Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 2,556 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 1,645,616
Pageviews Today: 2,238,737Threads Today: 465Posts Today: 9,548
03:26 PM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

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

 
mclarek
User ID: 971744
Canada
05/18/2010 11:56 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Yowusa makes a good case that they are likely from the SPT. The debunking sites claim that they're not, but do not actually handle all the points raised on the issue. If they did, it would be case closed on those images.

If the points are invalid on their premise, then they aren't points at all. The SPT is not an optical telescope, it's a radio telescope operating in microwave wavelengths. Its images look like this one:
[link to spt.uchicago.edu]
The fake images presented as claims of PX are designed to look like optical light images, not the long wavelength images produced by SPT. Case closed.

So, in being less sure to start with, i.e., remembering you are human and could be wrong even where it's unlikely, you might find an interesting set of issues. And if any among you want to see if there is any evidence for PX and where it might be
How could "planet X" hide near the sun indefinitely unless you accept Nancy's wobbly nonsense? Please explain that. Frankly I have yet to see any compelling evidence affirming its existence, including SOHO images showing cosmic rays and other random and recurring artifacts, and I don't know which photos are the "vatican images," but the point is that if PX were real it couldn't remain near the sun for this length of time, not even close.

One response here was "he said he hoaxed it", which hypothesis does not cut it: anyone can say a retraction, especially IF they're real images!

I can't believe you're defending an admitted hoax. This is insane, you realize that right? You're demonstrating the hoaxer's point all the better by defending him. When someone admits they lied you disregard their evidence.

For you to go back to lunar rotation is silly, to me. I have said all the evidence about stoppage and rotation wobbles and so on is faulty, as far as I can tell, and you all, as well, have presented.

You're still not answering the issue of lunar rotation. The moon rotates, you were wrong. Yes you admitted Nancy was wrong about the earth being stopped in its orbit and wobbling, but the moon DOES rotate as well.
 Quoting: Astronut


Good image to compare the SPT images.

Re. saying hoax, merely wanted to keep the line open because it doesn't OF ITSELF prove it was.

Your image suggests it was.

Good!

Re. Moon rotation: her point was it doesn't show a different face. Her examples show she's trying to say that. She clearly doesn't understand both can be true.

Cheers.
Menow
User ID: 935048
United States
05/18/2010 11:56 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
So Clare can't pretend she doesn't remember this:

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?
Menow
User ID: 935048
United States
05/19/2010 12:00 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Clare


Clare, why did you ignore the offered expanded historical data on Chandler?


Didn't see it. Where?
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


It was posted by at least two people. Dr P. and at least one other. Don't you even glance at the responses as you go rampaging past them?
Menow
User ID: 935048
United States
05/19/2010 12:03 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Re. Moon rotation: her point was it doesn't show a different face. Her examples show she's trying to say that. She clearly doesn't understand both can be true.

Cheers.
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


Uhh... no... the 300 IQ "Zetas" said, flat out, that the Moon DOES NOT ROTATE.

And YOU said:

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

User ID: 922113
United States
05/19/2010 12:04 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Re. Moon rotation: her point was it doesn't show a different face. Her examples show she's trying to say that. She clearly doesn't understand both can be true.
 Quoting: mclarek 971744

I'm not interested in trying to put words in her mouth when she mis-speaks to make her claims jive with reality. She defended her position that the moon does not rotate even when it was explained to her that it does, and you yourself defended the position that it does not rotate on its axis. Words have meaning, she doesn't get to redefine them at will and neither do you. And although about 41% of the moon's surface is hidden from the perspective of earth, there's about 9% or so of the "far side" that can be at the limb of the moon during periods of favorable libration. The moon's face is constantly changing due to that libration.

