Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 2,384 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 2,217,047
Pageviews Today: 2,959,722Threads Today: 558Posts Today: 11,970
08:45 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
05/23/2010 02:13 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
And of course, I don't mean only these two are "massive evidence", but with the many (including Boston's new, 7-year-old) watermain, a large crater outside Montreal in shifting land ... and other places (there were several more big sinkholes and unsolved watermain breaks, some of them multiple, over the last few mo's as well).

I understand these regions have weaknesses already, and some might have happened no matter what. But IF PX were affecting us, they would be the first places to indicate it and we have a lot of these in the last months and year, and large eq's too.

Hope it's just an uptick which is temporary and unrelated to anything else, like PX.

Clare
mclarek
User ID: 971744
Canada
05/23/2010 02:52 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Have a good night, all.

Clare
mclarek
User ID: 971744
Canada
05/23/2010 02:59 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
SOMETHING's up, enough to have the Scientists baffled and suggesting massive CMEs for the Sun AND the following:

[link to www.sciencedaily.com]

Whaddaya think of the scientists' evidence and (separately) their postulated reasons?
Catseye
User ID: 975220
Dominican Republic
05/23/2010 08:09 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Wait! I think I get it! I can explain everything in one sentence! The moon's orbit around the earth:

it's a revotation!


In the famous last words of Inspector Clouseau -

Problem sol ved!


happydance
Menow
User ID: 935048
United States
05/23/2010 10:00 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
At LAST.

So, your definition of the spin of the Moon depends on an EARTH-centric view, then. You would claim a planet tidally locked to a star does not spin. You would claim a car going around a 360 degree track does not spin, despite the driver looking at all points of the compass as he goes around the track, despite the nose of the car pointing at all cardinal directions, that the car does not spin, it just turns.

Is that correct? Want to make absolutely sure I am understanding you.


You didn't misunderstand. It is calld PROPER (self-referential) motion and it is what is referred to as "spin on an axis" unless we are graphing other motions which ADD UP TO spin over time with other motions.


Clare


Excuse me? What in the flying fuck is 'self-referential' motion????????????????

NOTHING is in motion relative to itself, Clare.


I already defined this.
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


You mean you made up something which was actually meaningless.

It means eliminate all referential motions of axes. When I did so, you laughed at the idea of "fixed points".
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


No, I laughed that you confused 'fixed points' with a 'path' of some sort.

But it is a definitional problem of fixed points relative to each other. If all centre points of bodies are fixed, the Moon does not spin.
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


Then NOTHING 'spins', Clare. How many times do we have to go through this?

All this means is in order to define types of movement more than conflated terms can: when you remove the E-M movement around the Sun AND the forward movement of the Moon around the Earth always to face it, there is no turn of the Moon.
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


Do you know what angular momentum is, Clare?

A simpler way to know this is: there is no ADDITIONAL turn of the Moon for every movement forward and to the right on its path. Thus, you are describing total roataion orientation around another axis (the barycentre), and picturing it relative to the Moon's axis.

With picturing no movement around Sun, no movement around Earth, the Moon's turn disappears. Not true of Venus.
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


It's simply an illusion born of the specific rotational rate.

All other levels of information are illusions, but definable illusions: so, the rotation around the barycentre by the Moon around the Earth, is a foward motion of the Moon.
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


No, you are the master 'conflator'. Those are two DIFFERENT motions.

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

In this, you can see that the 180-degree "rotation of the Moon", around its axis, is a trick of how we image it. We are imaging a total turn in space, centred through its axis. Thus, every turn it makes, it faces the new direction of the turn. Like a train on a circular track.
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


No, it's not like a train on a track. The Moon is in free space.

But if the train were hit on one end, and fixed enough not to fly off the track (some special pin, for instance, in a train set), this would be proper motion spin.
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


Your chronic repeating of your notion of 'proper spin' does not cause it to become valid.

It would show a slightly different face toward its new point along the track as it moved forward on the track.

Or let's say a car is hit and spins along a circular racetrack road, forward and on its axis properly. If it completes the whole racetrack and doesn't fly off, then you have two definable motions: the 180 degree turn using its axis, going around the racetrack, and the spin around it, definable even if all other motion stopped.
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


What about the frame of reference in the center of THAT 'true spin'? Why don't you use it in THIS case as you insist upon using to talk about the Moon?

