Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 2,367 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 637,705
Pageviews Today: 883,538Threads Today: 210Posts Today: 3,632
09:33 AM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

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

 
Menow
User ID: 935048
United States
05/26/2010 01:01 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
By the way, I assume you guys won't have the decncey, unlike some others, simply to say, Oh I see what you meant and yes, you knew the movements all along and we merely confused all the terms and Nancy DID get that right, though she still doesn't know about the fact that the Moon ORBITS (dosn't merely stay over one spot of the Earth).
 Quoting: mclarek 981736


I have told you this before. Nancy claims that Newton doesn't fully explain the Lunar orbit, so she most CERTAINLY knows that the Moon HAS AN ORBIT AROUND EARTH!

You don't even KNOW what Nancy's claims are!
Menow
User ID: 935048
United States
05/26/2010 01:14 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Here's what you said, which was in AGREEMENT with my point (and Nancy's) about "spin on its axis" in its own right, which is diurnal-type rotation ...
 Quoting: mclarek 981736


So are YOU claiming that the Moon has no diurnal rotation?
mclarek
User ID: 981736
Canada
05/26/2010 01:30 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Here's what you said, which was in AGREEMENT with my point (and Nancy's) about "spin on its axis" in its own right, which is diurnal-type rotation ...


So are YOU claiming that the Moon has no diurnal rotation?
 Quoting: Menow 935048


Relative to the EARTH, yes.
mclarek
User ID: 981736
Canada
05/26/2010 01:35 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
By the way, I assume you guys won't have the decncey, unlike some others, simply to say, Oh I see what you meant and yes, you knew the movements all along and we merely confused all the terms and Nancy DID get that right, though she still doesn't know about the fact that the Moon ORBITS (dosn't merely stay over one spot of the Earth).


I have told you this before. Nancy claims that Newton doesn't fully explain the Lunar orbit, so she most CERTAINLY knows that the Moon HAS AN ORBIT AROUND EARTH!

You don't even KNOW what Nancy's claims are!
 Quoting: Menow 935048


I thought she said it didn't rotate around Earth.

Maybe I don't remember that right.

Clearly I'm NOT Nancy! LOL!

Anyway, I know she talks of its not spinning on its axis (no diurnal rotation towards Earth), and this is true.

It does rotate on its axis around Earth, and shows therefore different faces to the Sun. This is what you mean, and I always agreed with that.

The night has come. I'm going to bed.
Good night, Menow. Hope you sleep well, wherever and whoever you are (in the sense of not knowing you personally, i.e., face to face).

By the way, not that I think you WILL, but since you sometimes DO misinterpret me, and you do have a nasty side quite strongly, I want to say that I was not being snarky, but was trying to be nice there.

Good night. :)
Menow
User ID: 935048
United States
05/26/2010 01:42 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
When all of you missed the difference
 Quoting: mclarek 981736


Right...WE missed something... right

You got all confused


Right... WE got confused... right.

I pointed out
 Quoting: mclarek 981736


Right... YOU pointed out... right.

actually confused some of you
 Quoting: mclarek 981736


Right... WE were confused... right.

and I kept trying to clarify
 Quoting: mclarek 981736


Right... YOU were clarifying... right.


nastiness often clouded the issues).
 Quoting: mclarek 981736


Right... WE clouded the issues... right.

Other errors I have admitted. Have you? Such as misunderstanding the difference between "spin" on an axis from rotation (orbital orientation)
 Quoting: mclarek 981736


Here is no such thing as: "spin from orbital orientation", you hopeless maker-up-of-meaningless-terms.

You are about the most self-centered, willfully ignorant, narcissistic individual we have ever entertained here, and that is saying a lot.
mclarek
User ID: 981736
Canada
05/26/2010 01:45 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Here's what you said, which was in AGREEMENT with my point (and Nancy's) about "spin on its axis" in its own right, which is diurnal-type rotation ...


So are YOU claiming that the Moon has no diurnal rotation?
 Quoting: Menow 935048


As I said, relative to the EARTH, which is the relevant frame of reference in order to compare the Earth's own motion relative to the Sun, or for that matter, any orbital body relative to what it orbits.

The point was, Nancy was claiming the Earth has stopped in its orbit AND will eventually stop in its diurnal activity.

The Moon would only need to be stopped in its orbit of the Earth and Sun (with the Earth stopping) not also stop an axial spin (diurnal rotation) relative to Earth ... in addition to forward rotation.

'Nightie.
Menow
User ID: 935048
United States
05/26/2010 01:45 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Here's what you said, which was in AGREEMENT with my point (and Nancy's) about "spin on its axis" in its own right, which is diurnal-type rotation ...