Last Edited by Dr. Astro on 05/19/2010 12:06 AM
astrobanner2
mclarek
User ID: 971744
Canada
05/19/2010 12:09 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
filters

So now you tell me again that with such a telescope that is mass produced and sold all over the world in large quantitys it is not possible for an amateur astronomer to see a huge Planet X near or in front of the sun ?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 974395


So how big would 4x Earth be on this image, with PX's supposed light-absorbent qualities as well, given that the Sun's light would seemingly overwhelm it?
mclarek
User ID: 971744
Canada
05/19/2010 12:14 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
So Clare can't pretend she doesn't remember this:

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?
 Quoting: Menow 935048


I already said several times the Moon rottes. I was presenting how Nancy could be unclear on that and in the CONTEXT try to say something about how we woudn't fly off any more than if the moon stopped, someone would fly off it. THat was her point the day I watched the exchange on ZT about it. It was a misunderstanding by Nancy of the rotation AND a misunderstanding by the questioners of her main point, which was that the Moon faces us, and does not rotate in our view in the key way we do, like spin on an axis in relation to us.

Unimportant issue here. Why pick on this point? Just to say she's stupid and so on?
Menow
User ID: 935048
United States
05/19/2010 12:15 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Good image to compare the SPT images.

Re. saying hoax, merely wanted to keep the line open because it doesn't OF ITSELF prove it was.

Your image suggests it was.

Good!


Re. Moon rotation: her point was it doesn't show a different face. Her examples show she's trying to say that. She clearly doesn't understand both can be true.

Cheers.
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


Ohh.... and Clare... Nancy says that Astronut is a lying government agent. Why would you believe what he just said? All you have to do is lump him in with all the other conspirators and you have your precious, overarching doubt fully intact again! YAY!
The Commentator

User ID: 587619
United States
05/19/2010 12:17 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
filters

So now you tell me again that with such a telescope that is mass produced and sold all over the world in large quantitys it is not possible for an amateur astronomer to see a huge Planet X near or in front of the sun ?


So how big would 4x Earth be on this image, with PX's supposed light-absorbent qualities as well, given that the Sun's light would seemingly overwhelm it?
 Quoting: mclarek 971744



Do you know how to do high school trig? Have you ever taken high school trig? Did you pass high school trig?
non sufficit Orbis

Being a zetatard means never having to make sense.

"Nancy pays me to post on Her threads"

Free Store admits to being a paid zetadrool shill

NO max/bridget EVER!!!!!
NO luser EVER!!!
NO clunker EVER!!!!!
AstronutModerator
Forum Moderator

User ID: 922113
United States
05/19/2010 12:19 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
So how big would 4x Earth be on this image, with PX's supposed light-absorbent qualities as well, given that the Sun's light would seemingly overwhelm it?
 Quoting: mclarek 971744

Venus is a little less than the size of the earth, about 95% as large, and it's very noticeable when it passes in front of the sun:
[link to farm1.static.flickr.com]
Another example, this one in Hydrogen-Alpha light:
[link to www.vanda.eclipse.co.uk]
Venus by itself was spotted even just 6 days before the above transit took place:
[link to webspace.utexas.edu (secure)]
astrobanner2
The Commentator

User ID: 587619
United States
05/19/2010 12:21 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
So Clare can't pretend she doesn't remember this:

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?


I already said several times the Moon rottes. I was presenting how Nancy could be unclear on that and in the CONTEXT try to say something about how we woudn't fly off any more than if the moon stopped, someone would fly off it. THat was her point the day I watched the exchange on ZT about it. It was a misunderstanding by Nancy of the rotation AND a misunderstanding by the questioners of her main point, which was that the Moon faces us, and does not rotate in our view in the key way we do, like spin on an axis in relation to us.

Unimportant issue here. Why pick on this point? Just to say she's stupid and so on?
 Quoting: mclarek 971744



ninny LIEDer is not "unclear." She is simply as ignorant as a bag of hair. Or she is stupid as a bag of hair. Either works.

Now, does the Moon rotate on its axis or not? A simple "yes" or "no" will suffice. Look at the Moon relative to the fixed stars. Does it rotate or not?
non sufficit Orbis

Being a zetatard means never having to make sense.

"Nancy pays me to post on Her threads"

Free Store admits to being a paid zetadrool shill

NO max/bridget EVER!!!!!
NO luser EVER!!!
NO clunker EVER!!!!!
Menow
User ID: 935048
United States
05/19/2010 12:22 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
So Clare can't pretend she doesn't remember this:

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?


