Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 2,332 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 993,176
Pageviews Today: 1,384,218Threads Today: 445Posts Today: 7,719
01:06 PM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

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

 
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 782473
Germany
09/29/2009 01:21 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
PS: "Zetas" originally claimed that PX was "visible to the naked eye" in 1995.
 Quoting: Menow 405501


It is ... but only when you're at the sout pole, shave your head before and wear a Lions cap ... and carry an Ukrainian pass in one hand and a huge cristal in the other and jump on one leg in circles to balance out the wobble.
Gerard

User ID: 334168
Netherlands
09/29/2009 01:23 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Yes. But since i know what you are going to say. What was photgraphed back then wasn't noise.

There you have my answer mennow.

Too bad for you that the man Nancy tasked with that project disagrees with you. And he knows more about imaging than you do. What do you have to say about that? Let me guess...you don't believe him.
 Quoting: Circuit Breaker


To be honest. I think he (JWD) is angry or should i rather say
P*ss*d *ff cause 2003 didn't occur (because of the white lie) And this is why he act this way.
Circuit Breaker

User ID: 766491
United States
09/29/2009 01:26 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
To be honest. I think he (JWD) is angry or should i rather say
P*ss*d *ff cause 2003 didn't occur (because of the white lie) And this is why he act this way.
 Quoting: Gerard

Why would he be angry? He has nothing to lose or gain either way. He, unlike you, simply realized that "Planet X" as you and Nancy claim simply does not exist. And the "white lie?" As we all know, the "white lie" was supposedly implemented to force the government to "show its hand." But, for those of us that can think, it's obvious the "white lie" was nothing but an excuse. Why? Because throughout March, April and May, Nancy insisted that "Planet X" was coming...and that signs of its arrival had all come true such as rotation slowing, imploding buildings and weather events. However, one could simply observe for themselves and see that rotation wasn't slowing at all...sunrise and sunset times were at the same times as they were the year before. The buildings Nancy claimed imploded hadn't actually done any such thing...they simply collapsed from structural failure. And the extreme weather could be attributed to other factors all having nothing to do with some "rogue planet." But she continued to insist it was coming even though one important event hadn't come true...and that was "Planet X" being "undeniable in the sky." Based on previous ZetaTalk, that should have happened in April of 2003...but didn't. So, I asked Nancy if she was sure the "pole shift" was going to happen because "Planet X" was nowhere to be seen. I also asked her what she did to verify the many reports being sent to her because, based on my observations, nothing she claimed was actually happening. And that's when I got labeled a "government agent" and told to go "drown in the pole shift." So, if I and many others could see that "Planet X" wasn't here and none of the other precursors had come true...what makes Nancy or any of her followers think the government wouldn't have been smart enough to figure it out as well?

In addition, one simple statement from ZetaTalk contradicts the need for a "white lie."

"As explained on Gentile last evening, but repeated here as many will not be able to hear this streaming audio, we have given the dates out because the US and Indonesian governments can no longer succeed with their plans. We had held the date close, to put these governments in the same position the common man they planned to murder are in, so that rotation stoppage would happen suddenly and prevent a smooth blockading of the city dwellers. As Nancy has been able to be interviewed in the US, the message of these plans replayed around the world, cooperation by the military or locale police in such blockades are unlikely to happen. Given such orders, they would object, refuse, allow escape, as they know the true agenda. Thus, the number of people injured by withholding the date outnumbered the number that would be murdered, the balance scale tipped."
ZetaTalk: Dates, Why Now?
 Quoting: ZetaTalk


Read that first sentence again. It clearly states the Zetas gave out the dates because the U.S. and Indonesian governments would not succeed with their plans. The statement then clearly states that the military and local police would not cooperate. They would allow people to flee. So, why would there need to be a "white lie?" The "Zetas" just said the "balance scale tipped" and withholding the date would harm more than those it would help.

Care to take a stab at that Gerard? Your master Nancy certainly hasn't been able to explain that.

Last Edited by Circuit Breaker on 09/29/2009 01:33 PM
A voice of reason in a world of woo-woos.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 782473
Germany
09/29/2009 01:27 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
To be honest. I think he (JWD) is angry or should i rather say
P*ss*d *ff cause 2003 didn't occur (because of the white lie) And this is why he act this way.
 Quoting: Gerard


It did not occur because there is no friggin' Planet X, not because of some white lie.
Returner
User ID: 997
United States
09/29/2009 01:29 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
2003 did not occur?

