Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 2,144 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 741,292
Pageviews Today: 1,047,441Threads Today: 257Posts Today: 5,582
11:36 AM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

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

 
Halcyon Dayz, FCD
Contrarian's Contrarian

User ID: 434868
Netherlands
05/17/2010 10:53 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
mclarek there is a stunning pattern to your threads.

There are variations, of course, but at it's core, your pattern is pretty much:
[snip]
 Quoting: "...Sing, I'll sway.

Scriptbot?
book
Hatred is a cancer upon the world.
It rots the mind and blackens the heart.


Hi! My name is Halcyon Dayz and I'm addicted to morans.
Menow
User ID: 935048
United States
05/17/2010 11:04 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
)(

sniiiip)


there MAY BE SUGGESTIONS that NASA had images of it.

(sniiiiiip)

 Quoting: mclarek 971744


Sigh...

Pass.

Anyone else?
mclarek
User ID: 971744
Canada
05/17/2010 11:10 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
(snip)
The sense I get is that she is not trying to lie, but is instead *enthusiastic* about the topic (not happy- but worried-type enthusiasm), or shall I say, riled up?
(snip)


Don't you realize that when Nancy is confronted by an event like the Venus conjunction or, specifically, a Venus transit that came off exactly as predicted a few years ago, she does not admit error? No, in fact she(or "Zetas) just simply invent an 'explanation'. On the Venus transit, Nancy then began claiming that "Zetas" MOVED Venus so that the transit would come off as expected. Every time there is an astronomical event occurring right on time, Nancy now claims that it was only 'simulated' to keep people from panickiing. Nancy has, for years, simply invented new and more outrageous bits to 'explain' her prediction or claim failures. She has no interest in determining the truth, at all.

You seem to pride yourself in admitting errors, when made, and improving the accuracy of your understanding. Nancy is held back by no such ethical limitations.
 Quoting: Menow 935048


I know. She does not tend to do that with the wobble/ alien manipulation of our skies stuff. That is clear. But then, they (if they exist) have told her that is what they are doing. Wouldn't you, if you talked to aliens (or thought you did) believe any new parts of a picture they'd already suggested?

Personally, I go by the other stuff, not the wobble on the Earth. (My example of course, of a possible temporary PULL on the Chandler Wobble was not related to a consistent wobble OR to a stopped-Earth theory.)

The Chandler Wobble example, I submit, fits into an hypothesis which says PX might be by the Sun right now but only its entry would have been noticeable as a clear physical pull. I submit this because our orbital plane has all those unseen electromagnetic and gravitic and who-knows-what-else wave balances.

In this picture of the PX hypothesis, effects would continue on our magnetosphere after (and have started just before) the actual "torque" moment -- which was itself several months of backtracking. We are talking about massive bodies here and forces.

Anyway, in my hypothesis to account for a PX, just playing defense here, we would see other effects than the putative torque; the repelled magnetic north pole, and the holes of repulsion when there shouldn't be any. And this would affect weather patterns, because electric charges -- even discounting planetary movement dynamics -- are part of the creation of weather forms.

Another effect would, ostensibly, and to follow the hypothesis through, be earthquakes, etc. Why? Because the tug on the core and on the magma pockets further up in the crust, all of which ARE magnetic (have charge, duh), as a point on the Earth turned toward and away from PX's pole, would pull and push, causing stress, in a very small way as regards the whole Earth orbit, but a big way for us tiny persons on here, who get affected by any movement of the crust.

In the longer run, as PX moved around the Sun, theoretically, it would bob and get pushed back (over time), maybe staying toward the side or bottom of the sun.

Of course, as it neared, that's a more extreme story. But then, yes, don't wait for gravity and a ballistic hit to do damage. (If such a horror were to happen.)
Menow
User ID: 935048
United States
05/17/2010 11:15 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
It is not necessary to a PX claim in the pre Pole-Shift phase. So I don't usually bother with it, as I've said.

I personally think it's a deflection from the other evidence ... as I've said.


So all incorrect and false claims of Nancy's, you now conveniently write off as some sort of... "I-MEANT-TO-DO-THAT"??


All along, I said I don't reall trust the putative "God-claims" ...
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


And you misstated Nancy's claims re that.

However, it DOES get pretty "godlike" when she describes all that "Zetas" can allegedly do, hmm?

The only off-kilter ("wobble") item I addressed was that photo of Polaris.

**As to all my other comments, it has been my "legal" (hypothetical) defense of Nancy, that, if not attempting to lie, she could be saying THOSE things because she's so worried, that she jumps on any seeming anomaly in the sky.

And as to the Zetas, if they exist, telling her that they've stopped the Earth:
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


I corrected you on this once already. You don't even know what Nancy's claims ARE... How can you defend them? Nancy does NOT claim that "Zetas" have halted Earth. She claims that Earth (and Venus and the... wait for it.... DARK TWIN..) have been halted in orbit by a repulsion force from the PX thingy.

I have said I have a hypothesis that either she's getting that wrong from their message (and THEN jumping on misunderstood aspects of the Moon, and so on, because she's worried, and over-eager -- not in a positive, happy sense of "eager" but as concern); or instead of getting it wrong she might be being lied to, to make her not be taken too widely seriously, for her own protection.**


No need for "her own protection". She has 300 IQ aliens with Godlike powers protecting her, just ASK her!

There are many people you consider Zetatards who get that PART of the story can be true and another false or mistaken.
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


I have, literaly, never seen ANY non-trivial claim of Nancy's proven to be true. None.

Or of course she could be lying -- and this is not vague; don't try that with me. This is acknowledging both sides are possible and I want to present the other side which often doesn't get aired. See above [in **]

Clare
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


I have seen Nancy lie many times. In specific, once, about me. I was talking to someone via Private Message during the old IRC chat and asking them about their own observations of the sky. Nancy found out about it and came on, telling people that I had been coercing that person to NOT LOOK for PX in the sky. Sorry, but Nancy *IS* a liar. Simple as that.
Menow
User ID: 935048
United States
05/17/2010 11:24 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
(snip)
You seem to pride yourself in admitting errors, when made, and improving the accuracy of your understanding. Nancy is held back by no such ethical limitations.


I know. She does not tend to do that with the wobble/ alien manipulation of our skies stuff. That is clear. But then, they (if they exist) have told her that is what they are doing. Wouldn't you, if you talked to aliens (or thought you did) believe any new parts of a picture they'd already suggested?
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


Nancy does that with everything, not just what you noted. Don't you know that we have been experiencing a "dramatic increase in Earthquakes/volcanoes" since 1995? Oh... and it went "exponential" a couple years ago?

Don't you know that Earth's rotation slowed(a lot) in 2002 as the PX approached to cause the May pole shift? Gee, PX never went away after that, so where did all the "slowing" go? Sheesh... I could list a hundred of these. Face it... Nancy simply maked shit up.. declares it proven fact... builds on that... for 15 years to where we are now.

(snip)

I think there was something else in there I wanted to comment on, but I just don't care to go back and find it.
mclarek
User ID: 971744
Canada
05/18/2010 12:51 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
(mercy snip)
This is merely how learning and resistence go, over time.
 Quoting: Menow 935048


If you don't actually ponder (I note your use of the term "mercy snip" when I was explaining in good faith, what is needed here to come onto a good un-off-the-cuff footing in an argument) ... and change from what I've said about argument, then you cannot learn new things when resisting them: I hove shown how to be intrepid about being open. It's more important than being intrepid fighting for what you believe ... if first you haven't been intrepid about being open. Seriously. Or you DON'T really know what you know; and though you might be right about many odd things being faked or false ... you might miss some which you could have known.

I call it "suffering to know". It is really hard and hurts a lot to stay open to a crazy idea enough to feel the WHOLE thing through!!!

It's even harder, to still be open when more craziness supports it. And when I say open, I don't mean believe it, just "take it on" (as if believing it) seriously ... in order to follow it through.

Often, there will be REAL bunk in the middle even if the gist does turn out not only to be crazy but right.

This often is the second level of shutting down: because when finding out the whole might be right but there's bunk in it FOR SURE, as well, it's very tempting to get smug even then, and throw out the "might be right" that is now coming into view, because of the "definitely wrong" now known.

It's really hard to be intrepid about open-mindedness. This doesn't mean taking on the idea forever, or just "believing it all". It means really forcing oneself to work everything through ... just in case.

And in the case of a PX, if there's ANY evidence for one, it's worth asking, is it there, and what would be required to know, if it is?

:)


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


So your claim is that Newton's rules only work if there is magnetism between the objects? And... that magnetism, although vastly different in different objects, somehow remains hiddin within Newton?

Right.
 Quoting: Menow 935048


I suppose that the equation of planetary gravity forces yes, would be off a bit without electromagnetism in it.

But also, we could tease out what part the electromagnetism played, if we worked out charge on the planets.


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.


You mean he talked about 'mass' as opposed to 'weight'?? That doesn't mean his theory "didn't make sense", as you imply.
 Quoting: Menow 935048


No, perhaps my switch in words there was not helpful:

I meant to say that action-at-a-distance as a force, is a different concept than the mass, which he assumed accounted for the former perfectly. And the IDEA SPRUNG from our intuitive associations, as human beings, with weight. We feel weight in big objects (generally) and extrapolate to small objects with a lot of weight (rare). He named the -- then-unknown -- molecular link between big heavy objects and little heavy objects "Mass". And big light objects fit into "less Mass" with littler objects, which usually are lighter, too. That was step 1.

Step 2 was saying that "Mass" had a relationship to other big objects, like Earth. Littler-massed ojects (not merely littler sized, for that was dealt with in step 1) would fall to the much-bigger Earth. This was step 2.

Then he worked out the equations that occur between objects.

And they worked. Step 3.

So it seemed that mass effects (makes happen) the action at a distance. Step 4.

Now, what is wrong with this picture? What's wrong is that gravity is VARIABLE. Why? Because not all of its effects are due solely to the "natural heaviness" of "density" of stuff (Mass).

On the other hand, I already commented, it could be right by the Sun.


It "could be"?? So this is more of your "anything is possible" tack?
 Quoting: Menow 935048


Unless you're actually in a mode where you're serious here ...