So are YOU claiming that the Moon has no diurnal rotation?


Relative to the EARTH, yes.
 Quoting: mclarek 981736


The term "diurnal" has nothing to do with Earth. Earth could not have ever existed and my question would still stand. For you to make that meaningless distinction, means you are simply blathering.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 981921
Germany
05/26/2010 01:47 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
By the way, I assume you guys won't have the decncey, unlike some others, simply to say, Oh I see what you meant and yes, you knew the movements all along and we merely confused all the terms and Nancy DID get that right, though she still doesn't know about the fact that the Moon ORBITS (dosn't merely stay over one spot of the Earth).


I have told you this before. Nancy claims that Newton doesn't fully explain the Lunar orbit, so she most CERTAINLY knows that the Moon HAS AN ORBIT AROUND EARTH!

You don't even KNOW what Nancy's claims are!
 Quoting: Menow 935048



Nancy is babbling FOOL and so are you! Go to the moon and stay there!
Menow
User ID: 935048
United States
05/26/2010 01:49 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Anyway, I know she talks of its not spinning on its axis (no diurnal rotation towards Earth), and this is true.
 Quoting: mclarek 981736


"Towards Earth" renders your sentence meaningless.

It does rotate on its axis around Earth,
 Quoting: mclarek 981736


"Around Earth" renders your sentence meaningless.

and shows therefore different faces to the Sun. This is what you mean, and I always agreed with that.
 Quoting: mclarek 981736


I don't mean any such thing.

The night has come. I'm going to bed.
Good night, Menow. Hope you sleep well, wherever and whoever you are (in the sense of not knowing you personally, i.e., face to face).

By the way, not that I think you WILL, but since you sometimes DO misinterpret me, and you do have a nasty side quite strongly, I want to say that I was not being snarky, but was trying to be nice there.

Good night. :)
 Quoting: mclarek 981736


Being nice is fine. It doesn't change the fact that you havn't the slightest clue what you are talking about, eyt don't have the slightest clue how clueless you are.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 981921
Germany
05/26/2010 01:49 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
By the way, I assume you guys won't have the decncey, unlike some others, simply to say, Oh I see what you meant and yes, you knew the movements all along and we merely confused all the terms and Nancy DID get that right, though she still doesn't know about the fact that the Moon ORBITS (dosn't merely stay over one spot of the Earth).


I have told you this before. Nancy claims that Newton doesn't fully explain the Lunar orbit, so she most CERTAINLY knows that the Moon HAS AN ORBIT AROUND EARTH!

You don't even KNOW what Nancy's claims are!



Nancy is babbling FOOL and so are you! Go to the moon and stay there!
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 981921


thats for McClarek!



Menow, you are on point, amazing you can stand the length and absurdity of this drivel!
Menow
User ID: 935048
United States
05/26/2010 02:01 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Here's what you said, which was in AGREEMENT with my point (and Nancy's) about "spin on its axis" in its own right, which is diurnal-type rotation ...


So are YOU claiming that the Moon has no diurnal rotation?


As I said, relative to the EARTH, which is the relevant frame of reference in order to compare the Earth's own motion relative to the Sun,
 Quoting: mclarek 981736


We weren't comparing that, so why would you insert it here?

or for that matter, any orbital body relative to what it orbits.
 Quoting: mclarek 981736


Rotation has nothing to do with what a body orbits.

The point was, Nancy was claiming the Earth has stopped in its orbit AND will eventually stop in its diurnal activity.
 Quoting: mclarek 981736


The point WAS?! No point about that has been mentioned. If you want to attempt to support Nancy's claim that Earth is halted in orbit, go right ahead.

The Moon would only need to be stopped in its orbit of the Earth and Sun (with the Earth stopping) not also stop an axial spin (diurnal rotation) relative to Earth ... in addition to forward rotation.

'Nightie.
 Quoting: mclarek 981736



"Need to"??? WTF did ANY of that mean?

Admit it. You're simply trolling.
Menow
User ID: 935048
United States
05/26/2010 02:17 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Here's what you said, which was in AGREEMENT with my point (and Nancy's) about "spin on its axis" in its own right, which is diurnal-type rotation ...


So are YOU claiming that the Moon has no diurnal rotation?


As I said, relative to the EARTH, which is the relevant frame of reference in order to compare the Earth's own motion relative to the Sun, or for that matter, any orbital body relative to what it orbits.
 Quoting: mclarek 981736




So you're claiming that because Earth has a diurnal rotation of about 365 turns during each of its orbits, and the Moon only has one, that therefor the Moon has NO diurnal rotation?

