Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 2,663 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 1,301,075
Pageviews Today: 2,037,097Threads Today: 601Posts Today: 13,543
06:40 PM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

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

 
Setheory
User ID: 869850
United States
06/09/2010 02:31 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Can't handle the challenges, eh.

DO YOU SERIOUSLY THINK YOU'RE DEBUNKERS IF WHEN SOME BIG QUESTION IS ASKED ABOUT YOUR TOPIC YOU DECLINE? LOL!

You have not shown any reason to distrust Nancy on this one -- or Hoagland for that matter. It is bouncing planets on the images. WHY?

So we got off topic? It was because of one of you maligning the big true conspiracies of history, and trying to malign me thereby. Off topic for a while? So what? You'll live.

First, you haven't handled the full Nancy questions.

Second, you haven't debunked the side topic.

As to the latter, you CAN'T. That's why.

As to the former, let's go! Seriously: I don't want PX to be true and if there's "adjustments" fakery going on in NASA images, WHY? Even if it isn't for PX! So why the bouncing planets. What does that make you think?
 Quoting: mclarek 986233


<laughing>

Why am I thinking of the old adage about giving someone enough rope?

Maybe take a break from YouTube for a while?....a course in logic or critical thinking maybe?
mclarek
User ID: 986233
Canada
06/09/2010 03:03 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
First, you haven't handled the full Nancy questions.



Yes, I did, many pages ago. In fact, so did you: you admitted Earth is not halted in orbit. Nancy's Cosmology falls apart UTTERLY at that admission -- particularly as another fundamental leg of Nancy's Cosmology is the absurd 'Zetas are correct 100 percent of the time.'

You showed, yourself, that they are not.

Zetatalk/Nancy debunked. You did it yourself.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 74444


I meant the images, 74444. But I could add to that the magnetosphere questions and the fact is some of you guys -- planet X or not (though it could have been the catalyst for you to get reading on the issues) -- never handled magnetic CHARGE on planets. And it was related to the find we now have REPULSION GAPS in our magnetic field, when the Sun is ATTRACTING US. This could only come from another MAGNET, no?

You argued that throws out Newton ... (which is already thrown out with field theory not only frim Einstein but even earlier it began with electromagnetism and Mawell).

But anyway, I wasn't talking of throwing out Newton at the time. I was talking of how we have to have charge: and if so, some of what our Gravity terms are naming in our algebra (from Newton and others since then) are actually naming Electromagnetism too. That some of the Earth's effects are BOTH together. And this would be seen if we had another (charged) planet near us.

So about throwing out Newton, it isn't true: it corrects him in two ways. First, and this is what I was referring to at the time, it posits some charge effect on the cores, as part of what we've been CALLING gravity (so instead of pure G we have IN OUR EQUATIONS g and e-m combining into G under some circumstances).

Second, it may in fact correct Newton more radically as Einstein's Unified Field math theory does: treat Gravity and E-M as both one force at root. But that wasn't even what I meant. We have to have a charge. We get electomagnetism from the Sun and have a metal core? Charge.

And Velikovsky mentions the former issue. Someone SAID FLIPPANTLY that V. was debunked, but no, his work is not. Specifics have been corrected, but not "debunked." Not at all. Not the total and the overall work. Nope.

So, no, the electromagnetics for PX and Earth are not covered either.

But even if PX isn't here/real, the points about e-m affecting us in our orientation IF a planet came near, yes, that only makes sense.

We have to have charge on our core.


As to the former, let's go! Seriously: I don't want PX to be true and if there's "adjustments" fakery going on in NASA images, WHY? Even if it isn't for PX! So why the bouncing planets. What does that make you think?


I do not know why planets are 'bouncing' in SOHO imagery. But, honestly, editing out a planet from an image of a probe that isn't DESIGNED to look at planets is quite a conclusion to leap to -- and given they could shut off the public link to SOHO stuff at will (it's far beyond it's life expectancy, I believe). Particularly as you can see the planets yourself during the night, and see that they are precisely where they belong -- another observation belying Nancy's claims.
 Quoting: AC 74444

Um -- no. Unless it's image compression or artifacts or something like that -- and this is not what we seem to have here -- here is NO REASON other than image manipulation for a planet to be missing (Saturn) and another to be moved over Venus.

