Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 3,010 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 2,636,179
Pageviews Today: 3,538,145Threads Today: 748Posts Today: 15,126
10:01 PM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

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

 
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 971789
Germany
05/16/2010 12:48 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Menow, I posted some thoughts to the other thread. I cannot retype them all. I hope you enjoy.

You might learn some stuff if you didn't know it, and anyway, best wishes.

Nighty-night.
 Quoting: mclarek 971744

I would very much like to hear your opinion about Nancys claim that earth is halted in orbit since 2003 and the Zetas turn the universe wround so we dont recognise that earth is halted in orbit !?
mclarek
User ID: 971744
Canada
05/16/2010 01:09 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Menow, I posted some thoughts to the other thread. I cannot retype them all. I hope you enjoy.

You might learn some stuff if you didn't know it, and anyway, best wishes.

Nighty-night.

I would very much like to hear your opinion about Nancys claim that earth is halted in orbit since 2003 and the Zetas turn the universe wround so we dont recognise that earth is halted in orbit !?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 971789


Dear person from Germany (since that is the only name I have for you, my posts were not on that rather extreme claim. I am not saying something/someone couldn't do such a thing -- but as to its possibility, nevermind its probability or, to continue, its likelihood, I hardly reasonably can comment.

What I will say is that from a purely reasonable point of view, i.e., scientific philosophy standards, if we are going to assess NL's claims, we must look at each one AND at interrelationships. This is what a detective-and-lawyer combo does for crimes, fyi.

So, the Earth stoppage is of course an oddball claim, and prima facie is likely to be untrue. But it is IMPOSSIBLE? Well, we don't know.

If there are aliens and they have such capacity, then it is possible; if they have an interest and there's a reason for doing it, they might do it and that gives a probability. And if on top of that there's a PX, there's a likelihood.

I should also add, that what we are doing below IS A TEST OF NANCY'S WORK -- not all tests are directly physical. Menow suggested no-one had tested the claims all along. Some tests came in the form of the oddities (described below) actually happening. Some of the tests are by means of our reason, all of us. And some tests, yes, would be persons who begin to notice if shadowsides of buildings disappear become sunlit another (or vice versa) at the same time of year from one year to another -- and if so, that would be an anomaly which prima facie woud be evidence the Sun was rising differently. We have had such claims; unfortunately we cannot know if they are accurate or not. We can SUPPOSE they are wrong, but we don't know.

But to back up, my posts were on the Chandler Wobble anomaly of 2005-2006, which Menow said didn't exist, and same with the Magnetic North moving out of Canada, which he also said didn't happen.

Here is the info (and if the links don't copy, just click here and get them -- I don't want to have to re-find them) Thread: ZetaTalk LIVE Chat May 15 (Page 9) NOTE it's the "mclarek" post from 12:25 AM EST:

<addressing Menow>

Sadly ... The evidence on the Chandler Wobble comes from Mainstream sources (though they would never suggest we were "torqued" from afar, over a few months, since though that would be possible, they would have no other suggestion of such a thing than this one event -- hence would not be likely to hypothesize it).

Also, though I cannot find it now (I tried but I had only one surfing success on this), the torque/movement of the Wobble was given in the Sorbonne French Astronomy site, for the whole period from 2004-2008. Now I cannot find it, and all they have now is a visual chart for the last year or so.

They do have other data, so the weird backwards-forwrds movement (not a STOP, but a significant back-forth arc with a point of return) might be "available" from them, but not in easy format. I have run into this with other things that I or someone who's a researcher into a subject DID have the expertise to read: the info can be available but hidden in un-easy forms, while the easy forms don't go back far enough. It's possible this is what they've done.

What you CAN find is of course Michae Mandeville's charts pulled from the official site (IERS): [link to www.michaelmandeville.com]

Now, the point I'm making isn't that there never for sure hasn't been such a thing before, but there hasn't been since tracking it. Second, it seems counterintuitive to reason that our wobble would go backwards: this isn't a trajectory of fluffball in water, it is the linear picture of a spinning top wobbling, which could go forward or sideways a bit, but BACKWARD over several months and then forward again??? So, I say, in combination with the Magnetic Pole beeline in the North, as if pushed maybe, and the pull-to-a-near-stop in the South, we are likely to be under something's influence.

But there's more.

However, I am saying there is no reason for you to be so sure any more than some of the people who are not careful thinkers who visit the site have to be sure without thinking about why. I think there is value in anecdote, too, but of course it would be nice if people kept absolute records of Sun-shadow placement shifts and such.

Having said that, if a side of a building used to be in Sun by a certain time of the year and now it is not fully ... that (if true) would not require careful measurement. It would be a prima facie argument. (It should be tested, true, to make sure the person telling it was accurate, but it only requires a couple of brain cells to understand that cannot be normal if it's true.)

And other than anecdote: you dismiss "weird weather". Well, I admit that some weather might have been weird without a PX threat, but record-doubling rain in a certain number of hours (Tennessee recently), the previous record of which was set after a hurricane, no less, so it's not "just another record" -- and the circumstances of the generator "failures" in Chile (I think it was), where the generators seemed to have been overloaded, and which is NOT normal (if true) ... and so on. In combination, these facts could indeed be a pile-up of not just freak occurrences, but a related set of anomalies. If it IS just a pile-up of freak occurrences, it is the oddest set of co-incidences I've ever heard of. (I mean, adding in other things, not just the two I've mentioned here.)

Could that be "just" a movement backward? I'd say possibly, except I don't actually know if it would even be possble: these are massive forces of our, shall we say, gyroscopic Earth; something gripping it with a magnetic-cum-gravitic tug would maybe over a few months actually pull on it.


Didn't happen. Simple as that.
Quoting: Menow 935048


If you were right, then sure, PX might not be here. But it DID happen.

Then there's the bee-line of the North Magnetic Pole out of Canada quite rapidly.


Didn't happen. Nancy lies or exaggerates about everything she uses as 'evidence', you know.
Quoting: Menow 935048


Oh [...] this is you NOT being smart, Menow. [I like you but this is not] even socially smart: only the dumbest would just take your word on that.

First, though one of the articles originally on it has been removed (scrubbed? or innocently taken off?) and was at [link to www.canada.com]

... that article was reproduced in many places. One was [link to the-rabbits-hole.com]

And before you say the article could have been a fake, just so's you know, the URL for the Edmonton Journal says, "Sorry, this story is not available" ... not that it MIGHT be a wrong link or MIGHT have been removed. Some say the latter, this one does not.

And the Rabbits Hole source also has clear diagrams (putatively from the article itself?) which show where and how quickly the movement is, compared to what's happening in the South at the same time.

But just for you, Menow, here is a definitely still on line article through CNN about it as well: [link to archives.cnn.com]
mclarek
User ID: 971744
Canada
05/16/2010 01:20 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Damn: they DIDN'T copy.

Okay, here they are:

[link to www.michaelmandeville.com]

[link to www.canada.com]

(which I said was missing and explained why I still linked to it)

[link to the-rabbits-hole.com]

[link to archives.cnn.com]

Now, of course, Menow has replied with the idea "how could something do all that from afar"? Well at least we're on to putative answers.

Part of the issue is massive electro-magnetics. Veliovsky covered this and over the years, as he and others refined the thinking and responded to debunkers, the claims became more and more possible. But they are intuitively sensible anyway. That IF something came close, it would have the charge we all have, but which normal astrophysicists really discount. I mean: the Sun is giving off charge all the time and the Planets with metal cores are just neutral! Makes me laugh. No, they have magnetic belts, but must also be charged. It's not fluff here, it's electro-magnetism after all!