I'll assume you don't still believe that saying things are POSSIBLE, so that one can work out what MIGHT be the case with the evidence at hand, so that one can see the full HYPOTHESIS clearly enough to assess it ... is the same thing as a wishy-washy "anything goes/anything is possible" attitude.

In fact, I believe that NOT anything is "possible" (a notion of vaguery). This is why I wish to test not only everything that IS possible, but see HOW its possibility RELATES to the next, to see if an OVERALL claim is in fact POSSIBLE ... perhaps one which seems on the face to be silly.

Thank God some people do this, or innocent people would never get off for complicated and subtle crimes which seemed so immediately AND during the detective process at various points, to have been "obviously" done by the accused.

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.


Bother paranoid and ludecrous.
 Quoting: Menow 935048


Knowing what we know if we wish to actually do the work, we know lies are RAMPANT in various parts of human culture, especially ones with "national security oaths", or fully private and hence co-opted through the boss alone and his/her pressure on employees him/herself.

Second, the Neat Comet images INCLUDE A FAKED ONE, one which is UNSELF-CONSISTENT: which has 2 comets on that one image, the second of which matches another Neat Comet image.

Given that Nancy MIGHT be for real, and people really in the know of a putative PX MIGHT have reason to listen to her -- not for everything, but sifting more than you are -- they MIGHT VERY WELL have had a concoction of a comet, ready to go, to announce a safer version of PX for the countdown.

Interestingly enough, though, only the HAVE-TO-BE faked Neat Comet images came out, hardly a whisper, though it was huge (supposedly), and subsequently various ways have blocked much discussion of it. How convenient. But you'd have to look into that saga on its own. Yes, there is cover-up. Perhaps there was, here. Those images were fake anyway ... or at least one was botched. How?

No, I don't "ask for proof". I show where the alleged 'proof' Nancy offers is nothing but a pack of lies.
 Quoting: Menow 935048


Yes, you do ask for proof. Often. But your version isn't a PROVING. You ask "where is it"? And so on. There is a whole proof around answering that. This is why court cases take weeks to lay things out. They need to explain many things along the way, not only the main argument. <sigh>

Actually, you have shown no such thing; nor can you be sure it's lying rather than hopeful ignorance or even something which she mistakes or was told by these Zetas. You ACTUALLY don't know. You know what she gets wrong, but not why.

Nor do I, but I suggested a whole bunch and some people implied I was "defending Nancy" like an acolyte. I was actually working out the defense possibilities for her. And suggesting since we don't know anyway, it's more likely she gets caught in defensive cul-de-sacs, and has an ego too. Who doesn't? You?!

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


No, patient thinking. Do you know how to read careful argumentation -- especially where you'd be inclined to interject all your preconceived notions and not stick through to see which ones might be corrected by what you're reading ... I mean might, because sometimes the patience DOESN'T pay off and the item which seemed to be a careful argument STILL missed a major truth. But even then, usually, one learns something along the way of the argument.

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.


And you think we have not examined the 'evidence for PX' before now?
 Quoting: Menow 935048


Of course you have, but do you notice that you haven't done it by TRYING TO PROVE IT. You have done it by isolating items, not considering any which way it MIGHT be true, in order to see if one part or another MIGHT relate to another. If you'd done that, a lot would fall away, at least into the "unknown" and "unlikely" piles, and a few bits also into the "definitely not true" pile. But unfortunately some would also fit into a picture which DOES work.

Now, is it flimsy or is it striking? I submit that the Wobble going back if it did, and the Repulsion when we should be Attracted by the Sun, and so on, are rather striking. And they would be predicted if one ALSO has taken the time to be really open and learn about Newton and the saga of Velikovsky's discoveries.

(I had help; I had an electrical engineer friend, now dead -- whom I miss very much hf who explained how and why electromagnetism always leaves a charge, and RELATED THAT to the Planets' own receiving of Solar electromagnetism. This made me recognize the point in clear relief -- like a sculpture -- instead of buried in among other problems. Since then, I've done research onto the parts which would prove it. But again, it's composite logic. There are direct tests, but they've never been done -- not outside of Black Ops, at least. Ha ha. Anyway, I mentioned that: the test Einstein wanted done after talking to Velikovsky, who in those years still had not even fully refined the ideas.)

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


It is a real CONCEPT if it adds up. This is called a tested/further testable hypothesis, or a case, or an argument, or in math, a proof. It still could be disproven, but it would have to be disproven by a counter-proof or one which explained why it seemed to be true.

Now, since law is usually easy for people to grasp in its overt form, I'll use that -- no point in being difficult!

A case is argued, decided as beyond a reasonable doubt.

It is based on a "might-be" series which has specific "would require this" links involved -- for these are not mere "might bes" they are possibilities which require certain other things to be true as possibilities.

If it's decided that the situation of these NECESSARY LINKED might-bes is the best argument, it wins.

But ... if a few of the might-bes turn out to be not true and are KEY might-bes which provide links ... then the whole case can be brought back for re-trial.

Why? Because -- as I've said -- one can have an excellent argument and STILL BE WRONG, but it's only knowably wrong in certain ways. Barring those things, we assume the strongest argument IS right -- and we close the case (for now).

So, no, I don't KNOW, but I feel there are some strong arguments for this PX. They have massive explanations required before they can be seen as strong arguments, but that's what's required sometimes.

:)

Your first attemp at that, with the Polaris image, was inauspicious.
 Quoting: Menow 935048


Already been over that with you. Does no-one ever impress a second chance? How fanatic of you.

How unwilling to change your mind! :) Or at least to re-open it in case.

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 was talking about the position of objects in our sky. There are no abberations, yet Nancy lies, saying that there are. Don't you GET that?
[...]
Build away, then. Why would I stop you? Invent forces as you see fit.
 Quoting: Menow 935048


No forces invented. Forces were discovered (but not predicted, therefore Newton's theory, properly understood, missed something). Only Velik. (and a few others, less intrepid about it) predicted electromagnetism in the solar system interactions. Why? Because he knew there had been likely interplanetary near-misses which seemed to leave a huge effect that gravity couldn't account for.

Once electromagnetism WAS discovered, it was still discounted as a dynamic efect on the cores, and therefore on orbits (slightly, unless something came in new, or close).

I said absolutely nothing about the magnetosphere. I said that I thought you were referring to a previously touted glitch in the monitoring system. Nancy commonly finds normal, but unusual-appearing, to the lay-person, bits of 'data' and misrepresents them as supporting her PX story. Again... don't you GET that?
 Quoting: Menow 935048


Yes. But I think it fools her too, maybe. I think she's got an image of PX in her head/soul, and knows of the electromagnetism at play at a distance, and the rest (mere claims from Zetas) is unknowable to us, believable to her.

It's the PX and electromagnetism, and evidence of PX discovery in the 1980s, and understanding NASA and general ways cover-ups work, and the evidence of images of PX ... those are where I say there is suggestion that PX maybe isn't a figment only of Nancy.

I hope it is, but I am not sure. Not sure isn't wiggle room as someone tried to attack me with, not wiggle room at least in the sense of "unwilling to conclude because is afraid to". No, I think we must be careful in assessing what we do know, what we don't, and what we might know through hypothesis. If the latter, then how strong is the case and if it's strong at all -- even minus a lot that Nancy claime -- then we should prepare in case of disaster.

But we shold be preparing anyway: a lot is going wrong and being off the grid for cost, brown outs, food prices and infrastructure breakdown shortages ... all good to be aware of.

Wish I were more off the grid. I'm a sitting duck. Quack quack.

No. You said that the image showed Polaris to be too far 'off-center'... too far from the NCP. Even if that WAS what was shown by that image(it wasn't), that DOES NOT support Nancy's claim(or yours) of an abnormal 'wobble'. This is about the 4th time I have brought this up.
 Quoting: Menow 935048


Yes it would. It would be an off-centre pole (which is contained in the assumptions about a wobble: if there's a wobble, the pole is off). And if you want to split this up and say they're two slightly different things, Nancy's word wobble being an ongoing pole which moves around off-centre from the old one, but keeps going (like a mini chandler wobble) ... versus a NEW, STABLE off-centre pole, which still implies we "wobbled" or were "torqued" off centre.

Fine.

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.


Classic! You can account for effects you ae not sure are there! So if there are no results of your alleged effects, where did they suddenly go?
 Quoting: Menow 935048


Ever hear of mind experiments? This is why I spent that time on hypothesis, which you so put down.

We must think it through. If there are the backwards Chandler Wobble effects, and repulsion at the wrong times in our magnetosphere leaving perfectly normal holes but at the wrong time of year, when the Sun ATTRACTS, and so on, then yes, knowing about electromagnetics between planetary cores WOULD theoretically account for it.

And yet, I don't know for sure if the effects are the cause: it could be some as-yet-unthought-of reason. But at least I have a reason. You, and the scientists, do not.

So, I have accounted for it but am humble enough to say I am not sure. Do you not understand? :)

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".


So you overlook the specifics of Nancy's claims in favor of a nonspecific 'wrongness'?? Priceless!
 Quoting: Menow 935048


Nonspecific? I don't know the number of degrees it would be. I knew it seemed (probably a scale issue) that there was too much distance and too many nearer-the-Pole stars caught on the image, for it to be the Pole Star in its right placement. However, scale is an issue, and I've dropped it.

Wanna quibble some more?

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.


You have yet do show, despite requests, that the alleged 'anomoly' you found is unprecidented or even unusual.
 Quoting: Menow 935048


Oh look it up yourself. Do some deep "support PX" research. It'll be good for you! Just for the brain cells (and the heart, for trying).

I could be like you, and ask nastily, "What's an 'anomoly'," or what does "have yet do show" mean! :)) You are so cruel it distracts from your argument. Or -- is that your point? I think it's just your manner and surety of what you say. You CAN be sure without being unopen of heart or mind to following things through, and being kind.

Anyway, the Wobble has gone forward (slightly slowly or relatively faster), in ring-spiral mapping, since it was studied first in the 1940s. Also, we are not talking of standing still a while, or going a bit to the left or right; we are talking of a spinning top, with its own wobble GOING BACKWARDS IN WOBBLE.

Like a jig-jog in space? Made it tip back as it spins?

Hmm. Hope it's normal or something NON-PX related. But it could very well be from such a Planet, if such a planet is really here by the Sun, first entering our system. Hope not. The hypothesis does fit though. That's all I wanted to show on that.

