Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 1,852 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 95,186
Pageviews Today: 146,516Threads Today: 48Posts Today: 1,010
01:30 AM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

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

 
SHRModerator
Forum Administrator

05/17/2010 03:10 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Now look..I usually leave you guys alone and we don't have any problems, but now we did have a problem...

I expect it's resolved....


It wasn't "us guys". It was some random idiot who happened along. Why must you threaten and suggest even stronger retaliation could be taken against people who had nothing to do with it?

I know exactly who it was dude....

This ain't our first bbq....


So spill, please.
 Quoting: Menow 935048

Not your concern....
____________________________________________________
E-mail anytime SHRGLP@Yahoo.com
Inquiring about a ban?, include the IP address found here. [link to www.showmemyip.com]

Ooooh, see the fire is sweepin' Our very streets today...
Burns like a red coal carpet, Mad bulls lost the way...
War, children, it's just a shot away...it's just a shot away....
Menow
User ID: 935048
United States
05/17/2010 03:31 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Not that I really care about the thread ranking or view count... but are you saying it was one of the regulars who has been here all along? What do you mean by: "high ranking"??

I think I already said too much ... the member is a registered GLP'ler and while he was online 24/7 the view count of the debunkers thread skyrocketed even while it was not on the frontpage. High ranking might be a stupid expression, it was a regular.
I see that the other threads that were pushed have stopped to go up in the viw count so probably SHR did something about that, too.

Let's just rest our case and don't piss off the mods anymore or this thread will be a goner. The guy i am talking about brought our thread pretty close to the edge of oblivion. Let's just rest it and go back to debunk Nancys claims.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 972773


Why is it a secret, who was doing this? I'm sure that person is permanently banned, so why the secrecy? I must be missing something...
Reality420
User ID: 970551
United States
05/17/2010 03:36 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
A word of advice to 'newer' debunkers who've never crossed swords with mods -

Don't badger them about administrative stuff. That is teh way of teh kOOk. They see a whole hell of a lot more than we. In fact it must be pretty funny sometimes, in an head-shaking way. SHR had an hilarious post a while back with an example of the kOOk emails they have to put up with. It was ROFL stuff. Wish I could find it and post the link.

When the mods are pronouncing their own opinions on threads they are just like anyone else and arguing or agreeing with them is safe.

And, don't jump to conclusions about whom they do or do not support intellectually. They will support all members whether they agree with them or not against abuse. They will hammer those they agree with if that person kOOks out and abuses the system. They may be a little quicker to hammer those they dislike, but no one gets immunity. It's the adult way. (It was not so quite a few years ago, but it seems that the current mod crew have their heads on straight.) Hell, I've argued with Trinity and not been touched.

But on administrative matters... duck.

Whomever was bumping the views kOOked out and that's all there is to it.

Have fun.


R.
The Commentator

User ID: 587619
United States
05/17/2010 04:12 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Hiya Kids!

My my...it seems we have been quite "Popular" lately hasn't it...

I'm sure that we would realize that I would consider endlessly refreshing any thread to be a DOS attack on the site....really only because it is....

I have in fact caught such an attack in progress right now...well let's just say was happening....utilizing this very thread as a weapon.

So since the motivation of these things are usually to increase thread views and artificially enter the most popular threads...I will reset the view count...at a somewhat lesser value...

If you experience turbulence during the procedure, fret not...it will subside....


Whaaa? I hope you're kidding.
Lol

A DOS attack?
shark

Pretty much what it is...although a lame one....no matter...I guess whomever it was got tired of reloading the Server ban page....;)

Oh and the views are set back to...65k sumthin...so that was a pretty worthless gamble.....



Do you really think the cretin that did this ran up that many counts? Musta been a busy little gomer! ;-)

A couple few hundred thousand over the last several days...I make it worth my while ya know...:)

 Quoting: SHR



I have never disputed that!!! ;-)
non sufficit Orbis

Being a zetatard means never having to make sense.

"Nancy pays me to post on Her threads"

Free Store admits to being a paid zetadrool shill

NO max/bridget EVER!!!!!
NO luser EVER!!!
NO clunker EVER!!!!!
mclarek
User ID: 971744
Canada
05/17/2010 04:16 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
She has clearly said that the Moon is noticeably out of place,
as well as declared that the Moon doesn't rotate, which it
clearly does every 27.3 days. The way we can test her claim
to even precise levels is to use the following occultation
tables:
[link to www.lunar-occultations.com]
Most of those tables can be found in decades old library
books, so claims of electronic manipulation won't work.
Tens of thousands of amateur astronomers all over the Earth
use those tables to check their ability to track objects
in space. If anything were wrong we would hear about it,
but those tables continue to be accurate.
 Quoting: DrPostman


Hi there. Yes, I know. Where she says the moon does not rotate I have noticed two types of understandings getting confused between her and her questioners.

1. She does seem to be a bit off-the-cuff in her responses at times, and yes, does not seem to subtly understand the rotation picture in her mind. It does actually move forward around the earth (have an orbit of forward movement).

2. However, it keeps the SAME FACE to us. It is always in this context which she has used the term rotation and argued that it does not rotate. She is clearly emphasizing this, and hence the confusion.

Her example of dancing with a broomstick, or doll, was partly correct. If however the doll were attached by a rod, so that it faced you, and went around you, face-in, while you spun on the spot, THAT is the kind of rotation the Moon does, very slowly.

Her resistance to those who say it "rotates" when her context was comparing self-axis spinning (not having an orbit), has confused her, and angered her, and I can see the efforts of her to get out her message (correct or not), compared to what can feel like attacks by some questioners, getting in the way of mutual understanding.

She is not an intellectual, but she does have a lot of knowledge, and is in a "prophet" type role, so her focus is not figuring out her own mistakes, but rather letting the main words get out and having others also work it out for themselves. This is what I can tell over reading the past questions/responses on this issue, back and forth.

I hope this clarifies.

Clare
mclarek
User ID: 971744
Canada
05/17/2010 04:25 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
I thank you -- but I created a more extensive post after this one, asking for some specific clarifications and explanations of your positions. I shall go back and see if the post is still there...
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 74444


Sure. Sorry if I didn't see it. You weren't skunked, not deliberately.

Of course, I only have so much time, and have spent quite a bit in 2 days, responding to DrPostman, Menow and you and the other person.

I hope I can help.

If it's about the Moon rotation misunderstandings, and hot tempers, please see below to DrPostman.

As to the issue of the Moon's being "way off", I have commented that I THINK she's saying it's off enough to tell. She does sometimes speak in hyperbole. Have we not all done that in our effort to get out a fact we are impressed by, to point to its significance? Of course we have.

I have no idea if it's off AT ALL, but it is her impression, belief (or maybe knowledge?) that it is off.

I am not sure it is, but I look at the PX argument as a whole, with some parts remaining untrue, inconclusive, etc.

I am more concerned to figure out if there is evidence for its being here, not if every claim by its "prophet" is correct. Prophetic mind-sets (shall we say, instead, human enthusiasms?) can over-emphasize some things, in their efforts to make a point, and can make mistakes along the way.

I know Nancy does. But she does bring to our attention a possible threat, and it is that which I evaluate.

hiding

Ha ha.

Clare
mclarek
User ID: 971744
Canada
05/17/2010 04:28 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
A DOS attack?

I don't know if you're asking what that is. If so, it's a Denial Of Service attack...or so SHR thinks.
 Quoting: Circuit Breaker


Hi, Thanks. What's a Denial of Service attack?
Didn't the count go UP not DOWN? So why denial?

Clare
Menow
User ID: 935048
United States
05/17/2010 04:34 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
She has clearly said that the Moon is noticeably out of place,
as well as declared that the Moon doesn't rotate, which it
clearly does every 27.3 days. The way we can test her claim
to even precise levels is to use the following occultation
tables:
[link to www.lunar-occultations.com]
Most of those tables can be found in decades old library
books, so claims of electronic manipulation won't work.
Tens of thousands of amateur astronomers all over the Earth
use those tables to check their ability to track objects
in space. If anything were wrong we would hear about it,
but those tables continue to be accurate.


Hi there. Yes, I know. Where she says the moon does not rotate I have noticed two types of understandings getting confused between her and her questioners.

1. She does seem to be a bit off-the-cuff in her responses at times, and yes, does not seem to subtly understand the rotation picture in her mind. It does actually move forward around the earth (have an orbit of forward movement).

