Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 2,076 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 1,074,716
Pageviews Today: 1,509,749Threads Today: 344Posts Today: 8,251
02:27 PM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

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

 
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 980051
Germany
05/24/2010 04:54 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
In a nutshell, isn't she arguing that the rotation of the Moon is caused by its movement around the Earth?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 969583

To be honest, I have no idea what exactly she was talking about. She mixed something about Venus into it and all rind of stuff. I have to admitt that I stopped following her posts shortly after she began to post in our thread ... I have no time to wade through that kind of pseudowhateveritis crap. I want precise and short answers.
I posted some links and an easy experiment she (?) could do herself at home (walking around a chair and pretend to be the moon ... see 2 pages back), I also posted several links to explanations of the moon rotation ... she refused to answer those ... she obviously still thinks the moon is not rotating around its own axis and keep distracting with word-plays. Then she keeps on pointing to some dubious Vatican images, without any prove what these show or if they even are from the Vatican Telescope (I highly doubt they are) and she points on SOHO images that have been debunked really long ago.
Menow
User ID: 935048
United States
05/24/2010 04:57 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
So Clare is saying if Earth went missing the Moon would stop spinning? Is she serious?

From what I could read out of her babbldyboo she doesn't think the moon is rotating around it's own axis in the first place. But actually her babbling is 95% meaningless goo ... or my english skills are real bad. She (?) obviously is not able to channel her thoughts (if there are any) into a clean sentence.


In a nutshell, isn't she arguing that the rotation of the Moon is caused by its movement around the Earth?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 969583



Yes, more or less, I guess...

I think that's what Nancy's basic claim is, that the Moon is being 'dragged' around in rotation by the Earth. Nancy states, plainly, that without Earth, "... the Moon wouldn't move at all..." I think that is a fairly accurate quote.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 980051
Germany
05/24/2010 05:01 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
I think that's what Nancy's basic claim is, that the Moon is being 'dragged' around in rotation by the Earth. Nancy states, plainly, that without Earth, "... the Moon wouldn't move at all..." I think that is a fairly accurate quote.
 Quoting: Menow 935048

So Nancy basically claims the moon is much like on a rope centrifuged around earth, like the hammer of a hammer thrower, like this ??? :

[link to www.youtube.com]


Or like the retard who came up with the beach ball held by a Zetard a few pages back ?
Menow
User ID: 935048
United States
05/24/2010 05:09 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
I think that's what Nancy's basic claim is, that the Moon is being 'dragged' around in rotation by the Earth. Nancy states, plainly, that without Earth, "... the Moon wouldn't move at all..." I think that is a fairly accurate quote.

So Nancy basically claims the moon is much like on a rope centrifuged around earth, like the hammer of a hammer thrower, like this ??? :

[link to www.youtube.com]


Or like the retard who came up with the beach ball held by a Zetard a few pages back ?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 980051


Yes. Nancy claims that the Moon is basically "glued" to Earth and would have no rotation at all, otherwise.
The Commentator

User ID: 587619
United States
05/24/2010 05:12 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
I haven't seen anyone post so many words and end up with a post that means- nothing...

meaningless word babble

What gets me is that clunk (nice nicename that, very appropriate) seems totally stuck on using words incorrectly, redefining words to mean something else and generally trying very hard to avoid being pinned down on what (if any) meaning she has herself applied instead of either the common or astronomical usage

What gets me is that the only viewpoint that the moon doesnt `spin' is from the earths surface, and that same viewpoint also shows that the sun rotates around the earth!!!

Stand on either of the moons axis points and the starfield clearly rotates
Stand on any point on the moon that receives sunlight and there will be a `sunrise' and `sunset'as the moons rotation causes an apparent rotation of the sun around the moon...