Then why are you not waiting until you can show an acutal anomoly, to go into such a tirade as this?
 Quoting: Menow 935048


In trying to mock me for ONE typo, in the middle of my excellent English (and having your own typos along the way) you look dumb and cruel.

Okay, why did I bring it up? First, the backwards, stop effect like a pull and re-start in a new direction is completely counterintuitive AND even if normal, could ALSO in an instance be explained by PX.

It rains and water falls; or I can pour water and it will fall. Both can be caused by different things.

But it's not normal, or at least not USUAL from the records.
And do some of your own research. I have been replying instead for a day.

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.


Ridiculous. Show any such satellite images.
 Quoting: Menow 935048


I already mentioned several. Most are not on line anymore; there are several at Zetatalk, however; and Bad Astronomy has that half-assed (pretend-to-be-scientific but then don't-do-the-key-test) page on some of them.

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.


No, I didn't mean that, you condescending ass.
 Quoting: Menow 935048


I am not being condescending. You kept asking "where is it, where is it."

You are the spiteful, condescending one, making fun of two typos of mine. I finally made fun of one of yours. :)

But okay, I already answered that about the images: I said there are some suggestions of PX on imges, and NO KEY TEST done by the debunkers, on their own claim that it's pixel flare.

<shrug>

They left themselves wiggle room (or know that they're lying, as you say Nancy does, so I'll copy you on that hypothesis). But hey, it means you and I simply cannot technically know if pixel flare could account for it.

Even if it could be a pixel, so could it be a Planet, so it could be actually from either ... and either lawyer could use it for their side, on the way to another argument point.

You seem not to like reasoning about arguments.

No, it's just that you are arguing minutia. It's as if you want to know if there is an elephant in your living room, but instead of just looking, you are sending off for equipment to determine if there are any molecules of the scent of its dung in the air.
 Quoting: Menow 935048


In fact I am not arguing minutia: is a speck of dust on a sweater in a court case, a minutium? Of course not, if it COULD be critical to an hypothesis.

Now, you and I CANNOT JUST LOOK for this elephant. I am not on a satellite; are you? So we MUST smell the dung, or in fact, we must use others' pieces of memos about having smelled dung, to go by. And I don't mean "just Nancy/Zetas", I mean by "memos" the tidbits from the earth and science which might relate to the case.

Hence we have to BUILD a case, before we can compare.

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

Then what is causing all the 'anomolies' you claim to see?
 Quoting: Menow 935048


Oh! Rude and stupid to be rude on typos, again. Good one. :)

Now, if you had noticed I misspell a lot of the time, and clearly from the types of errors I hypothetically made, that I really didn't understand spelling and grammar very well, you STILL would be being rude.

But anyone who reads what I say here -- and you, too, for that matter! -- can see that we have a command of English and unless just wanting to pick on someone they disagree with, would see that you looked stupidly mean for continuing with a mere typo on someone who knows quite a bit in her language. :)

Anyway, I AM NOT A FANATIC OR ALL-KNOWING: I DON'T KNOW ... IF IT'S NOT A CHANGE IN THE CHARGE ON THE EARTH -- such as through a PX. Naturally without that, I would be and am AS STUMPED AS THE SCIENTISTS IN EACH FIELD ARE, WHO ARE UNWILLING TO LOOK OUTSIDE THEIR DISCIPLINE AND POSIT A PX.

So, either it's as-yet-unthought-of causes for each, or it's a Planet X. I, like others, would prefer the former but have to admit the latter, once one understands the factors which would relate a PX to the earth through electromagnetism.

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.


Then why is Nancy lying about it?
 Quoting: Menow 935048


In claiming I follow her, merely because I pointed out that, and how, she could be possibly NOT lying: how that would work and what symptoms it would show in her claims ... which are not merely "more and more covers" but have a pattern of types of wording she uses. All this shows she is likely not LYING but CONVINCED most of the patterns are correct ... and has misunderstood pieces of the science along the way.

But I'm more concerned because some of the science may add up -- if you know what to look for in the events AND how to rigorously argue with an intrepid willingness to find out (technically speaking, an open mind, not a simple sponge).

Clare
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 74444
United States
05/18/2010 01:22 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Hi, 74444! Thanks.
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


Welcome.

I was JUST GOING TO HAVE MY BELATED DINNER! Sorry.
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


Feel free. No apologies necessary.

I will try to reply to all this -- and the rest of Menow's last post, which I cut off short in reply -- a bit later.
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


Understood. However, you and Menow seem to be going *quite* a different direction with your conversation than mine. That's fine, but it is among the reasons I am sticking to my post, without getting caught up in your and Menow's conversation.

In the meantime, have a look through my posts. Others have been trying to slam me but I have replied as you will see, with the best expression of a full position, and seeing all sides so that temporarily we can take on one or another for (mental) testing.
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


I have, and though you have come close to addressing some of my questions and points, others you are no where near to answering. Therefore, for the sake of clarity (and brevity, though that is an odd request, coming from me), I would ask you address my post directly, point by point. When you have time, of course.

I hope you do see that, if only over several posts. In any given post -- as with any argument -- things can seem one way but overall be another. I have tried to be wide-ranging.
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


Again, understood, but I want to make sure I am concretely understanding where you are coming from, and my questions are designed to do just that. So, again, when you have a bit of time to spare (though I notice your replies to Menow are quite lengthy -- a quality often belittled in my own posts by many Zeta Believers and apologists -- but I know how interesting Menow can be to converse with and read posts from) I would hope that you, as thoroughly and completely as you can, address each part and point of my post.

But take your time. It is, after all, all we have -- and I thank you in advance for sharing some of yours with me.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 957757
India
05/18/2010 01:25 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Who will debunk this : [link to www.ufo-blogger.com]
Menow
User ID: 935048
United States
05/18/2010 01:39 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
(massive snip)



I said absolutely nothing about the magnetosphere. I said that I thought you were referring to a previously touted glitch in the monitoring system. Nancy commonly finds normal, but unusual-appearing, to the lay-person, bits of 'data' and misrepresents them as supporting her PX story. Again... don't you GET that?

Yes. But I think it fools her too, maybe. I think she's got an image of PX in her head/soul, and knows of the electromagnetism at play at a distance, and the rest (mere claims from Zetas) is unknowable to us, believable to her.
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


Nancy absolutely refuses to 'see' anything which would undermine her steadfast belief in "Zetas" and that they are 'always right'. That does not lead her to honesty, in the least.

(snip)

No. You said that the image showed Polaris to be too far 'off-center'... too far from the NCP. Even if that WAS what was shown by that image(it wasn't), that DOES NOT support Nancy's claim(or yours) of an abnormal 'wobble'. This is about the 4th time I have brought this up.

Yes it would. It would be an off-centre pole (which is contained in the assumptions about a wobble: if there's a wobble, the pole is off). And if you want to split this up and say they're two slightly different things, Nancy's word wobble being an ongoing pole which moves around off-centre from the old one, but keeps going (like a mini chandler wobble) ... versus a NEW, STABLE off-centre pole, which still implies we "wobbled" or were "torqued" off centre.

Fine.
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


No, it shows, if you had been right, that there is a new NCP, since it shows no motion other than around one central point. That is NOT what Nancy claims. She claims an on-going, several times a day, abnormal re-orientation of Earth's axis.

(snip)


So you overlook the specifics of Nancy's claims in favor of a nonspecific 'wrongness'?? Priceless!

Nonspecific? I don't know the number of degrees it would be. I knew it seemed (probably a scale issue) that there was too much distance and too many nearer-the-Pole stars caught on the image, for it to be the Pole Star in its right placement. However, scale is an issue, and I've dropped it.

Wanna quibble some more?
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


It's not about a number of degrees. It's about what Nancy claims is happening. That image does not show what Nancy claims is happening, even if Polaris was too far from center. Get it now? Ohh.. and as far as a few degrees might be an issue... it would also be nowhere near Nancy's other absurd claim that aliens have tilted the Earth far enough to provide summer(N hemisphere) when Earth is in the fall/winter side of its orbit.

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.


You have yet do show, despite requests, that the alleged 'anomoly' you found is unprecidented or even unusual.

Oh look it up yourself. Do some deep "support PX" research. It'll be good for you! Just for the brain cells (and the heart, for trying).

I could be like you, and ask nastily, "What's an 'anomoly'," or what does "have yet do show" mean! :)) You are so cruel it distracts from your argument. Or -- is that your point? I think it's just your manner and surety of what you say. You CAN be sure without being unopen of heart or mind to following things through, and being kind.
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


You hve no idea how much inane, nasty, attacking, lying retorts I/we have had to field from Nancy and her followers over the years. Dozens upon dozens of claims made which, when followed up, have absolutely no basis in fact. Now you expect utmost courtesy when defending Nancy's claims when NONE has been forthcoming from Nancy's camp for literally years. Even YOU said that I was being PAID for my actions here. You expect to be given some slack? You'll have to EARN it, sweety.

Anyway, the Wobble has gone forward (slightly slowly or relatively faster), in ring-spiral mapping, since it was studied first in the 1940s. Also, we are not talking of standing still a while, or going a bit to the left or right; we are talking of a spinning top, with its own wobble GOING BACKWARDS IN WOBBLE.


You have YET to....

Like a jig-jog in space? Made it tip back as it spins?

Hmm. Hope it's normal or something NON-PX related. But it could very well be from such a Planet, if such a planet is really here by the Sun, first entering our system. Hope not. The hypothesis does fit though. That's all I wanted to show on that.


Then why are you not waiting until you can show an acutal anomoly, to go into such a tirade as this?

In trying to mock me for ONE typo, in the middle of my excellent English (and having your own typos along the way) you look dumb and cruel.
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


Huh? Where did I do that?

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.


Ridiculous. Show any such satellite images.

I already mentioned several. Most are not on line anymore; there are several at Zetatalk, however; and Bad Astronomy has that half-assed (pretend-to-be-scientific but then don't-do-the-key-test) page on some of them.
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


So... like the other thing... you just claim that certain evidence exists, but don't provide it, or say that *I* should go looking for it. Priceless.