I already said several times the Moon rottes. I was presenting how Nancy could be unclear on that and in the CONTEXT try to say something about how we woudn't fly off any more than if the moon stopped, someone would fly off it. THat was her point the day I watched the exchange on ZT about it. It was a misunderstanding by Nancy of the rotation AND a misunderstanding by the questioners of her main point, which was that the Moon faces us, and does not rotate in our view in the key way we do, like spin on an axis in relation to us.
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


So you claim that Nancy was just explaining what everyone on the planet can look up and see? WRONG!

Unimportant issue here. Why pick on this point? Just to say she's stupid and so on?
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


No. How miopic can you be about your own statements??

You said: "It has a ROTATION but not a spin on its own axis." THAT is what Nancy was claiming, and YOU backed up. She, and you (and the 300 IQ "Zetas") are WRONG.
Menow
User ID: 935048
United States
05/19/2010 12:24 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Unimportant issue here. Why pick on this point? Just to say she's stupid and so on?
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


No, it's to demonstrate her DISHONESTY!
tater

User ID: 974835
United States
05/19/2010 12:30 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Is Nancy full of truth?
or full of Lies?

If someone is proven to be a lier,, why whould anyone follow a lier?

How many lies has Nancy (zetas) told.

To follow a lier is the utmost form of stupidity.

Zetacult=utter failure. There is no truth to that cult.
Menow
User ID: 935048
United States
05/19/2010 12:33 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Here, AGAIN for Clare, is Nancy's response to someone talking about Moon rotation. Emphasis mine:

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

Nancy Lieder
User ID: 87478
4/30/2006 8:26 AM
Re: ZetaTalk : on BLOG Radio Schedule May 3

> A quote from elle's link:

> "The 27.3 days it takes the Moon to complete one orbit around the Earth is about the same as the time taken for it to complete one rotation. This synchronous rotation means that it always shows the same face to the Earth."

> i.e. The moon ROTATES on its axis in 27.3 days.

No dork, YOU are attempting to put words in Elle's link. That link does NOT say the Moon rotates, it says it orbits.

The Moon is not turning, which is rotation, is it glued to the Earth, one side of it glued to the Earth and the other side perpetually facing outward from the Earth. This is different than 'rotation'

Definition: rotation: The turning or spinning of a body about an axis running through it.

Thus for the Moon to be rotating, it must be spinning about its OWN axis, not glued to something else and thus changing its position when that something else moves. If you hold a book in front of you, pages to your nose, and turn in a complete circle, the BOOK did not turn in a circle, YOU did.

Duh!
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 969583
United States
05/19/2010 12:36 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Now, does the Moon rotate on its axis or not? A simple "yes" or "no" will suffice. Look at the Moon relative to the fixed stars. Does it rotate or not?
 Quoting: The Commentator



I guess you can never really be sure, can you?

The way you can never really be sure that mac truck you're stepping in front of is going to flatten your ass.

Strip this discussion of its florid pseudo-philosophical nonsense and at the end of the day it's just as ridiculous as the idea that the Magical Zetas are moving the universe around to keep the Evil STS Unbelievers from going crazy.

After all, there's no way to truly know for certain that's not happening, right?
tater nli
User ID: 974835
United States
05/19/2010 12:45 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Does the lieder message ever change?



"May all you blind idiots gurgle slowly as the flood tide rises, trapped as you lingered too long in your cushy pads and did not heed the warning. OR, alternatively, may you drop from exhaustion while trying to climb painfully to safety with one broken leg dangling uselessly. OR, alternatively, may you find yourself too weak from hunger to resist while your starving pet dog makes a meal of what remains of your flacid butt" -Nancy Lieder, showing her true nature, 2003.

There really is no good message from the zetas,,

Anyone in their right mind could see the false message,,

but maybe, Nancy is nothing but a deceiver. The zetas certainly are.

If they (zetas) can move heaven and earth around to simulate reality,,, then why can't they fix the oil spill??

zetas are crap,

I won't trust a lier.
Menow
User ID: 935048
United States
05/19/2010 12:49 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
filters

So now you tell me again that with such a telescope that is mass produced and sold all over the world in large quantitys it is not possible for an amateur astronomer to see a huge Planet X near or in front of the sun ?