That is the only sense I can make out of your comparison.
mclarek
User ID: 981736
Canada
05/26/2010 02:25 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Here is no such thing as: "spin from orbital orientation", you hopeless maker-up-of-meaningless-terms.

You are about the most self-centered, willfully ignorant, narcissistic individual we have ever entertained here, and that is saying a lot.
 Quoting: Menow 935048


Oh! Love the made-up "maker-up-of-meaningless-terms"! Very good!

Very Shakespearean, actually.

I have used YOUR terms for it AND used common parlance. I have described in various ways what PHYSICAL issues I am distinguishing. The distinguishing remains, even if I didn't use astronomical tech. terms, as long as I remained within common parlance and explained the distinguishing relations properly: which points we consider fixed in order to see the differences between orders of magnitude of distinction.

As to my supposed "self-centered, willfully ignorant, narcissistic individual" perhaps it's just that

a) SOME of you are so like that that you can't take someone who DOES know MOST of what she's talking of,

b) challenges your sense of layman vs. technical terms (which means you have to be charitable, not your strong suit, SOME of you),

c) isn't a fanatic PX believer, so challenges the fullness of your debunking,

d) knows more than you about the testable hypothetical method: how an hypothesis needs to be BUILT, charitably (again, not your strong suit, SOME of you), in order for you to know what links MIGHT lead to the hypothesis' viability ... even if some facts seem unrelated from *a priori* assumptions ... AND THEN compared to other similarly built hypotheses.

Thus, two levels of testing: 1. testing possibilities for exact lines of possible connection (to build the hypothesis), and 2. testing the hypotheses against each other in the end (as in a courtroom's argument comparisons).

By the way, I don't expect those who like science all to understand the fine points of how an argument works; some do, some don't understand the philosophical SIDE of their discipline.

Most DO a certain amount of predictive work, but rarely have to test hypotheses they find repugnant or impossible.

So that level of thinking about what they take for granted, not only within their field but in HOW they argue -- is not as common.

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

But anyway, back to supposed ego: can you not distinguish between belligerent misplaced confidence (common term, "ego"), and strength of character with goodwill, and willingness to express oneself and stand for what they know and if making mistakes adjust what's said, or if seeing others' confusion, try to set straight by using other terms?

Your version is entrapment. Mine is presentation.

Both are ego, but they are not both narcissistic.

I am interested in the subject, and how the technical terms apply (in the latest issue, the E-Moon relationship) but to be accused of not knowing the different motions AND perspectives on each ... and told I'm saying gobbledygook because you won't separate layman's terms (with qualifying references to make them clear) from technical terms ... this is ridiculous on the person who does it, not on me.

The latter makes you JUST egocentric, Menow. As your "name" seems to indicate. I hope not, but it does sound like it, post after post. How irate! How self-promotional! And finally, how uncharitable.

So it leads you to confuse things when I have been clear -- even if using layman's terms.

Long posts or not, I have not said gobbledygook in MEANING ... several people got the points. I understand something which you have deflected from and/or mocked, and/or rushed over understanding terms, no matter what I did to explain.

If you had a stroke and really DID have trouble speaking, remembering technical terms, would that mean you'd speak gobbledygook? If someone were charitable in listening, perhaps not. If someone just said to themself, "That old codger, I don't want to figure it out," then yes.

You did the latter, to me. Not nice. Not at all.
This is not sick ego (in case you don't know the difference); it's strength to stand up to you bullies. All of you.

Including the Comic-book mocker, a "chewer" on people. (Commentator, he calls himself.)

By the way, to him:
He brought up the idea I should get my head out of comic books. And others -- maybe he -- have said I "project"! When I brought this up to him, he ignored it.

Like so many on this thread, when I make a fine point about meanness, it gets unmentioned. But your meanness I am fielding all the time without giving much ire back.

I do have to commend you Menow:

A couple of times you have raised your voice to proclaim your reason for being an attacker, rather than a balanced inquirer: you have said you have been mistreated and you say mislabelled as a troll.

I have a feeling that you were probably irascible before Nancy came along, but nevertheless, I do commend you for your honesty and feelings about the situation. I understand.

I am suffering many blows here! :)

However, sorry I called you an idiot. A moment of ire.

You are clearly, also, not of a third-grade education; for one thing, Shakespeare, you are good with word creativity and for another you hyphenated only the adjectives (self-centered), not the adverb with the adjective, i.e., adverbial phrase ("willfully ignorant", which modified the noun "individual":
"self-centered, willfully ignorant, narcissistic individual".

