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

Oh.

I didn't realize but thanks.

I didn't have time to look through the links.

Look, how many times do I have to say I work backwards from the last post, try to work back wherever my name's brought up or a question's asked ... and by the time I get a certain way I'm out of time.

I don't recall your saying: "Here it is, the software!
You'll need it to have the thing work."

If you had, I'd have noticed it.

I have not been focussed only on that. ;-)

Thank you anyway and stop throwing around the word troll.

:-/

Typo, idiot. Ad hominem fallacy AND straw man: for one can not know how to spell it and still know what they do ---

And yes, I have a friend who follows USGS the last few years. And I have seen many eqs lately and often they are downgraded. They bumped Chile up after downgrading it at first.

European and other seismographers have complained about the USGS's downgrading so often ... so there.

Now these are interesting. If they're untampered they're excellent to refute PX on SOHO.

Good!

Why didn't Bad Astronomy use these instead of the one from 2005 and when I asked for one from before 2003 they erased my question?! Idiots.

Bullshit.

I proved Sept. Clues took a screen shot and there were no mentions last year but for one each, from the same friend.

I also have experience looking at their work over the past few years and -- whatever you think of their conclusions, they are not planters of evidence or makers up of evidence. But intelligence agents ARE.

So these guys got a street (being victims and all) and a newspaper article. All planted? Or were the real Colaios being denied access to their own memorial site?

No, you are too dense to see it.

All you can posit are lies and equations from other people who might be part of a large debate, but you wouldn't know that 'cause you just follow your schooling exactly and all others are liers. Stooopid, as I've always said you are being.

If you give up your posture of superiority, you might learn something -- and try out things and get them wrong or right but really learn, Mr. Smarta--.

I am now going back through the thread.



You go on and on in this post misinterpreting me. I SAID you'd see star changes: I mean you'd see A LOT OF CHANGES if we were stopped.

But I never believed, not from the get-go THAT WE ARE STOPPED, which is part of her claim. I said long ago to the pendulum people and others who asked what I thought of those aspects -- so important to Nancy -- that I don't think we're stopped at all.





I meant if the Zetas were doing stuff to change it all, all of it, even starlight, we would not know. Again, I have always stated that I know that normally, if we set the God/Zeta hypothesis aside, we would see many changes.





No. I never said the lattermost. I do however say that if the damned thing is here, and if the cover-up were strong for the early years, we just might have a nasty surprize. But it would mean lots of cover-up.

Though that's possible, it's unlikely. It's easier to run operations like 9/11 which require A FEW people in each area to cover up stuff. Though, I suppose, they could give false data to mny astronomers for some of the stuff.

But if planets were wildly off -- and again, setting the "bent planet and starlight by Zetas" aside -- yes, too many people would see it anyway.

Done, are we, on this idea that I believe the impossible/untestable aspects of Nancy's claims?

I still can't find the software link you say is there.

Here are the two posts I see with links in them ---

1. These are the .mil images




2. These are the SOHO image .jpgs





That's all I see you posted with links. -- I think.

I'm NOT trolling, as you should know. I'm trying to find this software link you mention.

It never ceases to amaze me how quickly people on GLP so quickly turn to personal attacks and insults to make a point. Is everyone hyperactive and needs ritalin? Clare you have taken some real nasty remarks and you have been generally nice in return . . . speaks well for your character.

Clare is IDW in disguise.

Remember when I said that people around Clare must likely want to 'bitch-slap' her into next week on a regular basis?

Yeah... this is what I was imagining!

Maybe this is one of the posts I was "supposed" to reply to and didn't. I dunno. Someone -- maybe you -- was earlier today saying I idn't reply to most. I think it was Catseye or you. Anyway ... I have been going way back and found this.





Silly. There don't have to be 5 or there could be 15. The main one is electromagnetism in our system acting as PART of the dynamics. I have outlined this before.