2. However, it keeps the SAME FACE to us. It is always in this context which she has used the term rotation and argued that it does not rotate. She is clearly emphasizing this, and hence the confusion.

Her example of dancing with a broomstick, or doll, was partly correct. If however the doll were attached by a rod, so that it faced you, and went around you, face-in, while you spun on the spot, THAT is the kind of rotation the Moon does, very slowly.

Her resistance to those who say it "rotates" when her context was comparing self-axis spinning (not having an orbit), has confused her, and angered her, and I can see the efforts of her to get out her message (correct or not), compared to what can feel like attacks by some questioners, getting in the way of mutual understanding.

She is not an intellectual, but she does have a lot of knowledge, and is in a "prophet" type role, so her focus is not figuring out her own mistakes, but rather letting the main words get out and having others also work it out for themselves. This is what I can tell over reading the past questions/responses on this issue, back and forth.

I hope this clarifies.

Clare
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


It clarifies, even further, that you think you are intellectually superior to the rest of us. We know where the alleged 'confusion' lies with this Moon thing. We have been around and around with it. But here YOU come, thinking that you need to 'explain' it to us... Truth is, YOU have a lot of deficits in understanding in these matters and stubborn refusal to learn, as you have already demonstrated by your dodging many of the specific points addressed to you.

By the way... what in the world is "self-axis spinning" in the above context, since you are here to inform and clarify?
Returner
User ID: 997
United States
05/17/2010 04:36 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
"But she does bring to our attention a possible threat,"

Threat? What threat?

Her imaginary planetoid is NOT THERE. That's easily proven. It's been proven easily a dozen times over in this thread alone.

A body the size of Neptune ambling around the Inner Solar System?

No. Mass has easily observable effects on bodies whose orbital components are known down to the meter. None of them have been perturbed.

We won't even discuss how a body that size could 'hide' from the myriad of telescopes on Earth. It couldn't. It hasn't.

And as far as Nancy being a 'prophet' of some kind -- first, you'd need to establish that there is such a thing. And even if there is, Nancy's hardly a prime example, since she's been bloody well wrong about *everything* she's ever predicted.

The whole of ZetaTalk is just silly. It never even rises to the absurd. why you chose to champion such odious nonsense is beyond me.
Menow
User ID: 935048
United States
05/17/2010 04:37 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
As to the issue of the Moon's being "way off", I have commented that I THINK she's saying it's off enough to tell.

Clare
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


Nancy says it's 'off' a lot or a little or not at all, depending on the immediate needs of her story.

You really aren't up on all of this at all.
Menow
User ID: 935048
United States
05/17/2010 04:45 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
(snip)
Her resistance to those who say it "rotates" when her context was comparing self-axis spinning (not having an orbit), has confused her, and angered her, and I can see the efforts of her to get out her message (correct or not), compared to what can feel like attacks by some questioners, getting in the way of mutual understanding.

(snip)

Clare
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


Oh... I see you DID elaborate on what "self-axis spinning" is supposed to mean. So... that is supposedly to differentiate the Moon from some other body, like say... the Earth? Is Earth self-axis spinning then?
Returner
User ID: 997
United States
05/17/2010 04:45 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Nancy has absolutely no idea where the Moon should be. Seriously. she couldn't give you a set of coordinates and a time if a bag of money was at stake.

She thought 'RA' meant Right Angle, for Cthulu's sake.

She simply has no clue.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 973438
Netherlands
05/17/2010 04:52 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
She thought 'RA' meant Right Angle, for Cthulu's sake.
 Quoting: Returner 997


Are you for real ?
Menow
User ID: 935048
United States
05/17/2010 04:52 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Clare
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


Here, Clare. If you want to learn something. Here is a gem from Nancy about the Moon. She reiterated this statement last Saturday as proof the Moon is somehow 'wrong'. See if you can spot the bullshit(lies). (hint: Look up "libration")

[link to www.zetatalk.com]

Moon FACTS are that the Moon will appear to be upside down if viewed from the S. Pole vs the N. Pole, and every change in latitude skews this view. But the view for any given latitude should vary only by 7° 7 minutes, a movement called Lunar Libration, equivalent to the hour hand of a clock moving a mere 1/2 hour. The rotation of the Moon's face during a lunar night moved from a reported 45° on Mar 7, 2004 to 60° by July 31, 2004 to 95° by Sep 26, 2004 and for real drama, see that animation of the 95° turn. This Netherlands Feb 27, 2005 photo covering a mere 3 hours shows an almost 30° turn.
Returner
User ID: 997
United States
05/17/2010 04:55 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
She thought 'RA' meant Right Angle, for Cthulu's sake.


Are you for real ?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 973438



Yes. I'm not making that up. Nancy thought that the RA in RA and dec meant 'right angle.'

She's utterly clueless when it comes to astronomy. Yeah, she can throw terms around -- she's really fond of 'ecliptic,' though it's obvious she has no idea what the word means. And she claimed that 'streams of magnetrons' encircled the Earth, when a magnetron is the element in a microwave oven that emits microwaves.

I could go on...
mclarek
User ID: 971744
Canada
05/17/2010 05:25 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
You have an odd definition of the word "torque".


I was using that because it would be the kind of effect description I could use for what a big magnetic effect might be.


Yes, but you also said that it applied to some 'original torque' supplied by the Sun. That would be simple rotational angular momentum.
 Quoting: Menow 935048


Oh Menow, I was trying to use the same term for the same pull.

Look, what I meant is that PX would in fact create a noticeable DIFFERENT pull, a nameable torque, from electromagnetic pull.

As to the Sun, I was saying it TOO is pulling and pushing us by electromagnetism, but normally we are not aware of the overall tug or repulsion because a) the momentum of the Earth masks the switch from repulsion to attraction, as we go around the Sun, and b) the Sun doesn't turn its POLE to us ... it sends out different electromagnetic waves from its surface, over several years (Sunspot cycle changes the Sun's whole polarity, but not in one fell directional swoop!)

A PX would be adding itself to our system, and if so, and if its pole were pointing at us, its charge might very well first tug more noticeably (though slightly, as you've pointed out) on our Wobble through our core. This would be an initial adjustment, perhaps.

Now, leaving aside the idea of a total stoppage and aliens messing with starlight, just in case that's not necessary, I'd say we could continue with this hypothesis about the Wobble and say that the magnetic polarity pole of the Earth might begin to be repelled by such an object PX, before, but accelerating when such PX were actually in our orbital plane.

I am working through what electromagnetism (and pure gravity) might very well accomplish, both over several years of approach by PX, then upon a few critical months when it would be newly added to the orbital plane (have arrived at it), and then after, once it is now "part" of our plane.

You seem fond of alleging what is "possible", but I can make little sense out of what you wrote above. Did you MEAN to type this: "... Sun attracting ut PX repelling..."?? If so, what does it mean?
 Quoting: Menow 935048


Yes. I meant to type that. It means a pull from the Sun (gravity) with its charge pull-push which is over many years and part of our normal orbital variations, mostly masked by our momentum.

Plus a second "magnet" with gravity as well: PX.
That would be an explanation for (a part of building a PX hypothesis): the Chandler Wobble and Magnetic Pole anomalies of the kind we've had, and also the "magnetic holes".

Possible? What does it mean? It is the way explaining the PX hypothesis would work. It is vidence which could fit it. We have to work out the hypothesis and the possible supports before we can debunk, or we haven't thought through the whole thing.
 Quoting: Menow 935048


I am presenting an argument for, a proof for PX. It may be flimsy or it may be strong. It may discount parts of Nancy's claims, or they may have to be fit back in later.

I am not saying it is or isn't; I am showing how it might be -- giving the "proof" you always ask for. A proof is a proving, a worked-out hypothesis, tested through discovered facts, and understood in total, as a theory. It could be wrong, but this is what a PROOF is. This is different than saying, "I want to have one thing, either way, which of itself is the thing or is not." That is a different proof: it would be PX or a direct single effect.

However, instead, we have suggestive facts, whose INTERRELATIONSHIP might indicate PX. Thus, I say it's "possible". I am constructing an argument for PX, to see if one can be constructed, and how sound it would be or not.

After that, compare that result -- and there are some odd things which one notices, once one understands the fine points of the hypothetical relationships. (By "hypothetical relationships", I do not mean "mere notional relationships", i.e., "hypothetical" as a put-down; I mean the technical sense of: careful relationships discovered between pieces of evidence, within the hypothesis.) The hypothetical relationships -- the relationships within the hypothesis -- might lead to a wrong conclusion IN FACT, but if proper relationships, they become a possibility for consideration.