Hell, the IRS owes me, then!

Look, Gerard, something was either captured in an image or it wasn't. Whether people have hurt feelings or not doesn't affect the image.

You've yet to describe your own qualifications for evaluating astronomical CCD images, by the way. And watching more than 3 hours of The Discover Channel every night doesn't count.
Gerard

User ID: 334168
Netherlands
09/29/2009 01:32 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Better take a look at this page

Sightings Archive of 2002 thru Early 2003
[link to zetatalk.com]

Not only pictures, but also reported sightings.

Like

Feb26/2003: An unconfirmed 10X Binocular sighting, done over the clear and unpolluted skies of the Amazon basin by a group of pilots on a major airline.

Unconfirmed 10X Bionocular Sighting
over the Amazon Basin on Feb 26th by pilots of major airline

Dear Nancy, While flying back to Houston from Rio de Janero yesterday [Feb 26th], I believe that I was able to see the Nibiru complex w/10 power binoculars.

It appeared as a very diffuse area that looked very dimly backlit.

We were [censored flight no] out over the Amazon Basin.. The atmosphere was very clear above us.

The other two pilots I was flying with were also able to see it with the binoculars. It got their attention also!!

Keep up the good work!!

[link to zetatalk.com]



Gerard
[link to poleshift.ning.com]
Menow
User ID: 405501
United States
09/29/2009 01:33 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Yes. But since i know what you are going to say. What was photgraphed back then wasn't noise.

There you have my answer mennow.

Too bad for you that the man Nancy tasked with that project disagrees with you. And he knows more about imaging than you do. What do you have to say about that? Let me guess...you don't believe him.


To be honest. I think he (JWD) is angry or should i rather say
P*ss*d *ff cause 2003 didn't occur (because of the white lie) And this is why he act this way.
 Quoting: Gerard


Why don't you just ASK him?
Circuit Breaker

User ID: 766491
United States
09/29/2009 01:34 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Better take a look at this page

Sightings Archive of 2002 thru Early 2003
[link to zetatalk.com]

 Quoting: Gerard

All of which are lens flare, sun dogs or artifacts produced from pointing a camera at the sun. Even Nancy has admitted they aren't really "Planet X." Where have you been?

Last Edited by Circuit Breaker on 09/29/2009 01:35 PM
A voice of reason in a world of woo-woos.
Menow
User ID: 405501
United States
09/29/2009 01:36 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Better take a look at this page

Sightings Archive of 2002 thru Early 2003
[link to zetatalk.com]

Unconfirmed


Gerard
[link to poleshift.ning.com]
 Quoting: Gerard


UNCONFIRMED. Period.
Gerard

User ID: 334168
Netherlands
09/29/2009 01:37 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
And how does JWD explain this

To: Nancy Leider
From: J.William Dell
Subject: SHAVAS 3-R, 4-R, 5-R

Greetings and to the point;

I have had an opportunity to look at all the SHAVAS R Filter pictures individually.
These were loaded in freeware Cadet Calibration Fits software using all 6 dark plates.

I would like to point out anomolies in Frames 3-R, 4-R, 5-R

In frame 3-R, is an object just above the circle known as Steve's candidate.
In frame 4-R, is an anomolie in the exact coordinates that were given.
In frame 5-R, is the object that has been given by the Zetas as Planet X.

These pictures were taken, so I am to understand, as 2 minute exposures.

With red light bending, are we seeing the actual Planet X in different locations in the
different 2 minute pictures? In frame 4-R specifically, have we captured the red light
shifting within this one picture (which has created what looks like a moving object on the
exposure)?

I am using the freeware Avis Fits Viewer program, which is quite good, and it includes
as part of its features an ability to recognize stars and indicate pixel intensity. When
passing the cross hairs over objects in Fits files it recognizes the objects in 4-R and 5-R
as filmed objects on the picture. It ignores the object in 3-R as it also ignores pixel noise
or Hot? pixels on all pictures. (Hope that makes sense, in essence, Avis Fits viewer considers
the objects in 4-R & 5-R as real.)