A) How come this is so hard for you to see, enough to ...
B) Define the difference, enough to ...
C) Understand why the different models can all talk of axes and rotation without talking of the same thing?
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


The Moon's rotation and its orbit are two different motions. YOU need to stop conflating them, erroneously.
Menow
User ID: 935048
United States
05/23/2010 10:05 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
If it spun truly, properly speaking, then around the Earth (its relative spin-point) it would show different faces.


Ohh.... I asked you this already, but you ignored it.

What if the Moon was rotating at exactly the same rate as it is now, but in the opposit direction? Would it THEN be rotating 'on its own axis'? Why or why not?


You either are deiberately obfuscating or you're refusing to make clear distinctions as they are clarified.
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


How can my question obfuscate anything?

It would still be only able to be called "rotating on its axis" through the conflation of the idea of rotating around another axis, with the total turn made RELATIVE to its axis.
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


So NOTHING rotates 'on its axis', hmm Clare?

But its axis would still be facing the same direction wherever it moved around the rotation circle: this time in the other direction in the sky.
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


How can an axis 'face' somewhere, Clare?

If it were rotating on its own axis the way that is describable as a different level of understanding, then backward OR forwards, it would show different faces, as Venus does to the Sun.
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


Show different faces? You mean to the Earth?

You are conflating two movements but the same verbal phrases for each. That's all. It's common. The only way to clarify is through models which show what happens when you eliminate axial relative movements, and then to specifically describe these with more careful language.
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


So any object with 'axial movement' cannot be rotating, as well? That means that NO objects are rotating, Clare.
Menow
User ID: 935048
United States
05/23/2010 10:10 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
So -- Planet X.

 Quoting: mclarek 971744


You're not goint to get me, nor, I hope anyone else to allow you to declare victory on the 'Moon rotation' issue and change the subject. Your idiocy on that subject simply precludes anyone taking you seriously on any.

Repeat:

Well, I see that Clare has ignored 90% of the points made to her in discussion. Let's whittle it down a bit to two questions.

1)Clare... You DID finally claim to know what angular momentum is. So, moving on from that... does the Moon, as a massive spherical body, possess any angular momentum?


2) 7th repeat: What motions would the Moon display if Earth suddenly went missing?
Menow
User ID: 935048
United States
05/23/2010 10:11 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
SOMETHING's up,
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


So -- Planet X.

 Quoting: mclarek 971744



Repeat:

Well, I see that Clare has ignored 90% of the points made to her in discussion. Let's whittle it down a bit to two questions.

1)Clare... You DID finally claim to know what angular momentum is. So, moving on from that... does the Moon, as a massive spherical body, possess any angular momentum?


2) 7th repeat: What motions would the Moon display if Earth suddenly went missing?
Menow
User ID: 935048
United States
05/23/2010 10:20 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
So Clare... in your stubborn insistence upon an Earth-centric view as being the only valid one, have you also concluded that the Sun, planets and entire universe orbit around Earth?
Menow
User ID: 935048
United States
05/23/2010 10:28 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
With picturing no movement around Sun, no movement around Earth, the Moon's turn disappears.

 Quoting: mclarek 971744


Absolutely false. You have presented that conclusion several times, and each time is as false as the last.

I thought you admited that the Moon rotates. Did you not?

I think someone has been asking you for a yes or no answer to that question, so I'll add my voice to it.

Is the Moon rotating, Clare? Yes or no.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 978102
Australia
05/23/2010 10:31 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Every one of the Zeta followers should kill themselves.

Seriously.

Anyone stupid enough to believe any of that crap is a waste of precious oxygen that normal, logical thinking beings need to live.

So do us all a favor and FUCK OFF!
Returner
User ID: 979157
United States
05/23/2010 11:10 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Isn't it odd that once 'Clare' started posting volumes of nonsense, that all our usual Nancy sock puppets vanished?

Looks like Nancy can only operate one puppet at a time.

And 'Clare.' You should avoid obvious Nancy verbal ticks such as 'uptick' and 'duh' if you want to keep your sock puppetry from being blatantly obvious. Not that such has ever been a concern of yours...
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 969583
United States
05/23/2010 11:43 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
And of course, I don't mean only these two are "massive evidence", but with the many (including Boston's new, 7-year-old) watermain, a large crater outside Montreal in shifting land ... and other places (there were several more big sinkholes and unsolved watermain breaks, some of them multiple, over the last few mo's as well).