So how big would 4x Earth be on this image, with PX's supposed light-absorbent qualities as well, given that the Sun's light would seemingly overwhelm it?
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


Why do you happily embrace this total nonsense as if it is actually possible, but you make excuses for her and won't sit still while we walk you through an actual scientific explanation of Nancy's steadfast, repeated, "Zetas always right", blatant error on Lunar rotation?

You boggle the mind, Clare.
tater nli
User ID: 974835
United States
05/19/2010 12:54 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
What is it about the true believers is all things zeta?

Why don't you (zetaculties) go outside, to library, or an astronomy site., maybe try and have a clue?

look up,, your redemption does not come from Nancy and the zetas. You're wasting your time to ponder such nonsense.

Step away from the computer, get away from zetatalk and Nancy, learn how to think.

Salvation is not going to happen via the zetas nor Nancy.

Think!


Ask, seek, knock.

There ya go.
mclarek
User ID: 971744
Canada
05/19/2010 01:12 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Good image to compare the SPT images.

Re. saying hoax, merely wanted to keep the line open because it doesn't OF ITSELF prove it was.

Your image suggests it was.

Good!


Re. Moon rotation: her point was it doesn't show a different face. Her examples show she's trying to say that. She clearly doesn't understand both can be true.

Cheers.


Ohh.... and Clare... Nancy says that Astronut is a lying government agent. Why would you believe what he just said? All you have to do is lump him in with all the other conspirators and you have your precious, overarching doubt fully intact again! YAY!
 Quoting: Menow 935048


Astronut? I see.

Well. First, who knows if anyone's a shill. The term is bandied about a lot, but there are such people.

Second, Nancy clearly feels defensive. People do tend to suggest such things when they are.

As to my doubt: it is simply a mental exercise to remind me to keep going until certainties are clear and uncertainties on either side are also clear.

Sherlock Holmes was written to say, "When you've eliminated the impossible ..." Well, we have to be careful truly to eliminate what's impossible, not leave possibilities unacknowledged and merely off-the-cuff treat them as self-evident.

:)
mclarek
User ID: 971744
Canada
05/19/2010 01:18 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
[snip]
Ohh.... and Clare... Nancy says that Astronut is a lying government agent. Why would you believe what he just said? All you have to do is lump him in with all the other conspirators and you have your precious, overarching doubt fully intact again! YAY!
 Quoting: Menow 935048


Oh, and by the way, people here might be interested in this nugget:
the fact that Mussolini hypothetically/theoretically, properly understood, must have been a British agent in some fashion -- i.e., on side at least partly with the idea of disrupting and consolodating Italy because the inner circle of Britain needed him to (or he could have been partly duped into thinking they were his friends!) -- has received its overt proof:

Researchers have now discovered the cheques he got from Palmerston's legacy, the British Foreign Office.

Just saying.

However, I hope no-one here -- NO-ONE -- is a shill in any way.

But only they know. And sometimes -- if unpaid but encouraged into a role -- even people functioning as agents of a cause don't know they are.

However, Nancy does throw the concept around rather liberally.

Clare
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 974869
United States
05/19/2010 01:19 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Clare, why have you ignored the historical Chandler's Wobble data presented today?
mclarek
User ID: 971744
Canada
05/19/2010 01:20 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
[snip]
Ohh.... and Clare... Nancy says that Astronut is a lying government agent. Why would you believe what he just said? All you have to do is lump him in with all the other conspirators and you have your precious, overarching doubt fully intact again! YAY!
 Quoting: Menow 935048


Oh, and by the way, people here might be interested in this nugget:
the fact that Mussolini hypothetically/theoretically, properly understood, must have been a British agent in some fashion -- i.e., on side at least partly with the idea of disrupting and consolodating Italy because the inner circle of Britain needed him to (or he could have been partly duped into thinking they were his friends!) -- has received its overt proof:

Researchers have now discovered the cheques he got from Palmerston's legacy, the British Foreign Office.

Just saying.

However, I hope no-one here -- NO-ONE -- is a shill in any way.

But only they know. And sometimes -- if unpaid but encouraged into a role -- even people functioning as agents of a cause don't know they are.

However, Nancy does throw the concept around rather liberally.