A dog and a cat would hypothetically have an inimical (enemy) relationship, and facts could support that, but it could be the case that IN FACT in an instance, a cat and dog could get along.

So one can have correct hypothetical relationships of facts, make a strong case, and still be wrong. But it's a special kind of "wrongness", in that instance: it was a logical rightness, but wrong in fact.

This correct logic but wrong result is always from incomplete facts. The wrong interpretation of a fact comes from not having complete facts about it. We often think of this as flawed logic. But flawed logic itself, is mis-construing how to construct an hypothetical case proof.

It is the latter which I encourage you not to slip into.

I am constructing a case proof, slightly different than Nancy's, but accounting for most of what she says. If a case can be made for PX which is very logical, then it is worth looking at and maybe preparing for a disaster of this kind.

Even if a case can be made, and I think it can, it still could be wrong, as I said, but should not be from illogic or from not constructing the logic into an hypothesis AT ALL.

You seem to refuse to take the pieces and construct the argument to see where it leads, fully. This is a mistake.

You apparently didn't stop your frenetic typing long enough to read the quote I supplied and asked about. Are you bi-polar, or always this manic?
 Quoting: Menow 935048


I am not frenetically typing! Lol. I am quite calm. I am writing out, how reasoning works. It seems people often bandy about the ideas of "proof" and thus get into a tizzy when several items, interrelating in a specific way, can be seen (a "prooving"/"proof") to show a result. A PROOF takes time and consideration. And has variables which can be used in other contexts ("pink sweater" could fit alternate proofs/hypotheses inside a court case). But it's seeing IF there is a case for PX, a PROOF, which I am interested in.

Surely you understand that.

As to "the sentence" I missed, which one? Or have I now answered it?

Menow was silly to say this stuff "wasn't happening". Small or large, it is.


I see you have ignored most of what I said about that. It had to do with noting your previous obsession with something of no particular evidential value. I also read one of your cited sources and it did NOT say what you claimed it said.
 Quoting: Menow 935048


I ignored nothing. You have not actually answered the contrary objections: I have accounted for the direction, and anomalous nature of all these things. You have not. You would suggest they are "too small" and ignore the scientists' own shock -- expecially about the "holes" of repulsion during the usual "Solar attraction" phase of the Sun Cycle. That's fine; your position is to minimize all pieces to fit into the opposite case. I am building a case for the defense and you for the offense.

Your hypothesis would be: a) un-relation between events; b) minimal impact of events; c) specific details which I put into salient relationships your position would see them as "MERE anomaly", not "significant ANOMALY". (Note the two uses of anomaly, indicated by emphasis there.)

You build your hypothesis; I'll build mine, and we will see if the two are equal, or one wins out.

But note: I am well aware that whichever wins beyond reasonable doubt in the end, COULD MAYBE still be wrong.

Hence the willingness of law to re-open a case if a salient new fact or relationship between facts is discovered.

It seems so unusual, and backwards would "intuitively" suggest it might have to be pulled that way. If we are builing a case FOR PX, in order to see what piecs work, which don't and how they relate, we must count the Wobble as something which could be due to a possible pull or torque (slowly affected, because of the size and inertia of the forces).


But -- if you all really care about the question, at least account for a) the scientists' admitted shock and weirdness factor in these things (see the Nat Geo article in the other post, or the 2nd link in this one).


You really DON'T take time to read what someone posts to you and specifically asks you. You just keep rolling ahead, oblivious.


What could this possibly have to do with an imaginary planet?
 Quoting: Menow 935048


I read what you wrote and have covered this.

I submit that a planet has a charge. It would seemingly have to if it has a metal core and was near a star. If so, our Newton-obsessed astrophysicists are mis-accounting for the total gravitic effects in the system.

If so, then ...
In arriving, it would create new anomalous magnetic effects. One of those might well be a tug on the gyroscopic actions of the affected planet(s), such as Earth. Other effects would be repulsion warps during attraction phases from the planet (Earth's) own star (the Sun). (Or vice versa, if a PX were attracting when the Earth planet's Sun were repelling.)

Have answered this over and over.
You now either absorb that for my case I'm building, or keep saying "but what evidence/what proof/what does this mean". At that point, you are not building a counter-claim, but rather willfully ignoring this particular claim-proof I'm presenting. I can only present it so many times before it's clear you do not want to argue the case, but rather NOT FOLLOW the case.

:)

If a PX were there, it might have such effects and predictably. Duh.


Yes, but... WHERE IS IT? Isn't that an important detail in your little scenario? Maybe not.
 Quoting: Menow 935048


Well, now here is an interesting question.
Here we can actually argue this out, as we did the Pole Star issue.

The claim by Nancy is that it's by the Sun. At various points in the past few years it supposedly was "sneaking around" in our view, to use an emotion-laced technical term! Ha ha.

It was also supposedly scrubbed in most images of the Sun. And a few images of it were missed, or partly scrubbed.

There was also the Neat Comet fiasco, where some of the images of that had future pictures of the comet in them: in other words, were clearly Photoshopped. What does that mean? Well, in my case for PX hypothesis, I would have to account for them as a cover story for the PX arrival and posit a belief that it would round the Sun so quickly -- as the putative Zetas did claim -- that the power brokers of the world decided they had to have a cover story of a comet ready.

The Photoshopping of the images (one as I said, had not only the comet but also part of the picture of the comet from a later image in it!), indicates some chicanery.

So, at various points, PX would, one might say "possibly" (hypothetically in this scenario) be at different points, at different times.

And now, right now? Perhaps very snug to the Sun but still repelled from going into it? That's my tentative answer from this hypothesis right now.

To work that out is important, to follow the fullest POSSIBLE logic, to see what would be needed to figure it all out. Then, we can see which side has the better argument. I suggest that these things being co-incidences individually AND in concert is the more stretched hypothesis, but I certainly hope it's co-incidence.


No, you are wallowing in minutia and ignoring the fact that no one can find this alleged planet.
 Quoting: Menow 935048


See below.


I'm sure you will find something else to obtusely obsess about, presently.
 Quoting: Menow 935048


Not being obtuse. :)
Being very clear. Simply working it through, in case there's something in all this. This is what being truly open and reasonable at the same time REQUIRES.

However, that "no-one can find it" either a) offers hope that all this is in fact wrong, or b) means no-one has considered the so-called "pixel flare" Stereo-Ahead images as ROUND and ONLY SINCE 2005, and has not thought through that maybe the "Neat Comet" images are in fact that someone "found" it -- maybe enlarging comet images in the process, to make something clearly cometary out of an approaching PX, whose approach was misunderstood.

Dunno.

Or the Neat Comet could be unrelated and the Stereo images could be related. Or neither.

All lead to different versions of the Pro-PX argument ...
Or to a Non-PX argument in some cases.

I merely want to figure out if there COULD BE RIGHT NOW a PX from the evidence trains we have around this subject.

Because, if it's even logically possible from the evidence we have, we MIGHT have to be very prepared. This would be a good thing to -- even wrongly -- prepare in case of.

Besides, it's always good not to rely on civilization ... overmuch.

Cheers,
Clare
mclarek
User ID: 971744
Canada
05/17/2010 05:36 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Here, Clare. If you want to learn something. Here is a gem from Nancy about the Moon. She reiterated this statement last Saturday as proof the Moon is somehow 'wrong'. See if you can spot the bullshit(lies). (hint: Look up "libration")

[link to www.zetatalk.com]

Moon FACTS are that the Moon will appear to be upside down if viewed from the S. Pole vs the N. Pole, and every change in latitude skews this view. But the view for any given latitude should vary only by 7° 7 minutes, a movement called Lunar Libration, equivalent to the hour hand of a clock moving a mere 1/2 hour. The rotation of the Moon's face during a lunar night moved from a reported 45° on Mar 7, 2004 to 60° by July 31, 2004 to 95° by Sep 26, 2004 and for real drama, see that animation of the 95° turn. This Netherlands Feb 27, 2005 photo covering a mere 3 hours shows an almost 30° turn.
 Quoting: Menow 935048


Excellent link on Moon libration here:
[link to en.wikipedia.org]

She is suggesting that the libration (slight rock-and-roll in our perception of what's ROUGHLY one face of the moon) is more dramatic than it should be. (I don't know if it is.)

She's also confusing actual libration with ANY change in face aspect.