And part of the answer would be, if PX is real, maybe other particle flows. Who's to know what we don't know yet? The putative Zetas have suggested such things; it could be. But magnetism is part of it for sure, if you think about it without a few centuries of Newtonian classical mechanics in your way -- not because the latter is "wrong" but because Newton had no knowledge about electro-magnetism to start with. And besides, he had many flaws, Newton did, as well as insights. Anyway, enjoy the info.
Menow
User ID: 935048
United States
05/16/2010 01:21 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Menow, I posted some thoughts to the other thread. I cannot retype them all. I hope you enjoy.

You might learn some stuff if you didn't know it, and anyway, best wishes.

Nighty-night.

I would very much like to hear your opinion about Nancys claim that earth is halted in orbit since 2003 and the Zetas turn the universe wround so we dont recognise that earth is halted in orbit !?


Dear person from Germany (since that is the only name I have for you, my posts were not on that rather extreme claim. I am not saying something/someone couldn't do such a thing -- but as to its possibility, nevermind its probability or, to continue, its likelihood, I hardly reasonably can comment.

What I will say is that from a purely reasonable point of view, i.e., scientific philosophy standards, if we are going to assess NL's claims, we must look at each one AND at interrelationships. This is what a detective-and-lawyer combo does for crimes, fyi.

So, the Earth stoppage is of course an oddball claim, and prima facie is likely to be untrue. But it is IMPOSSIBLE? Well, we don't know.
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


Speak for yourself.

If there are aliens and they have such capacity, then it is possible; if they have an interest and there's a reason for doing it, they might do it and that gives a probability. And if on top of that there's a PX, there's a likelihood.
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


You don't seem to know Nancy's claims very well. She doesn't claim that aliens stopped Earth in orbit. She claims that PX stopped Earth from orbiting the Sun due to it's "repulsion force".

I should also add, that what we are doing below IS A TEST OF NANCY'S WORK -- not all tests are directly physical. Menow suggested no-one had tested the claims all along.
Some tests came in the form of the oddities (described below) actually happening. Some of the tests are by means of our reason, all of us. And some tests, yes, would be persons who begin to notice if shadowsides of buildings disappear become sunlit another (or vice versa) at the same time of year from one year to another -- and if so, that would be an anomaly which prima facie woud be evidence the Sun was rising differently. We have had such claims; unfortunately we cannot know if they are accurate or not. We can SUPPOSE they are wrong, but we don't know.
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


Speak for yourself. Unless there is a different sun being seen in different parts of Earth, the claim of "Sun out of place" is flat wrong.

But to back up, my posts were on the Chandler Wobble anomaly of 2005-2006, which Menow said didn't exist, and same with the Magnetic North moving out of Canada, which he also said didn't happen.

Here is the info (and if the links don't copy, just click here and get them -- I don't want to have to re-find them) Thread: ZetaTalk LIVE Chat May 15 (Page 9) NOTE it's the "mclarek" post from 12:25 AM EST:

<addressing Menow>

Sadly ... The evidence on the Chandler Wobble comes from Mainstream sources (though they would never suggest we were "torqued" from afar, over a few months, since though that would be possible, they would have no other suggestion of such a thing than this one event -- hence would not be likely to hypothesize it).

Also, though I cannot find it now (I tried but I had only one surfing success on this), the torque/movement of the Wobble was given in the Sorbonne French Astronomy site, for the whole period from 2004-2008. Now I cannot find it, and all they have now is a visual chart for the last year or so.

They do have other data, so the weird backwards-forwrds movement (not a STOP, but a significant back-forth arc with a point of return) might be "available" from them, but not in easy format. I have run into this with other things that I or someone who's a researcher into a subject DID have the expertise to read: the info can be available but hidden in un-easy forms, while the easy forms don't go back far enough. It's possible this is what they've done.

What you CAN find is of course Michae Mandeville's charts pulled from the official site (IERS): [link to www.michaelmandeville.com]

Now, the point I'm making isn't that there never for sure hasn't been such a thing before, but there hasn't been since tracking it. Second, it seems counterintuitive to reason that our wobble would go backwards: this isn't a trajectory of fluffball in water, it is the linear picture of a spinning top wobbling, which could go forward or sideways a bit, but BACKWARD over several months and then forward again??? So, I say, in combination with the Magnetic Pole beeline in the North, as if pushed maybe, and the pull-to-a-near-stop in the South, we are likely to be under something's influence.

But there's more.

However, I am saying there is no reason for you to be so sure any more than some of the people who are not careful thinkers who visit the site have to be sure without thinking about why. I think there is value in anecdote, too, but of course it would be nice if people kept absolute records of Sun-shadow placement shifts and such.

Having said that, if a side of a building used to be in Sun by a certain time of the year and now it is not fully ... that (if true) would not require careful measurement. It would be a prima facie argument. (It should be tested, true, to make sure the person telling it was accurate, but it only requires a couple of brain cells to understand that cannot be normal if it's true.)

And other than anecdote: you dismiss "weird weather". Well, I admit that some weather might have been weird without a PX threat, but record-doubling rain in a certain number of hours (Tennessee recently), the previous record of which was set after a hurricane, no less, so it's not "just another record" -- and the circumstances of the generator "failures" in Chile (I think it was), where the generators seemed to have been overloaded, and which is NOT normal (if true) ... and so on. In combination, these facts could indeed be a pile-up of not just freak occurrences, but a related set of anomalies. If it IS just a pile-up of freak occurrences, it is the oddest set of co-incidences I've ever heard of. (I mean, adding in other things, not just the two I've mentioned here.)

Could that be "just" a movement backward? I'd say possibly, except I don't actually know if it would even be possble: these are massive forces of our, shall we say, gyroscopic Earth; something gripping it with a magnetic-cum-gravitic tug would maybe over a few months actually pull on it.


Didn't happen. Simple as that.
Quoting: Menow 935048


If you were right, then sure, PX might not be here. But it DID happen.

Then there's the bee-line of the North Magnetic Pole out of Canada quite rapidly.


Didn't happen. Nancy lies or exaggerates about everything she uses as 'evidence', you know.
Quoting: Menow 935048


Oh [...] this is you NOT being smart, Menow. [I like you but this is not] even socially smart: only the dumbest would just take your word on that.

First, though one of the articles originally on it has been removed (scrubbed? or innocently taken off?) and was at [link to www.canada.com]

... that article was reproduced in many places. One was [link to the-rabbits-hole.com]

And before you say the article could have been a fake, just so's you know, the URL for the Edmonton Journal says, "Sorry, this story is not available" ... not that it MIGHT be a wrong link or MIGHT have been removed. Some say the latter, this one does not.

And the Rabbits Hole source also has clear diagrams (putatively from the article itself?) which show where and how quickly the movement is, compared to what's happening in the South at the same time.

But just for you, Menow, here is a definitely still on line article through CNN about it as well: [link to archives.cnn.com]
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


Addressed already. It says: "...might soon...".
Menow
User ID: 935048
United States
05/16/2010 01:24 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Damn: they DIDN'T copy.

Okay, here they are:

[link to www.michaelmandeville.com]

[link to www.canada.com]

(which I said was missing and explained why I still linked to it)

[link to the-rabbits-hole.com]

[link to archives.cnn.com]

Now, of course, Menow has replied with the idea "how could something do all that from afar"? Well at least we're on to putative answers.