You are the spiteful, condescending one, making fun of two typos of mine. I finally made fun of one of yours. :)

But okay, I already answered that about the images: I said there are some suggestions of PX on imges, and NO KEY TEST done by the debunkers, on their own claim that it's pixel flare.
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


According to you. No link to alleged event.

<shrug>

They left themselves wiggle room (or know that they're lying, as you say Nancy does, so I'll copy you on that hypothesis). But hey, it means you and I simply cannot technically know if pixel flare could account for it.


I doubt it was called "pixel flare" and since you admit to not knowing, why are you accusing them of falseness?

Even if it could be a pixel, so could it be a Planet, so it could be actually from either ... and either lawyer could use it for their side, on the way to another argument point.


You seem not to like reasoning about arguments.

No, it's just that you are arguing minutia. It's as if you want to know if there is an elephant in your living room, but instead of just looking, you are sending off for equipment to determine if there are any molecules of the scent of its dung in the air.

In fact I am not arguing minutia: is a speck of dust on a sweater in a court case, a minutium? Of course not, if it COULD be critical to an hypothesis.
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


Not if the question is whether the sweater exists.

Now, you and I CANNOT JUST LOOK for this elephant. I am not on a satellite; are you? So we MUST smell the dung, or in fact, we must use others' pieces of memos about having smelled dung, to go by. And I don't mean "just Nancy/Zetas", I mean by "memos" the tidbits from the earth and science which might relate to the case.
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


BEcause the world's astronomers, and the ones who post on GLP are all in on the coverup of the PX thingy?

Hence we have to BUILD a case, before we can compare.


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

Then what is causing all the 'anomolies' you claim to see?

Oh! Rude and stupid to be rude on typos, again. Good one. :)


Now, if you had noticed I misspell a lot of the time, and clearly from the types of errors I hypothetically made, that I really didn't understand spelling and grammar very well, you STILL would be being rude.
 Quoting: mclarek 971744



Lady, I was doing no such thing. I was simply asking a question.

(snip)

Then why is Nancy lying about it?

In claiming I follow her, merely because I pointed out that, and how, she could be possibly NOT lying: how that would work and what symptoms it would show in her claims ... which are not merely "more and more covers" but have a pattern of types of wording she uses. All this shows she is likely not LYING but CONVINCED most of the patterns are correct ... and has misunderstood pieces of the science along the way.

But I'm more concerned because some of the science may add up -- if you know what to look for in the events AND how to rigorously argue with an intrepid willingness to find out (technically speaking, an open mind, not a simple sponge).

Clare
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


The idea that Nancy is simply misunderstanding is a reach of such vast proportions as to be beyond silly. She has avoided; obfuscated; falsified; twisted; perverted; contorted and outright lied, too many times to mentions.

Yeah... it was all an accident...
mclarek
User ID: 971744
Canada
05/18/2010 02:06 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Okay, my German buddy.

About Foucault pendulums worldwide: I don't think we ARE wobbling wildly, instead of normally. So though Nancy's been told that and has looked for evidence of it ... I don't think it's true.

Who knows?

Or is it that real Zetas are lying to confuse most people? And make those who learn about how a PX might be there look like purely silly?

<shrug>

I know I sound weird for considering it, but to be ruthlessly honest with myself, I DON'T know! :)

I do have a niggle of interest that some people say we are a LITTLE bit off: enough that shadows are a bit variable from year to year -- which to be open minded, I don't discount as absolutely having to be wrong, for very little change would have to occur for that to be slightly off. A shadow on a building would have to be only slightly different, not to show at high noon but show later. But I too discount this stuff. Other anecdotes in history have turned out to in fact be true ... but at the time there was no explanation and people scoffed. But I don't think it's possible, with all our checks on these things.

I agree.

But Zetas making it seem OKAY? Well, if they were, there would be almost no change. So it seems contradictory. I don't go there. I might be wrong not to, but I don't go there usually. (I had a debate about it with Menow over ONE Polaris photo, and I think he is right, it is a matter of light-enhancement from the stars which are normally invisible, but nearer the North pole than Polaris. But technically speaking, we need to know scale, as he pointed out, or we cannot determine the accuracy of that possible off-polar wander ... or shall we say wobble? Maybe off-kilter pole would be good, for that hypothesis, so we cover both a wandering pole and a pole that wandered and stopped in a new position.)

I have recreated the post. I hope you enjoy it...

Hi! My eyes are bleary and I am going to bed asap. I was focussed on Menow's immediate responses.


Understood. No problem 'tall.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 74444


You're very nice. What a change! :) I, too, understand how hard it is to get answers and discussion on topics.

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?


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.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 74444


Wait a minute here. Don't conflate debunking her as a "guru of all wisdom whom I trust is representing herself accurately" with debunking all the points she raises. Even a drunk at the end of the bar can give you wisdom. She is not, I think, the latter; but the hyperbole should make the point clear.

Even if you think she's equivalent to that drunk (as Menow would suggest, in this example!), and even if she misrepresents herself as 100% accurate ... again, let's think through why she might? Hm. A person could be using hyperbole for a bit of ego -- this thread's name does -- or she could be lying outright, or deluded, or partly right ... or whatever.

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.


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.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 74444


I know we are not stopped.
I have never argued we are.

Well, let me correct that: barring the idea that Zetas and friends are FOOLING us about our stopped FORWARD motion (not daily rotation as well), and fooling us on our polar direction (Winter-Summer) ... yes, barring that possibility, which is UNTESTABLE because it is A PARTICULAR KIND OF SUPERNATURAL CLAIM -- not one which instruments MIGHT detect -- but one which actually contains a tautology: THE INABILITY TO KNOW is part of the claim made.

What is the claim: they are hiding it from us and we can't know ...

I do get the impression sometimes NL/ZT suggests NASA's probes know different, because somewhere "out there" they can tell and really see. But I don't deal in this part of the claims. I am merely trying to encourage people to think through the WHOLE of their assumption, these pat responses, so they can see if ANYTHING is valid.

It would be life and death, if it were even in part true warnings and science.

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?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 74444


Already answered.

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.


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...
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 74444


No, it supposedly didn't halt in contradiction to laws. The word halt is also used with bob up and down, and being pushed back but making forward a little bit. I think the impression from the word halt isn't literal: it's the way we speak when we're talking of relative speeds.

"It came to a halt" can be NOT a full and complete stop, as any driver knows. Of course we also mean full halt, sometimes.

I think the claim is, it's caught up in the Sun net of forces, and was not progressing much.

I think that's the claim.

Would you believe I have an invisible dragon living in my garage? Why not?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 74444


:)

I would take on the hypothesis if there were evidence for its voice or actions or whatever, and perhaps a witness or photo of it before it went invisible ...

But I do have a hard time staying open to such claims. I would, like anyone, want to really think it through and would probably not listen to start with. However, the "weird invisible forces" of electricity (and X-Rays) were seen as magical hokum ... and were treated as such by some of their early proponents, too.

I would be THEORETICALLY OPEN to anything (a thought experiment level) but probably not emotionally open. :)

At least I know, though, that for all the wise decisions I made in NOT listening to many wild clams, I am probably ACTUALLY MISSING SOME TRUTHS!

It is the latter which makes me, sufferingly, work through the "iffy" claims. And sometimes I've been surprized at the incredible truth to them! poop And sometimes I've been really mad at myself for wasting the time.

antibs

On PX, I feel it's so important to bring my intellect to bear on the overall problem of massive destruction -- by PX or by human creeps -- that I am working out parts of the PX hypothesis, which sometimes dovetails with Nancy's and sometimes does not directly.

So then we don't HAVE to be stopped for her to be right.


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.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 74444


Oh yes, it can, if it can. Let's look at it the way I was trying to, above. If a putative PX could have effects on us from afar, from electromagnetic pull-push, then okay. And if we could get around the Sun year after year with various cover-ups and viewing angles helpng to maintain the illusion that PX isn't in front of or beside the Sun, then yes, we could be NOT stopped and still there be a PX.

Now, I don't know if it's possible to have PX somewhere near the Sun and fake the sunspot closup images of the Sun -- but if they actually cut and paste areas of Sun wherever PX was, for it wouldn't be very big compared to the total Sun image, well, then for the rest of the images it would, hypothesis-following, be much easier.

Why? Because SOHO and Stereo-Ahead/-Behind don't even show the centre of the Sun. So if PX were in front of it in our view in the past few years of rotation, we wouldn't notice. And if it were beside, it would be covered up but -- oops, a few leaks.

That seems to be what we have ----- unless they are pixel flares. (I am NOT talking of Venus images and so on. I am talking of images where something -- or a flare -- is there and is then not there, on the same day, and is quickly removed from the server.)

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


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?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 74444


Of course it is "terribly" convenient. It is, in fact, TECHNICALLY SPEAKING fanatic: a self-confirming loop. Not self-confirming because it is testably logical and confirmed IN itself.

(I'm commenting here not to "ramble" as others have suggested, I'm sure you know. But rather to point out the obvious as a reminder along the way: that People tend to confuse the two, and act like they don't like people who know something beyond a reasonable doubt, and act on it, calling them fanatic. They could be wrong, for sometimes reason was missing something and came to a wrong conclusion, but they are not fanatic if they do actually know beyond a reasonable doubt.) However, to get to that point, unlike with some people here, one has to be open minded enough to work the whole thing through charitably and fully, first, to know you haven't missed something.

This is hard to do. It takes real suffering through what one thinks is nonsense, but may not be at all, or may not be wholly nonsense. I have a hard time doing that. But I've learned a lot along the way. Make many mistakes, but learn a lot -- not just "stuff" but whole branches of thinking.

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.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 74444


I agree. But we don't HAVE to be stopped to have this planet here now -- I think. Nancy thinks we do. And maybe we do! But I don't think so.

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.


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?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 74444


This is like saying Newton doesn't hold up because Einstein discovered relativity theory. Newton's main picture is fine for working with many things. However, when dealing with GPS and some specific light properties, and so on, relativity theory becomes important. It is ACTUALLY present throughout Newton's worldview, but not noticeable as separate, in his worldview.

But most people don't really understand the STOP-think that Newton was on us: they don't realize that he didn't know what caused the force to pull; but since "heavier" or "more massive" (thus not necessarily bigger in size) bodies fell faster to Earth, he assumed it was mass which made the Earth "pull" somehow.