Nada. They're doing something to the images. As to Nancy: if it is PX they're covering for, they're doing a good enough job because her debunkers can't understand this.
Astronut
Comet Hustler

User ID: 634208
United States
06/09/2010 03:09 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Um -- no. Unless it's image compression or artifacts or something like that -- and this is not what we seem to have here -- here is NO REASON other than image manipulation for a planet to be missing (Saturn) and another to be moved over Venus.
 Quoting: mclarek 986233

Neither of those things are happening.
astrobanner2
mclarek
User ID: 986233
Canada
06/09/2010 03:16 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
NOT debunked. Not possible TO debunk it: you can test it but it is a fact so it will show itself to you if you want to act it out (do the physical test for it).

I already tested it troll, the test proved you wrong. You're now attempting to move the goalpost, but NO ONE here is buying your crap. You refuse to admit you were wrong. The faraway object moved far more than the close vase. You don't need to duplicate the proportions from WTC to see this. That's it, end of story.
 Quoting: Astronut

Dear scientist:

The faraway object would move. But remember, you are ALSO far away from the towers taking the shot.

PROPORTIONS of distances.

If you are, say, over the empire state, or how about further out (more likely, from most of these zoom-out shots), the towers are not near enough to be near objects.

So, they are faraway objects, too, in a crop image (in-camera crop of frame done optically and called a zoom, to be more exact).

Now, both faraway objects will move slowly, yes? For it takes you longer to get around them from far out, yes? Think Saturn, Neptune looking at Mercury, Sun ... to get the point.

So --

EITHER ...

You are faraway. The tower low movement now makes sense AND THE BRIDGE SHOULD MOVE EVEN LESS! ... and makes no sense ...

OR ...

Or you are much closer to the scene and flying mostly laterally and the bridge is moving quite a lot -- because really it's the towers which are moving by, but you're tracking them so you notice the bridge. So in this case you do see the bridge moving a lot laterally (though it's really the towers but they're centred) ... But in this case, you are so much closer to the towers that they should show a massive amount of shift.

THINK DEAR.

So, it's either or. Either the towers are correct or the bridge is. And you will find that out if you do proportional studies in distance.

But it's nice you're making the attempt instead of quitting or saying you need the math to know (ha ha ha Commentator). Optics ARE fun, are they not?! Unless they're lying. :)
mclarek
User ID: 986233
Canada
06/09/2010 03:19 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Um -- no. Unless it's image compression or artifacts or something like that -- and this is not what we seem to have here -- here is NO REASON other than image manipulation for a planet to be missing (Saturn) and another to be moved over Venus.


Neither of those things are happening.
 Quoting: Astronut

Oh yes, that Venus is not in the same place in the image.

And Saturn was missing.

So ...

Unless fooled by people grabbing the images ... somethin's going on. Not ncessarily PX ... but something.

Hi, Astronut.

(By the way, it's a pet issue of mine, but just so you know, it's "neither IS happening", not "neither are ...".)

How are you?
Sheesh, I just got another sex spam in my Yahoo. It used to filter all that out. I wonder why it's not catching them lately. It's really getting annoying.

Anyhow ... :)
mclarek
User ID: 986233
Canada
06/09/2010 03:20 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
There were certainly people in the buildings. But they were not even close to capacity - too early for that. If the planes had hit a couple hours later, a different story entirely. I'm not offended though - there were a LOT of anomalies on that day! It's definitely challenging for anyone who tries to sort it all out.
 Quoting: ***ZetaMaX***

Good. Someone who doesn't get offended by truthseeking and facts.

Yes, early and a some were warned that very morning specifically (Isr. company Odigo, at LEAST). One man worked on stock trading software which he said was used in the trades before 9/11 and so he knows how they could pull off the extra trading. He said they didn't build the software to do that but only a few know how exactly it was done.

He said to Tarpley in a chat after a 9/11 Truth Conference and didn't happen to make it to the meeting because he had decided to quit anyway. (But he too could be lying, maybe.) Anyway, he lost his co-workers but not the man they did the software for: he decided the day before not to show up and have it as a teleconference from his HOME instead. Was THAT guy warned? And so on.

Were many people away -- those who weren't "inconvenient" to somebody?