With the red shifting occuring, when doing a summary stacked image, especially median, any
object not appearing on different pictures in the same place would probably be removed.
Only in Sum, or with an object with high enough intensity in one picture, would an object
appear.

I was out last night looking (without telescope) to determine location.
Just at the horizon was the star above Orions belt (Ori_Alp_58, it has a common name, don't
know it off hand) which has a high red factor. Boy was it moving around in the atmosphere, it
made the point to me about shifting.

Kindest regards
J.William Dell

[link to zetatalk.com] ?
Returner
User ID: 997
United States
09/29/2009 01:38 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Sorry, man, but as evidence the items you posted are worse than useless.

What they saw could have been anything.

And if people were seeing an extra planet in the freaking sky with a weak pair of binoculars, why weren't astronomers, amateur and otherwise, seeing it in their far more advanced and powerful telescopes?

You're claiming a body the size of a planet was practically a naked-eye body in Earth's sky.

Apparently you don't undertand the implications of this statement.


The effects such an event would have on not only Earth but the entire Solar System would have been catastrophic, not to mention irrefutable.

So that's zero evidence for PX, as usual.

And by the way, if you'd care to know what WAS seen in the skies on any particular date from any inhabited locale, there are literally thousands of amateur astronomer's clubs out there that keep records who would love to help you out.

Oh, but wait, they're all in the grip of some Vast Unseen Conspiracy, right?

Riiiiight...
Circuit Breaker

User ID: 766491
United States
09/29/2009 01:38 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
He explained it already if you would go back a few pages. But here you go:

I would not call myself an "imaging expert" then or now.
But as someone who worked with those fits files in 2002/2003, I will say that those telescope images did not capture anything that can be realistically called proof.

We captured a lot of "noise", any piece of which could be pointed to as PX.

But the best evidence is;
If it wasn’t where it was supposed to be in May 2003, how could it have been where we were pointing the telescope in 2002?

Planets don’t vanish. The planet wasn’t there to begin with.


That IS the only logical explanation.
Kindest Regards
J.William Dell
 Quoting: J.William Dell


And, if "Planet X" is really near the sun, why have there not been any recent sightings posted on Nancy's sight? Why are they all five years or older?

Last Edited by Circuit Breaker on 09/29/2009 01:40 PM
A voice of reason in a world of woo-woos.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 719433
United States
09/29/2009 01:40 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
I have a thesis regarding the appeal of ZetaTalk. ZetaTalk appeals to many people at first take because it ties up reality in a nice neat bundle. That is, most people wonder what the answer to all the unknowns in the world are. They look at religion, politics, science, business, and social malfunction and wonder what the heck is going on. All the old philosophies and ‘Truth’ they were told doesn’t seem to answer their questions. So ZetaTalk connects the dots because they are not constrained by traditional logic or science. They use semi-plausible explanations referring to highly technical areas of endeavor and it many times takes knowledge and research to debunk their statements. It is very hard for most people to imagine the three dimensional alignments of the heavens and recognize Orbital Mechanics and the like unless they have done it most of their lives. Most people are not aware of the position of the planets or constellations based on season, time, date and their position on the earth. You mix in optical diffractions that cause photographic artifacts and you get more confusion.
Often people see what they are told they are suppose to see and pile on to a theory when a more logical and reasoned approach is warranted. So the following I have not seen debunked so please show me your answers:
The supposed SOHO images of Planet X? Is this Venus, Mars, other, etc.? [link to www.youtube.com] [link to www.youtube.com]

 Quoting: George B


That's a good question, but with a very simple answer. SOHO's camera is a CCD, or Charge Coupled Device. These cameras come in two flavors...blooming and anti-blooming. What this means is that very bright objects cause electrons to bleed over from one pixel to the next and from row to row...that's the winged shape you see. While this can be mitigated with "anti-blooming gates" built into the imaging chip, it results in a non-linear response in coverting photons to electrons. This is OK for a non-scientific application such as comsumer cameras where non-linearity is not an issue, but for a camera used for scientific measurements, linearity is very important, and so the imager used in SOHO is subject to blooming when bright stars or planets are in its field of view.

Here are some references:

[link to sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov]

[link to www.badastronomy.com]

[link to yowcrooks.wordpress.com]
Gerard

User ID: 334168
Netherlands
09/29/2009 01:40 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Better take a look at this page

Sightings Archive of 2002 thru Early 2003
[link to zetatalk.com]


All of which are lens flare, sun dogs or artifacts produced from pointing a camera at the sun. Even Nancy has admitted they aren't really "Planet X." Where have you been?