This is a very fine point: willfully modifies ignorant, and the whole modifies "individual", but willfully does not modify individual directly.

Kind of like the Moon's actions! HA HA! The Moon orbits the Earth and the E-M system orbits the Sun, causing the Sun to see the Moon turn on its axis.


:)

'Night. For real. I saw your nasty post and stayed up to reply. You are good with words, Menow. I mean that andam not being covertly nasty or anything. Cheerio.
mclarek
User ID: 981736
Canada
05/26/2010 02:43 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Here's what you said, which was in AGREEMENT with my point (and Nancy's) about "spin on its axis" in its own right, which is diurnal-type rotation ...


So are YOU claiming that the Moon has no diurnal rotation?


As I said, relative to the EARTH, which is the relevant frame of reference in order to compare the Earth's own motion relative to the Sun, or for that matter, any orbital body relative to what it orbits.




So you're claiming that because Earth has a diurnal rotation of about 365 turns during each of its orbits, and the Moon only has one, that therefor the Moon has NO diurnal rotation?

That is the only sense I can make out of your comparison.
 Quoting: Menow 935048


No, hon. (No offense, btw; I feel I know you somehow.)

You are still talking of its orbiting the Sun. I am talking on the level of its orbit of the Earth. Which is a mind-experiment, since in fact it also orbits the Sun, as a system, with the Earth.

The Moon's basic lack of revolution (what I called spin on its axis), is relative to the Earth; to compare what it does around the Sun to what the Earth or Venus does in its diurnal revolution ... is like comparing the Earth's daily revolution to what it looks like from the Galactic centre in a Galactic year.

In each case, one is skipping a key frame of reference.

The Moon first goes around the Earth, then around the Sun (in our understanding levels).

Around the Earth: no diurnal motion.
Around the Sun, different faces show, but as you know, this turn on its axis to the Sun is a secondary effect of its pull toward the Earth first.

So, it's not academic that in comparing diurnal motions: it is what the Moon does relative to the Earth which would compare with what the Earth or Venus do relative to the Sun.

And the latter show diurnal motion in their primary orbit (around the Sun) whereas the Moon does not, relative to the Earth.


To compare the Moon's rotation around the Sun with the Earth's rotation around the Sun is to confuse the orders of magnitude.
mclarek
User ID: 981736
Canada
05/26/2010 02:50 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
By the way, Commentator:

You have revealed yourself (at least temporarily, i.e., at the time you post on the thread) to be ruthless.

This looks bad on you, not me, except to other lampreys.

And by the way, since you like this mode, let me point out that some time ago, YOU, yes, YOU of all people, said for me to get my head out of comic books.

I pointed out that YOUR avatar -- a gross distortion of the male body -- from a comic book or some such ...

Yet you or someone supporting you said *I* project!

Of course, true to form, you never replied to that. Cat got your tongue for a moment? Gotta be even more spiteful because of that?

Silly.
mclarek
User ID: 981736
Canada
05/26/2010 02:58 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
And by the way, Menow, I still like you. Even if you don't want me to, or whatever. Why? Your spite and crudity of manner are clearly partly defensive, not merely offensice.

Plus, for all your not seeing meaning in my words, i.e., not parsing the layman's part of it and seeing the thought experiments I meant, you are good with words.

Weird. But true. I think maybe when they roll out of you you are creative with them. But coming in, others' meanings are blocked from you, if it requires charitability -- expecially if you've already decided (*a priori* emotional decisions affecting mind) that the person has to be unknowledgeable or is a dopey person in general.

However, in peace, *ad astra, homo!* (To the stars, fellow!)
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 969583
United States
05/26/2010 02:59 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
I meant in 1969, when supposedly they went around the Moon.
 Quoting: mclarek 981736


Supposedly?

Are you a Moon Hoax Believer, too?
The Commentator

User ID: 587619
United States
05/26/2010 03:24 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
By the way, Commentator:

You have revealed yourself (at least temporarily, i.e., at the time you post on the thread) to be ruthless.

This looks bad on you, not me, except to other lampreys.

And by the way, since you like this mode, let me point out that some time ago, YOU, yes, YOU of all people, said for me to get my head out of comic books.

I pointed out that YOUR avatar -- a gross distortion of the male body -- from a comic book or some such ...

Yet you or someone supporting you said *I* project!

Of course, true to form, you never replied to that. Cat got your tongue for a moment? Gotta be even more spiteful because of that?

Silly.
 Quoting: mclarek 981736



Not ruthless, clunk, just one who does not suffer fools gladly.

Sadly, you are either a fool or a troll.
non sufficit Orbis

Being a zetatard means never having to make sense.