I was able to explain this to an eight year old, and she readily grasped the concept that not only was the moon spinning, but its spin rate had to be the same as its orbital period in order to show the same face to the earth at all times (didn't use words that big, but she readily grasped the concept when shown with a tennis ball and basket ball)
She even grasped the idea that if the moon didn't spin on its axis then it would indeed have a `dark side' and a `light' side (fun games can be had with a torch or table lamp and a basket ball and a tennis ball- we even managed to have an `eclipse' on the basketball/earth)

Learning can be fun clunk- ask your mummy or daddy to try this out with you (but dont touch the lightbulb- it's ouchie burnies hot ok- just like the sun!!!)


so many words and a post that means nothing...

you are right about your own post -
meaningless word babble

Moon does NOT rotate around its own axis. It only rotates in an orbit around the Earth, with its one side always "glued" to Earth.

and this doesnt depend on what words you chose to attach to these things to decribe.
 Quoting: andrew



Just when I think you have hit the bottom of stupid you grab a shovel and start digging.

Seriously, did you manage to complete third grade?

Last Edited by The Commentator on 05/24/2010 05:56 PM
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!!!!!
Returner
User ID: 997
United States
05/24/2010 05:13 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
And what 'glue' is used to bind planetary bodies together?

Why, Zeta-Brand(tm) Ultimate Stick-Um, now with Repulsion(tm) Technology!

Yes, friends, when you're denying basic physics, Zeta-Brand(tm) Ultimate Stick-Um is the ONLY GLUE for YOU!

Binds better than Gravity, or Strong Nuclear Forces! Used wherever better planets are formed.

Get yours today! Supplies are running low!

*Void in MT and IA and wheever the Laws of Physics are obeyed. May cause confusion in narrow-minded debunker types. Do not insert orally.
The Commentator

User ID: 587619
United States
05/24/2010 05:14 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
and peer pressure (social/group conformity) often overrides ones own Independent Thinking and Objectivity, and critical thinking.
 Quoting: andrew



Is that what happened to you, or are you just naturally stupid?

Last Edited by The Commentator on 05/24/2010 05:56 PM
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
05/24/2010 05:15 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Returner is on a roll!

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLLL... CANO!
The Commentator

User ID: 587619
United States
05/24/2010 05:22 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Rather than further complications about using the same words to talk of different actual motions, on different orders of magnitude (one "turn around its axis" relative to path, the other "turn around its axis" relative to another axis) ...

Let's deal with PX. It's our purpose here.

N'est-ce pas?

:)

Refusing to look into the evidence on PX, no matter who brings it forward, or how unlikely you consider the postulate, is inadequate to actually having done due diligence.

So, is there a PX? Does the Vatican leak show it? Or the round-flare SOHO show it? Or what is going on with the damned magnetosphere -- magnetic fields don't just repel without another source, and NASA says it wasn't the Sun, because that was attracting us and giving more particles than usual, because the breaches from repulsion allowed even more attraction particles in from the Sun.

What is repelling us?



Nope, lets deal with your lack of understanding of lunar rotation before we go on to other subjects.

Serious suggestion: Get a copy of Physics for Dummies and Astronomy for Dummies. Read them until you understand them both. Then we can talk about more advanced topics.


Nope; let's deal with your lack of the difference between lunar rotation spin vs lunar spin around its rotation direction!

Or are you just deliberately being difficult?

And refusing to handle PX ... :)



Clare, you have yet to address ANY of my thought experiments. Why is that?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 795135



Apparently she has a problem with thought......
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!!!!!
The Commentator

User ID: 587619
United States
05/24/2010 05:28 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
(Menow-style mercy snip)




On a force level, yes, the pull turns the axis as the momentum directs it straight away.


Excuse me? What "PULL"?
]/quote]


am I getting confuzzled between klunk and nandrew here??

which one does the pull thing again?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 763624



Lets see, clunk has the pull thing, and wankdrew pulls his thing.

I THINK I have that right....
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: 980502
Dominican Republic
05/24/2010 05:38 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
I think Clare is saying that the moon flies on a straight path and the earth's glue is causing it to turn. So it's motion is just forward, not spinning.