Part of the issue is massive electro-magnetics. Veliovsky covered this and over the years, as he and others refined the thinking and responded to debunkers, the claims became more and more possible. But they are intuitively sensible anyway. That IF something came close, it would have the charge we all have, but which normal astrophysicists really discount. I mean: the Sun is giving off charge all the time and the Planets with metal cores are just neutral! Makes me laugh. No, they have magnetic belts, but must also be charged. It's not fluff here, it's electro-magnetism after all!

And part of the answer would be, if PX is real, maybe other particle flows. Who's to know what we don't know yet? The putative Zetas have suggested such things; it could be. But magnetism is part of it for sure, if you think about it without a few centuries of Newtonian classical mechanics in your way -- not because the latter is "wrong" but because Newton had no knowledge about electro-magnetism to start with. And besides, he had many flaws, Newton did, as well as insights. Anyway, enjoy the info.
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


Let's just cut to the chase... you can argue Velicovsky here if you want. It's all been covered already...

Oh..the chase:

If PX exists, where is it?
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 971789
Germany
05/16/2010 01:25 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
I found it. The bot got you. You used a set of letters
beginning with an V followed by a k and then and A followed
by a z and then an s and so on. I have no clue how it was
used (part of a link?) but it's something the bot bans for.
I removed the ban.
 Quoting: DrPostman

OK ... then all my apologys to Nancy for claiming it was her ban ... next time I will ask you first before I claim it was her.

It's weird indeed, I just checked the youtube link I posted (last post before the ban) ... no such sequence of letters at all. Does the bot save the real sequence or do the mods have ability to change the log ... well, nevermind ... I dont want to be picky about that ... thx for clearing it up.
Menow
User ID: 935048
United States
05/16/2010 01:32 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Damn: they DIDN'T copy.

Okay, here they are:

[link to www.michaelmandeville.com]
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


I don't know if this is the same, but I remember Nancy touting an obvious glitch in the polar monitoring system as her "wobble". You need to understand that I/we have witnessed Nancy lying and distorting facts so many times that I, at least, don't usually bother to look anymore.

********************************

I really don't appreciate your making such a big deal over that Polaris image and not even facing this fact about the situation:


Nancy claims a WOBBLE, not a new NCP. That image does not show any wobble. What you claim it shows does NOT support Nancy's claims.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 74444
United States
05/16/2010 01:38 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Clare:

I would be happy to discuss Nancy's claims, and the physical evidence that seems to disagree with said claims.

I would start by asking you what mechanism can GOTO and permanently mounted telescopes compensate for the unpredicted movements of the heavens. How could they still find objects were there, in fact, an new NCP?

I would further ask you how Earth could be moving or rotating or wobbling unpredictably, yet aged charts are still correct regarding sunrises, sunsets, lunar movements, stars rising and setting, and constellations appearing on schedule. Sextants still reveal your correct position on Earth when taking Noon sightings, as an example.

I would also ask you your opinion on Nancy's claim that the Earth is halted in its orbit around the Sun, and supposedly has been for years, yet planets still show retrograde motions.

Lastly I would ask if there was any physical evidence whatsoever that you could IMAGINE being presented that would force you to conclude that Nancy's claims are false.
Menow
User ID: 935048
United States
05/16/2010 01:38 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Damn: they DIDN'T copy.

Okay, here they are:

[link to www.michaelmandeville.com]
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


Holy crap! Now I looked. THAT'S what you are going on about?? Do you KNOW the SCALE of that chart? (where have I heard that before?)


[link to www.canada.com]

(which I said was missing and explained why I still linked to it)

[link to the-rabbits-hole.com]
[/quote


Why do you insist upon mixing up two different subjects? Known TINY polar 'wiggles' and magnetic pole drift?

(snip)
Menow
User ID: 935048
United States
05/16/2010 01:48 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
I'm out for the night.

You see, Clare, you already have someone willing to discuss Nancy's claims with you. 74444 has been offering that to ANY and ALL of Nancy's followers for a long time. None have taken him up on it.

Have at it.
mclarek
User ID: 971744
Canada
05/16/2010 02:15 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
 Quoting: Menow 935048


Menow, hi.

Happy to chat, Menow.

I can't stay on much longer tonight, though.

1. You mentioned "no-one has tested this". Tests come in the form of predictions coming true ("stopped earth" or "extreme wobble" would fit the Chandler Woble anomaly). As to torquing, that would hypothetically be possible from massive electromagnetics from afar. And it would produce something like what we had. But yes, it was real. See below or in my previous posts.

secrets

Tests also come in the form of comparing possible hypotheses until all evidence fits where it best links to other evidence, and there may have been, for instance, 2 crimes in the same room, or something! Sometimes it's hard to tease it all out.

2.
So, the Earth stoppage is of course an oddball claim, and prima facie is likely to be untrue. But it is IMPOSSIBLE? Well, we don't know.


Speak for yourself.
 Quoting: Menow 935048


This is not rational of you, Menow. I am asking an objective-knowledge question. Is it POSSIBLE: well, it is not possible, which should make you temporarily happy, but then I have to say it's not impossible either -- TO OUR KNOWLEDGE. We actually can't say if it is or is not. So it's possible (maybe, is what I mean) that it's possible.

3.
If there are aliens and they have such capacity, then it is possible; if they have an interest and there's a reason for doing it, they might do it and that gives a probability. And if on top of that there's a PX, there's a likelihood.


You don't seem to know Nancy's claims very well. She doesn't claim that aliens stopped Earth in orbit. She claims that PX stopped Earth from orbiting the Sun due to it's "repulsion force".
 Quoting: Menow 935048


By the way, that's "its 'repulsion force'". Possessive, not "it is" so no apostrophe. (But with possessive nounts, such as "Monica's" or "Charlie's" there's an apostrophe. Know why? This is cool: there USED to be an "e" in there, in Middle English. So "two churches" and "a church's steeple", would both have been spelled the same way, as "churches": and we still say them the same way, like "churches". So the possessive apostrophe in nouns is actually a contraction too.) For the pronoun "it", the possessive has no contraction, "its", like "his", is just as it used to not be any apostrophe for the nouns, as I explained. The contracted "it's" is from "it is" and though it fooled you in pretending to be a possessive, it SO is not! :)

spell

I hope that was informative, and I was not by the way being nasty of course.

But I digress.

You mentioned the claims of NL, above, about aliens and earth stoppage, and I never said the aliens had a capacity to stop it; I was talking of the simulation of the seasons thing. And saying, rather, that if they existed and IF they could do it ... (blah blah) then it would be possible that they would and have. I am not saying it's true, just that if if if ... then it would be possible. And since we don't KNOW it isn't so ... we have to say it sounds unlikely, but it might be so.

4.

I should also add, that what we are doing below IS A TEST OF NANCY'S WORK -- not all tests are directly physical. Menow suggested no-one had tested the claims all along.
Some tests came in the form of the oddities (described below) actually happening. Some of the tests are by means of our reason, all of us. And some tests, yes, would be persons who begin to notice if shadowsides of buildings disappear become sunlit another (or vice versa) at the same time of year from one year to another -- and if so, that would be an anomaly which prima facie woud be evidence the Sun was rising differently. We have had such claims; unfortunately we cannot know if they are accurate or not. We can SUPPOSE they are wrong, but we don't know.


Speak for yourself. Unless there is a different sun being seen in different parts of Earth, the claim of "Sun out of place" is flat wrong.

Well, I have not been carefully measuring the sides of buildings and don't have a specific shed where I notice every day what its shadow should be like from time of year to time of year. And I'm sure most don't. So yes, either they're wrongful anecdotes, or they're the canaries in the coal mine.