I DO know she misuses terms sometimes, in trying to get at some perceptual insight: if the Moon is moving its face too much, what do you call it? Libration? Turn? Change? The insight she's going for -- even if it ends up as a false impression -- is clearly that there's too much change in the face-presentational aspect of the Moon.

Is there? Maybe not. But why pick on words? She's not stupid, clearly. Nor are you. But she's also clearly trying to say any potentially related anomaly ... even if some turn out not to be related or even anomalous.

She's watching for signs -- and presenting as many as quickly as she can. If the darned PX is coming, then this is important, even if some of the signs were wrong, or WRONGLY EXPRESSED too!

I am not sure there is something wrong with the Moon, unless there is some slight perturbation, unnoticed. But I don't know. I have not been watching, and I don't see anyone giving comparable footage which shows otherwise EITHER.

But more than that, unless you have normal footage, I do not know the Moon stuff well enough to comment on whether there are problems such as she claims, or not, as you claim. Fair enough?

Of course, the "God hypothesis" that the Zetas are fixing our perception is untestable. So I won't go there.

But just in case, here's an emoticon:

abduct

I love that one! So cute.

Clare
mclarek
User ID: 971744
Canada
05/17/2010 05:39 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
 Quoting: DrPostman


I do love your jiving cat avatar.

Just fyi.

Clare
Returner
User ID: 997
United States
05/17/2010 05:47 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
"She's not stupid, clearly.

You use the word 'clearly' in a wildly innapropriate fashion.

What other word would you use to describe a person who think aliens use unwrapped candies as a means of communication? What other word would you apply to a person who identifies photographs of KITES as mysterious peek-a-boo planetoids?

And all that blathering about charged plnets?

Puh-leaze. Nonsense, at least in any remotely relevant sense.

Tell me, 'Clare,' do you camp often with Elle?
Menow
User ID: 935048
United States
05/17/2010 06:14 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
You have an odd definition of the word "torque".


I was using that because it would be the kind of effect description I could use for what a big magnetic effect might be.


Yes, but you also said that it applied to some 'original torque' supplied by the Sun. That would be simple rotational angular momentum.

Oh Menow, I was trying to use the same term for the same pull.
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


What "pull" does the Sun exert on Earth, other than via gravity?

Look, what I meant is that PX would in fact create a noticeable DIFFERENT pull, a nameable torque, from electromagnetic pull.
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


How, precisely, does 'pull' become 'torque'? There are no unexplained gravitational 'pulls' on any of our planets from some new object in the Solar System.

As to the Sun, I was saying it TOO is pulling and pushing us by electromagnetism, but normally we are not aware of the overall tug or repulsion because a) the momentum of the Earth masks the switch from repulsion to attraction, as we go around the Sun, and b) the Sun doesn't turn its POLE to us ... it sends out different electromagnetic waves from its surface, over several years (Sunspot cycle changes the Sun's whole polarity, but not in one fell directional swoop!)
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


So you are saying that this force exists, but has never been acknowledged nor measured? How convenient.

A PX would be adding itself to our system, and if so, and if its pole were pointing at us, its charge might very well first tug more noticeably (though slightly, as you've pointed out) on our Wobble through our core. This would be an initial adjustment, perhaps.
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


Wild speculation, based on little more than imagination. I said no such thing as that such a thing could happen slightly.

Now, leaving aside the idea of a total stoppage and aliens messing with starlight, just in case that's not necessary, I'd say we could continue with this hypothesis about the Wobble and say that the magnetic polarity pole of the Earth might begin to be repelled by such an object PX, before, but accelerating when such PX were actually in our orbital plane.
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


Why all this speculation over a nonexistent object, causing nonexistent effects? Seriously... what are you ON about??

I am working through what electromagnetism (and pure gravity) might very well accomplish, both over several years of approach by PX, then upon a few critical months when it would be newly added to the orbital plane (have arrived at it), and then after, once it is now "part" of our plane.
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


Why are you trying to re-invent astrophysics from the ground up? "Part of our plane" is meaningless, by the way.


You seem fond of alleging what is "possible", but I can make little sense out of what you wrote above. Did you MEAN to type this: "... Sun attracting ut PX repelling..."?? If so, what does it mean?

Yes. I meant to type that. It means a pull from the Sun (gravity) with its charge pull-push which is over many years and part of our normal orbital variations, mostly masked by our momentum.
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


You mean, you are challenging the validity of Newtons Laws? And... "ut" means what, exactly?

Plus a second "magnet" with gravity as well: PX.
That would be an explanation for (a part of building a PX hypothesis): the Chandler Wobble and Magnetic Pole anomalies of the kind we've had, and also the "magnetic holes".
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


PX... Where is it? (10th time?)

Possible? What does it mean? It is the way explaining the PX hypothesis would work. It is vidence which could fit it. We have to work out the hypothesis and the possible supports before we can debunk, or we haven't thought through the whole thing.
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


"We".... heh...

I am presenting an argument for, a proof for PX. It may be flimsy or it may be strong. It may discount parts of Nancy's claims, or they may have to be fit back in later.

I am not saying it is or isn't; I am showing how it might be -- giving the "proof" you always ask for. A proof is a proving, a worked-out hypothesis, tested through discovered facts, and understood in total, as a theory. It could be wrong, but this is what a PROOF is. This is different than saying, "I want to have one thing, either way, which of itself is the thing or is not." That is a different proof: it would be PX or a direct single effect.
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


Just keep typing. It's what you're good at...

However, instead, we have suggestive facts, whose INTERRELATIONSHIP might indicate PX. Thus, I say it's "possible". I am constructing an argument for PX, to see if one can be constructed, and how sound it would be or not.
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


As I said, you are trying to add up a thousand, in your eyes, "might-bes", and have it become something real.

After that, compare that result -- and there are some odd things which one notices, once one understands the fine points of the hypothetical relationships. (By "hypothetical relationships", I do not mean "mere notional relationships", i.e., "hypothetical" as a put-down; I mean the technical sense of: careful relationships discovered between pieces of evidence, within the hypothesis.) The hypothetical relationships -- the relationships within the hypothesis -- might lead to a wrong conclusion IN FACT, but if proper relationships, they become a possibility for consideration.
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


See last.

A dog and a cat would hypothetically have an inimical (enemy) relationship, and facts could support that, but it could be the case that IN FACT in an instance, a cat and dog could get along.


So one can have correct hypothetical relationships of facts, make a strong case, and still be wrong. But it's a special kind of "wrongness", in that instance: it was a logical rightness, but wrong in fact.
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


You're rambling again.

This correct logic but wrong result is always from incomplete facts. The wrong interpretation of a fact comes from not having complete facts about it. We often think of this as flawed logic. But flawed logic itself, is mis-construing how to construct an hypothetical case proof.

It is the latter which I encourage you not to slip into.

I am constructing a case proof, slightly different than Nancy's, but accounting for most of what she says. If a case can be made for PX which is very logical, then it is worth looking at and maybe preparing for a disaster of this kind.
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


You are accounting for what Nancy says, but discounting all of our understanding of astronomy, why??



Even if a case can be made, and I think it can, it still could be wrong, as I said, but should not be from illogic or from not constructing the logic into an hypothesis AT ALL.

You seem to refuse to take the pieces and construct the argument to see where it leads, fully. This is a mistake.
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


You have yet to offer one solid 'piece', dear.

You apparently didn't stop your frenetic typing long enough to read the quote I supplied and asked about. Are you bi-polar, or always this manic?

I am not frenetically typing! Lol. I am quite calm. I am writing out, how reasoning works.
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


How helpfull, of you... /sarcasm

It seems people often bandy about the ideas of "proof" and thus get into a tizzy when several items, interrelating in a specific way, can be seen (a "prooving"/"proof") to show a result. A PROOF takes time and consideration. And has variables which can be used in other contexts ("pink sweater" could fit alternate proofs/hypotheses inside a court case). But it's seeing IF there is a case for PX, a PROOF, which I am interested in.

Surely you understand that.

As to "the sentence" I missed, which one? Or have I now answered it?


Menow was silly to say this stuff "wasn't happening". Small or large, it is.


I see you have ignored most of what I said about that. It had to do with noting your previous obsession with something of no particular evidential value. I also read one of your cited sources and it did NOT say what you claimed it said.

I ignored nothing.
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


How does what you were saying about that Polaris image uphold nancy's 'wobble' claim?