Menow, Commentator, Returner and others, I am worried for your own cheese! Cheese will be sliding off crackers right and left! How can it not? Clare won't answer your simple questions because she has her own way of describing things! Look what happened when she did answer them - same old warped, goofy descriptions.

What's being argued here is just semantics. Science uses certain definitions to describe the properties of matter, including celestial bodies. The words are defined in any dictionary. Clare, you are arguing facts which are not even open to debate! And you can't see that? We can all see what the moon is doing. And it's motion is described using certain definitions of words - this is not debatable! Just because you want to use uneducated layman's terms to describe something doesn't change what that something is doing. You are basically arguing against the definitions of words that science is using.

axis - an imaginary line about which a body rotates - not arguable!

rotation - the action of rotating around an axis - not arguable!

orbit - the curved path of a celestial object or spacecraft around a star, planet or moon, esp. a periodic, elliptical revolution - not arguable!

revolution - motion in orbit - not arguable!

angular momentum - the quantity of rotation of a body, which is the product of its moment of inertia and its angular velocity - not arguable!

angular velocity - the rate of change of angular position of a rotating body - not arguable!



I enjoyed reading Returner's definitions better, though, much more amusing. It makes it all the funnier knowing the person is joshing and not really thinking that way, so you don't find your mind attempting to wrap itself around unintelligible logic.



tounge
The Commentator

User ID: 587619
United States
05/24/2010 05:40 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
you fools

That's quite an accusation from someone who doesn't think that the moon rotates around it's own axis.


why? how can those who believe that Moon rotation is arranges so very carefully to show us only one its side, becalled?

Ok, fools is a bit too harsh, let it be dummies hf
 Quoting: andrew



It is called "tidal lock." wankdrew. Apparently the term has not penetrated the Third World as far as Dumbfuckistan yet so it is little wonder you are not aware of 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: 980502
Dominican Republic
05/24/2010 05:40 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
oops, "its", not "it's", don't want to be lumped in with the ditzy people
The Commentator

User ID: 587619
United States
05/24/2010 05:42 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
I'm outta here.

Bye.
 Quoting: mclarek 980219



Beware the door/ass interface.
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!!!!!
The Commentator

User ID: 587619
United States
05/24/2010 05:46 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Anyway,
on a positive note, I wish you well in spite of it all.
I really do hope you can debunk PX one day fully. It would be nice.

Clare -- hf
 Quoting: mclarek 980219



How can we start missing you if you don't leave, clunk?
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!!!!!
The Commentator

User ID: 587619
United States
05/24/2010 05:52 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
So Clare is saying if Earth went missing the Moon would stop spinning? Is she serious?

From what I could read out of her babbldyboo she doesn't think the moon is rotating around it's own axis in the first place. But actually her babbling is 95% meaningless goo ... or my english skills are real bad. She (?) obviously is not able to channel her thoughts (if there are any) into a clean sentence.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 980051



Makes no difference how well honed your English skills are, clunk simply does not know what she is talking about, and manages to express that ignorance in the poorest possible way.

BTW, I think your English is fine, a LOT better than my German!!!
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!!!!!
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 795135
United States
05/24/2010 06:21 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
It's hard to pick the best Clare comedy moment out of all this, but this bit gets my vote. It's Clare apparently responding to this question:

2) 9th repeat: What motions would the Moon display if Earth suddenly went missing?


And Clare said:

"1. The Moon would display different motions: it would "spin" off in wider and wider circles ... "around its axis" around a now-moving straight trajectory point instead of around the Earth's trajectory point.

However, these are still circles amounting to orbit ...
which turn an axis, though the total turn can be also called a "spin" but it's not clear that way what is going on."




That has to be the quintessential "Clare" postlet, IMHO. I knew it was worth the effort to get her to answer that Q!

