Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 1,406 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 298,886
Pageviews Today: 377,950Threads Today: 73Posts Today: 1,553
02:44 AM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

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

 
mclarek
User ID: 986233
Canada
05/31/2010 10:06 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
We DO know the salient truths about JFK's death now. Read Horne, "Inside the AARB" and Fetzer, editor of "Murder in Dealey Plaza," "Assassination Science" and "The Great Zapruder Film Hoax."



Ho hum. You really don't get it, do you? I have better things to do with my time than read about conspiracy theories about the murder of a man decades ago. Glad that YOU know the salient truths, as if they matter. Too bad you don't have that kind of interest in ongoing matters you might be able to change IN YOUR OWN COUNTRY. You are an embarrassment.

[...]

You are delusional. Your grasp on logic and your priorities are really messed up. There are plenty of current lies to be exposed, things that could make a difference. You are the cop out, playing conspiracy buster on your computer. Here's a tip for you. Not everything or even most things on youtube are true. Just because someone writes books and speaks out publicly doesn't mean its true. What happens in America is really none of your business unless they ask for your input. You are the worst kind of Canadian.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 908953

The condemnation of a half-deaf audience.

I am a MAJORLY patriotic (but not jingoistic) pro nation-state Canadian. You must think I'm just absorbed in "their stuff." Nope. But here, I'll prove it to you at the same time as show you it's all connected:

Do you not know that the big conspiracies are affecting us here? Ignatieff is from old British Royalist family stock, supports nice social things but also Torture for the War on Terror (wrote about that in Harvard), internationalism in the sick sense (British Empire, modernized) ...

and Harper's into not only the torture, as you may have heard leaked lately, but also is an anti-nationalist.

NAFTA was set up through pre-set arrangements with Americans -- themselves traitors to their country for the sake of corporations and old power in Europe --

Read, "The Bilderberg Group: North American Union Edition" by Estulin for some fascinating treasonous Canadian info.

Great section on the Power Corporation and its Bilderberg links on the one hand, and its plants in gov't on the other (Bob Rae, through his brother, Chretien and Mulroney and Martin on the other, not to mention the 1995 near-separation of Quebec. Kissinger was livid when it didn't happen.)

That's just to start.

I also work for nationalist lobby groups, raising funds.

Point here is: LOVE Canada -- yes, do! You too! But we've basically almost lost it in other ways, as has the USA lost a lot of their real sovereignty ...

Hanging by a thread. The link? Those who stood up to globalism (not international co-operation but "internationalism"), such as JFK, and those who fight 9/11 War on Terror and so on ... are the MOST aware of how to keep nation states going.

Clare
mclarek
User ID: 986233
Canada
05/31/2010 10:13 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
No plane.


[link to www.youtube.com] Monty Python Black Knight Scene
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 969583


Yes, you guys still think your position holds, even when it's cut down.

NO jet fuel at Shanksville and Pentagon; parallax prob's in NYC TV vids; wrong trajectory; fake AND deluded (saww the flyover) witnesses; etc.

Really, there were no planes.

And it was easier that way. Because you'll believe a couple of witnesses who can be shown to be mistaken and lying, instead of the physics AND the few witnesses who were by a landmark (the Citgo station near the Pentagon) and who dared to speak out.

DON'T BELIEVE YOUR PRECONCEIVED NOTIONS unless they really DO add up.

You somehow need a plane. Why?
Reality420
User ID: 970551
United States
05/31/2010 10:16 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
I DID make the wrong extrapolation that it would not START to rotate (relative to Earth) if physically stopped.


PLUS I now know it would START to rotate ...
in the sense of, if physically stopped with the Earth it would rotate more than it is, and would thus "break" tidal "lock" ---- which is a relationship over space on its revolution around the Sun. I got the latter, even, but didn't know it would show rotation if stopped physically.

All my perspective levels were fine and CLEARER THAN YOURS, for you just kept saying "it rotates" without a context.
 Quoting: mclarek 986233


You are still utterly confused and just spitting gibberish.

The moon does/will not start to rotate/spin. It already does rotate. It has always rotated/spun. Changing its orbital period around the earth (in the extreme = stopping it) would merely reveal the moon's intrinsic spin to an observer on earth.

There is no "starting" about it. You are thick as a plank.


R.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 908953
Canada
05/31/2010 10:19 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
We DO know the salient truths about JFK's death now. Read Horne, "Inside the AARB" and Fetzer, editor of "Murder in Dealey Plaza," "Assassination Science" and "The Great Zapruder Film Hoax."



Ho hum. You really don't get it, do you? I have better things to do with my time than read about conspiracy theories about the murder of a man decades ago. Glad that YOU know the salient truths, as if they matter. Too bad you don't have that kind of interest in ongoing matters you might be able to change IN YOUR OWN COUNTRY. You are an embarrassment.

[...]