You have not actually answered the contrary objections: I have accounted for the direction, and anomalous nature of all these things. You have not. You would suggest they are "too small" and ignore the scientists' own shock -- expecially about the "holes" of repulsion during the usual "Solar attraction" phase of the Sun Cycle. That's fine; your position is to minimize all pieces to fit into the opposite case. I am building a case for the defense and you for the offense.

Your hypothesis would be: a) un-relation between events; b) minimal impact of events; c) specific details which I put into salient relationships your position would see them as "MERE anomaly", not "significant ANOMALY". (Note the two uses of anomaly, indicated by emphasis there.)
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


You have NOT demonstrated any 'anomoly'. I asked you if you had studied the entire history of relevent data. Funny... you didn't answer.

You build your hypothesis; I'll build mine, and we will see if the two are equal, or one wins out.
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


Build away... Oh.... I thought you were done, here?

But note: I am well aware that whichever wins beyond reasonable doubt in the end, COULD MAYBE still be wrong.
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


Where is PX? #11?

Hence the willingness of law to re-open a case if a salient new fact or relationship between facts is discovered.
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


Where is PX? #12?

It seems so unusual, and backwards would "intuitively" suggest it might have to be pulled that way. If we are builing a case FOR PX, in order to see what piecs work, which don't and how they relate, we must count the Wobble as something which could be due to a possible pull or torque (slowly affected, because of the size and inertia of the forces).


But -- if you all really care about the question, at least account for a) the scientists' admitted shock and weirdness factor in these things (see the Nat Geo article in the other post, or the 2nd link in this one).
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


Where is PX? #13?

You really DON'T take time to read what someone posts to you and specifically asks you. You just keep rolling ahead, oblivious.


What could this possibly have to do with an imaginary planet?

I read what you wrote and have covered this.
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


Really? Where is PX? #14?

I submit that a planet has a charge. It would seemingly have to if it has a metal core and was near a star. If so, our Newton-obsessed astrophysicists are mis-accounting for the total gravitic effects in the system.
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


Please show your math on this discovery.

If so, then ...
In arriving, it would create new anomalous magnetic effects. One of those might well be a tug on the gyroscopic actions of the affected planet(s), such as Earth. Other effects would be repulsion warps during attraction phases from the planet (Earth's) own star (the Sun). (Or vice versa, if a PX were attracting when the Earth planet's Sun were repelling.)

Have answered this over and over.
You now either absorb that for my case I'm building, or keep saying "but what evidence/what proof/what does this mean". At that point, you are not building a counter-claim, but rather willfully ignoring this particular claim-proof I'm presenting. I can only present it so many times before it's clear you do not want to argue the case, but rather NOT FOLLOW the case.

:)
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


You are correct... I lost all willingness to 'follow your case' when you waxed ridiculous about the Polaris image.


If a PX were there, it might have such effects and predictably. Duh.


Yes, but... WHERE IS IT? Isn't that an important detail in your little scenario? Maybe not.

Well, now here is an interesting question.
Here we can actually argue this out, as we did the Pole Star issue.

The claim by Nancy is that it's by the Sun. At various points in the past few years it supposedly was "sneaking around" in our view, to use an emotion-laced technical term! Ha ha.
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


Well, was it seen/imaged approaching the Sun? Then how did it get there? There is no other way to describe such claims than in humorous terms.

It was also supposedly scrubbed in most images of the Sun. And a few images of it were missed, or partly scrubbed.
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


So you have retreated to such parnoid musings as part of your argument? Somehow, I knew you would. There is no other way to support the PX nonsense.

There was also the Neat Comet fiasco, where some of the images of that had future pictures of the comet in them: in other words, were clearly Photoshopped. What does that mean? Well, in my case for PX hypothesis, I would have to account for them as a cover story for the PX arrival and posit a belief that it would round the Sun so quickly -- as the putative Zetas did claim -- that the power brokers of the world decided they had to have a cover story of a comet ready.
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


Yawn.

The Photoshopping of the images (one as I said, had not only the comet but also part of the picture of the comet from a later image in it!), indicates some chicanery.

So, at various points, PX would, one might say "possibly" (hypothetically in this scenario) be at different points, at different times.
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


Yawn...

And now, right now? Perhaps very snug to the Sun but still repelled from going into it? That's my tentative answer from this hypothesis right now.
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


Therefor... it must've 'snuck', there, right?

To work that out is important, to follow the fullest POSSIBLE logic, to see what would be needed to figure it all out. Then, we can see which side has the better argument. I suggest that these things being co-incidences individually AND in concert is the more stretched hypothesis, but I certainly hope it's co-incidence.


No, you are wallowing in minutia and ignoring the fact that no one can find this alleged planet.

See below.



I'm sure you will find something else to obtusely obsess about, presently.


Not being obtuse. :)
Being very clear. Simply working it through, in case there's something in all this. This is what being truly open and reasonable at the same time REQUIRES.
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


You are ignoring the fact that... wait for it... there IS NO NEW PLANET IN OUR SKIES!

However, that "no-one can find it" either a) offers hope that all this is in fact wrong, or b) means no-one has considered the so-called "pixel flare" Stereo-Ahead images as ROUND and ONLY SINCE 2005, and has not thought through that maybe the "Neat Comet" images are in fact that someone "found" it -- maybe enlarging comet images in the process, to make something clearly cometary out of an approaching PX, whose approach was misunderstood.
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


No one has considered the images as ROUND??? What does that even MEAN??

Dunno.
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


Congratulations... we have a winner!

Or the Neat Comet could be unrelated and the Stereo images could be related. Or neither.

All lead to different versions of the Pro-PX argument ...
Or to a Non-PX argument in some cases.

I merely want to figure out if there COULD BE RIGHT NOW a PX from the evidence trains we have around this subject.
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


You have paranoia and bupkiss.

Because, if it's even logically possible from the evidence we have, we MIGHT have to be very prepared. This would be a good thing to -- even wrongly -- prepare in case of.

Besides, it's always good not to rely on civilization ... overmuch.

Cheers,
Clare
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


Don't you have laundry to do, or something else more productive you could be obsessing about?
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 795135
United States
05/17/2010 06:15 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Here, Clare. If you want to learn something. Here is a gem from Nancy about the Moon. She reiterated this statement last Saturday as proof the Moon is somehow 'wrong'. See if you can spot the bullshit(lies). (hint: Look up "libration")

[link to www.zetatalk.com]

Moon FACTS are that the Moon will appear to be upside down if viewed from the S. Pole vs the N. Pole, and every change in latitude skews this view. But the view for any given latitude should vary only by 7° 7 minutes, a movement called Lunar Libration, equivalent to the hour hand of a clock moving a mere 1/2 hour. The rotation of the Moon's face during a lunar night moved from a reported 45° on Mar 7, 2004 to 60° by July 31, 2004 to 95° by Sep 26, 2004 and for real drama, see that animation of the 95° turn. This Netherlands Feb 27, 2005 photo covering a mere 3 hours shows an almost 30° turn.


Excellent link on Moon libration here:
[link to en.wikipedia.org]

She is suggesting that the libration (slight rock-and-roll in our perception of what's ROUGHLY one face of the moon) is more dramatic than it should be. (I don't know if it is.)

She's also confusing actual libration with ANY change in face aspect.

 Quoting: mclarek 971744


Nancy confuses the normal appearance of a rotation of the face of the moon with the term "libration". It clearly is NOT the same thing. The apparent rotation of the moon as it moves across the sky is perfectly normal...and every object in the sky, including entire contellations, demonstrates that same apparent rotation. She somehow thinks that it is not normal, or is trying to get her followers to think it is not normal. It is simple geometry from observing from the surface of a rotating sphere.
mclarek
User ID: 971744
Canada
05/17/2010 06:18 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
"She's not stupid, clearly."

You use the word 'clearly' in a wildly innapropriate fashion.

What other word would you use to describe a person who think aliens use unwrapped candies as a means of communication? What other word would you apply to a person who identifies photographs of KITES as mysterious peek-a-boo planetoids?

And all that blathering about charged plnets?

Puh-leaze. Nonsense, at least in any remotely relevant sense.

Tell me, 'Clare,' do you camp often with Elle?
 Quoting: Returner 997


Hi.

I meant she has a mind -- and if aliens are a delusion, who am I to say? There is interesting information on aliens over the years, and how any main knowledge was covered up. It stops our knowing the truth either way.