Thanks for the yuks, Clare-bear!
 Quoting: Menow 935048


Just incredible! Clare, you really take the cake. You're heading fast for the most ignorant poster on GLP, short of Freestore, of course.
mclarek
User ID: 980219
Canada
05/24/2010 06:49 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
I think Clare is saying that the moon flies on a straight path and the earth's glue is causing it to turn. So it's motion is just forward, not spinning.

Menow, Commentator, Returner and others, I am worried for your own cheese! Cheese will be sliding off crackers right and left! How can it not? Clare won't answer your simple questions because she has her own way of describing things! Look what happened when she did answer them - same old warped, goofy descriptions.

What's being argued here is just semantics. Science uses certain definitions to describe the properties of matter, including celestial bodies. The words are defined in any dictionary. Clare, you are arguing facts which are not even open to debate! And you can't see that? We can all see what the moon is doing. And it's motion is described using certain definitions of words - this is not debatable! Just because you want to use uneducated layman's terms to describe something doesn't change what that something is doing. You are basically arguing against the definitions of words that science is using.

axis - an imaginary line about which a body rotates - not arguable!

rotation - the action of rotating around an axis - not arguable!

orbit - the curved path of a celestial object or spacecraft around a star, planet or moon, esp. a periodic, elliptical revolution - not arguable!

revolution - motion in orbit - not arguable!

angular momentum - the quantity of rotation of a body, which is the product of its moment of inertia and its angular velocity - not arguable!

angular velocity - the rate of change of angular position of a rotating body - not arguable!



I enjoyed reading Returner's definitions better, though, much more amusing. It makes it all the funnier knowing the person is joshing and not really thinking that way, so you don't find your mind attempting to wrap itself around unintelligible logic.



tounge
 Quoting: Catseye 980502


Thank you. Just popping in. I said many times the semantics were screwing things up, the the egos here refused to work with me as I worked with them in their lack of understanding of which items we were talking of. (The "We" by the way, referred to the conversation in total, back-and forth between us all, that is.)

And as Wikipedia said, the "laymen" include astronomers, who use "rotation, spin, orientation, orbit and revolution" interchangeably for different real motions, which require specifications in addition to these words, just like me.

Nancy was saying too, that there is no motion of spin on the Moon other than the forward motion, which is locked onto the Earth by gravity pulling it in.

Relatedly:

And no, Menow, I was wrong re. your "Earth disappearance" idea: and should have said re. if the Earth disappeared, it would fly off in a straight line. Sorry, Menow (I think it was) who posed that question and I was miffed and so, like you, got confused what the issue was. Yes, you do, dear! -- too.

So anyway, if Venus similarly flew off, it would be in a straight line away, at some angle relative to the Sun, but Venus would continue to have spin/"revolution", or as Wikipedia pointed out "rotation" will be also used to talk of this sometimes.

So, what I am talking of is not open to debate, and it was this I was talking of: motion relative to its forward path, which is right now around the Earth instead of straight (as Newton pointed out). And RELATIVE TO ITS FORWARD PATH IT DOES NOT TURN, but rather the path turns it. But at that level, you can say it turns on its axis, too.

:)

And it would be the extra turn which would have to be stopped on the Earth, not merely its forward orbital movement, if PX came near: stop forward (supposedly) and stop daily rotation (pole stop and reorientation) shift.

The Moon would only be stopped on a forward movement of its orbit, THAT turn.

Thanks.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 882391
United States
05/24/2010 06:50 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Don't forget GRANT!
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 882391
United States
05/24/2010 06:53 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
But the Moon would not fly off if the Earth disappeared. It would continue around the Sun.
mclarek
User ID: 980219
Canada
05/24/2010 06:54 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Anyway,
on a positive note, I wish you well in spite of it all.
I really do hope you can debunk PX one day fully. It would be nice.

Clare -- hf



How can we start missing you if you don't leave, clunk?
 Quoting: The Commentator


I never asked you to miss me, Comic-book mutant.