The fact we don't KNOW is simpley rational. We don't know what we can't rule OUT. flowas


5. As to the Chandler Wobble ( [link to www.michaelmandeville.com] and Google the issue, though most say it "stopped" which it didn't really) ... and the North Magnetic Pole weirdness (yes it's weird), it WAS dumb of you to claim they didn't happen. You might want to rethink that one, even if you decide it isn't PX. But let me say the following, to your quotation below:

But just for you, Menow, here is a definitely still on line article through CNN about it as well: [link to archives.cnn.com]


Addressed already. It says: "...might soon...".
 Quoting: Menow 935048


It was not fully out of Canada. It was, by June that year. The issing Edmonton Journal article was posted on ATS on 13 June 2006. [link to www.no] link.com/forum/thread147065/pg1

It made its way very quickly, from 2000 to 2005 in the biggest jump, but it had been moving in a big step since after 1995. Now, PX supposedly was not close then, so it could be again unrelated to PX, but if the actual years shown in the diagram were small steps within that bar of 1995-2000, but the actual steps were smaller from 1995 and realy sped up around 1999 or so, this would work with an approaching body. We know other bodies have perturbations from others. cheers (Not that they hit and clink, but I thought that was a cute way to suggest interaction.)

Anyway, the pole went rather rapidly (and seemingly ANOMALOUSLY) out of Canada, and in roughly the same direction, towards the far far North. Canada's far North is so big one might say "far North" and "far far North"! Lol.

It's actually OUT of Canada now, according to the Edmonton Journal article. The link to see the maps (with a citation from the now-missing Edmonton Journal article) is, again: [link to the-rabbits-hole.com]

By the way, this was so odd, and REAL, if you would like to do your own research on your topic here -- for you cannot learn about something by thinking you have understood the material but before letting it all sift in all possibilities however remote to you at first -- that National Geographic teams commented on how flummoxed they were. One of them (a spokesperson, of whom we may at least ask ourselves in doubt, if he was some kind of co-opted mind/politics), said no worries. But that doesn't mean it was.
Here's the National Geographic article reproduced.
[link to the-rabbits-hole.com]

Now you could have done this research, too, before thinking things were so clear as you thought they were. How long have you been at this? Me, I am fairly new, but I have researched as many angles as I could and thought deeply about what would be required IF this were true, and what would be NOT critical to the claim, and also what key information would be LIKELY to be connected, if it happened -- etc.

Oh, and don't come back at me please, suggesting that because an article here or there has some other explanation for the issue it raises (in this case, about the Magnetic Pole effects) that that means their EXPLANATION has to be true. It might be, or it might not be. The thing is, in most of these things, the explanations are known to be lies (global warming man-made, yadda yadda), even when the article-writers or scientists are locked into it, or the explanations are admitted or suggested to be tentative. In the Nat Geo article there, the scientists (except the spokesperson) are shocked and have no explanation ready.

So, don't come at me with what they say it is, or how it's about the Earth's inner processes. The shocking item is that THIS magnetic shift in the North Pole wasn't thinkable, wtf before, and they will of course base their explanation for the new thing on assuming it has something to do with their already-theorized explanations.

But you and I know, sometimes something new to your theory is presenting itself. Not that a PX wouldn't have ever come by here before, but it's "new", relatively speaking, to the world we think we had roughly explained.



Good night, dude. (Or fellow? Some people don't like dude.) Anyway, Good night. I have to work tomorrow.
mclarek
User ID: 971744
Canada
05/16/2010 02:24 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Damn: they DIDN'T copy.

Okay, here they are:

[link to www.michaelmandeville.com]


Holy crap! Now I looked. THAT'S what you are going on about?? Do you KNOW the SCALE of that chart? (where have I heard that before?)


[link to www.canada.com]

(which I said was missing and explained why I still linked to it)

[link to the-rabbits-hole.com]



Why do you insist upon mixing up two different subjects? Known TINY polar 'wiggles' and magnetic pole drift?

(snip)
 Quoting: Menow 935048


Not tiny and not hypothetically unrelated, dear Menow.
In hypothesis (say, in crimes), you must test the "pink sweater" and the "gun" and the "hole in the wall" and so on, on their own data *and also* on their relationships. You hypothesize all possibilities you can think of to account for them, including the outlandish-seeming, and whittle away at those. You let the evidence speak to you for new or key directions, but you do not stay only at the level of the evidence -- you use your brain to compare.

There was an as-yet-unheard-of BACKTRACK in the wobble. There is also a bee-line out of the Magnetic North pole. And though they could be "weird things" with "some explanation" ... they also could be a long-range CHARGE from the putative Planet X, HYPOTHETICALLY SPEAKING. Not saying they ARE, but they COULD be. And you build a case for PX in order to understand IF there is one, and how it would work.

Only THEN can you figure out if it or the "co-incidences" idea really is superior.

Clare

Have a great night. cool2
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 971744
Canada
05/16/2010 02:37 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Clare:

I would be happy to discuss Nancy's claims, and the physical evidence that seems to disagree with said claims.

I would start by asking you what mechanism can GOTO and permanently mounted telescopes compensate for the unpredicted movements of the heavens. How could they still find objects were there, in fact, an new NCP?

I would further ask you how Earth could be moving or rotating or wobbling unpredictably, yet aged charts are still correct regarding sunrises, sunsets, lunar movements, stars rising and setting, and constellations appearing on schedule. Sextants still reveal your correct position on Earth when taking Noon sightings, as an example.

I would also ask you your opinion on Nancy's claim that the Earth is halted in its orbit around the Sun, and supposedly has been for years, yet planets still show retrograde motions.

Lastly I would ask if there was any physical evidence whatsoever that you could IMAGINE being presented that would force you to conclude that Nancy's claims are false.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 74444


Hi! My eyes are bleary and I am going to bed asap. I was focussed on Menow's immediate responses. You can read what I posted, below, for you and for him. And about the sextants and so on, I don't know that you are right or wrong. I assume you are right, and if so, does that debunk the whole claim of Nancy? Interesting thought. It COULD be the downfall of everything: we should have seen a PX if we were going around the Sun normally: at some point it would have putatively been on one side or the other and we in some side-view angle. So I suppose we HAVE to be stopped for her to be right.

However, that would NOT be the case if PX were so near the Sun in the early years of arrival, that it would not be semi-invisible against the brightness of the Sun. So then we don't HAVE to be stopped for her to be right.

Plus ... if there is some hypothetical "tilting" and "light"-bending, then NO we would not find too many indications something's wrong.

But finally, if ANYTHING came into the solar system, even from afar, and had a charge on it, then our Earth would have to feel the tug or pull. We're a complicated gyroscope and the direction-lines we maintain in wobble and spin and rotation around the Sun are massive, so most effects would be not immediate or without some mitigation. But if we were approached by a PX, with charge and gravity too, we, who HAVE to have a charge on us, would be affected with Magnetic Pole anomalies AND Wobble Torque at some point or disruption.

We have a charge, no matter what the astrophysicists like to babble on about that we don't, and no matter that they treat electromagnetism from the Sun on metal cores as "flow-through" energy with no charge (which is ridiculous) --

Electricity isn't static -- though there's a form which is forced to be "static" for a while.

Good night.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 971789
Germany
05/16/2010 02:45 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
First, thanks that you are willing to take part in a discussion here at the debunker thread ... which is very rare and which is the reason many posts here, be it by debunkers or followers of Nancy are only a war of words and insults.