You are delusional. Your grasp on logic and your priorities are really messed up. There are plenty of current lies to be exposed, things that could make a difference. You are the cop out, playing conspiracy buster on your computer. Here's a tip for you. Not everything or even most things on youtube are true. Just because someone writes books and speaks out publicly doesn't mean its true. What happens in America is really none of your business unless they ask for your input. You are the worst kind of Canadian.

The condemnation of a half-deaf audience.

I am a MAJORLY patriotic (but not jingoistic) pro nation-state Canadian. You must think I'm just absorbed in "their stuff." Nope. But here, I'll prove it to you at the same time as show you it's all connected:

Do you not know that the big conspiracies are affecting us here? Ignatieff is from old British Royalist family stock, supports nice social things but also Torture for the War on Terror (wrote about that in Harvard), internationalism in the sick sense (British Empire, modernized) ...

and Harper's into not only the torture, as you may have heard leaked lately, but also is an anti-nationalist.

NAFTA was set up through pre-set arrangements with Americans -- themselves traitors to their country for the sake of corporations and old power in Europe --

Read, "The Bilderberg Group: North American Union Edition" by Estulin for some fascinating treasonous Canadian info.

Great section on the Power Corporation and its Bilderberg links on the one hand, and its plants in gov't on the other (Bob Rae, through his brother, Chretien and Mulroney and Martin on the other, not to mention the 1995 near-separation of Quebec. Kissinger was livid when it didn't happen.)

That's just to start.

I also work for nationalist lobby groups, raising funds.

Point here is: LOVE Canada -- yes, do! You too! But we've basically almost lost it in other ways, as has the USA lost a lot of their real sovereignty ...

Hanging by a thread. The link? Those who stood up to globalism (not international co-operation but "internationalism"), such as JFK, and those who fight 9/11 War on Terror and so on ... are the MOST aware of how to keep nation states going.

Clare
 Quoting: mclarek 986233

Whatever, Clare. You are drinking the koolaid and that blinds you to all the little things going on right under your nose, things you could maybe help change if you weren't so busy chasing bullshit around. You will just wait until bad things happen because too many Canadians are too apathetic, then you will watch youtube videos to see where it all went wrong, who is to blame and expose lies when it's too late. Clearly some people like their safe little delusion world because its all talk and no action.
George B

User ID: 976283
United States
05/31/2010 11:57 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
DrPostman, do you know how I get the 'send personal Msg' on my margin?

You mean "Send Private Message"? You don't have that option?
 Quoting: DrPostman

No, I don't.
Martin Luther King . . . Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter!

All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them.
Galileo Galilei, Italian astronomer & physicist (1564 - 1642)

coffee4

The only thing guaranteed in life is deception. . . everything else is optional, except for death and taxes . . . George B
George B

User ID: 976283
United States
06/01/2010 12:12 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
I'd guess you base your belief in chemtrails on silly Youtube videos, and it wouldn't really be a 'guess' since you already cited some of them which contain obviously false information.

Since I am so very simple and an obvious easy mark, using obviously bogus evidence, why don't you take my challenge . . . no, no, don't say it . . . it is a waste of my time! You take time to respond to almost every post posted here . . . what is the difference?



Why don't you present some REAL evidence, George?

Why don't you present an analysis of a chemtrail and a contrail taken in situ?

Oh wait, no one has bothered to do that, have they?

Until you do, you are just ranting in the night.

Not a bad idea . . . is there a way to use laser technology to do some type of remote mass spectrometry? Sorry, I have to run . . . see you all later.



A remote analysis is not, BY DEFINITION, the analysis of a sample taken in situ.

Look, this is a scientific question, and will yeild to the scientific method.

It will not be settled by a majority vote.

So unless you have a chemical analysis of an in situ sample of an ordinary contrail and the same analysis of a sample of a chemtrail, and there is a proper chain of custody, you are just waving your arms and ranting.

So get the fucking samples, have the analysis done and settle the question once and for all.

But the chemheads won't do that, too much chance their favorite delusion will be shot down, and you wouldn't want that, now would you?
 Quoting: The Commentator

Most of the people who are concerned do not have the resources or knowledge to attempt such an effort. They have used the only tools at their disposal . . . testing residue left after what they feel were chemtrails, etc.
Martin Luther King . . . Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter!

All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them.
Galileo Galilei, Italian astronomer & physicist (1564 - 1642)

coffee4

The only thing guaranteed in life is deception. . . everything else is optional, except for death and taxes . . . George B
Menow
User ID: 988478
United States
06/01/2010 12:41 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
You guys remember only that you all CALLED my statements gobbledygook and finally when it became clear I was talking of relative CURRENT motions, Menow said that wasn't the point originally with Nancy, but it was (and she didn't understand THOSE fully either) AND it shows my point was valid all along, except in the physical stopped motion.