See my post from yesterday or the day before about Velikovsky and Einstein, or earlier today to Astronut (I think) about what our schools teach us and what instead has been long discussed but doesn't fit the main Newtonian assumptions -- though it's made to fit the equations.



Yes. I said so when I first came on to this thread, several times.

I raised the question of philosophical doubt regarding untestable items, such as a God-hypothesis equivalent role for putative Zetas; if something spiritual (semi-material or interdimensional) were affecting ALL the testable factors, then no, we would not know and still our tests would look okay. :)

I don't beleve it, but, as with a God hypothesis, I do recognize we couldn't know such a thing.




What questions? Do you people realize how much time I spend answering you (which resultant posts you complain about), yet if I miss one you lump on me?

Christ.

I guess your questions are even further back on the post. I came across this post from you (the one to which I am now replying) only because I was still replying to Astronut and was trying to make sure I saw all of his. I hope he AND you and other detractors of my attempts to find everybody's offerings, will realize this and now stop implying I am obfuscating.

Jesus.



I have not seen your post yet.

As to the solar wind: it IS electromagnetic as well as plasma.

Plasma FORMS under pressures from charge.



Hold your horses. You assumed. What question? One in another post, I presume. If I get through with Astronuts' posts, I'll go looking for yours.



I never said we WOULDN'T but I did wonder -- not being sure -- if we would see it if it were directly near or in front of the Sun, if it were hidden in a dust cloud that our AMATEUR telescopes -- good as they are -- might not distinguish it from solar effects near the Sun. Just wondering. Not being stupid; just don't know.



Yes, not yet anyway. I meant near or during a pole shift situation. Speaking hypothetically.




First: I meant cloaked in glowing dust.

Second: ONLY as untestable hypotheses go ... would I ever say I could hold that fairies do anything. It is not a scientific belief -- not because science knows all -- because of method inapplicability. Thus: If they exist, they are not testable, to my knowledge. If they become so, then we can all change our minds.

:)



Already addressed above. Haven't seen it.



On Planet X?

Well, to see it in amateur telescopes which are not even potentially controlled or influenced by commands such as "top secret" or bribery or what have you.

Or to begin to feel effects -- such precursors may be our many sinkholes, multiple water main breaks in odd places and in shifting areas, large surface earthquakes (Chile, China, now India, etc.), odd wave size effects, magnetosphere weirdness, and so on -- all of which we have, but ... if we are to begin to link them to Planet X, would we not also see the thing? This keeps me guessing. But as I said, IF it is so bright it's hard to tell on amateur scopes until too late, AND there's a top-end conspiracy as well as complicit greed and buy-out conspiracy in various observatories ... then MAYBE these things are linked and we'd better not wait in total surety it's not there.

But I hope it's not something that's hard to see, making these effects geological movement induced from a Planet X's electromagnetism, gravity, and whatever else the universe is made of. :)

I would also say, 74444, that I don't like the POSSIBILITY that some people may have known or followed these developments and died for it -- I emphasize possibility; I claim no absolute on the following:

-some of the observatory deaths (the largest ski-lift accident in the French Alps -- of 5 top astronomers, who were supposedly interested in PX - an accident which was considered suspicious and then treated only as "manslaughter" negligence)

-and the return and incarceration of astronaut who was, some years ago, the first woman from France to go into space (she supposedly took pills but her husband and friends said she was just fine and they didn't think she'd do it, and her lab went up in flames within hours in such a bad blast that the local police said it was one of the worst fires they'd had to deal with, and one article -- not from a totally unreliable or totally reliable source, but even so, why would it be she would suggest this? -- said the woman screamed "Earth must be warned!" as she got off the shuttle and in the halls of her work, after being on the space station).

I simply want to say it would make sense that these could be related, IF PX were here/real/approaching that these might fit -- or even if PX were here, these might not be related.

We also have the testimony of a man who supported the scientists who go down to the Antarctic telescope; his business is in New Zealand and he caters for the flights. He said they were always NON-STOP and refuelled in the air and seemed in a great hurry.