Dear person from Germany (since that is the only name I have for you, my posts were not on that rather extreme claim. I am not saying something/someone couldn't do such a thing -- but as to its possibility, nevermind its probability or, to continue, its likelihood, I hardly reasonably can comment.
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


Her original claim is that earth is halted because of Planet X and some mysterious forces (gravitational pull and such things).

This of course is violating the known laws of physics. As she claimes the same time that Planet X is a natural object we have to suspect that it must obey the laws of physics other objects in space obey. In my opinion these laws mankind found out by theory and experience beginning with Isaac Newton all the way to modern quantum physics seem to be pretty accurate. Because based on these laws we flew to and landed on the moon (at least I think so), we have far out probes like Voyager that navigated through the whole solar system based on, we have hubble taking amazing pictures from things more far away than we can even imagine how far ... so all these laws of physics can't be so bad I guess. Yet Nancy claims all these laws wont work and only she and the Zetas really understand the universe.

Her next claim is that because earth is stopped in its orbit the Zetas manipulate out solar system so the people on earth don't panic. We all know what kind of energy would be necessary to do this trick. Even in Star Trek they can't do that. In my opinion this claim is extremely hidious ... but lets assume for a moment that the Zetas exist and have this kind of power ...

... if they were that powerfull they sure would have the power to stop Planet X from hurting earth. People asked Nancy why the Zetas won't help us that way and guess what she camu up with as answer ...

... She said the Zetas want the Service To Others (StO) earthlings to rise into the 4th density and this can only be achieved by a catharsic cleansing where all the Service To Self (STS) beings, which are basically all that don't follow her message bite the dust. I even remember her saying how much she looks forward to see us STS debunkers hanging with broken limbs on a cliff when the poleshift comes ... maybe another debunker has the link to that at hand ... cant find it right now, but I am sure all debunkers will agree that she said something like that. I'll dig it out these days and post it. The STS that will die in the poleshift will be reincarnated on a water-planet ... as Octopus and other mollusca lifeforms ... read for yourself here:

[link to www.zetatalk.com]

Those humans who are not ready to leave 3rd Density when they die will not reincarnate on Earth. As the Earth is scheduled to become a home for 4th Density entities in the Service-to-Other, these 3rd Density entities will go to a new world elsewhere in the Universe.
...
What will this new world be like?
...
It is a water world, with scarcely a rock or two jutting above the surface of the endless waves. The species on this planet have all evolved from life forms that spend their entire life in the water. Thus, no mammals exist on this planet, since a stint on land, such as occurred in the past for your whales and dolphins, was not possible during their evolutionary past.
 Quoting: Nancy Lieder


In my opinion this is the oldest trick in the snake-oil-sellers book. Make your believers think that they are special (being STO) and that they will be rewarded for their trust (rising to 4th density), while those who do not follow her advise (STS-people) will spent their next incarnation as lower water-living lifeform, living on a quote: "water world, with scarcely a rock or two jutting above the surface of the endless waves".
This is basically the old heaven and hell trick ... seems to still work fine fr some people.

What I want to say is that she trys to escape her own claims (earth stopped, Zetas make all seem normal, laws of physics are wrong etc, etc ) with a new claim, and then a new one and so forth or she just simply changes the topic. She has yet not even tried to really prove that earth is stopped in orbit and when people began to ask her about that in 2003 she came up with all the storys I just listed.

To me this is highly suspicious and does not look good for her cretibility.

What I will say is that from a purely reasonable point of view, i.e., scientific philosophy standards, if we are going to assess NL's claims, we must look at each one AND at interrelationships. This is what a detective-and-lawyer combo does for crimes, fyi.
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


I agree and disagree at the same time. If somebody makes several claims, and Nancy made literally hundreds of claims in the past 15 years ... by far most of them completely violating our known laws of physics ... one must indeed look at the each one AND at all in relation to each other. But still each single assertion s like a chain link. I mean when earth is stopped in orbit all people would recognize that whithin 24 hrs, even some natives in the jungle who dont even know what e telescope is ... as people obviously did not recognise this (except her little fellowship of true believers) it is absolutely imperative that the Zetas change the solar system in a way to get humanity fooled into believing all is still normal ... which makes it absolutely imperative that the Zetas possess these incredible powers to do so ... etc. etc ... all her claims are part of this chain, each one is one link ... if one is a lie the chain will break ... you see what I mean ?

So, the Earth stoppage is of course an oddball claim, and prima facie is likely to be untrue. But it is IMPOSSIBLE? Well, we don't know.
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


It is impossible by all known laws of physics, laws that have served us very well, especially since we explore space.

If there are aliens and they have such capacity, then it is possible; if they have an interest and there's a reason for doing it, they might do it and that gives a probability. And if on top of that there's a PX, there's a likelihood.
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


You are absolutely right about that. But these are quite a lot of "if". I just can reply that I need a lot more hard evidence until I would even think about believing her version of how the universe works.

I should also add, that what we are doing below IS A TEST OF NANCY'S WORK -- not all tests are directly physical. Menow suggested no-one had tested the claims all along. Some tests came in the form of the oddities (described below) actually happening. Some of the tests are by means of our reason, all of us. And some tests, yes, would be persons who begin to notice if shadowsides of buildings disappear become sunlit another (or vice versa) at the same time of year from one year to another -- and if so, that would be an anomaly which prima facie woud be evidence the Sun was rising differently. We have had such claims; unfortunately we cannot know if they are accurate or not. We can SUPPOSE they are wrong, but we don't know.
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


We can suppose they are wrong and I do so because all I read over and over again from the true believers are claims here at GLP and at the poleshift.ning or ttwatch (these days mostly at the poleshift.ning) ... with todays cheap availabe technology like digicams everyone should be able to record the sun movement ... what I would do is: A simple digicam on a tripod and a compass (nothing fancy, something below 100$ should work well enough) ... then I would set up the digicam on the tripod facing the approximate area where the sun rises and place the compass in the line of sight so the digicam can watch the horizon where the sun will come up together withh the compass. That way one would have a direction reference from the compass and a recording of the rising sun all together in the digicam pics. After one would make that video and his claim that sun is rising in the wrong place he would at least have some evidence he can share (suppossed he did not fake. I challange the true believers to do so. The burden of proof is on Nancys site, not the debunkers. She is the one claiming things that are not accepted by the scintific knowledge most of humanity agrees on, so she has to prove her claims.

But to back up, my posts were on the Chandler Wobble anomaly of 2005-2006, which Menow said didn't exist, and same with the Magnetic North moving out of Canada, which he also said didn't happen.

.....
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


I havent really looked into that topic you discussed with Menow in Nancys chat ... i have to do it later but I will so ... it's already getting deay here and I have been up all night, not a good condition to discuss such pretty sophisticated theorys like the Chandler Wobble anomaly appears to me. But I will have a look at it after I had a few hours sleep. I hope I didnt write to much rubbish and bad spelling in my post above, I think this is the largest post I made since I hang out at GLP ... right now I have a hard time keeping my eyes open, pretty tired.

Thanks again for discussing the subject in a civilized manner. See ya around, take care.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 972012
United Kingdom
05/16/2010 04:37 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Hi! My eyes are bleary and I am going to bed asap. I was focussed on Menow's immediate responses. You can read what I posted, below, for you and for him. And about the sextants and so on, I don't know that you are right or wrong. I assume you are right, and if so, does that debunk the whole claim of Nancy? Interesting thought. It COULD be the downfall of everything: we should have seen a PX if we were going around the Sun normally: at some point it would have putatively been on one side or the other and we in some side-view angle. So I suppose we HAVE to be stopped for her to be right.

However, that would NOT be the case if PX were so near the Sun in the early years of arrival, that it would not be semi-invisible against the brightness of the Sun. So then we don't HAVE to be stopped for her to be right.