 Quoting: mclarek 986233

Funny how you are now claiming a different 'point' with Nancy. Earlier you said her misunderstanding was that she didn't realize the Moon orbited Earth. I had to point out how that was NOT Nancy's point of view about a dozen times before you stopped saying it was. NOW you claim something entirely different, as far as I can tell. It's never possible to fully understand what you are trying to say. Maybe you still ARE saying that Nancy doesn't know that the Moon orbits Earth. Who can tell?
The Commentator

User ID: 587619
United States
06/01/2010 12:43 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
-there were no PLANE PARTS anywhere, except impossibly small parts at the Pentagon,




Clare, you are simply delusional.

[link to www.rense.com]

[link to www.no] link.com/forum/thread79655/pg1

[link to www.america.gov]


I meant carryable parts.
And none in the first photos -- and April didn't see any. You would have a big massive crumpled, broken plane, at least on major sections.

YOU are deluded about the physics yourself, dear science major.


Wrong again, Clare. Where is the "massive crumpled plane" after the impact in this video?

[link to www.youtube.com]

You simply have no clue to what you're rambling about.

Moot. Small, like rocket. Jet fuel. No hole in wall (compare WTC). Hole in Pentagon a) at ground level with no space for the rest of the plane, b) no parts to start with on lawn, c) no seats, luggage, etc.

Shanksville, no plane parts at all, but a perfect plane impression. Compare: Polish plane crash. Etc.
 Quoting: mclarek 986233



Tell us, how many aircraft crash sites have you PERSONALLY inspected on a close, detailed manner?

How many crash investigation reports have you read?

My guess is the answer to both is "zero."
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: 988478
United States
06/01/2010 12:49 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
All my perspective levels were fine and CLEARER THAN YOURS, for you just kept saying "it rotates" without a context.
 Quoting: mclarek 986233


We said much, much, much, much, much more than just 'it rotates'. You ignored it all.
The Commentator

User ID: 587619
United States
06/01/2010 12:59 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
I'd guess you base your belief in chemtrails on silly Youtube videos, and it wouldn't really be a 'guess' since you already cited some of them which contain obviously false information.

Since I am so very simple and an obvious easy mark, using obviously bogus evidence, why don't you take my challenge . . . no, no, don't say it . . . it is a waste of my time! You take time to respond to almost every post posted here . . . what is the difference?



Why don't you present some REAL evidence, George?

Why don't you present an analysis of a chemtrail and a contrail taken in situ?

Oh wait, no one has bothered to do that, have they?

Until you do, you are just ranting in the night.

Not a bad idea . . . is there a way to use laser technology to do some type of remote mass spectrometry? Sorry, I have to run . . . see you all later.



A remote analysis is not, BY DEFINITION, the analysis of a sample taken in situ.

Look, this is a scientific question, and will yeild to the scientific method.

It will not be settled by a majority vote.

So unless you have a chemical analysis of an in situ sample of an ordinary contrail and the same analysis of a sample of a chemtrail, and there is a proper chain of custody, you are just waving your arms and ranting.

So get the fucking samples, have the analysis done and settle the question once and for all.

But the chemheads won't do that, too much chance their favorite delusion will be shot down, and you wouldn't want that, now would you?

Most of the people who are concerned do not have the resources or knowledge to attempt such an effort. They have used the only tools at their disposal . . . testing residue left after what they feel were chemtrails, etc.
 Quoting: George B



In other words you are saying they have essentially no evidence at all, much less properly obtained samples with a valid chain of custody and an analysis that is repeatable by any qualified analytical lab.

You have, in short, squat. No, that isn't quite right, you have the square root of squat.

Get the samples in situ, analyze them and publish the results. That is what a scientist would do. K00ks just rant and make claims they can't back up with evidence.

Sorry, George, looks like you backed the wrong horse.
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: 986233
Canada
06/01/2010 01:34 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
In different ways they are mistaken or lying.

There WAS a flight, as determined by the CIT witnesses by the Citgo, but from the opposite direction. There was a flyover, as per the 300-feet-too-high black box data.

And you can never see faces in windows of passenger jets from any major (more than maybe 50 feet, and in some lights, not even that) distance or speed.

No jet fuel; impossible manoeuvres; hole too small and no other parts until after the cave-in of the building; wrong trajectory (lammposts are so funny: opposite trajectory from the Citgo witnesses who had a clear angle judgement view); most witnesses above were media and gov't ... but some saw SOMETHING and it seems the plane was painted with a stripe.

So?

No plane.

And why are you hanging on to planes? Just because they said there were some? Do you hang on to the hijackers' names, too? Many were false identities.



Clare, your willingness to dispense with all logical thinking and to dismiss factual evidence is pretty amazing. What is it that has you SO warped that you will accept any kook theory that comes along?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 795135

Dear Sir,

Which fact trumps which? Independent eyewitnesses who were by the Citgo, not looking for fame, and contradicting the mass story, or these, some of whom were obviously lying (faces in the windows) ...