 Quoting: Circuit Breaker


I know what she said yes. That there are pictures that are not really "Planet X".
Menow
User ID: 405501
United States
09/29/2009 01:40 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
I'm afraid that the two main sites outlining the PX imaging debacle, by Sarah Mac and John Oliver, are no longer available. Suffice it to say that those two astronomers went to a lot of trouble to analyse the images and found NOTHING remotely resembling Nancy's planet.
Circuit Breaker

User ID: 766491
United States
09/29/2009 01:41 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
And, here's another question for Gerard - How can "Planet X" be here....Andrew says it isn't. So, who are we to believe?
A voice of reason in a world of woo-woos.
Menow
User ID: 405501
United States
09/29/2009 01:41 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Better take a look at this page

Sightings Archive of 2002 thru Early 2003
[link to zetatalk.com]


All of which are lens flare, sun dogs or artifacts produced from pointing a camera at the sun. Even Nancy has admitted they aren't really "Planet X." Where have you been?



I know what she said yes. That there are pictures that are not really "Planet X".
 Quoting: Gerard


Well, Gerard, exactly how did YOU determine that Nancy's images showed PX and not mere noise?
Circuit Breaker

User ID: 766491
United States
09/29/2009 01:42 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
I know what she said yes. That there are pictures that are not really "Planet X".
 Quoting: Gerard


So, then which ones are real and which ones aren't? Nancy has been asked this before and refuses to answer. If you can't tell us, then how do you any of them are real?
A voice of reason in a world of woo-woos.
Circuit Breaker

User ID: 766491
United States
09/29/2009 01:44 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
That's a good question, but with a very simple answer. SOHO's camera is a CCD, or Charge Coupled Device. These cameras come in two flavors...blooming and anti-blooming. What this means is that very bright objects cause electrons to bleed over from one pixel to the next and from row to row...that's the winged shape you see. While this can be mitigated with "anti-blooming gates" built into the imaging chip, it results in a non-linear response in coverting photons to electrons. This is OK for a non-scientific application such as comsumer cameras where non-linearity is not an issue, but for a camera used for scientific measurements, linearity is very important, and so the imager used in SOHO is subject to blooming when bright stars or planets are in its field of view.

Here are some references:

[link to sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov]

[link to www.badastronomy.com]

[link to yowcrooks.wordpress.com]
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 719433

Hey! Stop trying to confuse the issue with facts and logic! You know that bunkers reject any information that doesn't support Nancy.
A voice of reason in a world of woo-woos.
Menow
User ID: 405501
United States
09/29/2009 01:46 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
And how does JWD explain this

To: Nancy Leider
From: J.William Dell
Subject: SHAVAS 3-R, 4-R, 5-R

Greetings and to the point;

(snip)

With red light bending,

(snip)

Kindest regards
J.William Dell

[link to zetatalk.com] ?
 Quoting: Gerard


I'll let JWD answer that for himself, but considering that he belived the blather about "red light bending", which is pure hogwash, I'll say that he had simply been bamboozled.... Much like you STILL are, Gerard.
Returner
User ID: 997
United States
09/29/2009 01:46 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
The *real* photos of Planet X are the ones which don't show Planet X at all, because the light emitted by PX is redshifted into the deep infrared!

Thus, each and every photo taken of the night sky PROVES the existence of PX since it is clearly not there.

Of course, there are photos of Planet X which do show PX. In these cases, the infrared spectrum shift was re-polarized by Repulsive Gravity so that it briefly crossed the Plane of the Ecliptic and was rendered visible.

From this we can derive that ANY and ALL photos which claim to show PX do in fact show PX!

Zetas right again!
User # 78/68

User ID: 681262
Canada
09/29/2009 01:48 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
And how does JWD explain this

To: Nancy Leider
From: J.William Dell
Subject: SHAVAS 3-R, 4-R, 5-R

Greetings and to the point;

I have had an opportunity to look at all the SHAVAS R Filter pictures individually.
These were loaded in freeware Cadet Calibration Fits software using all 6 dark plates.