Plus ... if there is some hypothetical "tilting" and "light"-bending, then NO we would not find too many indications something's wrong.

 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 971744


All those things PROVE Nancy to be wrong.

Planet X as she describes it CANNOT exist in this universe, since it breaks numerous laws of nature which are observed to operate EVERYWHERE else.

If you took the trouble to learn a little basic physics you could confirm this for yourself, but I fear you will not, because intellectual laziness is part of the make-up of Planet X advocates - they are not interested in learning anything that might disrupt their pet delusion.

If Planet X as described by Nancy was here we WOULD know all about it, there is NO HIDING a Neptune-sized planet near the sun, and the 'excuse' about it not reflecting light is yet another example of Nancy's lack of knowledge of physics and another reason to not believe her lies.

If you WANT to believe in Planet X nobody can stop you, but it is pure fiction and believing in it effectively signs your mind over to an unscrupulous nut-case by the name of Nancy Lieder. The choice is yours.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 74444
United States
05/16/2010 06:36 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Hi! My eyes are bleary and I am going to bed asap. I was focussed on Menow's immediate responses.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 971744


Understood. No problem 'tall.

You can read what I posted, below, for you and for him. And about the sextants and so on, I don't know that you are right or wrong. I assume you are right, and if so, does that debunk the whole claim of Nancy?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 971744


It does, if only because she has claimed the Zetatalk '100 percent accuracy' thing repeatedly. I am interested in analyzing specific claims of Nancy, and then the thought process of believers and apologists when her claims so totally fly in the face of testable reality. Among those claims are her 'halted Earth' idea, so that's a place to start.

Interesting thought. It COULD be the downfall of everything: we should have seen a PX if we were going around the Sun normally: at some point it would have putatively been on one side or the other and we in some side-view angle. So I suppose we HAVE to be stopped for her to be right.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 971744


Yet: we are not stopped. You can test this claim very easily for yourself: just go to a star party near you. If ANY telescope there can track the heavens, then the heavens must be moving as predicted (since telescopes have no way of compensating for any unpredictable movement). The predicted movements the telescopes must compensate for include:

1)Earth's motion around the Sun
2)Earth's rotation about its axis, and the alignment of the axis
3)Other planet's continued motions around the Sun

If ANY of those motions have changed, in any unpredictable way, there is NO mechanism by which the telescope can compensate. None.

Therefore, since telescopes DO continue to track properly, as evidenced by long exposure astrophotography images taken year round, Nancy's claims of a halted or unpredictably wobbling Earth must be false.

Do you agree? If not, why not?

However, that would NOT be the case if PX were so near the Sun in the early years of arrival, that it would not be semi-invisible against the brightness of the Sun.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 971744


Except people with solar filters look at the Sun all the time. And PX magically doesn't occult the Sun. And it just happens to be on a course that doesn't allow us to see it, and then magically halts near the Sun, completely in contradiction to every law of motion we know, and supposedly hovers near the Sun for years...

Would you believe I have an invisible dragon living in my garage? Why not?

So then we don't HAVE to be stopped for her to be right.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 971744


Except that Earth's BEING stopped is a fundamental leg of Nancy's whole cosmology/mythology. She has stated that Earth is stopped, therefore we *must* be stopped in order for her to be right. It can't be both ways.

Plus ... if there is some hypothetical "tilting" and "light"-bending, then NO we would not find too many indications something's wrong.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 971744


That doesn't strike you as *terribly* convenient? That such huge unpredicted motions could have occurred, yet any time you MEASURE any of those supposed motions there is no sign of them whatsoever?

We could get into a debate about solipsism: and we could argue that all of reality is manipulated totally, and we can't know anything. However, there is no way to prove or disprove such a supposition, so I will, instead, stick to what we CAN measure, in common: the predicted motions of the planets and stars. So far, those motions are spot-on to fairly old predictions, and you can go and measure them yourself. That they measure correctly belies Nancy's claims, utterly.

But finally, if ANYTHING came into the solar system, even from afar, and had a charge on it, then our Earth would have to feel the tug or pull. We're a complicated gyroscope and the direction-lines we maintain in wobble and spin and rotation around the Sun are massive, so most effects would be not immediate or without some mitigation.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 971744


Then why does Newton still hold up? Newton's laws took no account of such motions, yet the predictions of the Newtonian model, later modified by Einstein, (as far as they go) predict with extreme accuracy. If such complicated wobbles and spins and rotations were occurring, how can their age-old predictions remain correct?



But if we were approached by a PX, with charge and gravity too, we, who HAVE to have a charge on us, would be affected with Magnetic Pole anomalies AND Wobble Torque at some point or disruption.

We have a charge, no matter what the astrophysicists like to babble on about that we don't, and no matter that they treat electromagnetism from the Sun on metal cores as "flow-through" energy with no charge (which is ridiculous) --

Electricity isn't static -- though there's a form which is forced to be "static" for a while.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 971744


These are interesting ideas, but I would ask you by what means those ideas could be falsified? What experiment or observation can you propose that the regular model does NOT explain, that the charged model would explain better?

And, of course, these interesting ideas are distracting us from the main points of *this* post, as they don't seem to have direct relation to the question of whether or not PX, as Nancy describes it, even exists. Regardless of whether you consider a wobble or torque the result of traditional gravitation models, or electromagnetic ones, neither is of any relevance until you can *demonstrate such a wobble.*

Thus far, I have made several suggestions of experiments that should prove whether the Earth is experiencing any unpredicted motions in its orbit or rotation. Those experiments repeatedly come back negative, simply by the virtue that telescopes track the heavens *at all.* Nancy has never adequately addressed this. Perhaps you might.

I will ask my question again, here: you gave some insight into what you believe, but I must ask you to please answer my direct questions with direct answers (and I will, thus, rephrase them as such), as it certainly helps me understand you point of view.

1)By what mechanism can GOTO and permanently mounted telescopes compensate for the unpredicted movements of the heavens? How can they still find objects were there, in fact, a new NCP?

2)How can Earth be moving or rotating or wobbling unpredictably, yet aged charts are still correct regarding sunrises, sunsets, lunar movements, stars rising and setting, and constellations appearing on schedule? How can sextants still reveal your correct position on Earth when taking Noon sightings?

3)What is your opinion on Nancy's claim that the Earth is halted in its orbit around the Sun, and supposedly has been for years? How do you reconcile other planets still showing retrograde motions, which depend on Earth normal motions?

4)Is there was any physical evidence whatsoever that you could IMAGINE being presented that would force you to conclude that Nancy's claims are false? Any at all?

Thanks for the civility.
MiamiBeach
User ID: 748574
United States
05/16/2010 08:20 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
How long has this scam been going on?

 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 971789


[link to www.cropcircleconnector.com]

It is a winged sun disk,
So what I think we have here is this message:
Sun disk = Jupiter, Nibiru, galactic plane, cosmic disaster

The other message, should it not be cosmic, but political, is that the eye will rise sometime during August to December, meaning, the Illuminati will complete the take over of the world during those months, most likely December solstice.

However, I'm still thinking it means the first, cosmic doom.


According to the Bible..
Thread: So, These Things Are Happening

Earthquakes...All over and increasing Famines...
Signs In The Skies...(Meteors, Spirals, Comets, etc)
Wars & Rumors Of Wars...Iran, Israel, Syria, ETC
Third Of The Oceans/Sea Life Would Disappear..Oil Spill
The Water Will Turn To Blood..When I was watching the news, the aerial view of the waters from the oil spill looked red

Interesting times...