And which fact trumps which? the gov't claim they found bodies from a plane, or the lack of jet fuel (an obvious missing feature) by April Gallop and originally early news anchors?

Which fact trumps which? The wish to have a plane involved on your part or the flyover black box data?

Whose is the wishful thinking or kook theory?

No. We know there was no plane. Just as we now know Kennedy was killed in crossfire.
mclarek
User ID: 986233
Canada
06/01/2010 01:46 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
All my perspective levels were fine and CLEARER THAN YOURS, for you just kept saying "it rotates" without a context.


We said much, much, much, much, much more than just 'it rotates'. You ignored it all.
 Quoting: Menow 988478

No, you didn't. You kept insisting that I didn't know what I was talking about. And you kept insisting it rotates and how I was saying gobbledygook. You cannot reinstate yourself, Menow on this.

I was talking of layers of seeing and knowing. And I was talking of rotation in the now, but you were (without clarifying) talking also of rotation if it stopped.

You confused my points, refusing to see any value or knowledge in what I said. And you picked on my words for it: spin, rotate, revolve, turn. But I always gave context: I always said "relative to its forward motion, its vector, its orbital path around Earth" and I was right.

When I finally tried to use your terms, i.e., rotation only for "relative to itself if all other points are considered fixed" and revolution for "orbit around another point" ... you meanheartedly thought -- and wrongly -- I didn't see any truth, for you had not been trying to really know my point. As such, you could not see that I had the specific terms flipped.

When I finally spoke it in concise manner but with the terms flipped, you suggested it was true but since I still didn't have the terms right, it's "meaningless".

Then I fixed the terms, admitted that error, and you never credited me.

After that, you simply said the point wasn't what I had been clarifying (and since tidal lock would end in a physical stoppage, you were right that the physical stoppage was incorrect in my mind), but the point WAS that Nancy didn't understand there was any rotation AND I DID, and I had been right all along about the circumstances under which you can be right about rotation. (I.e., not relative to Earth.)

I was ignorant of the fact the tidal lock would stop under the real physical stoppage of the forward motion. That was all.

I remember the twists and turns of the discussion. And am far smarter than you gave me credit for.

And now I also know that physical stoppage will CREATE a rotation relative to Earth in the Moon. No thanks to you, who didn't even tell me when I asked. You treated me as a nincompoop. You were wrong.
mclarek
User ID: 986233
Canada
06/01/2010 01:57 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Tell us, how many aircraft crash sites have you PERSONALLY inspected on a close, detailed manner?

How many crash investigation reports have you read?

My guess is the answer to both is "zero."
 Quoting: The Commentator

Dear person,

First, there is common sense. If that misleads, there are experts crying foul about this stuff and guiding ordinary citizens to see the problems.

With no jet fuel, threatening situations for witnesses (such as April, but there are others), impossible trajectory claims (the CIT team investigated 5 or 7 witnesses who were at the gas station and in the best position to know where the trajectory was: left, overhead, or right of a fixed point), and the pilots, who do know black box info have determined a flyover ...

plus the whole thing stinks to high heaven of fakery from what we know of the parallax problems in the vids from the WTC nonsense story, as well as the rest of the whole situation ...

plus Shanksville was a perfect plane "impression" like Wile E. Coyote into a wall, and supposedly flew upside down (yup, the gov't story got wilder and claimed it went down upside down), and then they added the mine shaft idea, but no efforts like at a mine were done ...

Really.
These are not speculations.

Do you need a plane to feel happy about 9/11? It was a sick show of mirrors. You know the hijackers weren't really hijackers, right? You do know that much, right? And other than the few who may have been under their real names, several were stolen Saudi identities.

So, if you don't need hijackers (other than patsies and fanatics and dupes in a drill), why the heck do you need to risk planes which could miss? There was no wish to damage the Pentalawn. No wish do risk harming the rest of the Pentagon. And at the WTC, if a plane had come in to hit the towers, it so easily could have missed, or damaged itself on them and flown out of control.

No, these planners only neded computer blips, some video fakery, a flyby or other confusing aircraft, and some garbage blown up in a bulldozed field in Shanksville.

And the show opened to applause -- the applause of your mind's horror.

And you and I fell for it for a long time. Since then, it's been mere assurances, tiny well-placed lies or obfuscation to keep you happy.
mclarek
User ID: 986233
Canada
06/01/2010 02:04 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
You guys remember only that you all CALLED my statements gobbledygook and finally when it became clear I was talking of relative CURRENT motions, Menow said that wasn't the point originally with Nancy, but it was (and she didn't understand THOSE fully either) AND it shows my point was valid all along, except in the physical stopped motion.