I would like to point out anomolies in Frames 3-R, 4-R, 5-R

In frame 3-R, is an object just above the circle known as Steve's candidate.
In frame 4-R, is an anomolie in the exact coordinates that were given.
In frame 5-R, is the object that has been given by the Zetas as Planet X.

These pictures were taken, so I am to understand, as 2 minute exposures.

With red light bending, are we seeing the actual Planet X in different locations in the
different 2 minute pictures? In frame 4-R specifically, have we captured the red light
shifting within this one picture (which has created what looks like a moving object on the
exposure)?

I am using the freeware Avis Fits Viewer program, which is quite good, and it includes
as part of its features an ability to recognize stars and indicate pixel intensity. When
passing the cross hairs over objects in Fits files it recognizes the objects in 4-R and 5-R
as filmed objects on the picture. It ignores the object in 3-R as it also ignores pixel noise
or Hot? pixels on all pictures. (Hope that makes sense, in essence, Avis Fits viewer considers
the objects in 4-R & 5-R as real.)

With the red shifting occuring, when doing a summary stacked image, especially median, any
object not appearing on different pictures in the same place would probably be removed.
Only in Sum, or with an object with high enough intensity in one picture, would an object
appear.

I was out last night looking (without telescope) to determine location.
Just at the horizon was the star above Orions belt (Ori_Alp_58, it has a common name, don't
know it off hand) which has a high red factor. Boy was it moving around in the atmosphere, it
made the point to me about shifting.

Kindest regards
J.William Dell

[link to zetatalk.com] ?
 Quoting: Gerard





It appears JWD has some explainin to do!
How can somebody make observations like these and then turn around and say he didn't see this?

Either he saw it, or he didn't see it. He can't have it both ways. He gives detailed observations, and then he takes it all back ... later ... I don't think so!

Credibility a big ZERO.
J.William Dell

User ID: 12576
Canada
09/29/2009 01:54 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
To be honest. I think he (JWD) is angry or should i rather say
P*ss*d *ff cause 2003 didn't occur (because of the white lie) And this is why he act this way.
 Quoting: Gerard


P*ss*d off is putting it mildly!

Chasing planets that never showed up.
Reported sightings that are never confirmed.

Telling lies to mask a failed prediction after 8 years of telling everyone, it will absolutely, positively show up on May 15 2003.

P*ss*d off that I bought into this hoax.
P*ss*d off for what it did to myself and others.
P*ss*d off that Zetatalk still has followers ready to swallow any BS given to them.

After 6 years I've returned to help ensure that others don't get sucked into this bullsh*t!

Seeing the efforts of CB, Menow, Prof Rabbit, Dr. Postman and the creative efforts of Lone Ranger setting up this thread, I felt that it was time to step inside and debunk the imaging that was going on in 2002/2003, as it is being used as evidence to support this continuing fantasy.

From what I know now, I can safely say that we were plotting noise on the starcharts and at no time did we ever provide proof of Niburu's existance or proximity to earth.

PX ain't here, and won't be here by 2012.
Quit wasting your life on this, it's time to move on to something useful.

And as to my involvement from 2000 to 2003, I can only say.

Mea Maxima Culpa

JWD
Circuit Breaker

User ID: 766491
United States
09/29/2009 01:55 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
It appears JWD has some explainin to do!
How can somebody make observations like these and then turn around and say he didn't see this?

Either he saw it, or he didn't see it. He can't have it both ways. He gives detailed observations, and then he takes it all back ... later ... I don't think so!

Credibility a big ZERO.
 Quoting: User # 78/68

You didn't read my post where I provided some of his information did you?

And you want to talk about credibility? "Planet X" didn't show up in 2003 as Nancy claimed. That makes her credibility a big ZERO.

As for you - you claimed Hap shouldn't be trusted and didn't really own the equipment that he claimed to. And yet, when given the opportunity to see it for yourself or contact him, you ran away. That makes YOUR credibility a big ZERO.