 Quoting: mclarek 971744


Unbelievable.

Straight from "The Moon doesn't rotate" to "there's a sinkhole in Cleveland."
Menow
User ID: 935048
United States
05/23/2010 11:47 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Or let's say a car is hit and spins along a circular racetrack road, forward and on its axis properly. If it completes the whole racetrack and doesn't fly off, then you have two definable motions: the 180 degree turn using its axis, going around the racetrack, and the spin around it, definable even if all other motion stopped.


 Quoting: mclarek 971744


Once again, Clare's own example proves her wrong. A race car spinning as it moves around a race track? Would the DRIVER of the car be correct in insisting that his car was NOT SPINNING? After all, to HIM it's not, right?
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 795135
United States
05/23/2010 12:09 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Yet again, Clare tries to evade answering the simple yes/no question in my thought experiment.

Clare, could you possibly BE any more transparent? And I have YET to see you provide even the first reference to your made up definitions, while the debunkers have provided reference after reference.

Oh well, imaginary definitions to support an imaginary planet, all coming from a sock puppet. Seems appropriate.
Circuit Breaker

User ID: 946069
United States
05/23/2010 12:29 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
SOMETHING's up, enough to have the Scientists baffled and suggesting massive CMEs for the Sun AND the following:

[link to www.sciencedaily.com]

Whaddaya think of the scientists' evidence and (separately) their postulated reasons?
 Quoting: mclarek 971744


I think the key phrase here is this statement from your link:

"If this hypothesis is correct, IBEX is catching matter from a hot neighboring interstellar cloud, which the Sun might enter in a hundred years."
A voice of reason in a world of woo-woos.
Circuit Breaker

User ID: 946069
United States
05/23/2010 12:31 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Isn't it odd that once 'Clare' started posting volumes of nonsense, that all our usual Nancy sock puppets vanished?

Looks like Nancy can only operate one puppet at a time.

And 'Clare.' You should avoid obvious Nancy verbal ticks such as 'uptick' and 'duh' if you want to keep your sock puppetry from being blatantly obvious. Not that such has ever been a concern of yours...
 Quoting: Returner 979157

Yes, I made that observation on another page.
A voice of reason in a world of woo-woos.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 795135
United States
05/23/2010 12:56 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Clare, at the risk of being redundent since you have evaded answering any of my thought experiments so far, please answer this.

Let's start with the moon being stationary with regards to the earth (i.e. it hanging in space and does not appear to move against the background stars). However, since we see all sides of it over a 29 day time period, can we say that it is rotating? Yes or no? Can we say that it is spinning. Yes or no?

Now, let's start the moon in motion slowly orbiting the earth, so that it makes one complete revolution around the earth in 365 days. We still see all sides of the moon over a 29 day period. Can we say that it is rotating? Yes or no? Can we say that it is spinning. Yes or no?

As the moon gradually speeds up in its orbit around the earth, it makes one complete revolution around the earth in 100 days. We still see all sides of the moon over a 29 day period. Can we say that it is rotating? Yes or no? Can we say that it is spinning. Yes or no?


As the moon gradually speeds up in its orbit around the earth, it makes one complete revolution around the earth in 29 days. But we can now see only one side of the moon at all times. Can we say that it is rotating? Yes or no? Can we say that it is spinning. Yes or no?

If no, when did it stop rotating? When did it stop spinning?

Let's see how you do.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 979112
Germany
05/23/2010 12:58 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Here are two interesting pics:

[link to sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov]
[link to sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov]


As you can see, the CCD glitch that is claimed by the Zetards to be Planet X is occuring in 2 complete different areas at the same day in only 4 hrs time difference ... which means Planet X must have a friggin' warp-drive.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 979306
Ireland
05/23/2010 02:19 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
"Clare" is simply winding everyone up. No one can be that stupid.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 795135
United States
05/23/2010 02:30 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Here are two interesting pics:

[link to sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov]
[link to sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov]


As you can see, the CCD glitch that is claimed by the Zetards to be Planet X is occuring in 2 complete different areas at the same day in only 4 hrs time difference ... which means Planet X must have a friggin' warp-drive.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 979112


In one image, you can clearly see the Pleiades star cluster (M45). I remember once when Nancy claimed that it was "planet ex" and its moons, even when anyone with a star chart and solar ephemeris could easily see that it was M45.