"Nancy pays me to post on Her threads"

Free Store admits to being a paid zetadrool shill

NO max/bridget EVER!!!!!
NO luser EVER!!!
NO clunker EVER!!!!!
mclarek
User ID: 981736
Canada
05/26/2010 03:56 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
I meant in 1969, when supposedly they went around the Moon.


Supposedly?

Are you a Moon Hoax Believer, too?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 969583


You mean you are?

Shocking to face different lies we've been told. There are so many. Real shocker.

That issue is an interesting case, to be sure. Hmm. They would have needed lead suits (originally planned) and they couldn't fit in the LEM with their backpacks, (due to jutting apparatus inside). So maybe not. Oh, and they don't remember stars. Just a couple of oddities. Or is it impossibilities for real flight? Hmm. But ... belief?

Now, on a more exact note, we DO know the Zapruder film was faked -- absolutely: a composite, revealed because when lens distortion is corrected, a few frames show distortion of the Stemmons Freeway sign and the foreround lamppost, in a specific way, not mere stretching so somebody put them in uncorrected for lens distortion. The people claiming to have detroyed the arguments of the physicist who did the work, had not accounted for the angles, and so had not debunked it at all.

Sad reality.
For a long time it was suspected, but never proven absolutely, based on impossible inconsistency of optics.

Doug Horne's "Inside the AARB" is the best overview of most JFK evidence, and contains how Hollywood experts were shocked at the crudeness of the painting-in of certain frames' figures. But the absolute optical proof is in Fetzer, editor, "The Great Zapruder Film Hoax."

Very important to get these things straight: because if you throw out the "timing" and "events" of the film, the witnesses can suddenly concur (and do) on major things like the limo stopping for the crossfire, etc. BTW, it was probably mostly for that that the film was made: that would have been so obvious.

Of course, also, the back and to the left, which so convinced many that there was a conspiracy: it was the only image set they had of JFK where he was NOT shot, where they could paint in the blob in the front which moves around (very quickly, thus not visisbly so for the early viewers).

Only frame-by-frame analysis shows a lot of the mistakes. And it's worked for a long time, for many people. But the case overall is complex: yet on every claim by the gov't, the thing falls apart, for different reasons.

So, could NASA have been (mostly unwittingly, compartmentalized) used to front for budget increases and US morale? Of course. Were they? Do deep research and let me know. I am not sure.

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

Or if you meant "too" as "in addition to PX":

I don't believe in PX. I am interested in it.
mclarek
User ID: 981736
Canada
05/26/2010 04:00 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
By the way, Commentator:

You have revealed yourself (at least temporarily, i.e., at the time you post on the thread) to be ruthless.

This looks bad on you, not me, except to other lampreys.

And by the way, since you like this mode, let me point out that some time ago, YOU, yes, YOU of all people, said for me to get my head out of comic books.

I pointed out that YOUR avatar -- a gross distortion of the male body -- from a comic book or some such ...

Yet you or someone supporting you said *I* project!

Of course, true to form, you never replied to that. Cat got your tongue for a moment? Gotta be even more spiteful because of that?

Silly.



Not ruthless, clunk, just one who does not suffer fools gladly.

Sadly, you are either a fool or a troll.
 Quoting: The Commentator


Of course you would say that. LOL!

"'Tever!"
mclarek
User ID: 981736
Canada
05/26/2010 05:17 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Anyway, Menow, seriously: they would see MORE of the Dark Side than we can. But not from all sides, such as Earth does of us.


You tried to use the fact that a person had never seen all sides of the Moon to prove it doesn't rotate. Then why doesn't the fact that someone HAS seen all sides of the Moon prove it DOES rotate?
 Quoting: Menow 935048


Silly!

It doesn't revolve around its own axis, in diurnal motion around the Earth RELATIVE TO EARTH, its orbital centre axis. (Well, the barycentre, technically.)

The Moon does rotate on its axis around the Earth, one face in.

It also (as a system with the Earth) rotates around the Sun, but the motion is defined by the rotation around the Earth. It actually does a sine wave movement around the Sun as it orbits the Sun though, because its first-order orbit is around the Earth.


-- Because it is orbiting the Earth, from the Sun's viewpoint it faces different directions. So it looks like a purer (like Earth or Venus) diurnal revolution. But the only reason for the latter is the rotation around the Earth, thus its turning while orbiting the Sun is a secondary motion.

If the Sun, not the Earth, were its only axis for orbit, the Moon would not revolve diurnally at all relative to the Sun, but the Earth and Venus do.