Funny how you are now claiming a different 'point' with Nancy. Earlier you said her misunderstanding was that she didn't realize the Moon orbited Earth. I had to point out how that was NOT Nancy's point of view about a dozen times before you stopped saying it was. NOW you claim something entirely different, as far as I can tell. It's never possible to fully understand what you are trying to say. Maybe you still ARE saying that Nancy doesn't know that the Moon orbits Earth. Who can tell?
 Quoting: Menow 988478

:P

I am still saying Nancy does't realize it orbits/revolves.

I am also saying Nancy doesn't know it rotates at ANY level of understanding of its current motions.

I am also saying that she thinks it would not rotate relative to Earth if you stopped its revolution (and so did I; my mistake which I now know).

What you have not seen is that *I TOO* made a good point and that is how you should be careful in saying it rotates if you do not also point out that it doesn't really revolve ...

If you fail to add the latter part, you are comitting a fallacy of equivocation: you are speaking on the level of what the Sun sees AND what is happening at that level of motion study.

If you however picture the E-M system stopped (and most images do, as well as most people) but NOT physically stopped, you would see the Moon revolving, not rotating and that is a level of understanding but not the physical reality.

Beyond that -- I now know that if the Moon's real motion forward were stopped, the illusion of the orbit around Earth would stop BUT IT WOULD BE SUDDENLY ROTATING relative to us.

In physically stopping the system AND the Moon, that would actually change what happens. This is distinct from simply imagining the lowest real layer of motion (superposition), where no, the Moon does not show rotation as its root motion currently.
mclarek
User ID: 986233
Canada
06/01/2010 02:10 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
What you have not seen is that *I TOO* made a good point and that is how you should be careful in saying it rotates if you do not also point out that it doesn't really revolve ...
 Quoting: mclarek 986233

I mean around Earth. Without really stopping it, the Moon does not really revolve around Earth. It rotates and creates a sine wave, while in tidal lock.

For understanding however, the layers of motion go: 1. still Moon, 2. Moon orbiting Earth, 3. Moon revolving in orientation towards Earth but on a sine wave also orbiting the Sun.

For physical changes, however, to create those layers in reality, would be different and not work out: Physical needs (conservation of momentum, as you said) requires that if something tried to make the Moon actually still in its forward sine wave motion (seen as revolution around us), it would cease moving the way it is and instead would rotate instead relative to us.

I got that.

You? See MY points?

And will you realize now I'm no sloppy dummy or are you going to continue with that farce?
mclarek
User ID: 986233
Canada
06/01/2010 02:19 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
This page is great -- so to speak, when we're talking about lies --

The antenna that wasn't, at the bottom ...

The perfect alignment in a frame twice (tripod) ...

Two absolutely perfectly aligned shots -- now supposedly a day later AND WITH NO TIRE TRACKS IN THE FOREGROUND ...

And at the top of the page, dust in TV, no dust in high-quality photo AND BACKPACK TOP DOWN ON TV BUT UP IN PHOTO ...

All but the second one I mentioned are ACTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE. The second one is highly unlikely.

[link to www.aulis.com]

So, since photos were faked -- at LEAST some ;) maybe as photo op lies -- then did we go? Maybe.
George B

User ID: 976283
United States
06/01/2010 02:24 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
I'd guess you base your belief in chemtrails on silly Youtube videos, and it wouldn't really be a 'guess' since you already cited some of them which contain obviously false information.

Since I am so very simple and an obvious easy mark, using obviously bogus evidence, why don't you take my challenge . . . no, no, don't say it . . . it is a waste of my time! You take time to respond to almost every post posted here . . . what is the difference?



Why don't you present some REAL evidence, George?

Why don't you present an analysis of a chemtrail and a contrail taken in situ?

Oh wait, no one has bothered to do that, have they?

Until you do, you are just ranting in the night.

Not a bad idea . . . is there a way to use laser technology to do some type of remote mass spectrometry? Sorry, I have to run . . . see you all later.



A remote analysis is not, BY DEFINITION, the analysis of a sample taken in situ.

Look, this is a scientific question, and will yeild to the scientific method.

It will not be settled by a majority vote.

So unless you have a chemical analysis of an in situ sample of an ordinary contrail and the same analysis of a sample of a chemtrail, and there is a proper chain of custody, you are just waving your arms and ranting.

So get the fucking samples, have the analysis done and settle the question once and for all.

But the chemheads won't do that, too much chance their favorite delusion will be shot down, and you wouldn't want that, now would you?

Most of the people who are concerned do not have the resources or knowledge to attempt such an effort. They have used the only tools at their disposal . . . testing residue left after what they feel were chemtrails, etc.



In other words you are saying they have essentially no evidence at all, much less properly obtained samples with a valid chain of custody and an analysis that is repeatable by any qualified analytical lab.

You have, in short, squat. No, that isn't quite right, you have the square root of squat.

Get the samples in situ, analyze them and publish the results. That is what a scientist would do. K00ks just rant and make claims they can't back up with evidence.