Perhaps.

Companies may very well have warned many. Isr. itself may, too, b/c Odigo's warning was definitely specifically that morning.

So -- how many died in NYC (not counting from aftereffects, which is on-going and callous or deliberate)? Let's say it was 1300. That's about how many they claimed for DNA, or 1500.

Okay -- that's still 1500-2000 or so not accounted for in their own numbers.

FAKE IDS to boost numbers.

Possible? Damned straight: with all those problematic facs and memorials and names in coding?

:)
mclarek
User ID: 986233
Canada
06/09/2010 03:21 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Hi, Returner. Whenever you get this. Hope you're a bit better? Bruising can be WORSE feeling but it is at least a bit of healing ...

hf
mclarek
User ID: 986233
Canada
06/09/2010 03:27 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Now, I know Saturn and Venus are in their right real places,



Just curious... How do you 'know' that?
 Quoting: Menow 935048

I know ...
Compared to the other images.

Now if THEY're off, there's more of a problem because there's one on either side of the problem image ... from just before and just after. LOL!

Sarcasm follows:

So ... technically, I don't know they are. And technically I only know these middle ones are off COMPARED to the others. Maybe the one where Saturn is MISSING is correct, and the other two ADDED it? ????? ... Or Venus was in the WRONG position in the other two but the RIGHT one in the middle one? ????

Concialiatory comments follow:

Look at the source video with the claim before you ask please ... dear who loves furry hats. :)
Astronut
Comet Hustler

User ID: 634208
United States
06/09/2010 03:34 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Oh yes, that Venus is not in the same place in the image.

And Saturn was missing.
 Quoting: mclarek 986233

Link to the images?
(By the way, it's a pet issue of mine, but just so you know, it's "neither IS happening", not "neither are ...".)
 Quoting: clare

No one likes or cares about a grammar nazi. I'm tired, cut me some slack. Or don't. I don't care either way, actually.
astrobanner2
Astronut
Comet Hustler

User ID: 634208
United States
06/09/2010 03:40 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Dear scientist:

The faraway object would move. But remember, you are ALSO far away from the towers taking the shot.

PROPORTIONS of distances.
 Quoting: mclarek 986233

The damn server just ate my lengthy reply. Fuck it, the proportions are irrelevant, closer objects being tracked show less percent movement than far objects not being tracked, my video proved that. The distance from the chopper to the towers is not quantifiable with the evidence available and is irrelevant. Admit you were wrong.

Last Edited by Dr. Astro on 06/09/2010 03:41 PM
astrobanner2
Astronut
Comet Hustler

User ID: 634208
United States
06/09/2010 03:44 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
I know ...
Compared to the other images.
 Quoting: mclarek 986233

How do you know that any SOHO or STEREO images EVER show the planets in their correct locations? Seriously, how do YOU know that? Your position is always based on having to prove the "mainstream" position whether it's an incredible claim or not, so how have you "proved" that position?

Last Edited by Dr. Astro on 06/09/2010 03:45 PM
astrobanner2
Astronut
Comet Hustler

User ID: 634208
United States
06/09/2010 04:23 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
BTW, the server ate your post because Trinity was conducting
a capacity test for the chat on the server and had to shut down
the forum for a few minutes. Sorry about that.
 Quoting: DrPostman

It's ok, shit happens, I understand.

Last Edited by Dr. Astro on 06/09/2010 04:25 PM
astrobanner2
Menow
User ID: 935048
United States
06/09/2010 04:30 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Now, I know Saturn and Venus are in their right real places,



Just curious... How do you 'know' that?

I know ...
Compared to the other images.

Now if THEY're off, there's more of a problem because there's one on either side of the problem image ... from just before and just after. LOL!

Sarcasm follows:

So ... technically, I don't know they are. And technically I only know these middle ones are off COMPARED to the others. Maybe the one where Saturn is MISSING is correct, and the other two ADDED it? ????? ... Or Venus was in the WRONG position in the other two but the RIGHT one in the middle one? ????