Imagine that!
A voice of reason in a world of woo-woos.
Returner
User ID: 997
United States
09/29/2009 01:59 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Somewhere out there, the PXers are looking at all these mentions of ZERO and are shaking their heads and saying "Wha?"
Circuit Breaker

User ID: 766491
United States
09/29/2009 02:03 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Don't mind Gerard or User, JWD. They obviously don't understand that mistakes are made. They don't understand the scientific process and that as data is analyzed, conclusions change. It's obvious to us that you believed you were imaging "Planet X." But, when it didn't show up in 2003 like it should have and was nowhere to be seen...then it left the preliminary data in question. And, as you said, planets don't just disappear. You obviously re-examined the data and came to a new conclusion based on the new information - that being the non-appearance of "Planet X". Why this is so hard for User and Gerard to understand is beyond me.

Last Edited by Circuit Breaker on 09/29/2009 02:09 PM
A voice of reason in a world of woo-woos.
Circuit Breaker

User ID: 766491
United States
09/29/2009 02:04 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Somewhere out there, the PXers are looking at all these mentions of ZERO and are shaking their heads and saying "Wha?"
 Quoting: Returner 997

It amazes me that User would use it in the first place considering he doesn't have any credibility himself.
A voice of reason in a world of woo-woos.
Circuit Breaker

User ID: 766491
United States
09/29/2009 02:08 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
No response, Gerard? Here, I'll post it again in case you missed it:

As we all know, the "white lie" was supposedly implemented to force the government to "show its hand." But, for those of us that can think, it's obvious the "white lie" was nothing but an excuse. Why is it an excuse? Because throughout March, April and May, Nancy insisted that "Planet X" was coming...and that signs of its arrival had all come true such as rotation slowing, imploding buildings and weather events. However, one could simply observe for themselves and see that rotation wasn't slowing at all...sunrise and sunset times were at the same times as they were the year before. The buildings Nancy claimed imploded hadn't actually done any such thing...they simply collapsed from structural failure. And the extreme weather could be attributed to other factors all having nothing to do with some "rogue planet." But she continued to insist it was coming even though one important event hadn't come true...and that was "Planet X" being "undeniable in the sky." Based on previous ZetaTalk, that should have happened in April of 2003...but didn't. So, I asked Nancy if she was sure the "pole shift" was going to happen because "Planet X" was nowhere to be seen. I also asked her what she did to verify the many reports being sent to her because, based on my observations, nothing she claimed was actually happening. And that's when I got labeled a "government agent" and told to go "drown in the pole shift." So, if I and many others could see that "Planet X" wasn't here and none of the other precursors had come true...what makes Nancy or any of her followers think the government wouldn't have been smart enough to figure it out as well?

In addition, one simple statement from ZetaTalk contradicts the need for any "white lie."

"As explained on Gentile last evening, but repeated here as many will not be able to hear this streaming audio, we have given the dates out because the US and Indonesian governments can no longer succeed with their plans. We had held the date close, to put these governments in the same position the common man they planned to murder are in, so that rotation stoppage would happen suddenly and prevent a smooth blockading of the city dwellers. As Nancy has been able to be interviewed in the US, the message of these plans replayed around the world, cooperation by the military or locale police in such blockades are unlikely to happen. Given such orders, they would object, refuse, allow escape, as they know the true agenda. Thus, the number of people injured by withholding the date outnumbered the number that would be murdered, the balance scale tipped."
ZetaTalk: Dates, Why Now?
 Quoting: ZetaTalk


Read that first sentence again. It clearly states the Zetas gave out the dates because the U.S. and Indonesian governments would not succeed with their plans. The statement then clearly states that the military and local police would not cooperate. They would allow people to flee. So, why would there need to be a "white lie?" The "Zetas" just said the "balance scale tipped" and withholding the date would harm more than those it would help.

Care to take a stab at explaining that Gerard? Your master Nancy certainly hasn't. In fact, she refuses to. Why is that? Because she can't?
A voice of reason in a world of woo-woos.
George B

User ID: 758858
United States
09/29/2009 02:08 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
I have a thesis regarding the appeal of ZetaTalk. ZetaTalk appeals to many people at first take because it ties up reality in a nice neat bundle. That is, most people wonder what the answer to all the unknowns in the world are. They look at religion, politics, science, business, and social malfunction and wonder what the heck is going on. All the old philosophies and ‘Truth’ they were told doesn’t seem to answer their questions. So ZetaTalk connects the dots because they are not constrained by traditional logic or science. They use semi-plausible explanations referring to highly technical areas of endeavor and it many times takes knowledge and research to debunk their statements. It is very hard for most people to imagine the three dimensional alignments of the heavens and recognize Orbital Mechanics and the like unless they have done it most of their lives. Most people are not aware of the position of the planets or constellations based on season, time, date and their position on the earth. You mix in optical diffractions that cause photographic artifacts and you get more confusion.
Often people see what they are told they are suppose to see and pile on to a theory when a more logical and reasoned approach is warranted. So the following I have not seen debunked so please show me your answers:
The supposed SOHO images of Planet X? Is this Venus, Mars, other, etc.? [link to www.youtube.com] [link to www.youtube.com]