You just want me gone. I don't need to be. Maybe I change my mind, or check back.

Hm ... !

:P

People do these things. :)

You guys have never had someone as straightforward as I, I can tell. Someone who remembers what is important: PX: those Vatican images haven't been vetted by you.

The SOHO images either. Not debunked long ago, Menow. I posted how they didn't give key tests on them: they're not pixel problems like your links. And no-one looked at the magnetosphere holes -- because you don't understand how electromagnetism HAS to give charge, and how Velik. and Einstein got this point, but the scientists of their day refused to combine the new info on electromagnetism full effects 9charge) into the Newtonian mass explanations.
mclarek
User ID: 980219
Canada
05/24/2010 06:58 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
But the Moon would not fly off if the Earth disappeared. It would continue around the Sun.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 882391


Yes, but we were not (as far as I know) talking of the orbital factor of the SYSTEM of the E-M. I thought he was just asking relative to the E-M system, but yes, add in the Sun again, and that movement would yes, pull the Moon. It would take some time to stabilize, but anyway, the Moon would in fact fly into whatever direction it was turned when the Earth disappeared -- making an ellipse around the Sun.

Anyway that's why I said "off in circles", but without the Sun, no, it would be straight in whatever direction it was faced at that point/

No spin, though in that: it faces its next turn around the Earth at each point it gets there. It does not spin as well more than it has to for the path.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 980051
Germany
05/24/2010 07:03 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
 Quoting: mclarek 980219

Regarding the Vatican images i first suggest you link them again, as I have no time to wade through 40 pages back until I find them.
Then your next task would be to prove beyond doubt that the source of the images are really the Vatican Telescope, so far you failed to prove this, you only link to other more than dubious websites like yowusa.com.
After you have proven to us that these images are originated from the Vatican Telescope then it's time for us to debunk them.
Until you have proven that these images are truly by the Vatican Telescope (and not photoshop) discussing them will be a waste of time.
Menow
User ID: 935048
United States
05/24/2010 07:04 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Thank you. Just popping in. I said many times the semantics were screwing things up, the the egos here refused to work with me as I worked with them in their lack of understanding of which items we were talking of. (The "We" by the way, referred to the conversation in total, back-and forth between us all, that is.)

And as Wikipedia said, the "laymen" include astronomers, who use "rotation, spin, orientation, orbit and revolution" interchangeably for different real motions, which require specifications in addition to these words, just like me.
 Quoting: mclarek 980219


Except that it DIDN'T say that. You lied.

Nancy was saying too, that there is no motion of spin on the Moon other than the forward motion, which is locked onto the Earth by gravity pulling it in.

Relatedly:

And no, Menow, I was wrong re. your "Earth disappearance" idea: and should have said re. if the Earth disappeared, it would fly off in a straight line. Sorry, Menow (I think it was) who posed that question and I was miffed and so, like you, got confused what the issue was. Yes, you do, dear! -- too.
 Quoting: mclarek 980219


You mean the MOON would fly off in a straight line as its only motion if Earth went missing? Wrong, Clare... so very, very wrong.


So anyway, if Venus similarly flew off, it would be in a straight line away, at some angle relative to the Sun, but Venus would continue to have spin/"revolution",
 Quoting: mclarek 980219


What is this... maybe the 25th time I've told you that those two words don't mean the same thing?

or as Wikipedia pointed out "rotation" will be also used to talk of this sometimes.
 Quoting: mclarek 980219


In talk of what? Rotation and spin can be considered to be describing the same thing. Revolution is a different thing. 26th repeat of that information.

So, what I am talking of is not open to debate, and it was this I was talking of: motion relative to its forward path, which is right now around the Earth instead of straight (as Newton pointed out). And RELATIVE TO ITS FORWARD PATH IT DOES NOT TURN, but rather the path turns it. But at that level, you can say it turns on its axis, too.
 Quoting: mclarek 980219


No one has said that the Moon rotates in a frame of reference where the Moon doesn't rotate, Clare.