Concialiatory comments follow:

Look at the source video with the claim before you ask please ... dear who loves furry hats. :)
 Quoting: mclarek 986233


The point is, YOU don't have the slightest idea what YOU are looking at or talking about in the images or the sky. You want US to jump through as many hoops as YOU can think to contrive, in order to try to prove to YOU that nothing is out of place in the sky OR the images, while YOU continue to bray: "But what about THIS image.. or THAT image.. or THIS conspiracy option?"

Ain't gonna happen, schweetheart. WE don't have to disprove every whacky notion you present about PX.
Menow
User ID: 935048
United States
06/09/2010 04:33 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
BTW, the server ate your post because Trinity was conducting
a capacity test for the chat on the server and had to shut down
the forum for a few minutes. Sorry about that.

It's ok, shit happens, I understand.
 Quoting: Astronut


I have learned, the hard way, to ALWAYS copy my replies to the clipboard before hitting 'post'.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 998107
United States
06/09/2010 04:34 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
So, if you really don't want PX to be true: spell out EXACTLY what evidence will it take to convince you that PX is not true (particularly given the difficulty in proving a negative)? Spell out your goalposts, *EXACTLY,* in *concrete,* and depending on how achievable those are, you might be able to find an answer.

PX, as Nancy describes it, is utterly impossible. PX, as others have described it, is quite improbable. But you need to detail what evidence would convince you that PX is flim-flam, or the conversation with you is pointless.

As, no doubt, several others will point out to me.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 74444


Let me be the first, 74444. You should ignore her too: Notice how Clunk COMPLETELY ignored THIS SPECIFIC PART OF THE POST!!!!!!

She's nothing but a troll.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 908953
Canada
06/09/2010 04:40 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Clunker is a troll, sent to take Luser and Max's place. I doubt she is even real, like those fake dead people from 911. The only way to deal with a person that almost nobody here even wants to engage and has been asked to start her own thread, yet she ignores that, is to ignore her. She is an attention whore troll. Plain and simple, and I am tired of scrolling past her spam to see if anything relevant to the topic of this thread has been posted. If we leave her alone and she continues spamming, maybe the bot will get her.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 969583
United States
06/09/2010 04:57 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
For instance, some people here have gotten stuck on one or another faked photo. And they forget we ALSO have Colaios with no mention (except one friend) before 2009 posted in memorial -- until back-dated ones come from 2009-2010.

 Quoting: mclarek 986233


I have proven your original statement about the Colaios was wrong.

I have proven they existed..

You continuing to whine about the same nonsense doesn't deserve a reply.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 969583
United States
06/09/2010 05:00 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
"Clare" is no doubt unattractive and unaccomplished and craves the attention of men however she can get it.

Note the exchange with Returner.
mclarek
User ID: 986233
Canada
06/09/2010 05:15 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Oh yes, that Venus is not in the same place in the image.

And Saturn was missing.

Link to the images?
 Quoting: Astronut


It was in the video posted by another here, though I'm sure it's also somewhere on Zetatalk or elsewhere. The video is "Nasa excuses" and you'll find it if you go back 2-3 pages.

And another person asking the same question, a page after. I guess no-one looks.

However: here it is:


 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 908953


So ... as I asked a few pages back, what but manipulation would give this ... "effect", since it is a fact, this comparative movement.

(By the way, it's a pet issue of mine, but just so you know, it's "neither IS happening", not "neither are ...".)

No one likes or cares about a grammar nazi. I'm tired, cut me some slack. Or don't. I don't care either way, actually.
 Quoting: Astronut

Of course I give you slack. I was merely mentioning it.

Now you owe me slack of manner and exactitude, but not of GIST (I understood your gist). :)

I DO send you the best wishes, and DO respect you. You and some others do NOT respect me. So ... !?!!

Anyway, do you see now why the towers vs. the bridge are mutually exclusive issues in this image, from the faraway shot and the distance of the bridge?

Here's a kissy: x
There. Hope you feel less there's Nazism from a FIGHTER of fascist lies.

I just like grammar. Now you know the point, anyway, if you didn't before. :) Grammar's a cool subject. :)
Menow
User ID: 935048
United States
06/09/2010 05:21 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
However: here it is:




 Quoting: mclarek 986233


You don't seem to GET that Nancy Lieder is a known chronic liar and fabricator of false and manipulated 'info' in order to prop up her pathetically failed story.
Menow
User ID: 935048
United States
06/09/2010 05:26 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!


 Quoting: mclarek 986233


You can simply LOOK at the sky and see that Saturn and Venus are right where they belong. I should say that MOST people can, excluding YOU. You just want to wallow in this minutia and pack of transparant lies and drag others into doing so with you.

Nancy's claims are simply ridiculous, but you are too uneducated to know that.
mclarek
User ID: 986233
Canada
06/09/2010 05:27 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
For instance, some people here have gotten stuck on one or another faked photo. And they forget we ALSO have Colaios with no mention (except one friend) before 2009 posted in memorial -- until back-dated ones come from 2009-2010.



I have proven your original statement about the Colaios was wrong.

I have proven they existed..

You continuing to whine about the same nonsense doesn't deserve a reply.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 969583

No you did not prove anything.

Thnk about it again:

BACK-DATED memorials, AND none but one each before that (Desiree from 2003)?

A family in 2004 could be planted people and story for the newspapers. Oh it's not so difficult to do, and given their non-memorials for 8 years AND the context their particular ids are in?

Their non-memorials for 8 years exist in a CONTEXT of other duplicate, triplicate faces with exact angles of features but different colouration effects and shadows, etc., but when you realy test: same photo, pasted faces.

(Aside: Colaios though, do not have duplicate faces. Their pics on the screen capture from 2009 were seemingly fine photos of two guys. But re. their photos' situation, it is again odd: they each had only one photo anywhere and not updated ... and now those too are removed from the new page which links to the back-dated memorials.)

What would normally prove existence does not always do so, such as a family claimant or a newspaper mention. When there is a context of implausible bios/memorials and photo fakery in the GROUP of people ... all anomalies must be handled with hypothesis changes: and tested each one. You are not a DA so you can't go to that level, but the Colaios are so improbable in their memorial situation that it's laughable and they probably are plants with a name of a street after them.

Others are equally likely to be unreal because of the photo fakery -- unless the family itself has not noticed, and the person was real.

But the fakery boosts numbers and plausibly it's to keep the mourning bigger and realer and more "justified" for war.
Astronut
Comet Hustler

User ID: 634208
United States
06/09/2010 05:30 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
It was in the video posted by another here, though I'm sure it's also somewhere on Zetatalk or elsewhere. The video is "Nasa excuses" and you'll find it if you go back 2-3 pages.
 Quoting: mclarek 986233

Can't view videos right now. If it's from STEREO and/or SOHO then the medium it should be presented as wouldn't be a video anyway, the extra compression degrades quality, just give me a link to the actual images you're talking about. They're all time/date organized so it's not even like it's hard to do. So again I find myself having to repeat myself. What is the link to the images?
However: here it is:
 Quoting: clare

I said link to the images, not link to a youtube video I can't see. If you can see the video and you found STEREO/SOHO images in it interesting then didn't you even bother to check the original source images? Guess that's expecting too much of a troll.
So ... as I asked a few pages back, what but manipulation would give this ... "effect", since it is a fact, this comparative movement.
 Quoting: clare

Since you won't link to the damn images I can't comment on it.
Anyway, do you see now why the towers vs. the bridge are mutually exclusive issues in this image, from the faraway shot and the distance of the bridge?
 Quoting: clare

Nope. You were wrong. You won't ever admit it though.
[link to video.godlikeproductions.com]

Last Edited by Dr. Astro on 06/09/2010 05:32 PM
astrobanner2
Setheory
User ID: 869850
United States
06/09/2010 05:52 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
I DO send you the best wishes, and DO respect you. You and some others do NOT respect me. So ... !?!!

Anyway, do you see now why the towers vs. the bridge are mutually exclusive issues in this image, from the faraway shot and the distance of the bridge?

Here's a kissy: x
There. Hope you feel less there's Nazism from a FIGHTER of fascist lies.

I just like grammar. Now you know the point, anyway, if you didn't before. :) Grammar's a cool subject. :)
 Quoting: mclarek 986233


<laughing>

Then work on your commas Clare. You sprinkle them atop your posts like nuts on ice cream.
mclarek
User ID: 986233
Canada
06/09/2010 05:55 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Dear scientist:

The faraway object would move. But remember, you are ALSO far away from the towers taking the shot.

PROPORTIONS of distances.
The damn server just ate my lengthy reply. Fuck it, the proportions are irrelevant, closer objects being tracked show less percent movement than far objects not being tracked, my video proved that. The distance from the chopper to the towers is not quantifiable with the evidence available and is irrelevant. Admit you were wrong.
 Quoting: Astronut

Nope, Astronut.

It is not irrelevant.

No matter where the chopper is, it can be deduced from the movement.


But what you'll find is you can deduce EITHER the tower movement's viewpoint OR deduce the bridge movement's viewpoint.

But you have to do a PROPORTIONAL DISTANCE test of the objects, to find the VIEWPOINT(S) and the movement(s). There are two sets of viewpoint and two movements. It's layers.

How so?

First set up proportionally distanced objects representing: two (towers), to see overlap, and a bridge at proper distance, and a building or two in front to test their overlap with the towers.

Next, derive derive the viewpoint for the movement seen in the foreground (tower-other NYC buildings).

If we test usig proportional distances of objects, ONLY, we can find that viewpoint.

And then test for the bridge.

Or you could test for the bridge movement relative to PROPORTIONALLY PLACED towers to find: the bridge viewpoint.

Once your viewpoints are derived by amount of movement, compare. What you will find is: the two don't match each other.

Why?

The viewpoint has to be far away, if the tower (near-non) movement is correct. Whereas, the viewpoint has to be nearer (or a massive distance travelled) if the bridge movement is correct.

This is knowable only if you place objects in real proportional distance. Just any objects at any distance won't do to derive viewpoint.

Once the viewpoint(s) on the proportionally placed objects are separately derived, compare. Each is on a layer of view.

Thus each was a separate (flat) layer of render.

Do the experiment.

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

Or you could think about it only. What would happen if little movement in foreground and lots in background?

So: if we are far away: the tower and other building movements are our reference. (We could figure out where our viewpoint is from the towers and oher buildings.) They are our movement reference then. To get such movement in the proportinally even much farther-away bridge would also require large distance travelled -- and you'd see more change in the towers and other buildings.

Just as if you are nearer.

So: if we are nearer (as if we travelled a long way from afar and zoomed in): the bridge movement is our reference for viewpoint. But then the towers and other buildings show not enough change.

This is why proportional distance is important: you would see one set of movements overall for any one condition (derived from viewpoint on one item) and another movement correct for the any other viewpoint derived.


(The bridge is also not correct in these images for its size, for lens distortion would distort all comparable points from the centre, not just thet bridge area.)

There was sloppy fakery -- but to prove it you have to think very patiently and hypothetically: realize what EACH aspect requires if separated -- even if they turn out to be fine, you have to parse the image and ask about all its aspects.

I have done so.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 908953
Canada
06/09/2010 05:59 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Dear scientist:

The faraway object would move. But remember, you are ALSO far away from the towers taking the shot.

PROPORTIONS of distances.
The damn server just ate my lengthy reply. Fuck it, the proportions are irrelevant, closer objects being tracked show less percent movement than far objects not being tracked, my video proved that. The distance from the chopper to the towers is not quantifiable with the evidence available and is irrelevant. Admit you were wrong.

Nope, Astronut.

It is not irrelevant.

No matter where the chopper is, it can be deduced from the movement.


But what you'll find is you can deduce EITHER the tower movement's viewpoint OR deduce the bridge movement's viewpoint.

But you have to do a PROPORTIONAL DISTANCE test of the objects, to find the VIEWPOINT(S) and the movement(s). There are two sets of viewpoint and two movements. It's layers.

How so?

First set up proportionally distanced objects representing: two (towers), to see overlap, and a bridge at proper distance, and a building or two in front to test their overlap with the towers.

Next, derive derive the viewpoint for the movement seen in the foreground (tower-other NYC buildings).

If we test usig proportional distances of objects, ONLY, we can find that viewpoint.

And then test for the bridge.

Or you could test for the bridge movement relative to PROPORTIONALLY PLACED towers to find: the bridge viewpoint.

Once your viewpoints are derived by amount of movement, compare. What you will find is: the two don't match each other.

Why?

The viewpoint has to be far away, if the tower (near-non) movement is correct. Whereas, the viewpoint has to be nearer (or a massive distance travelled) if the bridge movement is correct.

This is knowable only if you place objects in real proportional distance. Just any objects at any distance won't do to derive viewpoint.

Once the viewpoint(s) on the proportionally placed objects are separately derived, compare. Each is on a layer of view.

Thus each was a separate (flat) layer of render.

Do the experiment.

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

Or you could think about it only. What would happen if little movement in foreground and lots in background?

So: if we are far away: the tower and other building movements are our reference. (We could figure out where our viewpoint is from the towers and oher buildings.) They are our movement reference then. To get such movement in the proportinally even much farther-away bridge would also require large distance travelled -- and you'd see more change in the towers and other buildings.

Just as if you are nearer.

So: if we are nearer (as if we travelled a long way from afar and zoomed in): the bridge movement is our reference for viewpoint. But then the towers and other buildings show not enough change.

This is why proportional distance is important: you would see one set of movements overall for any one condition (derived from viewpoint on one item) and another movement correct for the any other viewpoint derived.


(The bridge is also not correct in these images for its size, for lens distortion would distort all comparable points from the centre, not just thet bridge area.)

There was sloppy fakery -- but to prove it you have to think very patiently and hypothetically: realize what EACH aspect requires if separated -- even if they turn out to be fine, you have to parse the image and ask about all its aspects.

I have done so.
 Quoting: mclarek 986233

offtopic
mclarek
User ID: 986233
Canada
06/09/2010 06:02 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Look at the source video with the claim before you ask please ... dear who loves furry hats. :)


The point is, YOU don't have the slightest idea what YOU are looking at or talking about in the images or the sky.
 Quoting: Menow 935048

You haven't handled the anomalies.
The positions are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE for each planet.

Try again.

Why Saturn -no Saturn- Saturn?
And why Venus -Venus in to the right- Venus?

Inconsistent motions.

It's not MY hoops; it's your own claim to know stuff. What made the anomalies?

If you don't want to watch the video first, and justify that as getting back at me, it's still sloppy of you.

But even if you're uncharitable, now that I've RE-POSTED it -- when you watch, I'm not the issue and handle the ISSUE of the NASA claims here.

They are incompatible planets. Your self-wanking is reprehensible. What caused this in the images?
mclarek
User ID: 986233
Canada
06/09/2010 06:09 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
offtopic
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 908953


Your point stands for all of them then, including Astronut, who was intrigued enough to try to fix it and can't but thinks he can. Why not "pick on" him?

I know why: you think I brought up the topics. Well, I didn't, if you recall. I replied to a slanderous and inaccurate post --

it was quite appropriate of me to reply to my accuser who first slipped a lot of truths together as a premise they were weird because some people say they're weird, and second suggested I believed them. Thus, from their first false premise, they had thus achieved a false argument that I was crazy IF I "beieved" them.

Further, they mixed apples and oranges in the false premise, of some things which are not clear if they're true, and others, like the fakery, which are empirically and rationally true, even if you don't LIKE the reason and call it "irrational".

This is all.

:P

:)
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 908953
Canada
06/09/2010 06:12 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Take it to another thread Clare. Anyone who wants to follow you will. Or maybe you know that the only way you can get attention is by trolling an unrelated thread and pissing people off. Maybe you're afraid that you'll throw a party and nobody will show up.
Menow
User ID: 935048
United States
06/09/2010 06:19 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Nope, Astronut.

It is not irrelevant.

No matter where the chopper is, it can be deduced from the movement.


But what you'll find is you can deduce EITHER the tower movement's viewpoint OR deduce the bridge movement's viewpoint.

But you have to do a PROPORTIONAL DISTANCE test of the objects, to find the VIEWPOINT(S) and the movement(s). There are two sets of viewpoint and two movements. It's layers.

How so?

First set up proportionally distanced objects representing: two (towers), to see overlap, and a bridge at proper distance, and a building or two in front to test their overlap with the towers.

Next, derive derive the viewpoint for the movement seen in the foreground (tower-other NYC buildings).

If we test usig proportional distances of objects, ONLY, we can find that viewpoint.

And then test for the bridge.
 Quoting: mclarek 986233



Sorry, Astronut...

Then why don't YOU fucking ****do**** that, Clare!?!?!