This is the difference. So, to compare the issues correctly we must ask what the Moon does relative to Earth, not Sun, to find if it revolves on its axis, while going around Earth, to see if it does what Earth and Venus do relative to the Sun. It does not. Thus, if Earth is the Moon's "Sun" you can see that the Moon does not revolve.

The view from the Sun is a different point of reference -- but it does get a solar day. This is from its orbit of the Earth, not, properly, from its orbit of the Sun.

The Moon does not revolve diurnally relative to the Earth; thus it is not comparable with what the Earth or Venus do, relative to the Sun.

For Earth and Venus revolve diurnally on their way around the Sun (their orbital centre), and the Moon does not around the Earth (around its orbital centre).

Got it?
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 763624
Australia
05/26/2010 07:10 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!

Reply by P Gray 8 hours ago
Allright. Here's the concept. The position of the Earth with respect to whether Earth is stopped in it's orbit should be easy to determine. Consider the following:
1) dig a hole in your yard deep enough to be below the frost line, place a metal pipe in the hole and cement it in place.
2) permanently attach a space type telescope to the pole
3) at exactly a specific time at night, (example midnight) align the crosshairs of the scope on a star in a constellation, with the proviso that the constellation is in the plane of the ecliptic
4) tighten the devices on the scope on the scope that attach the scope to the pole
5) check the alignment of the crosshairs each night at exactly the same time (example: midnight)
6) it seems by math to me that if the Earth is travelling in its orbit around the sun, then the following must occur
7) the crosshairs will slowly move away from the star chosen
I wish someone would do this and hook it up to a webcam. We could all check it and see if the crosshairs stay on target.
8) I realize with the "wobble" there may be some variability, but with the Earth progressing in an orbit, the "drift" of the crosshairs will be unmistakeable, large, and consistent. There.....end of the orbit debate. Please someone take this challenge on.... let's see the results. Thanks


from the ning

It's there now - but I wouldn't like to make book on for how long- or how long Mr Grey is going to be around there either

`show nancy wrong- thats a bannin'
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 949157
Finland
05/26/2010 07:38 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
I have answered the main points again and again and people have gotten it.
 Quoting: mclarek 981736


What people are those, Clare?

Duh,
and others have gotten my point long ago.
Not all, but some.
 Quoting: mclarek 981736


Who are those some people, Clare?

I'm no astronomer but it's easy for me to understand what Menow et al are saying. But it sure isn't easy to understand what you're saying, Clare. Your explanations do tend to make my head spin. Is that your intention, to make people so confused they no longer know right from wrong?

So, is there anyone here who actually GOT IT what Clare is saying (other than the Ghost of Einstein, that is)? If there is, please say so and maybe also translate her speak into something clear, thank you.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 795135
United States
05/26/2010 08:02 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Clare, here is a very simple question for you. We will build on this.

Let's say that the moon is NOT moving around the earth, but is held stationary in space relative to it. Over a period of 6 hours if an observer on earth watches it, he sees all sides of it. Anobserver with a telescope on Mars also sees all sides of it every 6 hours. From an observer on the north pole of the moon, if he looks straight up, he sees the distant stars appear to make a circular motion and complete a 360 degree arc every 6 hours.

Is the moon rotating? Yes, or no?


The observer on Earth will not see all sides of it, ever. Do you?

The MOON will see all sides of the Earth, however, as it goes around.

 Quoting: mclarek 981736


That is beside the point, Clare. Did you not see that we're talking about a thought experiment here?

Now, please asnwer the question and stick to the conditions set up in the scenario.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 795135
United States
05/26/2010 08:11 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Oh, and Menow, when you said, "astronauts have seen all sides of the Moon" I took you to be talking of ones on the space station or shuttle.

Of course, orbiting the Moon itself, they would have seen the dark side. The closer and higher you get to a round object, the more you see of a hidden side. Of course, to see a cube's Dark Side, you have to go above the horizon of that side completely to even get a glimpse.


So astronauts, orbiting the Moon... hmm... if they were to orient their craft so that they could always see, say, Orion, out of a certain window, is the craft rotating?
 Quoting: Menow 935048


That brings up a good point. Orbiting spacecraft HAVE to induce a rotation of the craft to keep it with one side oriented to the ground. An example is the shuttle keeping its open cargo bay aimed towards the earth. It HAS to induce a once per revolution rotation rate AROUND ITS OWN AXIS to make this happen. This is the SAME situation as the moon when tidally locked. Look it up in any orbital mechanics book.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 795135
United States
05/26/2010 08:14 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
It does rotate on its axis around Earth, and shows therefore different faces to the Sun.
 Quoting: mclarek 981736



BINGO!!!