Since then, electromagnetism has been discovered and experimented with. It can cause changes in weight (gravity pull) but not mass (density of atoms, which was not what Newton meant: he meant heavier). We have to look at the TIME PERIOD of the thinker.

Anyway ... next point:


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.


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?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 74444


This is such a "massive" question. I covered some of the material in recent posts. I did not cover all the details. Let me ask you for a rain check, or for you to read Velikovsky AND the book on the unofficial trials of Velikovsky (called, "The Velikovsky Affair"), to learn what went on to debunk him, how is ideas changed, and what the debunkers got wrong and had to slink away ... though they'd already done the smear.

And there is a test, which Einstein ordered Princeton to do, but it was just before he died and the -- one must assume resistant -- scientists didn't do it. I forget the name of it.

As to effects you might notice: there are many, but they're subtle. Mostly, other than in a PX situation, the importance in knowing this -- as in knowing relativity principles -- would be for only a few applications. But it does clarify the mind and connect those neurons ... for why is electromagnetism's main result a CHARGE -- EXCEPT on planets? Well, then THAT needs explanation, not that they have a charge! LOL

But resistance runs deep. You may also like to read, "The Cry and the Covenant" about Semmelweis and the murderously smugly resistant doctors who refused to do what he said would work, to disinfect their hands -- why? there was not a theory to go with it, except Semmelweis' own theoretical understanding that what worked worked in a certain way. He didn't know of germs, but he knew the hospitals were killing patients, or HAD TO BE, because the death was so high there.

Many suggested it was death due to "accident" or "co-incidence", they "yawned" and so on ... but Semmelweis noticed a few things done differently had an effect. But it went against what others thought was going on, and what others had their egos caught up in, and they even dismissed his tests. He ended up proving it by killing himself by their method and no-one listened.

Germs were seen within a very few years of his death. And it would be tempting to say, well, they had the cause and woke up!

But they could have WOKEN UP to the correlation between their actions in immersing their arms in cadavers and then doing surgery, long before that, without the final sign of "germs". And saved many lives thereby. If they'd listened to the hypothesis relationships Semmelweis pointed out.

So I just don't want to be wrong about something important like that; even if I'm wrong the other way, about a few frauds.

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.*
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 74444


The Wobble is part of regular Earth: the one I'm talking of. It's called the Chandler Wobble. And the only anomaly I pointed to there was a backwards direction, in 2005-6 -- like a falling-back (or a PX pull-back) though usually it's a forward-momentum wobble.

This is different than Nancy's putative wobble. Her wobble is either (sometimes) an off-kilter direction we can obeserve, or it is a wobbly continual arc of change, a literal slow wobble. Either way, unless putative Zetas are hiding it from us, we cannot prove that at all, so far. (Or unless one of the key things that would prove it is missed. But I don't think so and don't subscribe to any of that, though I have an open mind, which finds itself in extremis trying to say it MIGHT be. But it might.)

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 your point of view.

1)By 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, 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, or Lunars?

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.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 74444


I don't think we are halted, nor that we are currently wobbling.

I do think we may have been and be being affected by PX in other ways.

What WOULD convince me ... IF the nearly impossible (to my mind) were presented to me?

Okay, but let NO-ONE SAY I'M CRAZY FOR "BEING WILLING TO CONSIDER WHAT COULD BE":

If we had a bunch (or even one) star out of place, any telescopic anomalies, the moon rotating weirdly, and so on ... or the Sun didn't rise and set normally in position, or a planet did a whing-zing (even if it took a while to actually make the weird track) ... then of course something is WRONG, and supernatural Zetas MIGHT have been bending, shifting, moving, whatever was necessary, and we are in a theatre.

But I doubt it.

A lot.

And even if these things happened, there could be some other thing going on which might have made a planet do something weird, or a star move (or starlight), and so on. So even then, it would not NECESSARILY prove the Zetas were doing it. But it would fit the hypothesis as a proof.

Currently, we do NOT have proof of that stuff, as far as I can tell. Thus it is CURRENTLY a tautology: there is someone you can't tell is doing something. It's fantasy or lies at that point -- but perhaps not of Nancy but of real Zetas!

How interesting. Because the alien question is far more complicated than Nancy alone. So maybe they're real Zetas telling her this side of things. Why? To make her look ridiculous? To separate those who ask more important questions about PX? And prepare?

I certainly hope there's no PX. But being prepared for disaster makes sense no matter what. If the 2011-2012 "solar flare storms" of NASA's warnings is a cover story for PX, it would be good to know. But even if it's their real prediction, we should prepare -- economically and socially we are heading into a world breakdown crisis, even if they get their World Bank and "save us"; for even then, they will have massive austerity measures on us. So it's good to be off the grid for social or solar or PX upheavals.

That's my take.

:)

Have a good night. Hope that helped.
The books I recommended are wonderful. But NOTHING'S PERFECT: each thing got slightly updated by another. But the basic points fit.

Ciao.

And you're welcome for the civility AND THANK YOU! for yours. And for your curiosity in life. We need more people like that! ... whatever this PX exercise of the mind might turn out to be, in physical fact.
Me
mclarek
User ID: 971744
Canada
05/18/2010 03:33 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Menow: I said absolutely nothing about the magnetosphere. I said that I thought you were referring to a previously touted glitch in the monitoring system. Nancy commonly finds normal, but unusual-appearing, to the lay-person, bits of 'data' and misrepresents them as supporting her PX story. Again... don't you GET that?

Clare: Yes. But I think it fools her too, maybe. I think she's got an image of PX in her head/soul, and knows of the electromagnetism at play at a distance, and the rest (mere claims from Zetas) is unknowable to us, believable to her.


Menow: Nancy absolutely refuses to 'see' anything which would undermine her steadfast belief in "Zetas" and that they are 'always right'. That does not lead her to honesty, in the least.
 Quoting: Menow 935048


I realize it means she's sticking to a position (due to being misled by Zetas?, or lying? or fanacicism plus misunderstanding some astronomical points?).

I also see it in politics.

HOWEVER, she has come up with some striking claims, and re. PX as a "big magnetic bully" and some of the photos from Stereo-Ahead (those pixel-flares/ anomalies), and other things I have since learned about the discovery of this planet AND a dark star ... and how in 1993 some gravity adjustments were "discovered" right after Harrington's death, which put to rest any need for a PX, but now BOTH A JAPANESE TEAM and THE SEDNA TEAM have come out saying there has to be another body because of those SAME perturbations that were, like a spy, sheep-dipped in gravity respectability in 1993.

Well, who's right? The 1993 claim that it's all ordinary perturbations, or the pre-1993 and post-2007 claims that the perturbations on the outer planets are due to something else, other than each other (as NASA claims)? Hmm.

No. You said that the image showed Polaris to be too far 'off-center'... too far from the NCP. Even if that WAS what was shown by that image(it wasn't), that DOES NOT support Nancy's claim(or yours) of an abnormal 'wobble'. This is about the 4th time I have brought this up.

Yes it would. It would be an off-centre pole (which is contained in the assumptions about a wobble: if there's a wobble, the pole is off). And if you want to split this up and say they're two slightly different things, Nancy's word wobble being an ongoing pole which moves around off-centre from the old one, but keeps going (like a mini chandler wobble) ... versus a NEW, STABLE off-centre pole, which still implies we "wobbled" or were "torqued" off centre.

Fine.


No, it shows, if you had been right, that there is a new NCP, since it shows no motion other than around one central point. That is NOT what Nancy claims. She claims an on-going, several times a day, abnormal re-orientation of Earth's axis.
 Quoting: Menow 935048


I know. But in her material it implies -- to be generous here -- things being off about the pole. Well, in that sense it was part of a potential wobble-over.

I have said that above. But perhaps I was unclear. I was saying her wording is sloppy and hyperbolic (plus has some misunderstandings in it). But this is emotionally tense for her if it's true and if she's not simply making things up. So this is how meaning is shared when people are enthusiastic: they are not punctilious all the time. Or slow enough to be careful.

Hence my request for you to read about reasoning: you are slow enough to notice those literal points, but not slow in questioning your own questions, I notice.

It's not about a number of degrees. It's about what Nancy claims is happening. That image does not show what Nancy claims is happening, even if Polaris was too far from center. Get it now? Ohh.. and as far as a few degrees might be an issue... it would also be nowhere near Nancy's other absurd claim that aliens have tilted the Earth far enough to provide summer(N hemisphere) when Earth is in the fall/winter side of its orbit.
 Quoting: Menow 935048


You may have noticed that I am not a follower of Nancy specifically. I am more interested in is PX here, and does anything offered by Nancy provide insight to what I know about planets IF they came close.

Having said that, I got it. I know. I said that above -- in my comment about "being in a new pole" (NCP). That would mean it wobbled OVER and stayed. But I don't believe any of that; and the only proof I found for it was that photo, which might be it, but is highly unlikely to be, because there is not enough clearly wrong with it, though we don't have scale.

I could be like you, and ask nastily, "What's an 'anomoly'," or what does "have yet do show" mean! :)) You are so cruel it distracts from your argument. Or -- is that your point? I think it's just your manner and surety of what you say. You CAN be sure without being unopen of heart or mind to following things through, and being kind.


You hve no idea how much inane, nasty, attacking, lying retorts I/we have had to field from Nancy and her followers over the years. Dozens upon dozens of claims made which, when followed up, have absolutely no basis in fact. Now you expect utmost courtesy when defending Nancy's claims when NONE has been forthcoming from Nancy's camp for literally years. Even YOU said that I was being PAID for my actions here. You expect to be given some slack? You'll have to EARN it, sweety.
 Quoting: Menow 935048

I am sure you have. (As has Nancy, to be blunt with you, I am sure. Deluded or not, unless she is lying, she would feel all the insults and misinterpretations as well as what her OWN misinterpretations lead others to say. Even when she doesn't know they ARE misinterpretations and still believes them! -- unless she is lying deliberately.)

I am sorry you have had to deal with that.

But regarding me:
Okay, Menow. If you are not paid, fine. I assumed, with your vitriol and off-the-cuff responses AND your intrepid presence at something you think is nonsense, that you were paid. If you were, you'd be lucky, I suppose.

As for me, I could "earn" your respect, and as a human I am willing to. But you have not put yourself out there equally, so why should I? I have, but you have not seen it.