That's a good question, but with a very simple answer. SOHO's camera is a CCD, or Charge Coupled Device. These cameras come in two flavors...blooming and anti-blooming. What this means is that very bright objects cause electrons to bleed over from one pixel to the next and from row to row...that's the winged shape you see. While this can be mitigated with "anti-blooming gates" built into the imaging chip, it results in a non-linear response in coverting photons to electrons. This is OK for a non-scientific application such as comsumer cameras where non-linearity is not an issue, but for a camera used for scientific measurements, linearity is very important, and so the imager used in SOHO is subject to blooming when bright stars or planets are in its field of view.

Here are some references:

[link to sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov]

[link to www.badastronomy.com]

[link to yowcrooks.wordpress.com]
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 719433


Based on the 05.25.09 SOHO datestamp what do we expect this image is . . . Venus, Mars, etc.?
Martin Luther King . . . Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter!

All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them.
Galileo Galilei, Italian astronomer & physicist (1564 - 1642)

coffee4

The only thing guaranteed in life is deception. . . everything else is optional, except for death and taxes . . . George B
J.William Dell

User ID: 12576
Canada
09/29/2009 02:19 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
And how does JWD explain this

To: Nancy Leider
From: J.William Dell
Subject: SHAVAS 3-R, 4-R, 5-R

Greetings and to the point;

I have had an opportunity to look at all the SHAVAS R Filter pictures individually.
These were loaded in freeware Cadet Calibration Fits software using all 6 dark plates.

I would like to point out anomolies in Frames 3-R, 4-R, 5-R

In frame 3-R, is an object just above the circle known as Steve's candidate.
In frame 4-R, is an anomolie in the exact coordinates that were given.
In frame 5-R, is the object that has been given by the Zetas as Planet X.

These pictures were taken, so I am to understand, as 2 minute exposures.

With red light bending, are we seeing the actual Planet X in different locations in the
different 2 minute pictures? In frame 4-R specifically, have we captured the red light
shifting within this one picture (which has created what looks like a moving object on the
exposure)?

I am using the freeware Avis Fits Viewer program, which is quite good, and it includes
as part of its features an ability to recognize stars and indicate pixel intensity. When
passing the cross hairs over objects in Fits files it recognizes the objects in 4-R and 5-R
as filmed objects on the picture. It ignores the object in 3-R as it also ignores pixel noise
or Hot? pixels on all pictures. (Hope that makes sense, in essence, Avis Fits viewer considers
the objects in 4-R & 5-R as real.)

With the red shifting occuring, when doing a summary stacked image, especially median, any
object not appearing on different pictures in the same place would probably be removed.
Only in Sum, or with an object with high enough intensity in one picture, would an object
appear.

I was out last night looking (without telescope) to determine location.
Just at the horizon was the star above Orions belt (Ori_Alp_58, it has a common name, don't
know it off hand) which has a high red factor. Boy was it moving around in the atmosphere, it
made the point to me about shifting.

Kindest regards
J.William Dell

[link to zetatalk.com] ?

It appears JWD has some explainin to do!
How can somebody make observations like these and then turn around and say he didn't see this?

Either he saw it, or he didn't see it. He can't have it both ways. He gives detailed observations, and then he takes it all back ... later ... I don't think so!

Credibility a big ZERO.
 Quoting: User # 78/68


My credibility went to Zero when the observations done on the imaging was shown to be false by the non-appearance of PX in May 2003.

Others continue to hold those images up as evidence after May 2003. Why?

At this point, because of my involvement in 2002/2003 I work from the premise that I have no credibility in this matter and leave others to arrive at their own conclusions.


I will state, based on review of the images after the no show of May 2003 and no PX appearing between then and now, that there is no supporting evidence for PX being in the solar system at this time.

JWD

News