Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 1,297 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 552,113
Pageviews Today: 750,610Threads Today: 111Posts Today: 2,845
06:39 AM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

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

 
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1760596
Germany
07/21/2013 03:52 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Tja, Katche, vielleicht solltet ihr euch langsam aber sicher einmal mit der Realität anfreunden. Es gibt keinen Nibiru.

Wie lange willst du dir noch diese Linsenlichtspiegelungen antun? Und auf was willst du warten? Die Warterei ist ohnedies der Zetafans letzte Zuflucht. Sie warten immer auf etwas, das es so nicht gibt.

Ich meine das nicht böse, aber wie lange willst du dir noch diese Youtube-Fake-Videos reinziehen. Genau das Gleiche gab es schon 2009, als ich hier in dieser Szene aufgeschlagen bin. Es war übrigens immer gleich unsinnig.

Oder willst du wirklich noch auf eine Ankündigung von Obama warten, die es nie geben wird: egal wie lange ihr Wartenden wartet. Warum steckst du dir nicht einen Zeitrahmen? Nancy hat gesagt, die Ankündigung kommt wohl definitiv vor dem September, was sie allerdings letztes Jahr auch schon gesagt hat. Viel sagen und wenig halten ist ihr Motto.

Ich weiß ja, dass ich nicht immer nett zu euch war, aber du scheinst mir ein cleveres Bürschchen zu sein. Wie kann man an so etwas glauben? Ganz ehrlich: Wie?

Sorry guys and ladies for that little trip. But I speak German fluently too. Nancy only speaks English, but she did enough damage with it.

V.
 Quoting: VeritasN1


Genau das Gleiche gab es schon 2009, als ich hier in dieser Szene aufgeschlagen bin.
 Quoting: VeritasN1


Also Du in der Szene aufgeschlagen bist war das dann mit dem Kopf zuerst? Das würde einiges erklären... s226
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1760596
Germany
07/21/2013 04:10 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Tja, Katche, vielleicht solltet ihr euch langsam aber sicher einmal mit der Realität anfreunden. Es gibt keinen Nibiru.

Wie lange willst du dir noch diese Linsenlichtspiegelungen antun? Und auf was willst du warten? Die Warterei ist ohnedies der Zetafans letzte Zuflucht. Sie warten immer auf etwas, das es so nicht gibt.

Ich meine das nicht böse, aber wie lange willst du dir noch diese Youtube-Fake-Videos reinziehen. Genau das Gleiche gab es schon 2009, als ich hier in dieser Szene aufgeschlagen bin. Es war übrigens immer gleich unsinnig.

Oder willst du wirklich noch auf eine Ankündigung von Obama warten, die es nie geben wird: egal wie lange ihr Wartenden wartet. Warum steckst du dir nicht einen Zeitrahmen? Nancy hat gesagt, die Ankündigung kommt wohl definitiv vor dem September, was sie allerdings letztes Jahr auch schon gesagt hat. Viel sagen und wenig halten ist ihr Motto.

Ich weiß ja, dass ich nicht immer nett zu euch war, aber du scheinst mir ein cleveres Bürschchen zu sein. Wie kann man an so etwas glauben? Ganz ehrlich: Wie?

Sorry guys and ladies for that little trip. But I speak German fluently too. Nancy only speaks English, but she did enough damage with it.

V.
 Quoting: VeritasN1


Wie kann man an so etwas glauben? Ganz ehrlich: Wie?
 Quoting: VeritasN1


Es ist Deine Aufgabe selbst herauszufinden wie man "glaubt". Ich kann Dir hier nur sagen das Dir Dein Verstand und Deine Intelligenz ganz erheblich im Wege stehen. Glauben kann man nur mit dem Herzen und damit meine ich nicht einmal dein physisches Herz, sondern Dein spirituelles Herz, welches an ganz ähnlicher Stelle im Körper liegt. Ich gehe nicht davon aus das Du irgendetwas von dem verstehst was ich hier schreibe, denn dass setzt voraus das Du bereits mit Deinem Herzen "denken" kannst und da bist Du noch nicht...
MoreAboutTunnelVision​

User ID: 43795632
Germany
07/21/2013 05:32 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Tja, Katche, vielleicht solltet ihr euch langsam aber sicher einmal mit der Realität anfreunden. Es gibt keinen Nibiru.

Wie lange willst du dir noch diese Linsenlichtspiegelungen antun? Und auf was willst du warten? Die Warterei ist ohnedies der Zetafans letzte Zuflucht. Sie warten immer auf etwas, das es so nicht gibt.

Ich meine das nicht böse, aber wie lange willst du dir noch diese Youtube-Fake-Videos reinziehen. Genau das Gleiche gab es schon 2009, als ich hier in dieser Szene aufgeschlagen bin. Es war übrigens immer gleich unsinnig.

Oder willst du wirklich noch auf eine Ankündigung von Obama warten, die es nie geben wird: egal wie lange ihr Wartenden wartet. Warum steckst du dir nicht einen Zeitrahmen? Nancy hat gesagt, die Ankündigung kommt wohl definitiv vor dem September, was sie allerdings letztes Jahr auch schon gesagt hat. Viel sagen und wenig halten ist ihr Motto.

Ich weiß ja, dass ich nicht immer nett zu euch war, aber du scheinst mir ein cleveres Bürschchen zu sein. Wie kann man an so etwas glauben? Ganz ehrlich: Wie?

Sorry guys and ladies for that little trip. But I speak German fluently too. Nancy only speaks English, but she did enough damage with it.