Clare
mclarek
User ID: 971744
Canada
05/19/2010 01:22 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Clare, why have you ignored the historical Chandler's Wobble data presented today?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 974869


Missed it. Where?

I have been on and off, and my pages maybe refreshed in a way I didn't see it?

:)
mclarek
User ID: 971744
Canada
05/19/2010 01:24 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Clare


Clare, why did you ignore the offered expanded historical data on Chandler?


Didn't see it. Where?


It was posted by at least two people. Dr P. and at least one other. Don't you even glance at the responses as you go rampaging past them?
 Quoting: Menow 935048


This is WHOLLY unfair, as my posts will show.

I have diligently responded to yours, for instance, as best I could muster. You insulted the effort, but it was quite the effort.

WHERE are they/
Thank you.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 74444
United States
05/19/2010 01:29 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Hello,

Clare -- thank you for your answers earlier. I was going to reply point by point, but realized it was unnecessary -- you already agree that Nancy's PX, and its effects -- the halted Earth, the aliens moving things around, is as unlikely as you're willing to concede. Therefore, you won't be able to provide me what I have been seeking: an understanding of the thought process behind the Lieder true believer or apologist. You aren't one.

However, I did quickly want to comment on this:

Sherlock Holmes was written to say, "When you've eliminated the impossible ..." Well, we have to be careful truly to eliminate what's impossible, not leave possibilities unacknowledged and merely off-the-cuff treat them as self-evident.

:)
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


What, in the myriad list of PX claims, have you been able to eliminate as impossible? For it seems to me you have been arguing that nearly *nothing* is truly impossible, in the majority of your posts. Could you list what you consider to be impossibilities of PX, please?

Be well.
mclarek
User ID: 971744
Canada
05/19/2010 01:31 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
"Moi" --- Love French! :)


Je ne parle le francais tres bon. Mais je vois ce tu cherches l'alibi de plus en plus.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 974395


Ha ha. An alibi!

I am the only one who signs their notes with a real name. If I have fun once in a while, heck! that's liveliness.

Mais merci pour m'avoir engage en Francais. Je'l'aime tres bien. Pourquois? Je ne sais pas. Peut etre, c'est parce que c'est la langue de Paris, et j'adore l'architecture de Paris!

:)

Signe,
Moi
mclarek
User ID: 971744
Canada
05/19/2010 01:36 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
You want to be philosophically doubtful here and she does not.

No, we are scientifically doubtful.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 974395


Physical science (science, meaning "knowing") is a branch of Philosophy.

It has its specific needs, but the Philosophy of Science is related to Philosophy in general, and proposes RADICAL DOUBT, though it also, as I have stressed, proposes KNOWLEDGE, defining that as "scientifically strong belief".

That way, in case a physical science claim, like a court case, can ALWAYS be re-opened for testing again, in case of seemingly new or salient theory or factoid.

:)

So, your point and mine dovetail.

It's a wonderful world, the mind. It really is. Isn't it?
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 974869
United States
05/19/2010 01:38 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Clare, why have you ignored the historical Chandler's Wobble data presented today?


Missed it. Where?

I have been on and off, and my pages maybe refreshed in a way I didn't see it?

:)
 Quoting: mclarek 971744



It was this afternoon. The poster showed a link to historical CW data, showing that the Chandler wobble had undergone previous 180 degree direction changes in 1850 and again in 1920. The question was, if you believe that px is responsible for the anomaly in 2005, then was it also here 160 years ago for the 1850 anomaly and 90 years ago for the 1920 reversal? If not then, why do you think it is the cause of the recent one?
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 969583
United States
05/19/2010 01:42 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Well. First, who knows if anyone's a shill. The term is bandied about a lot, but there are such people.

Second, Nancy clearly feels defensive. People do tend to suggest such things when they are.

 Quoting: mclarek 971744


Some of us have been following this saga for a lot longer than you.

Nancy did not originally suggest the idea of "paid disinfo agents" (as she originally called it many years ago) as a defense against criticism.

She came up with the concept in order to validate her ego driven fantasies and in order to drum up tnegative attention barged onto scientific newsgroups on usenet like sci.astro where she was the one who instigated the offensive behavior and the outlandish accusations.

News