We also have the resentment reports of others in Antarctica who have said how they are really miffed at how secretive and self-contained the telescope bunch are, no matter who comes to work there. They have resentfully mentioned this on several occasions.

(I don't THINK I have that reference anymore. I browsed through much material a few months back. It was, at that time, merely for my own growth and clarity that I looked at it.)



:)

Last chance saloon, eh?

LOL!

I have answered in pieces over many posts all these kinds of issues. However, I hope I laid it out here. I think I now have answered your main question? I will not go back to search for whatever previous post you made, since by the end of this post of yours, I think you did ask your question.

Yes?

No. It's not irrelevant. First, the movement of the bridge itself to the farthest horizon, is minimal. Itself, it does not move quickly in our viewpoint, so it is LIKE a vanishing point and the towers are really the line of movement to the right. But we keep focussing our camera on the towers so we see the bridge move in the FRAME.

For every movement the towers make to the right as we move left, the bridge moves in our frame which tracks the towers.

The towers are really moving.

Now that means the objects IN FRONT of them should move even more than the towers do. Some of their movement will be taken up with the towers as well, but they will OUTSTRIP the towers eventually, in our view if we consider the bridge our vanishing point, not the towers. We are tracking the towers, so it's a bit changed in how we psychologically perceive those buildings, but there will be buildings inching to the right.

So, we should do a proper demo, if you like. I haven't the equipment currently.

All viewpoints can be assessed: test the bridge as a stationary (near stationary) item and how much the towers move. It will give you the viewpoint the camera is supposedly at relative to the bridge's movement (really the towers' lateral shift to the right).

Then test the towers only, and get the proper movement THEY show. It will give you the viewpoint the camera is supposedly at relative to the towers' change.

We have not moved forward much so that is probably not necessary to account for.

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

Or you could just go to 3:12 to 3:30 and see almost no movement in the towers or forward buildings relative to them, while supposedly they have shifted to the right enough to "make the bridge move" in the tracked frame.

There is a black "building" coming from the left at bottom. Is seems to b okay.

But if you ignore that, you do see a tiny shift in the tall spire one to the right of the left edge. It moves a tiny distance away from the building on the left edge.

Compare that with the bridge movement IN CORRECT PROPORTION.

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

Also see if the bridge could ever look so big as it does in some of the clips. Remember, focal distortion would distort EVERYTHING, not just the bridge.

Let me know.
Or don't do it.

But those would be the conclusive tests, without the math equations ...

Or you could eyeball what would happen, with approximate distances. FRONT buildings, towers, bridge (as near vanishing point).

Your emoticon is titled "slaphim". I could see someone wanting to do that to some o' youz.

Regarding the parallax vs. bridge -- which as you know and said somewhere, is really pretty well stationary:

Yes, we see parallax shift in the foreground.

IS IT APPROPRIATE TO THE VANISHING POINT (bridge) is one question: does it shift away from the bridge (look like bridge is moving away) too much ... for the viewpoint we are at?

And how do we know the viewpoint we are at? By the towers and front objects shifting in front of EACH OTHER.

We must compare the two issues and see if they are each right FOR THE OTHER.



Sorry. I was meaning to say, image loss, image rewrite.

But ... if it was mere image rewrite, why was it AT VENUS ,

and hey, WHERE DID THE LEFT-HAND INFO COME FROM and if it came from the rewrite ...

Wait for it ...

WHY WAS THE REWRITE NOT ONLY ENDING AT VENUS BUT DIFFERENT ABOVE IT AND BELOW IT ... and ...

Not affect Venus either as it rewrote each half of the sky?

Still fishy funny, therefore.


What part of sky would simply write over that way? Or rather, two parts of sky and a planet from somewhere without distortion!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!




Ooooo. He used the "lier" word again -- wrongly. What are you, 4-5 years old? Everyone's a lier if you don't like what they thought?

Liers mean to tell a fib. MISUNDERSTANDINGS are not lies.