Sorry, George, looks like you backed the wrong horse.
 Quoting: The Commentator

Civil cases are won based upon the preponderance of evidence . . . much of it only circumstantial and in many jurisdictions with only the majority of the jury not a unanimous decision. No chain of custody needed . . . good testimony, reasonable man theory . . . I will take my chances.
Martin Luther King . . . Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter!

All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them.
Galileo Galilei, Italian astronomer & physicist (1564 - 1642)

coffee4

The only thing guaranteed in life is deception. . . everything else is optional, except for death and taxes . . . George B
mclarek
User ID: 986233
Canada
06/01/2010 02:33 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Sorry, George, looks like you backed the wrong horse.


Civil cases are won based upon the preponderance of evidence . . . much of it only circumstantial and in many jurisdictions with only the majority of the jury not a unanimous decision. No chain of custody needed . . . good testimony, reasonable man theory . . . I will take my chances.
 Quoting: George B

Excellent, George. Sometimes cases are in development ... and frankly, seeing as clouds from planes have certain qualities when NOT skywriting or cropdusting ... qualities which are obvious if also the air conditions are relatively known -- but NEVER look like ordinary contrails more than a minute ...

You have a quite reasonable case even before the chemistry can be known.

I understand attempts from honest people to send samples are already done, but the samples were confiscated instead of returned -- and a form letter given.

Hi, George. {>:-)
mclarek
User ID: 986233
Canada
06/01/2010 02:40 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
 Quoting: George B

I meant in my last post: the samples were sent to gov't departments (environment related, I think), and possibly to military and to justice depts.

This was what the people said they'd done, in one of the movies claiming contrails were real, and that movie showed the letters to and from, and some pics of what they said they found in their own lab tests. They basically sent some of it for further testing and for gov't "acknowledgement".

It sometimes happens that one gov't department DOES its job, before another catches it. But increasingly, on key issues, the enfoldment of departments together means less independence of review on key issues submitted by citizens.

I only submit these comments here, to show that something has been tested and citizens have tried. I am not claiming we know yet for sure what was going on.

But if you were at a trial you could prove if it was reasonable, with all the other evidence, to consider the phenomenon likely or even true, even if one part is not fully known yet -- the final test of "stuff".

But some of these people will never believe it could be collected without prejudice and independently ...

Until the gov't (or media) says it was.
The Commentator

User ID: 587619
United States
06/01/2010 03:25 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Tell us, how many aircraft crash sites have you PERSONALLY inspected on a close, detailed manner?

How many crash investigation reports have you read?

My guess is the answer to both is "zero."

Dear person,

First, there is common sense. If that misleads, there are experts crying foul about this stuff and guiding ordinary citizens to see the problems.

With no jet fuel, threatening situations for witnesses (such as April, but there are others), impossible trajectory claims (the CIT team investigated 5 or 7 witnesses who were at the gas station and in the best position to know where the trajectory was: left, overhead, or right of a fixed point), and the pilots, who do know black box info have determined a flyover ...

plus the whole thing stinks to high heaven of fakery from what we know of the parallax problems in the vids from the WTC nonsense story, as well as the rest of the whole situation ...

plus Shanksville was a perfect plane "impression" like Wile E. Coyote into a wall, and supposedly flew upside down (yup, the gov't story got wilder and claimed it went down upside down), and then they added the mine shaft idea, but no efforts like at a mine were done ...

Really.
These are not speculations.

Do you need a plane to feel happy about 9/11? It was a sick show of mirrors. You know the hijackers weren't really hijackers, right? You do know that much, right? And other than the few who may have been under their real names, several were stolen Saudi identities.

So, if you don't need hijackers (other than patsies and fanatics and dupes in a drill), why the heck do you need to risk planes which could miss? There was no wish to damage the Pentalawn. No wish do risk harming the rest of the Pentagon. And at the WTC, if a plane had come in to hit the towers, it so easily could have missed, or damaged itself on them and flown out of control.

No, these planners only neded computer blips, some video fakery, a flyby or other confusing aircraft, and some garbage blown up in a bulldozed field in Shanksville.

And the show opened to applause -- the applause of your mind's horror.

And you and I fell for it for a long time. Since then, it's been mere assurances, tiny well-placed lies or obfuscation to keep you happy.
 Quoting: mclarek 986233



Or to make your screed quite a bit shorter, and quite a bit closer to the point, you have never seen a crash site, much less conducted a close personal inspection of one, nor have you ever read an aircraft accident report.

Tell us again why we should trust your unsupported claims?

Also, are you, by any chance a pilot?
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
06/01/2010 03:28 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
You? See MY points?


 Quoting: mclarek 986233



Depends on several factors, such as how old you are and how cold it is.
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
06/01/2010 03:34 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
I'd guess you base your belief in chemtrails on silly Youtube videos, and it wouldn't really be a 'guess' since you already cited some of them which contain obviously false information.