Yes, all these things have happened before. BUT, all at once?

bump bump bump bump bump bump

I have to admit I was wrong. Candace is absolutely right.
I was blinded by my dark ego. Candace is absolutely right.
I am considering to join the LIGHT. SHE is absolutely right.
I hope it's not too late. OMG. Candace is absolutely right.


you have only 1 post to your credit in your profile.

FAKE DR. POSTMAN ALERT banana2
FAKE DR. POSTMAN ALERT banana2
FAKE DR. POSTMAN ALERT banana2

spank
 Quoting: Hillcrest


I have not idea how long and who is who
bsflag
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 972187
Germany
05/16/2010 09:57 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
OMG ... [link to poleshift.ning.com]

putin no comment
Circuit Breaker

User ID: 946069
United States
05/16/2010 10:19 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Yes, indeed. So WHY can GOTO telescopes track the Moon throughout any given month? If it was "way too far" North OR South, it should be out of the field of view of the telescope altogether.

Yet, it is not.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 74444

Don't you remember? The evil government is able to update the firmware and software on these devices through satellites. It doesn't matter if your telescope isn't capable of being updated...the government is able to do it anyway because they're special. Oh, and don't forget that when you set your telescope up you have to use some stars in its database to align it. Once you do that, the telescope works no matter what object you're looking at.
A voice of reason in a world of woo-woos.
Menow
User ID: 935048
United States
05/16/2010 10:45 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Menow, hi.

Happy to chat, Menow.

I can't stay on much longer tonight, though.

1. You mentioned "no-one has tested this". Tests come in the form of predictions coming true ("stopped earth" or "extreme wobble" would fit the Chandler Woble anomaly).
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


Wouldn't fit at all. One is a known motion, albiet TINY, and not an anomoly at all. The other is something which would wreak havoc on the planet and is simply NOT happening.

As to torquing, that would hypothetically be possible from massive electromagnetics from afar. And it would produce something like what we had. But yes, it was real. See below or in my previous posts.
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


Study the actual strength of Earth's magnetic field. Hypothetically... is meaningless in the face of the fact that you can't grab the Earth and 'torque' it via its weak magnetid field.

secrets

Tests also come in the form of comparing possible hypotheses until all evidence fits where it best links to other evidence, and there may have been, for instance, 2 crimes in the same room, or something! Sometimes it's hard to tease it all out.

2.
So, the Earth stoppage is of course an oddball claim, and prima facie is likely to be untrue. But it is IMPOSSIBLE? Well, we don't know.


Speak for yourself.

This is not rational of you, Menow. I am asking an objective-knowledge question. Is it POSSIBLE: well, it is not possible, which should make you temporarily happy, but then I have to say it's not impossible either -- TO OUR KNOWLEDGE. We actually can't say if it is or is not. So it's possible (maybe, is what I mean) that it's possible.
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


So you want to play the "Anything is possible" game? Then get a room and play with Zetamax. He's into that sort of useless nonsense.

3.

If there are aliens and they have such capacity, then it is possible; if they have an interest and there's a reason for doing it, they might do it and that gives a probability. And if on top of that there's a PX, there's a likelihood.


You don't seem to know Nancy's claims very well. She doesn't claim that aliens stopped Earth in orbit. She claims that PX stopped Earth from orbiting the Sun due to it's "repulsion force".

By the way, that's "its 'repulsion force'". Possessive, not "it is" so no apostrophe.
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


Typo, dear. I know that rule.

(But with possessive nounts, such as "Monica's" or "Charlie's" there's an apostrophe. Know why? This is cool: there USED to be an "e" in there, in Middle English. So "two churches" and "a church's steeple", would both have been spelled the same way, as "churches": and we still say them the same way, like "churches". So the possessive apostrophe in nouns is actually a contraction too.) For the pronoun "it", the possessive has no contraction, "its", like "his", is just as it used to not be any apostrophe for the nouns, as I explained. The contracted "it's" is from "it is" and though it fooled you in pretending to be a possessive, it SO is not! :)
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


Cripes.... stop, already... It was a friggin' TYPO!

spell

I hope that was informative, and I was not by the way being nasty of course.

But I digress.
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


You sure do!

You mentioned the claims of NL, above, about aliens and earth stoppage, and I never said the aliens had a capacity to stop it; I was talking of the simulation of the seasons thing.
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


That hadn't even been mentioned, so I don't see how you were talking about it. We were tallking about an alleged halted Earth.

And saying, rather, that if they existed and IF they could do it ... (blah blah) then it would be possible that they would and have. I am not saying it's true, just that if if if ... then it would be possible. And since we don't KNOW it isn't so ... we have to say it sounds unlikely, but it might be so.
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


We KNOW it isn't so... or at least the rest of us, excluding you, do. Things are right where they belong in the sky, so no such thing as Earth stoppage, or tiltage, has occurred.

4.

I should also add, that what we are doing below IS A TEST OF NANCY'S WORK -- not all tests are directly physical. Menow suggested no-one had tested the claims all along.
Some tests came in the form of the oddities (described below) actually happening. Some of the tests are by means of our reason, all of us. And some tests, yes, would be persons who begin to notice if shadowsides of buildings disappear become sunlit another (or vice versa) at the same time of year from one year to another -- and if so, that would be an anomaly which prima facie woud be evidence the Sun was rising differently. We have had such claims; unfortunately we cannot know if they are accurate or not. We can SUPPOSE they are wrong, but we don't know.


Speak for yourself. Unless there is a different sun being seen in different parts of Earth, the claim of "Sun out of place" is flat wrong.

Well, I have not been carefully measuring the sides of buildings and don't have a specific shed where I notice every day what its shadow should be like from time of year to time of year. And I'm sure most don't. So yes, either they're wrongful anecdotes, or they're the canaries in the coal mine.

The fact we don't KNOW is simpley rational. We don't know what we can't rule OUT. flowas
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


Maybe YOU can't 'rule it out', but the world's astronomers can. Gee... I wonder who is right?

5. As to the Chandler Wobble ( [link to www.michaelmandeville.com] and Google the issue, though most say it "stopped" which it didn't really) ... and the North Magnetic Pole weirdness (yes it's weird), it WAS dumb of you to claim they didn't happen. You might want to rethink that one, even if you decide it isn't PX. But let me say the following, to your quotation below:


But just for you, Menow, here is a definitely still on line article through CNN about it as well: [link to archives.cnn.com]


Addressed already. It says: "...might soon...".


It was not fully out of Canada. It was, by June that year. The issing Edmonton Journal article was posted on ATS on 13 June 2006. [link to www.no] link.com/forum/thread147065/pg1

It made its way very quickly, from 2000 to 2005 in the biggest jump, but it had been moving in a big step since after 1995. Now, PX supposedly was not close then, so it could be again unrelated to PX, but if the actual years shown in the diagram were small steps within that bar of 1995-2000, but the actual steps were smaller from 1995 and realy sped up around 1999 or so, this would work with an approaching body. We know other bodies have perturbations from others. cheers (Not that they hit and clink, but I thought that was a cute way to suggest interaction.)

Anyway, the pole went rather rapidly (and seemingly ANOMALOUSLY) out of Canada, and in roughly the same direction, towards the far far North. Canada's far North is so big one might say "far North" and "far far North"! Lol.