Now, if I misunderstood you, fine, sorry. You do it ALL the time to me, with a very nasty streak coming from you.

I am glad you thought she DID show the corruption line, and I knew it was there and I think she knew most of her viewers would -- honestly, I do think that. I know some of you think she "lies" but I have looked back and I think she believes (or did at the time) that she was right about many anomalies which are quite ordinary glitches, or thought things might be PX when they were glitches and background noise.

But ... she had those images up in the Website all along and it shows clearly there. I think she's not trying to lie, but rather to suggest that the planet MOVED and someone moved it there.

And reprocessing (corruption from that) moved it there in your view. And maybe it did. But she doesn't know that and I didn't think so -- but whenever I get to the .mil stuff instead of replying to everything, I will have a look. 'Kay?




Jeesus. I am BUSY REPLYING to mostly inane nonsense here and having to repeat things.

So I am not "failing - again" and I am not "deliberately dense". That's like "Nancy just lies" or whatever.

What kind of inner tolerance and kind patience do you have?!

Anyway. I am glad for you, that you are showing you will see if it works for me.

However, I re-posted your two posts and they were all image links and no software.

Did I miss that link. I am CLEARLY trying to see the .mil stuff.

Don't impugn me again please. It's getting really annoying even if you were genuine in doing it. I have re-posted the 2 e-mails you said had it in them, and I don't see a link for it. Please re-post the link?

Thank you.

That's all I ask in this regard.

Cheers.
Good night.

To 74444:

Re: Plasma:

when I said:




I meant that filaments form in plasma when a plasma is compressed by very strong magnetic fields ...

And also that plasmas have high electrical potential: they seem to be a potential electricity locale, in a sense, though still in a form of what was matter in a more ordinary sense. This is what the physcists and electricity experimeters I was reading seem to be saying in gist.

So the solar wind is a high charged plasma ... inside a magnetic system with planets in it.

The carrying of electrical charge to the planets is done through the plasma.

The magnetosphere resists the solar wind itself, but the plasma particles flow upon us and are superconductors. (They flow particularly when we are attracted by the Sun, but at all times too. They would make their way as a re-charge of our Earth core, leading again to a strengthened magnetosphere.)

I am assuming you do now know of NASA's consternation at finding "holes" of repulsion in our magnetosphere at the wrong time of year which allowed even more plasma to come in than usual from the Sun. We get repulsion, and we get more attraction and plasma, but not at the same time of year.

Finally, with all the talk of Sun wildness from NASA about 2012, I do wonder if the repulsion holes might be why the "Solar effects will be so much worse than usual" for 2012 according to NASA, not really just CMEs?

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

There is much to this electricity stuff. I am learning details myself. But it is interesting!

Anyway, whatever comes of it all: someone should perform the Cavendish experiment in a Faraday cage, as Velikovsky and -- ultimately -- Einstein wanted.

:)

In subsequent posts I said Bangladesh. I remembered the "B" from Bangkok.

Just correcting for the record. :)

Ah ha!

Found it.

As I said, the only reason I saw your other post was that Astronuts' stuff on the SOHO images was absorbing me and I went back to find his earliest posts on the subject.

By the way, I have to tell you -- that day you wrote the following (to which I will now reply) I spent a lot of the time I had on line looking into the SOHO stuff and composed that long take on the SOHO weirdness (I still think the features on this one are weird, even if they came about innocently).

I barely looked back on the posts and looked more at the SOHO questions/comments and STILL missed some of Astronut's stuff on it.

So you happened to post in the middle of my composing the SOHO comments -- the long post all about what I identified (even if it's innocent). And after that, I never got back far enough to see this post of yours.

I hope that's understood by you.

By the way, the reason I originally said it's nice to talk to you was that at the time you were civil and asked questions and seemed to want to converse, rather than spout off nastiness or half-baked comments and call it a scientific inquiry ... or fair to the person (in this case, me) who was trying to express things and discuss, even if wrong, or if right.