:)

And it would be the extra turn which would have to be stopped on the Earth, not merely its forward orbital movement, if PX came near: stop forward (supposedly) and stop daily rotation (pole stop and reorientation) shift.

The Moon would only be stopped on a forward movement of its orbit, THAT turn.

Thanks.
 Quoting: mclarek 980219


Incomprehensible.
Menow
User ID: 935048
United States
05/24/2010 07:07 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Menow.

 Quoting: mclarek 980219


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?
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 980051
Germany
05/24/2010 07:23 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
This is wonderful, the guy who made the Canadian Spiral admitted the hoax:

[link to www.theweatherspace.com]

Guess who fell for it:

[link to poleshift.ning.com]

[link to poleshift.ning.com]

People are saying upon analysis that the video looks fake but the photos do not. Also, that witnesses are reporting the photos look like what they saw, but not the video. That perhaps the news agency was pressure to produce a video (as less suspect of doctoring) so doctored a video to do so! I think we should concentrate on an analysis of the still photo(s), thus.
 Quoting: LIEDer
mclarek
User ID: 980219
Canada
05/24/2010 07:31 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
This is wonderful, the guy who made the Canadian Spiral admitted the hoax:

[link to www.theweatherspace.com]

Guess who fell for it:

[link to poleshift.ning.com]

[link to poleshift.ning.com]


People are saying upon analysis that the video looks fake but the photos do not. Also, that witnesses are reporting the photos look like what they saw, but not the video. That perhaps the news agency was pressure to produce a video (as less suspect of doctoring) so doctored a video to do so! I think we should concentrate on an analysis of the still photo(s), thus.

 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 980051


Ah -- critical thinking!

Now if I'd said that, they'd slam me.
LOL!

I, too, thought the vids, at least one of them, looked fake. But usually the military doesn't issue statements on things such as this -- and they did, because so many people called in. So it may have been real, like the Norway spiral, whatever that was. (Many theories exist on that, but it happened.)

As to the issue of my "not thinking", this is ridiculous! ROTFL!

I have read Kepler, and took 7 years of Latin training, for example. If you don't know how this trains your minds in orders of magnitude distinctions, try it!

Sheesh.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 980051
Germany
05/24/2010 07:35 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
So it may have been real, like the Norway spiral, whatever that was.
 Quoting: mclarek 980219

You do realize that the hoaxer admitted it all ? Just like Kid A with his nibiru pics back in the days !

BTW, I'm still waiting for your prove that the Vatican images are really made by the Vatican.
mclarek
User ID: 980219
Canada
05/24/2010 07:36 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Regarding the Vatican images i first suggest you link them again, as I have no time to wade through 40 pages back until I find them.
Then your next task would be to prove beyond doubt that the source of the images are really the Vatican Telescope, so far you failed to prove this, you only link to other more than dubious websites like yowusa.com.
After you have proven to us that these images are originated from the Vatican Telescope then it's time for us to debunk them.
Until you have proven that these images are truly by the Vatican Telescope (and not photoshop) discussing them will be a waste of time.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 980051


I linked to them -- and others wouldn't re-link for me on other things. So why should I? :)

I'll do so later, though. Off to the movie about Tony Blair's treason with Bush, cloaked in a fiction form: "Ghostwriter".

Re. MY proving it: they make claims. You test it. I wanted your opinions.

I want to know: CAN they be from the Vatican -- their own telescope, or a satellite they share with NASA?

And the magnetosphere ... what's up with that? Repulsion while the Sun attracted it. Hm.

And those Bad Astronomy claims about the SOHO images ... could they be right? So far, no comparable "flares" have been presented, except from comparable photos since PX was supposedly already possibly here.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 980051
Germany
05/24/2010 07:36 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
I have read Kepler
 Quoting: mclarek 980219

Looks like you didn't understand much of it.

News








Proud Member Of The Angry Mob