Since I am so very simple and an obvious easy mark, using obviously bogus evidence, why don't you take my challenge . . . no, no, don't say it . . . it is a waste of my time! You take time to respond to almost every post posted here . . . what is the difference?



Why don't you present some REAL evidence, George?

Why don't you present an analysis of a chemtrail and a contrail taken in situ?

Oh wait, no one has bothered to do that, have they?

Until you do, you are just ranting in the night.

Not a bad idea . . . is there a way to use laser technology to do some type of remote mass spectrometry? Sorry, I have to run . . . see you all later.



A remote analysis is not, BY DEFINITION, the analysis of a sample taken in situ.

Look, this is a scientific question, and will yeild to the scientific method.

It will not be settled by a majority vote.

So unless you have a chemical analysis of an in situ sample of an ordinary contrail and the same analysis of a sample of a chemtrail, and there is a proper chain of custody, you are just waving your arms and ranting.

So get the fucking samples, have the analysis done and settle the question once and for all.

But the chemheads won't do that, too much chance their favorite delusion will be shot down, and you wouldn't want that, now would you?

Most of the people who are concerned do not have the resources or knowledge to attempt such an effort. They have used the only tools at their disposal . . . testing residue left after what they feel were chemtrails, etc.



In other words you are saying they have essentially no evidence at all, much less properly obtained samples with a valid chain of custody and an analysis that is repeatable by any qualified analytical lab.

You have, in short, squat. No, that isn't quite right, you have the square root of squat.

Get the samples in situ, analyze them and publish the results. That is what a scientist would do. K00ks just rant and make claims they can't back up with evidence.

Sorry, George, looks like you backed the wrong horse.

Civil cases are won based upon the preponderance of evidence . . . much of it only circumstantial and in many jurisdictions with only the majority of the jury not a unanimous decision. No chain of custody needed . . . good testimony, reasonable man theory . . . I will take my chances.
 Quoting: George B



Since this is not a Court of Law the Rules of Civil procedure are not applicable. Your grasp of legal theory seems as flimsy as your grasp of the Scientific Method.

By your reasoning if enough people believe something that is wrong it suddenly becomes right.

Are you SURE you are not a zetatard? Perhaps Freaky in drag?

The simple reality is that anyone who was REALLY concerned with this issue could resolve it with a couple hours of flight time, and a reasonably good high school chem lab.

Guess the issue isn't important enough to resolve.
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
06/01/2010 03:35 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
I meant in my last post: the samples were sent to gov't departments (environment related, I think), and possibly to military and to justice depts.

This was what the people said they'd done, in one of the movies claiming contrails were real, and that movie showed the letters to and from, and some pics of what they said they found in their own lab tests. They basically sent some of it for further testing and for gov't "acknowledgement".

It sometimes happens that one gov't department DOES its job, before another catches it. But increasingly, on key issues, the enfoldment of departments together means less independence of review on key issues submitted by citizens.

I only submit these comments here, to show that something has been tested and citizens have tried. I am not claiming we know yet for sure what was going on.

But if you were at a trial you could prove if it was reasonable, with all the other evidence, to consider the phenomenon likely or even true, even if one part is not fully known yet -- the final test of "stuff".

But some of these people will never believe it could be collected without prejudice and independently ...

Until the gov't (or media) says it was.
 Quoting: mclarek 986233



Got something other than unsupported stories from moonbats like John Lear?

Didn't think so.
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: 986233
Canada
06/01/2010 04:20 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Or to make your screed quite a bit shorter, and quite a bit closer to the point, you have never seen a crash site, much less conducted a close personal inspection of one, nor have you ever read an aircraft accident report.

Tell us again why we should trust your unsupported claims?

Also, are you, by any chance a pilot?
 Quoting: The Commentator

Are you really as stupid as you sound? That is, can no-one present information by experts --? And also, can the only experts be people who are in a field specifically?

Duh.

I am presenting others' expertise AND reasonable arguments as a very familiar overviewer of the issues, some in detail and some in combination.

PLUS what a citizens' jury is, is an informed group of citizens: they become informed as they learn through the trial.

Thus, both as myself, an informed citizen who can represent the case, as well as acting as a presenter for others who are experts in each field -- some professionals, some buffs, and some citizen investigators who are expert in side issues (such as what, specifically, various witnesses said and how they add up to what has been found out about the planes and trajectories) by linking to their work, I am sufficient to present the case as an overview.

And I am well qualified to state, as a citizen juror who is far more familiar with the conflicting aspects of the case than you are, the case stands.
mclarek
User ID: 986233
Canada
06/01/2010 04:21 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
You? See MY points?



Depends on several factors, such as how old you are and how cold it is.
 Quoting: The Commentator

Half-deaf audience, you are.
mclarek
User ID: 986233
Canada
06/01/2010 04:26 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Got something other than unsupported stories from moonbats like John Lear?