Supposedly NASA found large gaps, but they are of a type, they said, which are normal at certain times of the year. Think of it: they ARE AT THE MAGNETIC POLES.

The repulsion is -- as it should be -- at the poles. This is why YOU see no change if you are navigating.

All it is is a change of alignment of polarity EFFECT> Our north is somehow being repelled by another NORTH at a time when the Sun is presenting a SOUTH, or vice versa.

That means a 2nd magnet would be nearby -- unless it's a totally different reason, but then why the baffled almost upset scientists: the reason is, they know what magnets do. What, other than another magnet, would do that?

By the way, why do you have a large ship's magnetic compass near you? Are you a collector of all things, or of things naval, or are you on a ship?



Well, yes and no. I mean, if there are merely things we didn't think were connected but are happening, they could be unthought-of connections for the mental jump, and the magnetosphere effect could be the one anomaly we now know of -- the needle filament in the plasma haystack, so to speak. :)

And if it's here, it's here -- and if not, it's not. There is an existential side to this problem, whatever our leaps intellectually are or not. I mean, I can KNOW of an army over a hill or not; or I can have one, two, or many signals (and listen to them or not); but it is still over the hill if it's over the hill.

I'm not saying PX is here. But these are the hypothesis ramifications and alternatives (logical combinations) of the statement you made.

But if you mean as a mere notional jump, yes. To say the moon is made of green cheese just because you thought of a moon with green cheese does not make it so or even -- unless you wish simply to test the notion -- a likely worthwhile endeavour.

However ... :) People have discovered things on a whim that was refined and tested.




Done in the other post -- the things which might prove it.
I guess, though, I still haven't found your original post.

Oops. ;)

But in terms of proving it's NOT there ... I suppose if the images aren't being doctored at all -- or likely not (and I'm still not convinced of that) -- and the earthquakes die down and the magnetosphere holes have a better explanation and the warnings of CMEs go away (for they could be real, or wrong, or a cover story), Obama makes incoming bollides no longer top secret and someone actually debunks the Vatican image story -- for that is interesting to me, as the headers on the images were weirdly accurate to a Vatican service yet we had no knowledge of that service until it was checked out BECAUSE of the image headers ... sort of too much information for a fake when nobody knows better anyway ...

Stuff like that.

But I am not comforted by the fact that NASA announced "unprecedented" asteroids FROM THE SAME DIRECTION into the Sun a few months back. That could also be dust from PX tail. And if not, what the heck did that?! Just interesting.

Some things have multiple possibilities, therefore being multiple co-incidences, but ... it's getting pretty weird feeling in the accumulation ---- especially those magnetosphere repulsions ... IN CONTEXT of a PX possibility. If there were no PX idea, one might have to posit one!

Or just wait, curious, for some totally new solar magnetic phenomenon effect to be announced. But that DOESN'T FIT an okey-dokey all's normal worldview. I mean, if it IS a yearly phenomenon, or some weird cycle, then fine. But it doesn't seem to be ... from the scientists' astonishment AND from what we know (or think we know) of electromagnetism in general.



I would also like to see through one of those fancy amateur solar telescopes 4 times, once every 3 months, to see if PX is visible from any quarter of the Earth's orbit of the Sun.

-- But probably, like Kepler, I will never get to actually see through one. (I am stretching things, since Kepler did get to see through telescopes, but not the nice one he wanted to: Galileo refused to let Kepler use his better telescope).



Anyway, I don't really think PX is there, because I ASSUME it would be visible in one of those telescopes at SOME point in the year. But then again ... if it is so dusty and is not visible to our amateur scopes, for some reason, or if we ARE stopped by semi-supernatural forces (Zetas which can do weird things to fool us, or something!!), I suppose I won't know until it's too close to prepare.

I am thinking of preparing for near-hell anyway, because of NASA's warnings and the general economic and military fascism building, and so on.

But PX does rather fascinate me. Because I know the past seems to have had such effects -- perhaps from other causes but maybe from a PX.