V.
 Quoting: VeritasN1


Wie kann man an so etwas glauben? Ganz ehrlich: Wie?
 Quoting: VeritasN1


Es ist Deine Aufgabe selbst herauszufinden wie man "glaubt". Ich kann Dir hier nur sagen das Dir Dein Verstand und Deine Intelligenz ganz erheblich im Wege stehen. Glauben kann man nur mit dem Herzen und damit meine ich nicht einmal dein physisches Herz, sondern Dein spirituelles Herz, welches an ganz ähnlicher Stelle im Körper liegt. Ich gehe nicht davon aus das Du irgendetwas von dem verstehst was ich hier schreibe, denn dass setzt voraus das Du bereits mit Deinem Herzen "denken" kannst und da bist Du noch nicht...
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1760596


Du brauchst nicht glauben um zu wissen.
Dein "Glaube" steht dir genauso im Weg wie die Engsichtigkeit die du anderen zugestehst.
Du magst Recht haben dass der Mensch eine neugierige Natur besitzt die es vermag zu anmaßen und philosophieren, allerdings hast du nicht gemerkt das bestimme Menschen dich genau aufgrund dieser Tatsche geködert haben und das erkennt man schon allein daran dass du offensichtliche Wiedersprüche in deinem Glauben ignorierst oder generell keine Konsistenz in deinem Glauben pflegst.

Ich habe unzählige Sonntage die Fratze Mrs.Lieders beliebäugeln dürfen und staunen können wie offen ein Mensch doch lügen kann. (Natürlich habe ich das erst viel später realisiert.)
Die Frage ist: Wem "glaubst" du?
Dem was eine Frau behauptet TROTZ gravierender Unterschiede zur uns beweisbaren Realität? (Bsp. Earth halted)
Oder doch dem was du selbst logisch nachvollziehn, nachprüfen kannst und vorallem nicht nur auf subjektiven Interpretationen oder Meinung anderer gestüzt ist?

Frag dich das mal....
Dem was du so selbstbewusst deine "innere Stimme" nennst kann sich ganz leicht und schleichend mit deinen Wünschen und Vorstellungen vermischen und irgendwann wirst du nurnoch das sehen was du sehen willst.
Es ist wie mit den wiederkehrenden Nummern die manche Menschen sehen. - Klar, weil sie nurnoch auf diese bestimmten Nummern fokussiert sind aber niemals die unzähligen Male zählen wo sie andere Nummern gesehen haben.

Es hat statistisch keine Relevanz und genauso verhählt es sich mit Lieders Prognosen.

Ich würd nicht drauf Wetten.... Wenn dann wett lieber drauf das Lieders Vorraussagen scheitern...das hat seit 95' geklappt!

cool2
English:
You do not need faith to know.
Your "faith" is as hindering as the lack of sight you acknowledge to others.
You may be right that humans have a curious nature to solve this grand puzzle, but you were unable to figure out that others may have lured you based on these very principles and that is obvious by the fact that you ignore contradictions in your beliefs.

I had countless opportunities during sundays to stare at the grimace of Mrs.Lieders and be amazed at how open someone can lie you flat in the face. (Of course I did not realized it until much later.)
The question is: who do you "believe"?
A woman who claims something DESPITE serious differences between our provable reality? (Eg Earth halted)
Or maybe what YOU can logically consider, prove and not be based on subjective interpretation and/or others opinions?

Ask yourself these ones....
What you so confidently claim your "inner voice" can easily and gradually mix with your desires and ideas and eventually become so inherent that you'll be only seeing what you want to see.
Its as with the recurring numbers which some people urge to see. - Sure, because they are only focused on these specific numbers and never count the countless times where they have NOT seen these numbers.

It has no statistical relevance, and just the same counts about Lieders "Track record".

I would not bet on it .... If you bet, then rather that Lieder's predictions fail ... it worked out since 95 '!

EDIT: English is so much smarter, shorter. Lets stick to it! (I think we're obligated to it anyway)

Last Edited by MoreAboutTunnelVision on 07/21/2013 05:58 PM
"People hate the truth, luckily the truth doesn't care."
Author of "Zeta Talk exposed": [link to novnet.org]
Circuit Breaker

User ID: 30047168
United States
07/21/2013 06:10 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
As I recall - back in September 2003, Nancy said there would be no need to pay October's bills because the "pole shift" was imminent. I wonder how many people believed her and didn't bother to pay them. There were quite a few people who bought in to Harold Camping's doomsday prophecy and gave away or sold their possessions only to end up with mud on their face. What's sad, at least in Nancy's case, is that FreeStore gave up so much and spent a lot of money building a shelter that he hasn't used for anything other than storage and yet, 10 years later, he still clings to everything she says.
A voice of reason in a world of woo-woos.
Circuit Breaker

User ID: 30047168
United States
07/22/2013 07:53 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
I wonder if Ann S. is still feeling as smug about Obama's announcement of "Plant X" as she was several months ago considering it has been almost a year since he was supposed to have made the announcement. I'm willing to bet that no matter how confident and smug she appears here or on the ning, it must really piss her off that the "Zetas" have been so miserably wrong. But should she really be surprised?
A voice of reason in a world of woo-woos.
Elemental
Mostly harmless.....