Anyway, I am not "sweety" or "lady". I am me. Or more correctly, I am I! :)

Used in those ways, "sweety" and "lady" are sneering sex-based insults. I could say, "dudola" or "mister" or "your lordship" or "bucko". So don't start that with me. Or you won't have earned my respect either.

I will bet, however, that very few take a LONG EFFORT to share careful thinking with you. You have been dismissive as if those exposes of how to run an inquiry were just babbling. Or, worse, mere condescension.

In fact, in order to get at the seriousness of any clue (or non-seriousness of any clue), including whole LINES of inquiry as clues in their own right (idea-clues), we must organize our inquiry, to be as fully multifaceted and clear-thinking as possible. And this means NO PRECONCEPTIONS, except what's possible. Then we whittle down to what we find, and the connections, and then we know what's probable and likely. If we go the other way, we will be dealing in what SEEMED probable.

How come? Because what's probable may be due to some possibility you didn't realize was supportable with evidence, and with that evidence the larger hypothesis is not only possible but more likely.

:)

That's why building a case FOR, but really really clearly working the logic out, is the only way to know if something is likely NOT true!!!!!!!! How counter your method, it SEEMS.

Anyway, the Wobble has gone forward (slightly slowly or relatively faster), in ring-spiral mapping, since it was studied first in the 1940s. Also, we are not talking of standing still a while, or going a bit to the left or right; we are talking of a spinning top, with its own wobble GOING BACKWARDS IN WOBBLE.


You have YET to....
 Quoting: Menow 935048


I know. It's a separate discussion and it will have to wait. I have been on for 2 days practically straight and have a life to live. But I will provide you with what I found, if I can find it again. It STILL looks anomalous, and on that basis it can go into possibly being a missing link, for a pro-PX side, as well as fitting into the non-PX side.

Did that help you? Make you feel a bit better about my position? :) I hope so.

Like a jig-jog in space? Made it tip back as it spins?

Hmm. Hope it's normal or something NON-PX related. But it could very well be from such a Planet, if such a planet is really here by the Sun, first entering our system. Hope not. The hypothesis does fit though. That's all I wanted to show on that.


Then why are you not waiting until you can show an acutal anomoly, to go into such a tirade as this?
 Quoting: Menow 935048


And why are you not waiting until you know if it IS or IS NOT an anomaly before you attack my concern about it?
:)

In trying to mock me for ONE typo, in the middle of my excellent English (and having your own typos along the way) you look dumb and cruel.


Huh? Where did I do that?
 Quoting: Menow 935048


This "anomoly" stuff. I assume I typed "anomoly" instead of "anomaly", the correct spelling, and that you'd been making it into a big thing. But maybe YOU were misspelling it, and putting quotation marks around it only because you were doubting it was an anomaly in fact. Okay.

Sorry I misunderstood.

Your tone is so rough that I jumped to a conclusion.

But at least you were not mocking me and thank you. :)

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.


Ridiculous. Show any such satellite images.

I already mentioned several. Most are not on line anymore; there are several at Zetatalk, however; and Bad Astronomy has that half-assed (pretend-to-be-scientific but then don't-do-the-key-test) page on some of them.


So... like the other thing... you just claim that certain evidence exists, but don't provide it, or say that *I* should go looking for it. Priceless.
 Quoting: Menow 935048


I have images downloaded, but we can't attach info to posts. And it takes some patience-savvy to think through all of the implications either way.

Some are on ZT Website, too. I will try to find them. Remind me another day.

But okay, I already answered that about the images: I said there are some suggestions of PX on imges, and NO KEY TEST done by the debunkers, on their own claim that it's pixel flare.


According to you. No link to alleged event.
 Quoting: Menow 935048


For the Bad Astronomy page, which is changed now and doesn't have comments OR good photos of the image they put up, see [link to www.badastronomy.com]

For some of the original image in better form, see this quoted use of it 1/2 way down the page at [link to yowcrooks.wordpress.com] (you can even see it originally had 11 comments, because at the latter place, it is mentioned in their quotation).

The two reference pages linked (about the images and what they may mean, and pixel flares too) don't work, but there's one where it talks of these images as probably a UFO instead of PX works.

For better copies of THESE images, with more context about them, see the middle SOHO photo in context, where the other two photos didn't have them. [link to www.zetatalk.com] See the blue images, and ignore the rest. Good info and mediocre or poor info -- or just unclear info -- is sometimes all mixed together, on the ZT site.

They were sent by a friend of mine to a neutral site for analysis, a skeptics hang-out, and they said they were not photoshopped IN. (This was with better quality versions of the originals.) And even Bad Astronomy doesn't say they're fake ... just a pixel flare. But gives no comparative science test for their claim. (You could say they're as bad as some of Nancy's stuff there -- but she does at least give some sometimes.)

I had the exchange with them 2 months ago, and they scrubbed my reasonable questions. I wanted a mutually exclusive test: show me a comparable (big, winged and round, not all squared-off centre) pixel flare, and it must be from before the PX claim says it was here. That way we know comparable flares were possible before the putative time PX was here. They didn't post even my questions!

And now I don't see questions on it at all, on the actual site (the first link there).

The centre image was taken down from the NASA site quickly.

There are others I have, but I cannot link them. I got them from the same friend who's been following this question for a while, and got them off the servers originally, before they were taken down. I can attest to a recent one where that happened, for I was already interested at that time; it did not have a clear picture, and there was no other photo from all day.

I am sure there is cover up in many things and it is entirely possible here -- especially if PX is real, we would have massive cover up, for many reasons, some of which Nancy talks of, some of which she doesn't.

They left themselves wiggle room (or know that they're lying, as you say Nancy does, so I'll copy you on that hypothesis). But hey, it means you and I simply cannot technically know if pixel flare could account for it.


I doubt it was called "pixel flare" and since you admit to not knowing, why are you accusing them of falseness?
 Quoting: Menow 935048


You never looked into this? Yes, it's what the ONLY DEBUNKERS came up with. Pixel flare.

In fact I am not arguing minutia: is a speck of dust on a sweater in a court case, a minutium? Of course not, if it COULD be critical to an hypothesis.


Not if the question is whether the sweater exists.
 Quoting: Menow 935048


Irrelevant context-change. My example was arguing about objects and witness claims and so on, from and about the same site, as to where a piece of information fits. In some cases, it wil fit only one argument or another, and the one it doesn't fit will say it is NOT evidence, yes. So then it "doesn't exist as evidence", as you suggest the Chandler Wobble doesn't: that it's NOT an anomaly. Thus it would be evidence for NO case, not even something naturally making it go different: you'd suggest it was somehow part of all normal processes which usually create forward-movements.

But that wasn't the point: the point is the meaning we ascribe: you would likely at least say that most of these things are anomalies (except the Chandler Wobble backtrack of 2005-6). You would say the holes in the magnetosphere are -- but you would have a different MEANING for it. Not a NON-MEANING. So they would be both evidence, but not for the same case. That was my point.

But yes, sometimes "a cigar is just a cigar", even in a court case, at least to one side or the other.

And whether the sweater EXISTS is an interesting question:
if you take out your snarkiness -- or maybe you were confusing the evidence discussion about the "pink sweater" with the actual Planet X, as if that's what I meant about the "pink sweater"? Anyway, sometimes the question of if there is evidence for evidence actually DOES come up in court. For instance, we are missing the body of a murder victim -- but we have witnesses about the body, and blood stains probably from it, and so on. So yes, sometimes, the "pink sweater's" existence is itself at issue.

Now, you and I CANNOT JUST LOOK for this elephant. I am not on a satellite; are you? So we MUST smell the dung, or in fact, we must use others' pieces of memos about having smelled dung, to go by. And I don't mean "just Nancy/Zetas", I mean by "memos" the tidbits from the earth and science which might relate to the case.


BEcause the world's astronomers, and the ones who post on GLP are all in on the coverup of the PX thingy?
 Quoting: Menow 935048


My understanding was that it was in front of the very bright Sun, rarely showing except in atmospheric distortions (maybe) in some (maybe) authentic videos. And that for a long time it was right near the corona, only visible on the Stereo satellites, and only allowed to leak in a very rare while/ or missed from time to time.

Having said that, I AM open to their being no PX. But I think there's a lot of co-incidence which COULD have other explanations than one big total one, such as PX, but which would have to be very strange in how it all adds up, so to speak. Even a few suggestions, may a truth-hypothesis make. And may be accurate, but just a few things indicating the hint of the truth.

Hence we have to BUILD a case, before we can compare.


Lady, I was doing no such thing. I was simply asking a question.
 Quoting: Menow 935048


Glad to hear it. Dealt with the typo issue above. Also dealt with the "lady" address thing above.

Menow: Then why is Nancy lying about it?

Clare: In claiming I follow her, merely because I pointed out that, and how, she could be possibly NOT lying: how that would work and what symptoms it would show in her claims ... which are not merely "more and more covers" but have a pattern of types of wording she uses. All this shows she is likely not LYING but CONVINCED most of the patterns are correct ... and has misunderstood pieces of the science along the way.

Menow: The idea that Nancy is simply misunderstanding is a reach of such vast proportions as to be beyond silly. She has avoided; obfuscated; falsified; twisted; perverted; contorted and outright lied, too many times to mentions.

Menow: Yeah... it was all an accident...
 Quoting: Menow 935048


I know what you're feeling like when you say this. But I really don't think she's an attention-seeking psychopath. Could be, but I don't think so.

Her patterns of doing the obfuscation, etc., have struck me, anyway, as always occurring when she already had a pre-conceived notion of what the science was -- from Zetas or her own off-the-cuff research into the Moon, and so on.

She is not a scholar. I know scholars; they are different. You have a scholar side -- not entirely, but you do. And it's not "good" or "bad" to have such a side, but it is a personality (as well as a training -- though one can train it into yourself more or not do so).

Anyway, she strikes me as less particular. She goes on gist. She DOES do research, it is clear; she has some knowledge of arcane (more specific jargon) terms and so on, as do you, e.g., lunar libration.

But she misconstrues the meaning of some things in detail; she also is typing away in a bit of an off-the-cuff style sometimes.

And it doesn't help that anyone with a heart can watch as people feel misinterpreted OR misinterpret her. It goes both ways.

She is, therefore, in my assessment, more the type to be deflecting because she is sure of the general direction of her claims, and the fact that many people need to know them, and is open to some wild, unchecked-out or even misunderstood claims of others, because she is gung-ho in her belief.

She is not altogether without a research-scholar-smarty-pants side. But her main thrust is SAVING PEOPLE from Planet X, she believes, I think. And so, when people "get it" about some aspect -- as I am pointing out about magnetics -- or simply when they start to prepare (or "buy her bullshit" as you would say ...) she is happy.

I hope that makes an inroad as to some different way to think about this than that she's LYING. Sure, her ego DOES get in the way sometimes, I can see that. Sometimes she IS obfuscating, or nervous to be wrong. But I think mostly from her manner and content, she's energetically proselytizing with what she feels (and maybe, is told by Zetas) is the full truth.

One thing's for sure: in case the GIST of what she's claiming is true, we should be careful about misattributing mistakes and ego, to outright psychopathic lying.

Clare
mclarek
User ID: 971744
Canada
05/18/2010 03:36 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 74444


Hey, German buddy.

I ask that you peruse the Menow and other correspondence. I think the directions of your questions about PX would be better directed away from if we are stopped or wobbling, to if we have any effects from a new planet, and what that evidence is -- or is not.

Good night (good day, in Europe, of course).

Clare
mclarek
User ID: 971744
Canada
05/18/2010 05:28 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 74444


 Quoting: Menow 935048



Hi, German fellow and Menow.

First, I noticed that my language in my reply to the German fellow was not clear (tired) where I said, "Oh yes it can, if it can," to his comment "You can't have it both ways," about the stoppage. I meant that you can have PX but not have the stoppage.

Second, about images:

Another set of images seems to have come out on a Youtube video, enhanced by Yowusa.com, who did several videos about it and an article.

The video was put out by a person calling themself "Nibirushock2012" and Yowusa showed over several videos, an initial analysis and then also a reply to the whole series. They also have an article about it, and about the likelihood of the 3 types of people who seem to have been involved in providing the images, giving the commentary, and making the video itself. Rather fascinating.

The video by Nibirushock2012 purports to be of several South Pole Telescope images. The images have time-stamps which Yowusa analyzes as being very clever choices, so was either a great fake, with depth of knowledge, or a real set.

They also suggest that the images seem to become rounder when blown up and contrast-adjusted, whereas a fake Photoshop version seems to be flatter the more it's treated to adjustments.

Here are the links, but be patient, since the information is spread out, and the reasoning, over several source videos and the article:

[link to yowusa.com]
[link to yowusa.com]
[link to yowusa.com]
[link to yowusa.com]

Those are the articles.

For the videos, see
[link to www.youtube.com]
[link to www.youtube.com]
[link to www.youtube.com]
[link to www.youtube.com]
[link to www.youtube.com]


......................

Finally, another line of photo arguments can be found on the Project Camelot site. I find this source interesting, because some of their stuff is clearly agents giving only partial information, and they fall for many things along the way.

However, they did an interview with Luca Scantamburlo, an Italian journalist, who's written about some putative Planet X leaks of images from the Vatican telescope, given to another man, named Christoforo Barbato. The photography in the images there, too, was time-stamped, and the story of disclosure -- if that is what it is -- is fascinating and consistent with how such disclosure would likely occur.

The leaks were made in Italian UFO magazine by Barbato, a leading Fatima researcher and UFO "nut", who claimed an upper Jesuit in the Vatican sought him out to give them to him; and he claims he vetted him and then sat on the images until after 2003.

Now what's interesting here, is that if it's a set of fakes, they had MORE INFORMATION than anyone would need to think they were genuine: they had a few letters along with other imprints of authenticity. The letters were "SVS". None of the three parties, Barbato, Scantamburlo, or Project Camelot, knew what that meant.

It was only in an interview they did with supposed old-money, old-nobility crime and bloodline member (for short, Illuminati member, or NWO member), Leo Zagami, where the letters "SVS" were figured out. And Zagami, a gun runner now mostly out of the uber-Mafia of cult life in the NWO level of the world, does NOT believe in PX. He is focussed on the other aspects of exposing crime and so on.

But he sanswered the question anyway (a bit resistant to the reason for being asked), and said, "SVS? That's Servicio Vaticano Segreto". The secret service of the Vatican. Hm.

Not supposed to exist!

But there is one reference to such a name, in a book from the 70s, or thereabouts. I forget which; I think it's in the notes somewhere in the Project Camelot Website, or maybe at the end of the Zagami interview video.

So I find that rather striking: here is a possible fake leak, but with information in the header which no-one knows, so no-one would think anything of its not being in the header.

Thus I wonder if it's real, too.

........................

Note: I am in no way stating categorically that this evidence is absolute. I would not be so premature. Nor do all the features of the "messengers", i.e., Project Camelot and interviewees, or Yowusa as an organization, have to be correct for them to be coming forwared with correct information and good analysis.

Of course.

So take it all and weigh it for yourself, along with the issues around the SOHO images I posted earlier.

My point is, it may in fact be somewhere, but Nancy could be wrong as to where.

In earnest search for the truth around these matters,
that is, in solidarity, I hope!
Clare
mclarek
User ID: 971744
Canada
05/18/2010 05:40 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Okay, my German buddy.
About Foucault pendulums worldwide: I don't think we ARE wobbling wildly, instead of normally. So though Nancy's been told that and has looked for evidence of it ... I don't think it's true.
Who knows?

I do, and so does anyone near a Foucault Pendulum which are
on display all over this planet. Most of them even have small
pegs they knock over as the pendulum swings slowly showing
the rotation of the planet. Even the Chandler Wobble(which I
doubt you really understand the insignificance of) doesn't
have an affect on them other than what might be noticed after
a few centuries.

There really are WAYYYYY too many methods for determining
that Nancy is wrong in so many ways and all one has to do is
take the time to investigate them. Like sundials. Why do
they still work? Ancient sites all over the world that still
track the sun as they have done for a very long time now. How
about sextants? Nancy's only excuse for that was to claim that
no one uses sextants anymore. That is patently false because
electronics fail and mariners are still trained in their use.

You are adept at ducking a weaving around the topics that are
trying to be discussed with you. I'll give you that much.
 Quoting: DrPostman


Oh dear. Now I'm ducking? Ha.

I really have no pendulum so I had to say I don't know for sure. As to the issue you mention that in fact it's fine, good.

All along, other than maintaining personal honesty about my personal knowledge, I have never suggested we are stopped in rotation. This issue I consider a non-issue, and have said so to AC 74444.

The Wobble is part of regular Earth: the one I'm talking of. It's called the Chandler Wobble. And the only anomaly I pointed to there was a backwards direction, in 2005-6 -- like a falling-back (or a PX pull-back) though usually it's a forward-momentum wobble.

Most, if not all of the debunkers are very familiar with the
Chandler Wobble. You keep bringing it up repeatedly as if it
means something to this discussion. It doesn't. The Chandler
Wobble is so small and occurs over such a long period of time
(433 days) that no human could possibly notice it. It actually
appears like you keep bringing it up to appear knowledgeable.
Some of us have already seen through that.
 Quoting: DrPostman


The Chandler Wobble IS perfectly ordinary when it goes FORWARD. However, over 2005-2006 it went backward. Now these are massive forces here, but still it's like a spinnng top with a wobble having that wobble go backwards. It is counterintuitive to consider that normal, though as Menow has pointed out, we don't know for certain that it's never done that.

First of all, why and how could it do that, without a pull on it?

Second, the article I saw, which I have yet to find again, said the Wobble had been studied since 1940s or something like that, and another said it had never done this in that time. So even if we have no backwards motion to then -- and I'll try to find those articles -- it's true it's not a long observation period, and I've said so.

I am NOT confusing the argument of the Chandler Wobble backward action anomaly (well, it seems to be an anomaly), with Nancy's "overall earth wobble" -- nor am I confusing the backward action possible anomaly, with a STOPPED motion either.

Some people who talk about the backward motion, including Michael Mandeville, who posted about it, call it a stoppage. It's true that it effectively didn't progress forward, but it didn't stop. It went backward over several months and then kind of stopped on a point and reversed the reverse motion to go forward again. On a graph of PROGRESSION this would show as a near-stop, but on a map, it shows it was moving but backward and then stopping in the sense of reversing on a point, so as to go forward.

You seem to have confused Nancy's "wobbly earth" and "off-axis" emphasis, as well as her "stopped earth forward momentum" ideas, with what I was presenting.

So, no, you have not seen through anything. You didn't even see the thing I was saying.

By the way, still like your avatar.
Cheers,
Clare
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 974006
Germany
05/18/2010 05:47 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Hi, German fellow and Menow.
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


No idea who you are talking about but 74444 is not me and last time I checked he is not german.

I havent followed your discussions over the past few pages yet, because I have a real life to live , too (although many of Nancys believers live in the delusion we debunkers get paid for this ... I would be happy if I could make a buck or two with it though, you have an idea where I can send my application form ? I asked NASA to join for this purpose , guess they are still receovering from laughter (joking, I didn't ask them)).

I'm back to real life for now, i'll check later and see if I have some comments on your ongoing discussions.
mclarek
User ID: 971744
Canada
05/18/2010 05:51 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Menow seemed disappointed/angry/frustrated(?) with me for not simply providing all my info in links.

I thought he had heard of these things already, or had looked into them.

(Hence my comments about building the case FOR so as to see if a) you can at all, b) which parts do work, if any, c) to deeply understand all the issues presented, and where they are partly wrongly presented by their "messengers"/"spokespeople" but still might have some value. One will never assess the material fully if one stops at first impressions of what's said.)

So anyway, I hope Menow is happy with my attempt to give him some feeders of my research. I can understand why it can feel like people who make claims should provide all references themselves.

However, a really intrepid researcher can also get the glint of interest in their eye and do their own research when a topic is brought up.

Anyway, I have now posted SOHO links, debunker link on that, told my experience with the debunkers AND the necessary questions which should be answered on that, and haven't been.

I have also now just presented two alternate claims and analysis of those claims, of images from the South Pole and Vatican telescopes.

And I hope this helps any open-minded people, even though I, too, have problems with parts of each of the sites which are disclosing this stuff. They may be onto something here, though ------ or maybe not.