The final test for me, of course, is seeing it and -- probably -- dying.

Yes.

To Skinny Puppy, DrPostman (if involved) and George B:



Yah, thanks. Now supposedly there's a warning about "question campaigns".

I don't know what they meant but anyway, because others wanted to slam me I replied for days.

Now we're on PX again (and related issues) but occasionally the other topics get referred to by someone who is still insisting they are normal hypothetical thinkers when they clearly can't adjust their hypothesis to fit the circumstances: intelligence ops make things un-normal. :)

This is true, too, if PX is here. There would be all kinds of cover-up.

Lastly, I have had to reply in long posts today, so probably whoever Skinny Puppy is was called in by DrPostman.

The irony! Because these posts were mostly on PX stuff: SOHO imagery and Electromagnetism in the Earth as CHARGE on the Earth, as it might be affected if a PX were here.

People asked me massively detailed Q&A style posts in the last day (Astronut and others) and from 2 days ago (74444) -- and were slamming me for not getting back to them -- Astronut AND 74444 and others.

What irony!

Oh well. I tried to get onto PX again a long time ago.

But others were so upset at what I said when I defended myself against a stupid slander of several major events that were conspiracies ... that it took days.

We are now on PX-related topics again -- except for the odd segue of return of the other topics. So do consider that, please. TY

She's not the brightest spark around is she???

(A senior mod doesn't need to call in an unregistered user to issue warnings clunk....)
Shows how observant she really is LOL

I don't know mods and seniors and stuff. I thought DrPostman was a mod. He is, then! But how do you tell if someone's registered?

I don't know this site inside out. I've only known of it for 4 months. :)

Hi. Um let's get real: my name-calling was BACK and pretty moderate, tyvm.

And I always retracted for decency wherever possible.

I didn't sit there and insult and bait. I replied with force but not nastiness of intent --- a bit of normal fatigue or impatience or nasty back. This is normal and flexibly honest, not what was being done to me.


As to all my claims -- they are what I've run into -- but sometimes I mis-read, of course. I do try to correct if I'm wrong for sure, of course.

As to the claim about the astronomers:
You are right. I found the article and it says it was staff. THANKS! Good-o. (Not that they died. For THEY did -- !)

Here's the link.

[link to www.independent.co.uk]

Good night/ good day all.

:)

xo ;)

This stuff, Astronut, is picky but looks true.

I was expressing myself in shorthand and though you're right to question what I meant, I do not "fail" or whatever when conversing and getting an idea out incompletely enough that it seems contradictory.

Also, astronomers DIDN'T USED TO SAY things hit us and caused global disaster. They have begun to -- but it took a lot of pressure from geologists and THOSE were not okay with the idea either .. etc.

There is a history to this suppression of global catastrophes (at one point taking a partly justified, partly unjustifed anti-Bible bent ... but they "threw the Mammoths out with the Floodwater", as I once titled an University essay).

Clare does type the way she talks. She talks a lot and constantly, unable to shut up for a moment. Unable to talk about one issue but changing the issues constantly. And so there's more talk by mclarek, never ending, unless Planet X shows up and kills her. So there will be neverending talk by mclarek unless there's another way to kill the troll.



Yes there is a difference, but you can't make a point in your overall analysis if your analysis isn't based on exactitude in details. When your details that you use as presumptions, are wrong, your whole analysis is wrong.



And how do you know, Clare, that the info wasn't brought into the site used by your dear & trustworthy ”sources” from elsewhere, for instance another website? You've got one screenshot by September Clues website, but you have no proof of that info not having existed anywhere before.

September Clues is using CNN website as ”the original source of the death reports” (in their Vicsim Report), which is false. CNN is in no way the original firsthand source. September Clues is making similar mistakes all the way and that's how they can represent all their lies as ”fact”. You believing their lies or misrepresentations is not research or proper analysis. You are simply wrong.



That September Clues is faking should be obvious for anyone with brain. