdown of the number of earthquakes magnitude 7 or greater worldwide since 1900 - years with more than 20 magnitude 7 or greater earthquakes are in red.

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" FOR SURE!!
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 16
1998 12
1999 18
2000 15
2001 16
2002 13
2003 15
2004 16
2005 11
2006 11
2007 18
2008 12
2009 17
2010 24
2011 20
2012 7 (to date)

What does the above data tell us? For one thing, it tells us there's no increase in magnitude 7 or greater earthquakes. In fact, when comparing the years from 2003 to present with the the years between 1934 and 1954, the number of earthquakes magnitude 7 or greater is rather tame. Are "Planet X" believers going to tell us that "Planet X" was hovering around the sun during the 30s and 40s? After all, we had the Great Depression along with the Dust Bowl followed by WWII...all of which, had they happened today, would surely be used as evidence or even proof that "Planet X" was here. Now, I realize that "Planet X" believers will say, "Ha! Your list ONLY lists quakes with a magnitude 7 or greater. Earthquakes lower in magnitude are on the increase!" True, at first glance the data may suggest that. However, the explanation provided by geologists seems FAR MORE LIKELY. They claim that the number of small magnitude quakes APPEARS to be on the rise because the sensor network has gotten both larger and more sensitive...which means more earthquakes are being detected than they were before. The reason this seems far more likely to be the truth is because if a "rogue planet four times the size of Venus" were truly lurking about the inner solar system - we wouldn't see just an increase in small magnitude quakes. We'd see an increase across the spectrum. And it should be noted that within the past 10 years the entire west coast of North America hasn't experienced ANY strong quakes at all. How could a "rogue planet" affect all these other fault zones without affecting the San Andreas and the other large faults up and down the west coast?

Last Edited by Circuit Breaker on 07/26/2012 06:42 AM

Don't confuse Nancy with facts and logic.

Yeah, a bunch of people are talking about the "south pole" and saying that specs about that location apply to the Antarctic stations, NONE of which are actually at the "south pole".