User ID: 13461811
United Kingdom
07/22/2013 08:02 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
I wonder if Ann S. is still feeling as smug about Obama's announcement of "Plant X" as she was several months ago considering it has been almost a year since he was supposed to have made the announcement. I'm willing to bet that no matter how confident and smug she appears here or on the ning, it must really piss her off that the "Zetas" have been so miserably wrong. But should she really be surprised?
 Quoting: Circuit Breaker


Surely it's not possible to keep the lies going for much longer...I'm surprised that the site is still going to be honest.
energy cannot be destroyed, it can only be transformed.
Nothing is so potent as the silent influence of a good example.
Illegitimi non carborundum
Alea iacta est.
Dum vivimus vivamus
Circuit Breaker

User ID: 30047168
United States
07/22/2013 08:39 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Considering the "Zetas" said with absolute certainty that "Planet X" would swing through the solar system and cause a "pole shift" in May 2003...even going so far as to say they were being precise about the date, and that "Planet X" has failed to show up over the last 10 years, there's one thing I find really interesting. When asked how much longer they'll continue listening to and believing what Nancy says, NONE of her believers will EVER answer the question. Let's use FreeStore as an example. For 10 years he's been living in his "safe zone" waiting for this "rogue planet" to show up...actually, he, like some of her other followers, truly believes that "Planet X" is already here - hovering near the sun. He was SO convinced that "Planet X" would show up that he said he would commit suicide if it failed to do so by September 2007. He ultimately didn't do it (thankfully) and is still around because, as he said, "Planet X" did show up. But that was six years ago. How long does he think "Planet X" can just hang around the sun? It seems to me that any normal person who got sucked into Nancy's delusion would, after a few years of failed predictions, seriously start to question their beliefs and examine the evidence. While I was interested in the whole "ZetaTalk" story, I never allowed myself to become completely biased or sucked into her claims. I read her site, I listened to her on Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell. But instead of taking her at her word, I looked around - I examined her claims. At the time, she was making wild claims that the sun was setting later than it should - with many followers sending her their observations. Meanwhile, the sun was setting at my location just as it had every day since I was a child. If the sun were truly setting 20 to 30 minutes later than normal, it would be noticed. People would be talking about it. And how could the sun set 30 minutes late in, say, Phoenix, AZ but set on time where I lived in San Diego, CA? That would mean the Earth's rotation would have to speed up - something that would be noticed. On top of that, when I found out about Nancy it was already the first week of May 2003. If "Planet X" was really going to cause a "pole shift" within a few weeks - why wasn't this "rogue planet" glaringly obvious in the sky as she said it would be? By that time, it should have appeared as big, if not bigger, than the sun. And yet, she continued on with her story...warning others to take heed because the end was nigh. As I examined all of her claims and found they didn't stand up, I started to wonder if she ever verified the witness accounts that were sent to her. So, I sent in a claim of my own saying I personally saw the sun set 45 minutes late. She completely believed me - and posted it on her website without ever asking me a single question. It remained on her site for several weeks until I mentioned here on GLP during one of her chats as to what I had done. Then it got moved to another part of her site she created to post "evidence" proving the existence of "government shills." So, if I and so many others can see that Nancy is full of it - what is it about other people that they so easily accept what she says as gospel? Why are they so ready to accept any excuse she makes for her failed predictions so they can go on believing her? Why are they not able to accept the reality that she's very wrong? Are they so disappointed with their own lives that they hope something destructive happens?
A voice of reason in a world of woo-woos.
Elemental
Mostly harmless.....

User ID: 13461811
United Kingdom
07/22/2013 08:44 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Your last sentence sums up perfectly.
energy cannot be destroyed, it can only be transformed.
Nothing is so potent as the silent influence of a good example.
Illegitimi non carborundum
Alea iacta est.
Dum vivimus vivamus
MoreAboutTunnelVision​

User ID: 43844420
Germany
07/22/2013 08:53 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Considering the "Zetas" said with absolute certainty that "Planet X" would swing through the solar system and cause a "pole shift" in May 2003...even going so far as to say they were being precise about the date, and that "Planet X" has failed to show up over the last 10 years, there's one thing I find really interesting. When asked how much longer they'll continue listening to and believing what Nancy says, NONE of her believers will EVER answer the question. Let's use FreeStore as an example. For 10 years he's been living in his "safe zone" waiting for this "rogue planet" to show up...actually, he, like some of her other followers, truly believes that "Planet X" is already here - hovering near the sun. He was SO convinced that "Planet X" would show up that he said he would commit suicide if it failed to do so by September 2007. He ultimately didn't do it (thankfully) and is still around because, as he said, "Planet X" did show up. But that was six years ago. How long does he think "Planet X" can just hang around the sun? It seems to me that any normal person who got sucked into Nancy's delusion would, after a few years of failed predictions, seriously start to question their beliefs and examine the evidence. While I was interested in the whole "ZetaTalk" story, I never allowed myself to become completely biased or sucked into her claims. I read her site, I listened to her on Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell. But instead of taking her at her word, I looked around - I examined her claims. At the time, she was making wild claims that the sun was setting later than it should - with many followers sending her their observations. Meanwhile, the sun was setting at my location just as it had every day since I was a child. If the sun were truly setting 20 to 30 minutes later than normal, it would be noticed. People would be talking about it. And how could the sun set 30 minutes late in, say, Phoenix, AZ but set on time where I lived in San Diego, CA? That would mean the Earth's rotation would have to speed up - something that would be noticed. On top of that, when I found out about Nancy it was already the first week of May 2003. If "Planet X" was really going to cause a "pole shift" within a few weeks - why wasn't this "rogue planet" glaringly obvious in the sky as she said it would be? By that time, it should have appeared as big, if not bigger, than the sun. And yet, she continued on with her story...warning others to take heed because the end was nigh. As I examined all of her claims and found they didn't stand up, I started to wonder if she ever verified the witness accounts that were sent to her. So, I sent in a claim of my own saying I personally saw the sun set 45 minutes late. She completely believed me - and posted it on her website without ever asking me a single question. It remained on her site for several weeks until I mentioned here on GLP during one of her chats as to what I had done. Then it got moved to another part of her site she created to post "evidence" proving the existence of "government shills." So, if I and so many others can see that Nancy is full of it - what is it about other people that they so easily accept what she says as gospel? Why are they so ready to accept any excuse she makes for her failed predictions so they can go on believing her? Why are they not able to accept the reality that she's very wrong? Are they so disappointed with their own lives that they hope something destructive happens?
 Quoting: Circuit Breaker