It's actually OUT of Canada now, according to the Edmonton Journal article. The link to see the maps (with a citation from the now-missing Edmonton Journal article) is, again: [link to the-rabbits-hole.com]

By the way, this was so odd, and REAL, if you would like to do your own research on your topic here -- for you cannot learn about something by thinking you have understood the material but before letting it all sift in all possibilities however remote to you at first -- that National Geographic teams commented on how flummoxed they were. One of them (a spokesperson, of whom we may at least ask ourselves in doubt, if he was some kind of co-opted mind/politics), said no worries. But that doesn't mean it was.
Here's the National Geographic article reproduced.
[link to the-rabbits-hole.com]

Now you could have done this research, too, before thinking things were so clear as you thought they were. How long have you been at this? Me, I am fairly new, but I have researched as many angles as I could and thought deeply about what would be required IF this were true, and what would be NOT critical to the claim, and also what key information would be LIKELY to be connected, if it happened -- etc.
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


Taking the time to fully check out every lame pronouncement from Nancy and her minions has become a total waste of time. After all, YOU started out by claiming that Polaris was proven to be out of place in the sky by that one crappy image. Is there really much doubt why I brushed off the next thing you decided to dwell upon?

Oh, and don't come back at me please, suggesting that because an article here or there has some other explanation for the issue it raises (in this case, about the Magnetic Pole effects) that that means their EXPLANATION has to be true. It might be, or it might not be. The thing is, in most of these things, the explanations are known to be lies (global warming man-made, yadda yadda), even when the article-writers or scientists are locked into it, or the explanations are admitted or suggested to be tentative. In the Nat Geo article there, the scientists (except the spokesperson) are shocked and have no explanation ready.
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


And your point is?

So, don't come at me with what they say it is, or how it's about the Earth's inner processes. The shocking item is that THIS magnetic shift in the North Pole wasn't thinkable, wtf before, and they will of course base their explanation for the new thing on assuming it has something to do with their already-theorized explanations.
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


So you have decided what I can and can't say about it. How cute. Nevermind, then.

But you and I know, sometimes something new to your theory is presenting itself. Not that a PX wouldn't have ever come by here before, but it's "new", relatively speaking, to the world we think we had roughly explained.
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


So what, then, does any of this have to do with Nancy's PX claims?


Good night, dude. (Or fellow? Some people don't like dude.) Anyway, Good night. I have to work tomorrow.
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


No, I don't care to be called 'dude', but if that's the worst thing that happens to me, it will be just fine.

Good night.
Menow
User ID: 935048
United States
05/16/2010 10:54 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Damn: they DIDN'T copy.

Okay, here they are:

[link to www.michaelmandeville.com]


Holy crap! Now I looked. THAT'S what you are going on about?? Do you KNOW the SCALE of that chart? (where have I heard that before?)


[link to www.canada.com]

(which I said was missing and explained why I still linked to it)

[link to the-rabbits-hole.com]



Why do you insist upon mixing up two different subjects? Known TINY polar 'wiggles' and magnetic pole drift?

(snip)


Not tiny
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


Then why don't you explain their size?


and not hypothetically unrelated, dear Menow.


Yes, because "anything is possible", right?

In hypothesis (say, in crimes), you must test the "pink sweater" and the "gun" and the "hole in the wall" and so on, on their own data *and also* on their relationships. You hypothesize all possibilities you can think of to account for them, including the outlandish-seeming, and whittle away at those. You let the evidence speak to you for new or key directions, but you do not stay only at the level of the evidence -- you use your brain to compare.
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


You're rambling.

There was an as-yet-unheard-of BACKTRACK in the wobble.
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


Unheard of, by you? I haven't taken the time to look at all available records, but have YOU? Again, your track record of freaking out over the mundane is already established.

There is also a bee-line out of the Magnetic North pole. And though they could be "weird things" with "some explanation" ... they also could be a long-range CHARGE from the putative Planet X, HYPOTHETICALLY SPEAKING. Not saying they ARE, but they COULD be. And you build a case for PX in order to understand IF there is one, and how it would work.

Only THEN can you figure out if it or the "co-incidences" idea really is superior.

Clare

Have a great night. cool2
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


And all of this alleged 'weirdness' adds up to what, for you?
***ZetaMaX***

User ID: 969188
United States
05/16/2010 02:18 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Nancy's newsletter says the Gulf oil disaster is "in the hands of man". They could stop it, but that would be interference in human affairs.

Last Edited by ***ZetaMaX*** on 05/16/2010 02:19 PM
The best advice we can give on this matter is to read with your heart as well as your mind. Follow the flow, let the nuances lie unanswered and unchallenged in your mind. Treat this as a garden you are walking through for the first time, and experience it fully without trying to categorize it! Much of what you will learn will be processed in your subconscious, and influence your conscious mind later. If you must dissect each phrase, and correlate it with each piece of information taken from another source, you will trash much of what you could otherwise gain. Live in the gray, not always insisting on black and white and strict compartmentalizations.

ZetaTalk: Oahspe Note: written Apr 15, 1997.
 [link to www.zetatalk.com] 

ZetaMax
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 972187
Germany
05/16/2010 02:55 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
OMG ... [link to poleshift.ning.com]

putin no comment
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 972187


This was deleted by the mods because it was marketing, recruiting for another ning on 2012 that was in startup mode. In any case, this video was not of the Second Sun. The second orb was the same size as the Sun, so was a reflection within the camera of the Sun. This is called a ghost.
 Quoting: Nancy LIEDer


[link to poleshift.ning.com]
Circuit Breaker

User ID: 946069
United States
05/16/2010 03:32 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
ALL of the videos of the "second sun" show nothing more than some anomaly. Some of the videos are shot on cloudy days and are simply showing light being reflected off a cloud. Some show lens flare. Some show reflections off other transparent surfaces such as plexiglass or windows. In none of them is there actually a "second sun." If there was, why can't I capture a photo of it when I use the proper filtering and procedures for photographing objects like the sun?
A voice of reason in a world of woo-woos.
Returner
User ID: 972449
United States
05/16/2010 03:52 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Exactly, CB! And how do the zetards explain the intermittent nature of this so-called 'second sun?' How could it be there one moment, but gone the next? How could it appear from one location on the Earth, but be utterly invisible from all others?

Wait, I forgot -- Zetards never explain. They just exclaim.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 74444
United States
05/16/2010 04:50 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
If there is a second Sun, why am I casting a single shadow?
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 972187
Germany
05/16/2010 05:07 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
If there is a second Sun, why am I casting a single shadow?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 74444

+1
Circuit Breaker

User ID: 946069
United States
05/16/2010 05:59 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
If there is a second Sun, why am I casting a single shadow?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 74444

Well, on that one, they could argue that since the two suns are close together and one is brighter than the other, that it's like there's only one light source. But since there is no "second sun" I can't say for certain if that would actually be true.
A voice of reason in a world of woo-woos.
Menow
User ID: 935048
United States
05/16/2010 06:04 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
I'm convinced that at least half, if not 3/4 of the PX and 'second sun' vids are from people just doing them for fun, to see how many people they can get to 'bite'. They know there is nothing next to the sun and are only messing with people who might fall for it.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 795135
United States
05/16/2010 06:26 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
As to torquing, that would hypothetically be possible from massive electromagnetics from afar. And it would produce something like what we had. But yes, it was real. See below or in my previous posts.


Study the actual strength of Earth's magnetic field. Hypothetically... is meaningless in the face of the fact that you can't grab the Earth and 'torque' it via its weak magnetid field.
 Quoting: Menow 935048


The earth's magnetic field is excedingly weak. It can just barely cause the needle of a compass to rotate. The mass of the earth is 6 x 10^24 kg. The idea that the planet could be "torqued" in any effective way via its magnetic field is completely ludicrous.

News