You look into it yourselves. I think it's intriguingly possible, but more than that, can we know for sure?

However, again, if this stuff is real leaking, though understandably in dribbles due to what would have to be cover-up on such an issue if it were real ... then we should prepare in case.

But we should be more off the grid either way, if we know anything about what even the human issues are, right now, in our world. Not to mention NASA's open claims about power grid failure-level CMEs (which might be a cover for PX, or might be a wrong prediction period, but it IS a tale of open world-electric problems). One way or another, prepping might be just smart! Prepping for something.

Clare
mclarek
User ID: 971744
Canada
05/18/2010 05:54 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Hi, German fellow and Menow.


No idea who you are talking about but 74444 is not me and last time I checked he is not german.

I havent followed your discussions over the past few pages yet, because I have a real life to live , too (although many of Nancys believers live in the delusion we debunkers get paid for this ... I would be happy if I could make a buck or two with it though, you have an idea where I can send my application form ? I asked NASA to join for this purpose , guess they are still receovering from laughter (joking, I didn't ask them)).

I'm back to real life for now, i'll check later and see if I have some comments on your ongoing discussions.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 974006


Hi, I was replying to 74444 and I thought he was German. OOPS.

No, it was not you.

Have a good day. Wish I made money sharing what I know and think -- to help others in case this is real.

Anybody have any money to share? Hm. Oh well.

:)

Good day. And good searching/learning/questioning!

Clare
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 974006
Germany
05/18/2010 06:04 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!


Just a quicky in this one. So you link as source highly questionable website that spreads doom&gloom and at the same time sell ebooks ant whatnot that will help you to survive mentioned doom&gloom ?

Now that's IMO:


[link to www.youtube.com]

If those yowosa people would be sincerely trying to save humans from doom&gloom they would not sell their stuff. This is the oldest trick in the book and that kind of racket is around for thousands of years now. BTW, Nancy tried to make a buck back in the days, too. Guess her book still is on amazon. She also received some bucks for her non-profit organisation back in the days before the 2003 fail ... word on the street is that she used it to renovate her rooms instead of building Kurts dome (dunno if you heard about that dome project yet ... I could link some info and pictures but I fear Nancy will set these websites on autoban then like she did with the puppy video recently ... she can't handle her own history of fail) ... dunno if that's exactly true and for us this topic is a dead horse discussed many times, some more info is buried somewhere in this thread I think.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 974006
Germany
05/18/2010 06:18 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Anybody have any money to share? Hm. Oh well.
 Quoting: mclarek 971744

The ingredients to make some money with doom&gloom are the following:

- open a website with paid subcription option (prefferably with some doomy title)

Mix:

- two pound pseudo-science
- 1 quarter cup of "new age"
- a dash of astronomy
- one part ancient hyroglyphs (prefferably egypt or sumerian if you'Re into long term profit, the maya stuff will be worthless after 2012)
- a big cup of conspiracy theorys (plenty around)

Result:

PROFIT
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 949157
Finland
05/18/2010 07:29 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
The ingredients to make some money with doom&gloom are the following:

- open a website with paid subcription option (prefferably with some doomy title)

Mix:

- two pound pseudo-science
- 1 quarter cup of "new age"
- a dash of astronomy
- one part ancient hyroglyphs (prefferably egypt or sumerian if you'Re into long term profit, the maya stuff will be worthless after 2012)
- a big cup of conspiracy theorys (plenty around)

Result:

PROFIT
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 974006


Very well put. This Nibiru/PX/Destroyer/Doom! etc is an industry. Some people do get their living from it or some extra money. Follow the money and see what they're selling.

Take for instance this Marshall Masters guy (is that his real name? - probably not, since these kinds of scammers often use pseudonyms, as do also the more well known to us Nancy Lieder and Candace Frieze). He's definitely selling some products that no-one would want to buy unless they believe buying the product would - or MIGHT - be of use or possibly even save their lives. Threatening with death or other abysmal fate IF YOU DON'T BUY THIS INFO/PRODUCT is very effective. These kinds of new age scammers use that pattern all the time.

Whenever I see some slick type like this with a name I put it in the Google with + CULT. That search often gives me information that I can actually understand. It can really help explain simply what it's all about. I've seen plenty of these types in the internet and yes, they do have patters and they do use somewhat similar methods of advertising, persuasion, manipulation, mind control, and even hypnotic methods.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 795135
United States
05/18/2010 07:56 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Hence a case can be built for PX. That's all.

 Quoting: mclarek 971744



Them for Pete's sake, build it instead of yammering on about vagaries.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 795135
United States
05/18/2010 08:10 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
And if you put in "where is it" because you can't see it yet, I will not answer it. I have already answered that it would be by the Sun, invisible to us by naked eye, and that there MAY BE SUGGESTIONS that NASA had images of it. I'm not going to repeat that sub-argument.
 Quoting: mclarek 971744



Do you not realize that thousands of amateur astronomers all over the world photograph the sun on a daily basis? There is no px to be found. Even if it didn't reflect light (an impossibility since we can easily see asteroids that are blacker than coal) it would block the lightof distant stars behind it. There are no "missing stars".
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 795135
United States
05/18/2010 08:16 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
I do have a niggle of interest that some people say we are a LITTLE bit off: enough that shadows are a bit variable from year to year -- which to be open minded, I don't discount as absolutely having to be wrong, for very little change would have to occur for that to be slightly off.
 Quoting: mclarek 971744



Why are you ignoring my post from last night where I demonstrate that even a few arc-seconds of change in the NCP would be immediately obvious since all photographic telescopes on the planet would then have to adjust their rotational axes...and most are set in concrete?

The FACT is that the earth's rotational axis is extremely stable on a scale that could possibly be noticed. Note that the Chandler wobble is measured in milli-arcseconds...less than one millionth of one degree. Do you think that this is detectable by eye?
***ZetaMaX***

User ID: 659599
United States
05/18/2010 08:40 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
[link to yowusa.com]
[link to yowusa.com]
[link to yowusa.com]
[link to yowusa.com]

Those are the articles.

For the videos, see
[link to www.youtube.com]
[link to www.youtube.com]
[link to www.youtube.com]
[link to www.youtube.com]
[link to www.youtube.com]


Just a quicky in this one. So you link as source highly questionable website that spreads doom&gloom and at the same time sell ebooks ant whatnot that will help you to survive mentioned doom&gloom ?

Now that's IMO:


[link to www.youtube.com]

If those yowosa people would be sincerely trying to save humans from doom&gloom they would not sell their stuff. This is the oldest trick in the book and that kind of racket is around for thousands of years now. BTW, Nancy tried to make a buck back in the days, too. Guess her book still is on amazon. She also received some bucks for her non-profit organisation back in the days before the 2003 fail ... word on the street is that she used it to renovate her rooms instead of building Kurts dome (dunno if you heard about that dome project yet ... I could link some info and pictures but I fear Nancy will set these websites on autoban then like she did with the puppy video recently ... she can't handle her own history of fail) ... dunno if that's exactly true and for us this topic is a dead horse discussed many times, some more info is buried somewhere in this thread I think.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 974006



>> If those yowosa people would be sincerely trying to save humans from doom&gloom they would not sell their stuff. This is the oldest trick in the book and that kind of racket is around for thousands of years now.

Folks who are determined to survive will gladly pay for the info. Those who don't just become part of the food chain.
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: 949157
Finland
05/18/2010 08:53 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Folks who are determined to survive will gladly pay for the info. Those who don't just become part of the food chain.
 Quoting: ***ZetaMaX***


As far as I know NO-ONE has survived so far. Everyone has become part of the food chain. No product or info would change that.
Returner
User ID: 974138
United States
05/18/2010 09:21 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
It's always amusing when non-astronomers, such as 'Clare', presume to lecture us in astronomy.

And as to Velikovsky -- his ideas and claims were indeed debunked. Debunked and dismissed; the man wrote third-rate space opera, not science. Planets being magically 'ejected' and then ambling about just to support the Exodus? Bugs being swapped by passing atmospheres?

You stick with that, Clare. It's good for a few laughs yet!
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 974006
Germany
05/18/2010 09:45 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Marshall Masters (the guy who controls Yowusa) has done this
crap before, as part of the Millennium Group trying to scare
people about Comet Lee. He's an old pro at selling things
through fear:
[link to www.2012hoax.org]
[link to yowcrooks.wordpress.com]
[link to www.skepdic.com]
 Quoting: DrPostman

Thx for the confirmation ... I thought he would be exactly that kind of quack.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 558013
United States
05/18/2010 09:53 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Clare, you do realize, don't you, that the 2005 anomaly in the Chandler wobble is only one of several in the historic record. An even larger one occured in 1920 when the phase of the wobble changed by 180 degrees and earlier in 1850 as well. Was px around in 1850 and 1920 as well?

[link to www.physorg.com]
Menow
User ID: 935048
United States
05/18/2010 09:56 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Hi,
Good day. And good searching/learning/questioning!

Clare
 Quoting: mclarek 971744



Good morning Clare. You have skipped over my reply about the Moon rotation issue. You seem to have solidly adopted Nancy's position, which is flat wrong. Here is a repeat:

As to the final point, it was my own way to express spinning on its own axis in a north-south self-referential way, as the Earth does.
Quoting: mclarek 971744


Menow: No, that can't be it, since you went on to clarify that a "self-axis spinning" body is also "(not having an orbit)", which Earth certainly does. Care to try again?


This, the moon does not do. It has a ROTATION but not a spin on its own axis.
Quoting: mclarek 971744


Menow: Wrong. The Moon DOES spin on its own axis! Why would you think it does not? What motions would the moon display if Earth(and even Sun) suddenly went missing?




Kindly explain why you support Nancy's silly claim that the Moon does not rotate.
Menow
User ID: 935048
United States
05/18/2010 10:02 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Clare, you do realize, don't you, that the 2005 anomaly in the Chandler wobble is only one of several in the historic record. An even larger one occured in 1920 when the phase of the wobble changed by 180 degrees and earlier in 1850 as well. Was px around in 1850 and 1920 as well?

[link to www.physorg.com]
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 558013


This is exactly what I was asking her... whether she had studied all the historical records to see if her alleged anomaly was unprecedented. Apparently, she had not.

News








Proud Member Of The Angry Mob