Great posting..
Regarding the boldened part I think many of them feel as if they reached a "point of no return", eg. they changed their lives so heavily around this whole pX myth that they simply do not feel the strenght to look over it again which could result in the possibility that they have to admit to have been wrong all the years.
Then this is might be lack of courage and/or driven by the ego, fear.
It shouldn't really hinder anyone to reconsider their views because it is very human to make mistakes (even big ones).

At some point (for me) it was only of importance what is "true" and what "needed to be done".... all the rest was scheduled later.

Last Edited by MoreAboutTunnelVision on 07/22/2013 01:15 PM
"People hate the truth, luckily the truth doesn't care."
Author of "Zeta Talk exposed": [link to novnet.org]
MoreAboutTunnelVision​

User ID: 43844420
Germany
07/22/2013 09:07 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
I wonder if Ann S. is still feeling as smug about Obama's announcement of "Plant X" as she was several months ago considering it has been almost a year since he was supposed to have made the announcement. I'm willing to bet that no matter how confident and smug she appears here or on the ning, it must really piss her off that the "Zetas" have been so miserably wrong. But should she really be surprised?
 Quoting: Circuit Breaker


Haven't really seen her after I updated my document...
I hope she was able to reconsider her views...

Yes, surely it must suck to defend the Zetas everytime who're not getting a single prediction straight.
At the one hand I can understand the shock of finding out the hard truth about Nancy (and the falsehood of some humans), but then this shouldn't waste too much of a lifetime and happen sooner rather than later..

Last Edited by MoreAboutTunnelVision on 07/22/2013 01:19 PM
"People hate the truth, luckily the truth doesn't care."
Author of "Zeta Talk exposed": [link to novnet.org]
Truther
User ID: 43838301
Germany
07/22/2013 01:22 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Your last sentence sums up perfectly.
 Quoting: Elemental


Nancy always made as much damage as possible. The poor cult people are frustrated with their lives and she tries to destroy as much of it as she can. Don`t forget she told them not to pay their bills anymore, to murder their pets and eat them, to move to other locations and sell everything, to stab plugs into their dicks ...

She is a mean old cult bitch ...This old woman is completely lunatic.
Elemental
Mostly harmless.....

User ID: 13461811
United Kingdom
07/22/2013 01:26 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
I can't quote you for some reason Truther. I'm amazed that she's allowed to get away with it tbh....it's criminal.
energy cannot be destroyed, it can only be transformed.
Nothing is so potent as the silent influence of a good example.
Illegitimi non carborundum
Alea iacta est.
Dum vivimus vivamus
Setheory
User ID: 22372062
United States
07/22/2013 06:34 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
That is true. You can see many lens flare picture / movies out there where the sun isn't even close in frame. So you also say this is a lense flare?

If you rule out the sun or any other source of light reflexion as good as possible and the object stays where it is while moving the cam around a lense flare or any kind of optical lens apparitions where the sun is thr source should be avoided by doing so, right?

What is with the "Object" being behind a cloud [03:34 - 07:00] and behind a brunch [18:22 - 19:20} ?



I appreciate your answer.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 43525483


I only watched the first couple of minutes of that video as it was almost 30 minutes long. To be fair, I'll have a look. I appreciate you giving me the times in question.
 Quoting: Setheory 22372062


did you have some time to watch it yet? If not I think you can leave it as it is. In his newest video he explains it is a lense flare, so we are done here, I guess. I am surprised though Hydra said something about the images beeing photoshoped when this user now claims his own findings as lense flares...
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 43573195


I think Hydra was referring to image manipulation via the application of filters and changing gamma values and such.

Interestingly enough, you can create unaltered imagery that looks extraordinary by utilizing different camera settings and other techniques. When I used to work at the photo studio we would create very realistic ghost images with simple camera settings and a powerful light source. We would set-up a tripod-mounted camera with a bulb/shutter setting of around 30 seconds in an almost entirely dark setting. After about 10 or 15 seconds we would have someone run into frame and freeze. Right when this individual froze, we would VERY briefly illuminate said person with a light source from behind the camera. The resulting image was of a person that you could see right through.

Sorry I forgot to reply. If you look at the unprocessed footage/image you can see it is an ordinary lens flare. The others were right in their comments about transparency and image manipulation via Lightroom.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 43839939
Germany
07/23/2013 04:09 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
That is true. You can see many lens flare picture / movies out there where the sun isn't even close in frame. So you also say this is a lense flare?

If you rule out the sun or any other source of light reflexion as good as possible and the object stays where it is while moving the cam around a lense flare or any kind of optical lens apparitions where the sun is thr source should be avoided by doing so, right?

What is with the "Object" being behind a cloud [03:34 - 07:00] and behind a brunch [18:22 - 19:20} ?