Now, charges ON planets isn't blathering. It is a serious oversight in Newtonian-derived political-aspected science teaching. (By political, I mean social-psychological blind spots.) I knew an electrical engineer who explained that they have to have charge, and why Newton didn't count that -- he didn't think of that, in fact. His focus was on describing the pull effect and making the ballistics clear (physical momentum, like knocked billiard balls but pulled into relationship).

Now whether there is a NEW planet to our solar system, a PX, is the question.

Who is Elle? I have seen something about her(/him?) -- I assume her. I don't recall.

I am in Toronto. I have looked into all this myself, and don't know all the history of the persons involved.

Clare
Menow
User ID: 935048
United States
05/17/2010 06:27 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Here, Clare. If you want to learn something. Here is a gem from Nancy about the Moon. She reiterated this statement last Saturday as proof the Moon is somehow 'wrong'. See if you can spot the bullshit(lies). (hint: Look up "libration")

[link to www.zetatalk.com]

Moon FACTS are that the Moon will appear to be upside down if viewed from the S. Pole vs the N. Pole, and every change in latitude skews this view. But the view for any given latitude should vary only by 7° 7 minutes, a movement called Lunar Libration, equivalent to the hour hand of a clock moving a mere 1/2 hour. The rotation of the Moon's face during a lunar night moved from a reported 45° on Mar 7, 2004 to 60° by July 31, 2004 to 95° by Sep 26, 2004 and for real drama, see that animation of the 95° turn. This Netherlands Feb 27, 2005 photo covering a mere 3 hours shows an almost 30° turn.


Excellent link on Moon libration here:
[link to en.wikipedia.org]

She is suggesting that the libration (slight rock-and-roll in our perception of what's ROUGHLY one face of the moon) is more dramatic than it should be. (I don't know if it is.)
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


No, she's not. She says NOTHING about actual, observed Lunar libration.

She's also confusing actual libration with ANY change in face aspect.
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


No, she is confusing it with apparent rotation, which is utterly normal.

I DO know she misuses terms sometimes, in trying to get at some perceptual insight: if the Moon is moving its face too much, what do you call it?
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


It's NOT 'moving its face' too much. That's the friggin' POINT!

Libration? Turn? Change?
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


No.
No.
No.

The insight she's going for -- even if it ends up as a false impression -- is clearly that there's too much change in the face-presentational aspect of the Moon.
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


She is 'going for' that, because she is creating FALSE 'evidence'. There is NOTHING wrong with the Moon's motions. She, or "Zetas" if you wish, are LYING.

Is there? Maybe not. But why pick on words? She's not stupid, clearly. Nor are you. But she's also clearly trying to say any potentially related anomaly ... even if some turn out not to be related or even anomalous.
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


I'm not 'picking on words'. I'm PICKING ON LIES!

She's watching for signs -- and presenting as many as quickly as she can.
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


No, she is FAKING THEM as quick as she can.

If the darned PX is coming, then this is important, even if some of the signs were wrong, or WRONGLY EXPRESSED too!
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


You have yet to point out a 'right' one, or come to the realization that Nancy has simply piled one falsehood upon another for the last 15 years.

There is simply no THERE, there.

I am not sure there is something wrong with the Moon, unless there is some slight perturbation, unnoticed. But I don't know. I have not been watching, and I don't see anyone giving comparable footage which shows otherwise EITHER.
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


How many astronomers who follow Lunar occulations would you like? There was one just last night with Venus. Funny.. it came off EXACTLY as expected.

But more than that, unless you have normal footage, I do not know the Moon stuff well enough to comment on whether there are problems such as she claims, or not, as you claim. Fair enough?
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


Then why are you attempting to defend Nancy's claims on this?

Of course, the "God hypothesis" that the Zetas are fixing our perception is untestable. So I won't go there.
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


Gee... thanks...

But just in case, here's an emoticon:

abduct

I love that one! So cute.

Clare
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


You spend a lot of time to say "I dunno".
Menow
User ID: 935048
United States
05/17/2010 06:36 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Of course, the "God hypothesis" that the Zetas are fixing our perception is untestable. So I won't go there.


Clare
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


By the way.. Nancy or "Zetas" NEVER claimed to be 'fixing our perceptions'. That was a bit invented by Zetamax. Nancy was asked about it and responded NO, and that 'they' are ONLY tilting Earth and moving it 'up and down in the ecliptic' to simulate the seasons.

The whole "God hypothysis", in the way you suggested, is NOT part of Zetatalk.
Circuit Breaker

User ID: 946069
United States
05/17/2010 06:44 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
These refresh number are normal for me too when I watch threads closely and when I'm chatting with others. But SHR is right about one thing, this thread here was artificially pushed in the past days. The one who did it used probably something like this:

[link to addons.mozilla.org]

And he was pretty stupid, as IF you do something like this, you dont do it 24/7 day after day.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 972982

Yes, I agree it was artificially pushed up over the weekend. However, SHR lowered the number far more than it should have been.
A voice of reason in a world of woo-woos.
Circuit Breaker

User ID: 946069
United States
05/17/2010 06:48 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Personally, I have found the Top 20/Hit Counts/View Counts disagreements rather irrelevant.

It doesn't matter how popular a thread/poster is. What matters is the correctness of the ideas, and how well the ideas conform to evidence. Everything else is mere hand waving.

Just an opinion.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 74444

On that, I wholeheartedly agree. Luser used to bandy on about Nancy's popularity. But whether a person's thread is popular or not doesn't mean people in turn believe what's posted inside.
A voice of reason in a world of woo-woos.
Menow
User ID: 935048
United States
05/17/2010 06:57 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
These refresh number are normal for me too when I watch threads closely and when I'm chatting with others. But SHR is right about one thing, this thread here was artificially pushed in the past days. The one who did it used probably something like this:

[link to addons.mozilla.org]

And he was pretty stupid, as IF you do something like this, you dont do it 24/7 day after day.

Yes, I agree it was artificially pushed up over the weekend. However, SHR lowered the number far more than it should have been.
 Quoting: Circuit Breaker


I can think of one possible good reason for that, but I won't elaborate. Let's just let it go...
Circuit Breaker

User ID: 946069
United States
05/17/2010 07:07 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Definitely. As I said on a previous page - we know this thread is popular so it won't take long for it to climb back up there.
A voice of reason in a world of woo-woos.
picesnator

User ID: 814500
United States
05/17/2010 07:19 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Yes, I agree it was artificially pushed up over the weekend. However, SHR lowered the number far more than it should have been.

Not really. This wasn't the first time this person had
done this, they just didn't do it as much in the past.
 Quoting: DrPostman

well howdie doc...how is it hanging???...hope ta world is treating u fair to middlin'..

Last Edited by picesnator on 05/17/2010 07:19 PM
mclarek
User ID: 971744
Canada
05/17/2010 07:44 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
What "pull" does the Sun exert on Earth, other than via gravity?
 Quoting: Menow 935048


I covered this. We have to have charge, as part of our relationship to the Sun. The planets must be a charged, as well as mass-gravitic dynamic, since they receive electromagnetism all the time from the Sun. This is how electromagnetism WORKS. There are reasons this is not typically considered in science teaching.

Anyone who understands the inertia -- ha ha -- of teaching patterns, and thought excitement (Newton's effect was so "electric" ha ha) that people whisked away their new discoveries into electromagnetism as a "side issue". For goodness' sake, the Van Allen belts were only discovered in the 1950s. And in fact, Velikovsky predicted their existence and extent, plus radio signals from Jupiter, before those were discovered. Why? Because his discovery of past interplanetary disasters (he thought it was Venus entering our solar system and coming close), REQUIRED electromagnetism to account for some parts of the human records of such disasters AND to account for some of the effects on the mammoths of Siberia, which I have outlined before.

How, precisely, does 'pull' become 'torque'? There are no unexplained gravitational 'pulls' on any of our planets from some new object in the Solar System.
 Quoting: Menow 935048


As I've said, and you could have further extrapolated, I think, we have more pull when we are near other planets, from very far away, and some of these cannot be accounted for by mere mass.

But the point here is that we have to have charge, and we have "accounted" for much of it by CALLING it gravity. But we have to be part of a charged system, perhaps overall evening out, and IF A NEW PLANET CAME IN, it would add to/disrupt the system in some ways, more than its mass. Period.

So you are saying that this force exists, but has never been acknowledged nor measured? How convenient.
 Quoting: Menow 935048


The nature of electricity demands it. Newton named the TOTAL force. When, however, bodies come closer, and have a charge on them (comets don't have metal cores much of the time, so they don't), they have a pull which would reveal more than a gravitic effect. They would pull, but also -- if their pole were turned to repel, or if they had an opposite charge -- they would have such an effect.