Didn't think so.
 Quoting: The Commentator

Of course you didn't. You have no sense of reality: look at the past posts and you will find plenty. Did you check? Didn't think so.

I have also handled the issue of what YOU think of John Lear: he is one of America's most distinguished pilots, with some of the most flying hours, many different interests in flight craft, military and civilian, over many years, and experience at crash sites.

So, in that field he IS an expert.

Idiot, you being; Yoda not approve.
mclarek
User ID: 986233
Canada
06/01/2010 04:32 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Got something other than unsupported stories from [...] John Lear?
 Quoting: The Commentator

To give you more of a chance than your smarmee attitude deserves ...

You want physics science claims, SUPPORTED?

Check out the physics in the affidavit:

[link to wakeupfromyourslumber.com]
mclarek
User ID: 986233
Canada
06/01/2010 04:48 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Lear's credentials outlined in the affidavit (for short):

1. I am 65 years of age, a retired airline captain and former CIA pilot with over 19,000 hours of flight time, over 11,000 of which are in command of 3 or 4 engine jet transports, have flown over 100 different types
of aircraft in 60 different countries around the world. I retired in 2001 after 40 years of flying.

2. I am the son of Learjet inventor, Bill Lear, and hold more FAA airman certificates than any other FAA certificated airman. These include the Airline Transport Pilot certificate with 23 type ratings, Flight Instructor, Flight Engineer, Flight Navigator, Ground Instructor, Aircraft Dispatcher, Control Tower Operator and Parachute Rigger.

3. I flew secret missions for the CIA in Southeast Asia, Eastern Europe, the Middle East and Africa between 1967 and 1983.

4. During the last 17 years of my career I worked for several passenger and cargo airlines as Captain, Check Airman and Instructor. I was certificated by the FAA as a North Atlantic (MNPS) Check Airman. I have extensive experience as command pilot and instructor in the Boeing 707, Douglas DC-8 and Lockheed L-1011.

5. I checked out as Captain on a Boeing 707 in 1973 and Captain on the Lockheed L-1011 in 1985.

6. I hold 17 world records including Speed Around the World in a Lear Jet Model 24 set in 1966 and was presented the PATCO (Professional Air Traffic Controller's Association) award for Outstanding Airmanship in 1968. I am a Senior Vice-Commander of the China Post 1, the American
Legions Post for “Soldiers of Fortune”, a 24 year member of the Special Operations Association and member of Pilotfor911truth.org.

[link to wakeupfromyourslumber.com]

SO WAKE UP and read his affidavit.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 763624
Australia
06/01/2010 05:03 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Are you really as stupid as you sound?

Duh.

 Quoting: mclarek 986233


Talk about pot/kettle....

Quite frankly- I am totally amazed by clunk...

NEVER have I seen such an outpouring that manages to say so little, and that little bit incorrect to boot
All the while totally ignoring presented and supported facts with multipule backing references

What can I say- self delusion doesn't BEGIN to describe clunk...
The Commentator

User ID: 587619
United States
06/01/2010 05:07 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Or to make your screed quite a bit shorter, and quite a bit closer to the point, you have never seen a crash site, much less conducted a close personal inspection of one, nor have you ever read an aircraft accident report.

Tell us again why we should trust your unsupported claims?

Also, are you, by any chance a pilot?

Are you really as stupid as you sound? That is, can no-one present information by experts --? And also, can the only experts be people who are in a field specifically?

Duh.

I am presenting others' expertise AND reasonable arguments as a very familiar overviewer of the issues, some in detail and some in combination.

PLUS what a citizens' jury is, is an informed group of citizens: they become informed as they learn through the trial.

Thus, both as myself, an informed citizen who can represent the case, as well as acting as a presenter for others who are experts in each field -- some professionals, some buffs, and some citizen investigators who are expert in side issues (such as what, specifically, various witnesses said and how they add up to what has been found out about the planes and trajectories) by linking to their work, I am sufficient to present the case as an overview.

And I am well qualified to state, as a citizen juror who is far more familiar with the conflicting aspects of the case than you are, the case stands.
 Quoting: mclarek 986233



So lets sum up, shall we?

You have never personally inspected a crash site, never read a crash report, are not a pilot, and have not presented any reason why unsupported claims of your "sources" should be believed, some of these "sources" being notorious dingbats.

In short you would not know whether you were fed a load of codswallop and flapdoodle.

Are you, by any chance, and engineer?

It seems to me, a person who is both a pilot and an engineer, and as a person who has read hundreds of crash reports ("Always study the mistakes of other pilots," said my primary flight instructor, "You won't live long enough to make all of them yourself") and as a person who has had the dubious honor of picking through the wreckage of several crashes, that your qualifications exist entirely in your head and have absolutely no basis in reality.

Have I hit all the bases? Not by a long shot, clunker, not by a long shot.

You are a fun chew toy!
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!!!!!

News