I appreciate your answer.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 43525483


I only watched the first couple of minutes of that video as it was almost 30 minutes long. To be fair, I'll have a look. I appreciate you giving me the times in question.
 Quoting: Setheory 22372062


did you have some time to watch it yet? If not I think you can leave it as it is. In his newest video he explains it is a lense flare, so we are done here, I guess. I am surprised though Hydra said something about the images beeing photoshoped when this user now claims his own findings as lense flares...
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 43573195


I think Hydra was referring to image manipulation via the application of filters and changing gamma values and such.

Interestingly enough, you can create unaltered imagery that looks extraordinary by utilizing different camera settings and other techniques. When I used to work at the photo studio we would create very realistic ghost images with simple camera settings and a powerful light source. We would set-up a tripod-mounted camera with a bulb/shutter setting of around 30 seconds in an almost entirely dark setting. After about 10 or 15 seconds we would have someone run into frame and freeze. Right when this individual froze, we would VERY briefly illuminate said person with a light source from behind the camera. The resulting image was of a person that you could see right through.

Sorry I forgot to reply. If you look at the unprocessed footage/image you can see it is an ordinary lens flare. The others were right in their comments about transparency and image manipulation via Lightroom.
 Quoting: Setheory 22372062


Yep, he could have tested his setup beforehand while simply pointing his cam below the sun. Many cams and lenses do show if they produce lens flares when the sun is at the hightest point. Thanks for your answer!
Hydra

User ID: 42049825
Germany
07/23/2013 06:54 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Yep, he could have tested his setup beforehand while simply pointing his cam below the sun. Many cams and lenses do show if they produce lens flares when the sun is at the hightest point. Thanks for your answer!
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 43839939

There is a well known, absolute simple, 100% proof test: cover the SECOND SUN with your finger.
If you can, it's a real object - if you can't and it's in front of your finger, it's a reflecion of any kind.

Now make an educated guess, why none of the tards that have "discovered" Nibiru, a second sun, Planet X etc don't do this test.


.
If the Moon is off, if Earth wobbles or if there is a pole shift
how can things like this, predicted decades ago, happen?

aseindia
Annular Solar Eclipse - January 15, 2010 - Rameshwaram, India
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 17230
Germany
07/23/2013 08:35 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
There is a well known, absolute simple, 100% proof test: cover the SECOND SUN with your finger.
If you can, it's a real object - if you can't and it's in front of your finger, it's a reflecion of any kind.

Now make an educated guess, why none of the tards that have "discovered" Nibiru, a second sun, Planet X etc don't do this test.


 Quoting: Hydra

because they are concrete-stupid.
Menow
User ID: 1394150
United States
07/23/2013 10:38 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Yep, he could have tested his setup beforehand while simply pointing his cam below the sun. Many cams and lenses do show if they produce lens flares when the sun is at the hightest point. Thanks for your answer!
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 43839939

There is a well known, absolute simple, 100% proof test: cover the SECOND SUN with your finger.
If you can, it's a real object - if you can't and it's in front of your finger, it's a reflecion of any kind.

Now make an educated guess, why none of the tards that have "discovered" Nibiru, a second sun, Planet X etc don't do this test.


.
 Quoting: Hydra


Yes. Nancy even has a page explaining this, yet on the very same page are "sightings" where they didn't do that simple test.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 43839939
Germany
07/23/2013 12:47 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Yep, he could have tested his setup beforehand while simply pointing his cam below the sun. Many cams and lenses do show if they produce lens flares when the sun is at the hightest point. Thanks for your answer!
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 43839939

There is a well known, absolute simple, 100% proof test: cover the SECOND SUN with your finger.
If you can, it's a real object - if you can't and it's in front of your finger, it's a reflecion of any kind.

Now make an educated guess, why none of the tards that have "discovered" Nibiru, a second sun, Planet X etc don't do this test.


.
 Quoting: Hydra


Yes. Nancy even has a page explaining this, yet on the very same page are "sightings" where they didn't do that simple test.
 Quoting: Menow 1394150


Well, he did cover up the sun, at 10:49 and a changing object appears very distinct:

Hydra

User ID: 42049825
Germany
07/23/2013 01:17 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Yep, he could have tested his setup beforehand while simply pointing his cam below the sun. Many cams and lenses do show if they produce lens flares when the sun is at the hightest point. Thanks for your answer!
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 43839939

There is a well known, absolute simple, 100% proof test: cover the SECOND SUN with your finger.
If you can, it's a real object - if you can't and it's in front of your finger, it's a reflecion of any kind.

Now make an educated guess, why none of the tards that have "discovered" Nibiru, a second sun, Planet X etc don't do this test.


.
 Quoting: Hydra


Yes. Nancy even has a page explaining this, yet on the very same page are "sightings" where they didn't do that simple test.
 Quoting: Menow 1394150


Well, he did cover up the sun, at 10:49 and a changing object appears very distinct:


 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 43839939

Covering the sun doesn't prevent light from entering the lenses - best example are flares when the sun, moon, etc is not in the field of view.

I never have seen a Nibiru/second sun video, where a finger could cover Nibiru or the second sun.

.
If the Moon is off, if Earth wobbles or if there is a pole shift
how can things like this, predicted decades ago, happen?

aseindia
Annular Solar Eclipse - January 15, 2010 - Rameshwaram, India
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 43839939
Germany
07/23/2013 01:28 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
...

There is a well known, absolute simple, 100% proof test: cover the SECOND SUN with your finger.
If you can, it's a real object - if you can't and it's in front of your finger, it's a reflecion of any kind.

Now make an educated guess, why none of the tards that have "discovered" Nibiru, a second sun, Planet X etc don't do this test.