A PX would be adding itself to our system, and if so, and if its pole were pointing at us, its charge might very well first tug more noticeably (though slightly, as you've pointed out) on our Wobble through our core. This would be an initial adjustment, perhaps.


Wild speculation, based on little more than imagination. I said no such thing as that such a thing could happen slightly.
 Quoting: Menow 935048


This goes into your "pile" as mere slight anomaly; I however have an account for the direction and the timing. And the unusual nature of this (unprecedented in record-keeping, which admittedly, is only since the 1940s, if I recall). And it could be considered as PREDICTED as part of "wobble" and "electromagnetic grip" by Nancy.

It still could be a mere anomaly, in the sense of a "coinkydink". :) (Co-incidence, for those reading this, who are not as proficient in English. I'm being funny with the word.)

Why all this speculation over a nonexistent object, causing nonexistent effects? Seriously... what are you ON about??
 Quoting: Menow 935048


If it's here, it's imperative to prepare.

However, preparations to be more self-sufficient is a) always wise, and b) very wise under the economical-political situation in the world right now.

I am working through what electromagnetism (and pure gravity) might very well accomplish, both over several years of approach by PX, then upon a few critical months when it would be newly added to the orbital plane (have arrived at it), and then after, once it is now "part" of our plane.


Why are you trying to re-invent astrophysics from the ground up? "Part of our plane" is meaningless, by the way.
 Quoting: Menow 935048


From the ground up? "Re-invent?" No. It's only re-invention in the sense that we have to un-lump electromagnetism from gravity, and recognize the principles of each, so as to recognize which effects are from which.

Currently, they're largely lumped together, except for a few places. And THEN the electrical effects remained UNPREDICTED, and when discovered, were grafted onto an electrical-free gravitic model, rather schizophrenically (double-think).

The evidence has been amassing for charge on planets -- but has been grafted onto a mere ballistic system (Newton), with his mysterious mass-pulls-from-afar force called gravity. It turns out that gravity from mass does occur, but at the time he proposed it, it was -- by some, even he -- recognized as a "black box" style solution, a mere descriptive equation.

It turns out, therefore, that though there is mass-pull (true gravity waveform pull), there is also mitigation and addition by electrics. Many experiments show this, but it is not WORKED INTO THE LARGE picture by most.

This is merely how learning and resistence go, over time.

:)

Plus, of course, electricity HAS to leave a charge in metal. So something of that must be true in our system.


You mean, you are challenging the validity of Newtons Laws? And... "ut" means what, exactly?
 Quoting: Menow 935048


I meant "but". It was a typographic error. :)

As to Newton, I am challenging (as do others), how the evidence for electromagnetism in the solar system, which was unpredictable in his dynamical system, and remains uncomfortably separately treated, as regards our actual system dynamics.

Newton admitted his "action-at-a-distance" didn't make sense from "weight", but people hadn't worked out electromagnetism OR field theory. So, fair enough.

And his system's gravity "law" is a mere algebraic formula to calculate the total pull -- so that the pull can give meaning to why we don't fly off from our orbits. It is not, however, an explanation, and it does not necessarily have to do only with mass, which was all he thought of at the time.

I have studied science history at length, and this is how great minds think and also how things need to be corrected, but often it takes several turns before the corrective solutions are arrived at.

Plus a second "magnet" with gravity as well: PX.
That would be an explanation for (a part of building a PX hypothesis): the Chandler Wobble and Magnetic Pole anomalies of the kind we've had, and also the "magnetic holes".


PX... Where is it? (10th time?)
 Quoting: Menow 935048


As you didn't handle what I said, why should I answer you?

On the other hand, I already commented, it could be right by the Sun. Nancy/"Zetas" say it's between us and the Sun now. I don't know. But it could be there and not be easily seen ... and there are hints which might mean that the Stereo-Ahead images, and through the Neat Comet issue, that there is something there which is being covered up in various ways.

Possible? What does it mean? It is the way explaining the PX hypothesis would work. It is vidence which could fit it. We have to work out the hypothesis and the possible supports before we can debunk, or we haven't thought through the whole thing.

"We".... heh...
 Quoting: Menow 935048


Mere emotional response. However, all people have them, so that's fine. Express away.

However, the fact is that I was using "possible" in the technical sense. If something is possible, we can work out the hypothesis fully and see what it says about the subject, and where the pieces of evidence fit, and how, in this hypothesis, versus in other hypotheses. This is how cases are argued, and judged: the final arguments are compared.

I am presenting an argument for, a proof for PX. It may be flimsy or it may be strong. It may discount parts of Nancy's claims, or they may have to be fit back in later.

I am not saying it is or isn't; I am showing how it might be -- giving the "proof" you always ask for. A proof is a proving, a worked-out hypothesis, tested through discovered facts, and understood in total, as a theory. It could be wrong, but this is what a PROOF is. This is different than saying, "I want to have one thing, either way, which of itself is the thing or is not." That is a different proof: it would be PX or a direct single effect.


Just keep typing. It's what you're good at...
 Quoting: Menow 935048


Again, well-intentioned and full reasoning, written out, seems to get a mere expulsion of air in a "huh" from you.

So, if we are going to work out whether PX is here, we must work it ALL out, see where or if various pieces of possible evidence fit, and why. And then compare. Simple.

However, instead, we have suggestive facts, whose INTERRELATIONSHIP might indicate PX. Thus, I say it's "possible". I am constructing an argument for PX, to see if one can be constructed, and how sound it would be or not.


As I said, you are trying to add up a thousand, in your eyes, "might-bes", and have it become something real.
 Quoting: Menow 935048


First, many might-bes figured out, is what reasoning requires. It's called hypothesis. It's also why we don't have to have all the pieces to know something is likely to be true, or even beyond a reasonable (reasoning) doubt true. (Which can still be wrong, but is the best argument at the time.)

Second, it is not mere "adding up". It is arguing relationships. Mere adding up won't do. Some relationships will be "bulk" (addition) -- such as "more than usual amounts of some event" -- but many will be TYPES of events related, hypothetically. This is not mere addition.

A dog and a cat would hypothetically have an inimical (enemy) relationship, and facts could support that, but it could be the case that IN FACT in an instance, a cat and dog could get along.


So one can have correct hypothetical relationships of facts, make a strong case, and still be wrong. But it's a special kind of "wrongness", in that instance: it was a logical rightness, but wrong in fact.


You're rambling again.
 Quoting: Menow 935048


Then don't try to follow any argument in court, in science, in philosophy, or even try to follow a composition in music or art. :)


This correct logic but wrong result is always from incomplete facts. The wrong interpretation of a fact comes from not having complete facts about it. We often think of this as flawed logic. But flawed logic itself, is mis-construing how to construct an hypothetical case proof.

It is the latter which I encourage you not to slip into.

I am constructing a case proof, slightly different than Nancy's, but accounting for most of what she says. If a case can be made for PX which is very logical, then it is worth looking at and maybe preparing for a disaster of this kind.


You are accounting for what Nancy says, but discounting all of our understanding of astronomy, why??
 Quoting: Menow 935048


First, I am not discounting all of our understanding of astronomy.

Hilarious.

I am LINKING what we know of elecrical charge to what we know about the planet-Sun electrical relationship, and also TALKING of how this was missed by Newton and all Newtonian astrophysicists until the 1950s, as if the two physical principles and scales were UNRELATED.

I am also talking of how when electromagnetism was found to be part of the solar system in a big way, it was STILL NOT THEORETICALLY COUNTED AS PART OF THE DYNAMIC MOVEMENT of the mass-bodies. However, I would submit, much of the electromagnetic effect of charge on planets is actually art of Newton's gravity algebra.

It would only be under certain circumstances where the separation of mass-gravity from electromagnetic gravitic adjustments would become obvious as separate things adding up into one algebra "law".

But it's more than just the question of if gravity-description is 2 forces in one. It is also that the gravity-only prediction caused a split in concerns, between electrical-magnetism researchers and large-scale gravity-Solar system researchers.

Until Jupiter's radio signals "shocked" the latter. But Velikovsky and electromagnetists knew it was likely.

And since we now HAVE rebuilt Newton to ADD electromagnetism, we must ask -- and hopefully not take 2 centuries again to do so -- what other effects does electromagnetism have? Require?

One of them is CHARGE.