That's what we've been trying to get you to see for days!
Returner
User ID: 997
United States
05/26/2010 09:36 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Clare is a Moon Hoax Moron!

I suspected it already, given her profound inability to grasp even the simplest technical concepts and her apparent gullibility concerning the Zetard nonsense.

But now she's confirmed it, which allows me to revise my estimate of her intelligence to lie somewhere between that of ferns and gravel (washed, small).

We should introduce her to Punisher.

On second thought, no. Let's not do that, EVER.

Menow, how the Hell do you maintain any semblance of rationality with this 'woman?'
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 558013
United States
05/26/2010 10:14 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
If that's the case, then it reinforces my thoughts on how technically illiterate she is. I have participated in many moon hoax "debates" and invariably those who think it was a hoax are completely uneducated in the physics and engineering involved.
Returner
User ID: 997
United States
05/26/2010 11:40 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Dr. Postman, Cruithne is actually an observation coracle *piloted* remotely by the Zetas via a pair of carefully-balanced Snickers bars.

Thus it is immune to the steady stream and flow of highly-charged yet neutral magnetrons that barrage Earth from PX's southernmost orifice (i.e., the 'Brown Pole').

You'll laugh off the above without carefully examing ALL the evidence, including that from the Vatican and the airbrushed United Federation of Planets photos which were removed from the web before they were posted, in line with your picayune, hydrophobic belief system and your lifelong indoctrination in the Tao of Pooh, now don't be nasty, as we have all seen that you are confused by my nomenclature and (ha!) I have a movie to go and see, I would ask Menow but he is a dirigible.
Menow
User ID: 935048
United States
05/26/2010 11:54 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Here is no such thing as: "spin from orbital orientation", you hopeless maker-up-of-meaningless-terms.

You are about the most self-centered, willfully ignorant, narcissistic individual we have ever entertained here, and that is saying a lot.


Oh! Love the made-up "maker-up-of-meaningless-terms"! Very good!

Very Shakespearean, actually.

I have used YOUR terms for it AND used common parlance. I have described in various ways what PHYSICAL issues I am distinguishing. The distinguishing remains, even if I didn't use astronomical tech. terms, as long as I remained within common parlance and explained the distinguishing relations properly: which points we consider fixed in order to see the differences between orders of magnitude of distinction.
 Quoting: mclarek 981736


You are distinguishing a body which is tidally locked from one which is not, but you are insisting the difference is more than that.

As to my supposed "self-centered, willfully ignorant, narcissistic individual" perhaps it's just that

a) SOME of you are so like that that you can't take someone who DOES know MOST of what she's talking of,

b) challenges your sense of layman vs. technical terms (which means you have to be charitable, not your strong suit, SOME of you),
 Quoting: mclarek 981736


You used the wrong terms, REPEATEDLY, in spite of MULTIPLE, polite corrections. That made it impossible to discuss and distinguish the very items at the center of the discussion.

c) isn't a fanatic PX believer, so challenges the fullness of your debunking,
 Quoting: mclarek 981736


You also ignored my responses to this particular item. Am I now supposed to begin repeating it until you pay attention?

d) knows more than you about the testable hypothetical method: how an hypothesis needs to be BUILT, charitably (again, not your strong suit, SOME of you), in order for you to know what links MIGHT lead to the hypothesis' viability ... even if some facts seem unrelated from *a priori* assumptions ... AND THEN compared to other similarly built hypotheses.
 Quoting: mclarek 981736


You are welcome to wallow in that minutia if you like. You're good at that. We have followed the PX story for much longer than you. It's pure bullshit, lies and hoax darlin'.

Thus, two levels of testing: 1. testing possibilities for exact lines of possible connection (to build the hypothesis), and 2. testing the hypotheses against each other in the end (as in a courtroom's argument comparisons).
 Quoting: mclarek 981736


If you care to present evidence that some large planet is careening around in the inner Solar System, go right ahead. You might get some takers - maybe even me. If you want to claim that some PX COULD exist somewhere, sometime, in the last place in the universe we have yet to look, you can go pound sand.

By the way, I don't expect those who like science all to understand the fine points of how an argument works; some do, some don't understand the philosophical SIDE of their discipline.
 Quoting: mclarek 981736


Fuck you.

Most DO a certain amount of predictive work, but rarely have to test hypotheses they find repugnant or impossible.
 Quoting: mclarek 981736


I find YOU repungnant and impossible, yet I have been willing to test YOU, hmm?

So that level of thinking about what they take for granted, not only within their field but in HOW they argue -- is not as common.
 Quoting: mclarek 981736


Go fuck thyself, dear.