But she relies on her followers to not know these things and to take her at her word.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 795135
United States
05/23/2010 02:31 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
"Clare" is simply winding everyone up. No one can be that stupid.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 979306


I had high hopes for her in the beginning, but it appears that she either is strongly delusional or is trolling.
Menow
User ID: 935048
United States
05/23/2010 06:05 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
"Clare" is simply winding everyone up. No one can be that stupid.


I had high hopes for her in the beginning, but it appears that she either is strongly delusional or is trolling.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 795135


It ends up seeming that way with every single Zeta supporter from Freestore to Nancy, herself. It's always: "How can they BELIEVE such nonsese???"
The Commentator

User ID: 587619
United States
05/23/2010 06:06 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
"Clare" is simply winding everyone up. No one can be that stupid.


I had high hopes for her in the beginning, but it appears that she either is strongly delusional or is trolling.


It ends up seeming that way with every single Zeta supporter from Freestore to Nancy, herself. It's always: "How can they BELIEVE such nonsese???"
 Quoting: Menow 935048



Perhaps it it time to tell "clare" to go pound sand and treat her like the rest of the socks, trolls and shills that zetadrool attracts...
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!!!!!
***ZetaMaX***

User ID: 979498
United States
05/23/2010 06:14 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
"Clare" is simply winding everyone up. No one can be that stupid.


I had high hopes for her in the beginning, but it appears that she either is strongly delusional or is trolling.


It ends up seeming that way with every single Zeta supporter from Freestore to Nancy, herself. It's always: "How can they BELIEVE such nonsese???"
 Quoting: Menow 935048

I am not a "believer".
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
Menow
User ID: 935048
United States
05/23/2010 06:22 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
"Clare" is simply winding everyone up. No one can be that stupid.


I had high hopes for her in the beginning, but it appears that she either is strongly delusional or is trolling.


It ends up seeming that way with every single Zeta supporter from Freestore to Nancy, herself. It's always: "How can they BELIEVE such nonsese???"



Perhaps it it time to tell "clare" to go pound sand and treat her like the rest of the socks, trolls and shills that zetadrool attracts...
 Quoting: The Commentator
Menow
User ID: 935048
United States
05/23/2010 06:24 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
"Clare" is simply winding everyone up. No one can be that stupid.


I had high hopes for her in the beginning, but it appears that she either is strongly delusional or is trolling.


It ends up seeming that way with every single Zeta supporter from Freestore to Nancy, herself. It's always: "How can they BELIEVE such nonsese???"



Perhaps it it time to tell "clare" to go pound sand and treat her like the rest of the socks, trolls and shills that zetadrool attracts...
 Quoting: The Commentator


I for one, won't reward her disingenuousness by letting her change the subject away from 'Moon rotation'. I won't engage her on other subjects.
The Commentator

User ID: 587619
United States
05/23/2010 06:35 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
"Clare" is simply winding everyone up. No one can be that stupid.


I had high hopes for her in the beginning, but it appears that she either is strongly delusional or is trolling.


It ends up seeming that way with every single Zeta supporter from Freestore to Nancy, herself. It's always: "How can they BELIEVE such nonsese???"



Perhaps it it time to tell "clare" to go pound sand and treat her like the rest of the socks, trolls and shills that zetadrool attracts...


I for one, won't reward her disingenuousness by letting her change the subject away from 'Moon rotation'. I won't engage her on other subjects.
 Quoting: Menow 935048



Good luck with that, I have asked her three times for a simple "yes" or "no" answer to that question and she ignores it.
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!!!!!
Catseye
User ID: 979521
Dominican Republic
05/23/2010 06:40 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
I see it now, it's really quite simple - the diametrically opposed earth and moon are in a revotation of sidereal motion in solar space, the sun being preferential, hence the term solar space, and are on a sin wave path together, their onus being one of mutual deference and gyration. Only in the complete absence of reason does your reasoning become perfectly clear, Clare! HA, say that three times fast.



cool2
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 795135
United States
05/23/2010 06:57 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
I for one, won't reward her disingenuousness by letting her change the subject away from 'Moon rotation'. I won't engage her on other subjects.



Good luck with that, I have asked her three times for a simple "yes" or "no" answer to that question and she ignores it.
 Quoting: The Commentator



No, she EVADES it. All of the thought experiments with simple yes/no answer's that have been given over the last week, if answered honestly, would clearly show that she is in error in her thinking. She realizes that and avoids answering them at all costs.

News