Hence, my argument that a PX might very well have some attraction torque pull on us, and might also be like a 2nd magnet: the Sun being the usual one, and in a stable form.

That you have never thought this through surprizes me. But perhaps you never really took the time to WORK THE WHOLE HYPOTHESIS THROUGH, to discover if there was anything to learn here.

Even if there's no PX, perhaps the discussion will get our astrophysicists to be less bean-counting, and more meaningful in their theory.

Even if a case can be made, and I think it can, it still could be wrong, as I said, but should not be from illogic or from not constructing the logic into an hypothesis AT ALL.

You seem to refuse to take the pieces and construct the argument to see where it leads, fully. This is a mistake.


You have yet to offer one solid 'piece', dear.
 Quoting: Menow 935048


Wrongo, dear.
:)

The solidity of the pieces relates to understanding charge on planets, and also requires understanding of theoretical relationships, and what possibility does to the argument.

You apparently didn't stop your frenetic typing long enough to read the quote I supplied and asked about. Are you bi-polar, or always this manic?

I am not frenetically typing! Lol. I am quite calm. I am writing out, how reasoning works.


How helpfull, of you... /sarcasm
 Quoting: Menow 935048


I am actually being helpful. If you want to see this through, for it might be life and death, it would be worthwhile to work through HOW we thing, HOW a case is made, and HOW IT'S NOT: what you often pull out is dismissal of a piece of evidence without COUNTING its relationship to other items, or you DON'T follow the required arguments which are background.

I wouldn't want you on a murder trial, if this is so!

You (and others: I am not picking on you as you know, I hope) often also don't seem to be willing to even BUILD the case for a PX, being FULLY not only open-minded, but intrepid about saying, "IF" this is possible, would that account for this hypothesis.

It's called being mentally generous. And it's HARD TO DO. Things which seem ridiculous, or totally implausible, but are possible, must be worked through.

WHY?

a) Sometimes one discovers something thereby.

b) This particular issue would be life and death.



As to "the sentence" I missed, which one? Or have I now answered it?


"Menow was silly to say this stuff "wasn't happening". Small or large, it is."


Goodness gracious.

You said the Wobble DIDN'T GO BACKWARD, and there were NO HOLES IN THE MAGNETOSPHERE.

You said that. We can argue about their implication in our constrasting hypotheses, but they happened.


Menow: I see you have ignored most of what I said about that. It had to do with noting your previous obsession with something of no particular evidential value. I also read one of your cited sources and it did NOT say what you claimed it said.

Mclarek: I ignored nothing.
 Quoting: Menow 935048


I intended to ignore nothing. Hence the "manic typing" -- lol.

As to the cited source's not saying what I said it did: which one? And if it's an exact wording issue, then that's picayune. If it's that they were presenting the anomaly but didn't attribute it to electromagnetics between planets, of course they would not. I was presenting the factoid; the meaning is made in hypothesis, not by the attributions of answers inside the claims of the articles. These facts stunned the scientists (the magnetosphere holes and also the magnetic pole movement). Account for it otherwise, Menow. Or say you don't know.

I can account for it with the magnetic effects from a PX, but even there I don't know if that's true for sure.

But it DOES require you understand the argument about electromagnetic physics and how it hasn't fully been worked out in planetary actions. It's one of the big blind spots -- even without PX -- that our cosmology has. Electromagnetics are DYNAMIC, not static. They must play a part in the pull-push we usually name by the lump term "gravity".



How does what you were saying about that Polaris image uphold nancy's 'wobble' claim?[/image]

Well, it would mean we were off-kilter, not specifically wobbling. But the word "wobble" can imply in off-the-cuff remarks, that we are not "on true".

However, it definitely hypothetically relates to the Chandler Wobble backwards motion: did we "just move" or were we "pulled" that way? Those are the key questions, and thus we see which way each hypothesis would treat of that evidence.

We are a massive thing, and PX would be far enough away, if it did attract us (effecting a torque), that the result would, thank God, not likely be a sudden or dramatically big change. But there would be a change OF THIS KIND, and at this time. That's what I'm accounting for.

But I hope I'm wrong that that was in fact why it happened.

You have NOT demonstrated any 'anomoly'. I asked you if you had studied the entire history of relevent data. Funny... you didn't answer.
 Quoting: Menow 935048


I did reply, but I don't have the article. I am not anymore doing surfing on that, and have run across far more than I now have at hand.

I will post on that when I get a chance.

You build your hypothesis; I'll build mine, and we will see if the two are equal, or one wins out.


Build away... Oh.... I thought you were done, here?
 Quoting: Menow 935048


I meant I'm building here EVEN WITH WHAT I'VE COVERED. But there's more, much more. Which would require more complex demonstrations. This one is fairly easy, to type out. Once you understand electromagnetism, and the HISTORY of Newtonian gravity, and how electromagnetism was finally grafted on, but without accounting for the dynamics of the latter ... a person can see the hypothesis about the Wobble and so on, makes sense.

Is it true there's a PX? Maybe. This would be one way to argue it.

But note: I am well aware that whichever wins beyond reasonable doubt in the end, COULD MAYBE still be wrong.


Where is PX? #11?
 Quoting: Menow 935048


Answered again and again: seemingly it would be still by the Sun, and only visible to satellites ... some of which seem to have been showing it, along with cover-up.

But other than that, I assume you mean: why is it not big and red in the sky? Well, if it's here, it's not HERE CLOSE UP yet.

Hence the willingness of law to re-open a case if a salient new fact or relationship between facts is discovered.


Where is PX? #12?
 Quoting: Menow 935048


You seem not to like handling anything about reasoning. So that you can not have to reason openly and carefully in future.


It seems so unusual, and backwards would "intuitively" suggest it might have to be pulled that way. If we are builing a case FOR PX, in order to see what piecs work, which don't and how they relate, we must count the Wobble as something which could be due to a possible pull or torque (slowly affected, because of the size and inertia of the forces).


But -- if you all really care about the question, at least account for a) the scientists' admitted shock and weirdness factor in these things (see the Nat Geo article in the other post, or the 2nd link in this one).


Where is PX? #13?
 Quoting: Menow 935048


See above. Not all discussion is "where is it"; "I don't see it".

You'd fail to learn something new if you couldn't follow argument AND argument about argumentation.

Having said that, I'm glad it's not visible. It means it might not be in the system.

You really DON'T take time to read what someone posts to you and specifically asks you. You just keep rolling ahead, oblivious.


What could this possibly have to do with an imaginary planet?

I read what you wrote and have covered this.


Really? Where is PX? #14?
 Quoting: Menow 935048


Hmm. Who's being distracting and illogical? If we cover it, you go back to "I don't see it"!

Maybe you will or maybe you will not. I am working through why we might see it soon.


I submit that a planet has a charge. It would seemingly have to if it has a metal core and was near a star. If so, our Newton-obsessed astrophysicists are mis-accounting for the total gravitic effects in the system.


Please show your math on this discovery.
 Quoting: Menow 935048


Read about electromagnetics; read about Newton's inability to predict the 1950s electromagnetic descriptions; and so on.

When you understand that stuff, then you will realize that our mass-gravity law must be conflating gravity and electromagnetic physics.

The problem is conceptual, not algebraic.

You are correct... I lost all willingness to 'follow your case' when you waxed ridiculous about the Polaris image.
 Quoting: Menow 935048


Oh how charitable! I have been charitable with your unwillingness and snarkiness. Oh well! :)

Anyway, I submitted that it seemed that the North Star was off centre inappropriately. You pointed out, quite rightly, that the stars sweeping to the left of the seeming Polaris star (the bright one) could be from stars being picked up by the long-time light exposure, which allows invisible stars to show up. These might be stars closer to the Pole, even, than the North Star. If so, and if the scale of the photo were right for your claim, then I was wrong, and the Pole Star was shown correctly.

We still don't know -- but it seems that this piece of evidence might be not anomalous at all.

That is NOT true about the Wobble or the Holes or the Magnetic Pole movement. According to the scientists, those (the last two) are anomalous -- even if they have nothing to do with PX. But all are counterintuitive. And magnetic charge on planets PLUS a current PX -- would account for these things. So they fit the hypothesis.

Not that they have to fit in fact. But they fit the hypothesis. Which is scary, if the hypothesis is in fact true.

This post is getting long. I'm gonna respond to the rest of your questions/comments in a 2nd post. But first ... dinner and laundry ... thank you for asking if I do laundry.

Lol
Clare

News