But anyway, back to supposed ego: can you not distinguish between belligerent misplaced confidence (common term, "ego"), and strength of character with goodwill, and willingness to express oneself and stand for what they know and if making mistakes adjust what's said, or if seeing others' confusion, try to set straight by using other terms?

Your version is entrapment. Mine is presentation.

Both are ego, but they are not both narcissistic.
 Quoting: mclarek 981736


See above, referring to self-fuckage.

I am interested in the subject, and how the technical terms apply (in the latest issue, the E-Moon relationship) but to be accused of not knowing the different motions AND perspectives on each ... and told I'm saying gobbledygook because you won't separate layman's terms (with qualifying references to make them clear) from technical terms ... this is ridiculous on the person who does it, not on me.
 Quoting: mclarek 981736


75% of your statements were incomprehensible. Period.

The latter makes you JUST egocentric, Menow. As your "name" seems to indicate. I hope not, but it does sound like it, post after post. How irate! How self-promotional! And finally, how uncharitable.


So it leads you to confuse things when I have been clear -- even if using layman's terms.
 Quoting: mclarek 981736


Refer up the page to where you are invited to copulate with yourself.

Long posts or not, I have not said gobbledygook in MEANING ... several people got the points. I understand something which you have deflected from and/or mocked, and/or rushed over understanding terms, no matter what I did to explain.
 Quoting: mclarek 981736


Name ONE person who will say that the majority of your offerings made any sense. Don't you READ what people have been saying about you???????????????????????????

If you had a stroke and really DID have trouble speaking, remembering technical terms, would that mean you'd speak gobbledygook? If someone were charitable in listening, perhaps not. If someone just said to themself, "That old codger, I don't want to figure it out," then yes.
 Quoting: mclarek 981736


Problem is, when your meaning is clear, it is seen to be utter nonsense, dear.

You did the latter, to me. Not nice. Not at all.
This is not sick ego (in case you don't know the difference); it's strength to stand up to you bullies. All of you.

Including the Comic-book mocker, a "chewer" on people. (Commentator, he calls himself.)

By the way, to him:
He brought up the idea I should get my head out of comic books. And others -- maybe he -- have said I "project"! When I brought this up to him, he ignored it.
 Quoting: mclarek 981736


He was mocking you dear. You deserved it. You are NOT a stroke victim, deserving of patience.

Like so many on this thread, when I make a fine point about meanness, it gets unmentioned. But your meanness I am fielding all the time without giving much ire back.

I do have to commend you Menow:

A couple of times you have raised your voice to proclaim your reason for being an attacker, rather than a balanced inquirer: you have said you have been mistreated and you say mislabelled as a troll.
 Quoting: mclarek 981736


I wasn't saying I needed an 'excuse' for my actions. Nancy and her PX story are damnable lies. That should be enough reason to speak out against it.

I have a feeling that you were probably irascible before Nancy came along, but nevertheless, I do commend you for your honesty and feelings about the situation. I understand.

I am suffering many blows here! :)

However, sorry I called you an idiot. A moment of ire.
 Quoting: mclarek 981736


You called people more than that, and for simply repeating a thought experiment you had ignored the previous 5 times.
You expect people not to react to that sort of behaviour?

You are clearly, also, not of a third-grade education; for one thing, Shakespeare, you are good with word creativity and for another you hyphenated only the adjectives (self-centered), not the adverb with the adjective, i.e., adverbial phrase ("willfully ignorant", which modified the noun "individual":
"self-centered, willfully ignorant, narcissistic individual".

This is a very fine point: willfully modifies ignorant, and the whole modifies "individual", but willfully does not modify individual directly.
 Quoting: mclarek 981736


YOU are mincing words and punctuation after spending 10 pages IGNORING multiple, repeated corrections about TWO SIMPLE WORDS which mean TWO SEPARATE PHYSCAL EVENTS?

Let's see... what should you do with yourself... it starts with an "f".

Kind of like the Moon's actions! HA HA! The Moon orbits the Earth and the E-M system orbits the Sun, causing the Sun to see the Moon turn on its axis.
 Quoting: mclarek 981736


The sun 'seeing' the Moon turn on its axis has NOTHING to to with the fact that the Moon orbits Earth. NOTHING!


:)

'Night. For real. I saw your nasty post and stayed up to reply. You are good with words, Menow. I mean that andam not being covertly nasty or anything. Cheerio.
 Quoting: mclarek 981736


The Sun 'seeing' the Moon turn on its axis has NOTHING to to with the fact that the Moon orbits Earth. NOTHING!

This, again, is something which has been repeated to you about 100 times by now, yet you persist in ignoring it.


News