.
 Quoting: Hydra


Yes. Nancy even has a page explaining this, yet on the very same page are "sightings" where they didn't do that simple test.
 Quoting: Menow 1394150


Well, he did cover up the sun, at 10:49 and a changing object appears very distinct:


 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 43839939

Covering the sun doesn't prevent light from entering the lenses - best example are flares when the sun, moon, etc is not in the field of view.

I never have seen a Nibiru/second sun video, where a finger could cover Nibiru or the second sun.

.
 Quoting: Hydra


Light entering the lenses would certainly change the object's appearance when the source of this light is covered.

The object also appears behind a tree, 12:42
MoreAboutTunnelVision​

User ID: 14081565
Germany
07/23/2013 02:02 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
...


Yes. Nancy even has a page explaining this, yet on the very same page are "sightings" where they didn't do that simple test.
 Quoting: Menow 1394150


Well, he did cover up the sun, at 10:49 and a changing object appears very distinct:


 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 43839939

Covering the sun doesn't prevent light from entering the lenses - best example are flares when the sun, moon, etc is not in the field of view.

I never have seen a Nibiru/second sun video, where a finger could cover Nibiru or the second sun.

.
 Quoting: Hydra


Light entering the lenses would certainly change the object's appearance when the source of this light is covered.

The object also appears behind a tree, 12:42
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 43839939


Nope, he just changed filters which let a "ring" appear because a light source ( the sun - not in the field of view ) logically shines brightest in the center and then the brightness gradually decreases.
Now if you filter for the various brightness, you'll have many "rings" ranging from a center orb, the sun itself, up to far changes of brightness the camera was able to catch.

I could produce similar effects with any image of a light source.. But yeah, the fact the rings are behind the tree is because the light source = the sun is "behind" the trees.

The alleged pX = lens flare stays in place, otherwise please make a screenshot and point me to the image where this object is behind trees..

Last Edited by MoreAboutTunnelVision on 07/23/2013 02:05 PM
"People hate the truth, luckily the truth doesn't care."
Author of "Zeta Talk exposed": [link to novnet.org]
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 43839939
Germany
07/23/2013 02:24 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
...


Well, he did cover up the sun, at 10:49 and a changing object appears very distinct:


 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 43839939

Covering the sun doesn't prevent light from entering the lenses - best example are flares when the sun, moon, etc is not in the field of view.

I never have seen a Nibiru/second sun video, where a finger could cover Nibiru or the second sun.

.
 Quoting: Hydra


Light entering the lenses would certainly change the object's appearance when the source of this light is covered.

The object also appears behind a tree, 12:42
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 43839939


Nope, he just changed filters which let a "ring" appear because a light source ( the sun - not in the field of view ) logically shines brightest in the center and then the brightness gradually decreases.
Now if you filter for the various brightness, you'll have many "rings" ranging from a center orb, the sun itself, up to far changes of brightness the camera was able to catch.

I could produce similar effects with any image of a light source.. But yeah, the fact the rings are behind the tree is because the light source = the sun is "behind" the trees.

The alleged pX = lens flare stays in place, otherwise please make a screenshot and point me to the image where this object is behind trees..
 Quoting: MoreAboutTunnelVision


LOL - why would I make a screenshot? It is ALL there, shown in his video(s), including some nice lense flares for comparison. But this one is something else. Everything but not an unknown object like a moon swirl, right? Hell, NOWAY anything of that can be truely an unknown object which is even changing its appearance, having a different texture - WHOOOHOOO look at that! Behind a branch, changing appearance, could only be seen that clearly in the IR spectrum and even changes its place, O.M.G.?!?!?!

You guys can not explain this, your house of cards begins to fall apart - Game Over!

byekittyskull_fingbartmoon
74444

User ID: 74444
United States
07/23/2013 02:34 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
...

Covering the sun doesn't prevent light from entering the lenses - best example are flares when the sun, moon, etc is not in the field of view.

I never have seen a Nibiru/second sun video, where a finger could cover Nibiru or the second sun.

.
 Quoting: Hydra


Light entering the lenses would certainly change the object's appearance when the source of this light is covered.

The object also appears behind a tree, 12:42
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 43839939


Nope, he just changed filters which let a "ring" appear because a light source ( the sun - not in the field of view ) logically shines brightest in the center and then the brightness gradually decreases.
Now if you filter for the various brightness, you'll have many "rings" ranging from a center orb, the sun itself, up to far changes of brightness the camera was able to catch.

I could produce similar effects with any image of a light source.. But yeah, the fact the rings are behind the tree is because the light source = the sun is "behind" the trees.

The alleged pX = lens flare stays in place, otherwise please make a screenshot and point me to the image where this object is behind trees..
 Quoting: MoreAboutTunnelVision


LOL - why would I make a screenshot? It is ALL there, shown in his video(s), including some nice lense flares for comparison. But this one is something else. Everything but not an unknown object like a moon swirl, right? Hell, NOWAY anything of that can be truely an unknown object which is even changing its appearance, having a different texture - WHOOOHOOO look at that! Behind a branch, changing appearance, could only be seen that clearly in the IR spectrum and even changes its place, O.M.G.?!?!?!

You guys can not explain this, your house of cards begins to fall apart - Game Over!

byekittyskull_fingbartmoon
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 43839939


If such an object existed, why doesn't it have any other apparent physical effects? Why hasn't it altered the orbits of the inner planets? Why doesn't it ever *eclipse* the Sun? What kind of orbit would it have to have to appear the way it does? Why doesn't it appear when you use proper equipment to look?

The game was over in 2003. You just keep hoping the 3,493rd recount goes your way.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 43839939
Germany
07/23/2013 02:39 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
...


Light entering the lenses would certainly change the object's appearance when the source of this light is covered.

The object also appears behind a tree, 12:42
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 43839939


Nope, he just changed filters which let a "ring" appear because a light source ( the sun - not in the field of view ) logically shines brightest in the center and then the brightness gradually decreases.
Now if you filter for the various brightness, you'll have many "rings" ranging from a center orb, the sun itself, up to far changes of brightness the camera was able to catch.

I could produce similar effects with any image of a light source.. But yeah, the fact the rings are behind the tree is because the light source = the sun is "behind" the trees.

The alleged pX = lens flare stays in place, otherwise please make a screenshot and point me to the image where this object is behind trees..
 Quoting: MoreAboutTunnelVision


LOL - why would I make a screenshot? It is ALL there, shown in his video(s), including some nice lense flares for comparison. But this one is something else. Everything but not an unknown object like a moon swirl, right? Hell, NOWAY anything of that can be truely an unknown object which is even changing its appearance, having a different texture - WHOOOHOOO look at that! Behind a branch, changing appearance, could only be seen that clearly in the IR spectrum and even changes its place, O.M.G.?!?!?!

You guys can not explain this, your house of cards begins to fall apart - Game Over!

byekittyskull_fingbartmoon
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 43839939


If such an object existed, why doesn't it have any other apparent physical effects? Why hasn't it altered the orbits of the inner planets? Why doesn't it ever *eclipse* the Sun? What kind of orbit would it have to have to appear the way it does? Why doesn't it appear when you use proper equipment to look?

The game was over in 2003. You just keep hoping the 3,493rd recount goes your way.
 Quoting: 74444


You need a hand holding tour? Go and Read Zetatalk, it's ALL there.

74444

User ID: 74444
United States
07/23/2013 03:08 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
If such an object existed, why doesn't it have any other apparent physical effects? Why hasn't it altered the orbits of the inner planets? Why doesn't it ever *eclipse* the Sun? What kind of orbit would it have to have to appear the way it does? Why doesn't it appear when you use proper equipment to look?

The game was over in 2003. You just keep hoping the 3,493rd recount goes your way.
 Quoting: 74444




You need a hand holding tour? Go and Read Zetatalk, it's ALL there.


 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 43839939


Hand holding is nice, but unnecessary. I need rational answers to my rational questions.

And Zetatalk does not provide anything rational whatsoever.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 43839939
Germany
07/23/2013 03:11 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
If such an object existed, why doesn't it have any other apparent physical effects? Why hasn't it altered the orbits of the inner planets? Why doesn't it ever *eclipse* the Sun? What kind of orbit would it have to have to appear the way it does? Why doesn't it appear when you use proper equipment to look?

The game was over in 2003. You just keep hoping the 3,493rd recount goes your way.
 Quoting: 74444




You need a hand holding tour? Go and Read Zetatalk, it's ALL there.


 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 43839939


Hand holding is nice, but unnecessary. I need rational answers to my rational questions.

And Zetatalk does not provide anything rational whatsoever.
 Quoting: 74444


What do you see on the video? That's rational.
74444

User ID: 74444
United States
07/23/2013 03:22 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
If such an object existed, why doesn't it have any other apparent physical effects? Why hasn't it altered the orbits of the inner planets? Why doesn't it ever *eclipse* the Sun? What kind of orbit would it have to have to appear the way it does? Why doesn't it appear when you use proper equipment to look?

The game was over in 2003. You just keep hoping the 3,493rd recount goes your way.
 Quoting: 74444




You need a hand holding tour? Go and Read Zetatalk, it's ALL there.


 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 43839939


Hand holding is nice, but unnecessary. I need rational answers to my rational questions.

And Zetatalk does not provide anything rational whatsoever.
 Quoting: 74444


What do you see on the video? That's rational.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 43839939


It's not. It's lots of playing with Lightroom. I have access to telescopes, I have access to solar filters and welder's glass, I have access to almanacs and books predicting heavenly phenomena, and I know enough physics that such a supposed huge object in the inner solar system must have physical consequences that haven't materialized.

Therefore my questions stand: If such an object existed, why doesn't it have any other apparent physical effects? Why hasn't it altered the orbits of the inner planets? Why doesn't it ever *eclipse* the Sun? What kind of orbit would it have to have to appear the way it does? Why doesn't it appear when you use proper equipment to look? I'll add some, too: how long has such an object been in the inner solar system, according to your belief? Why can I observe Mercury and Venus -- supposedly much smaller objects than your PX -- so easily, yet not PX? How do zodiacal constellations continue to rise and set as predicted if the Earth is halted in its orbit, as Nancy and ZT have claimed? What evidence, if any, can convince you that it is *not* any physical object, as ZT or Nancy seems to claim?

Your inability to answer these rationally is not the fault of the questions. The fault is somewhere else.

Last Edited by 74444 on 07/23/2013 03:22 PM
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 43839939
Germany
07/23/2013 04:47 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
...




You need a hand holding tour? Go and Read Zetatalk, it's ALL there.


 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 43839939


Hand holding is nice, but unnecessary. I need rational answers to my rational questions.

And Zetatalk does not provide anything rational whatsoever.
 Quoting: 74444


What do you see on the video? That's rational.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 43839939


It's not. It's lots of playing with Lightroom. I have access to telescopes, I have access to solar filters and welder's glass, I have access to almanacs and books predicting heavenly phenomena, and I know enough physics that such a supposed huge object in the inner solar system must have physical consequences that haven't materialized.

Therefore my questions stand: If such an object existed, why doesn't it have any other apparent physical effects? Why hasn't it altered the orbits of the inner planets? Why doesn't it ever *eclipse* the Sun? What kind of orbit would it have to have to appear the way it does? Why doesn't it appear when you use proper equipment to look? I'll add some, too: how long has such an object been in the inner solar system, according to your belief? Why can I observe Mercury and Venus -- supposedly much smaller objects than your PX -- so easily, yet not PX? How do zodiacal constellations continue to rise and set as predicted if the Earth is halted in its orbit, as Nancy and ZT have claimed? What evidence, if any, can convince you that it is *not* any physical object, as ZT or Nancy seems to claim?

Your inability to answer these rationally is not the fault of the questions. The fault is somewhere else.
 Quoting: 74444


Well, you asking an irrational dude about an irrational phenomena and expect a rational answer for your rational mind? Umm, you mad Bro?
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 43839939
Germany
07/23/2013 04:50 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
...




You need a hand holding tour? Go and Read Zetatalk, it's ALL there.


 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 43839939


Hand holding is nice, but unnecessary. I need rational answers to my rational questions.

And Zetatalk does not provide anything rational whatsoever.
 Quoting: 74444


What do you see on the video? That's rational.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 43839939


It's not. It's lots of playing with Lightroom. I have access to telescopes, I have access to solar filters and welder's glass, I have access to almanacs and books predicting heavenly phenomena, and I know enough physics that such a supposed huge object in the inner solar system must have physical consequences that haven't materialized.

Therefore my questions stand: If such an object existed, why doesn't it have any other apparent physical effects? Why hasn't it altered the orbits of the inner planets? Why doesn't it ever *eclipse* the Sun? What kind of orbit would it have to have to appear the way it does? Why doesn't it appear when you use proper equipment to look? I'll add some, too: how long has such an object been in the inner solar system, according to your belief? Why can I observe Mercury and Venus -- supposedly much smaller objects than your PX -- so easily, yet not PX? How do zodiacal constellations continue to rise and set as predicted if the Earth is halted in its orbit, as Nancy and ZT have claimed? What evidence, if any, can convince you that it is *not* any physical object, as ZT or Nancy seems to claim?

Your inability to answer these rationally is not the fault of the questions. The fault is somewhere else.
 Quoting: 74444


What do YOU see on the video? THAT's rational.

VeritasN1

User ID: 43928829
Canada
07/23/2013 05:12 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Tja, Katche, vielleicht solltet ihr euch langsam aber sicher einmal mit der Realität anfreunden. Es gibt keinen Nibiru.

Wie lange willst du dir noch diese Linsenlichtspiegelungen antun? Und auf was willst du warten? Die Warterei ist ohnedies der Zetafans letzte Zuflucht. Sie warten immer auf etwas, das es so nicht gibt.

Ich meine das nicht böse, aber wie lange willst du dir noch diese Youtube-Fake-Videos reinziehen. Genau das Gleiche gab es schon 2009, als ich hier in dieser Szene aufgeschlagen bin. Es war übrigens immer gleich unsinnig.

Oder willst du wirklich noch auf eine Ankündigung von Obama warten, die es nie geben wird: egal wie lange ihr Wartenden wartet. Warum steckst du dir nicht einen Zeitrahmen? Nancy hat gesagt, die Ankündigung kommt wohl definitiv vor dem September, was sie allerdings letztes Jahr auch schon gesagt hat. Viel sagen und wenig halten ist ihr Motto.

Ich weiß ja, dass ich nicht immer nett zu euch war, aber du scheinst mir ein cleveres Bürschchen zu sein. Wie kann man an so etwas glauben? Ganz ehrlich: Wie?

Sorry guys and ladies for that little trip. But I speak German fluently too. Nancy only speaks English, but she did enough damage with it.

V.
 Quoting: VeritasN1


Genau das Gleiche gab es schon 2009, als ich hier in dieser Szene aufgeschlagen bin.
 Quoting: VeritasN1


Also Du in der Szene aufgeschlagen bist war das dann mit dem Kopf zuerst? Das würde einiges erklären... s226
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1760596


Fuck yourself you little cult motherfucker. Enjoy your lenseflares and your bloody world of idiocy. This is the point where most cultists end: youtube and some other idiots spamming around with hilarious lenseflare clips.

It is like I have told you braindead nobrainer. You will only see flares there. And if you use blockheads like Alberto as your choice of information you will end up between some old floppy disks. I thought that we at least have some CDs or DVDs now. Flaretardo should try to make some new progressive pictures with them. I still remember Niels N. who tried to find Nobeeryou by making pics through the inner hole of a CD. Such nonsense will bring you closer to Nancy and you really have to see things through your cultist heart then, moron.

To be honest weird cultists who still believe in the lies of naugthy Nancy deserve nothing else.

I guess it was wrong to change the language or try to be nice. Yes, you`re not rational, you have no idea about astronomy, you would thinkbump that every birthday cake is Nibiru (when it`s depicted with photoshop)...

So you can wait some more years and as there will always be some idiots on youtube who are presenting their latest lenseflares aunt Nanny will keep you happy. That`s it. Easy like that.

And in late September your aunt Nanny will present you the latest excuses why Obama made no announcement. Next year around this time you will still wait for the same bogus.
You`re a cultist.

crazyjakfeedtroll

Last Edited by VeritasN1 on 07/23/2013 05:16 PM
You are a part of the truth as long as you mention it!

News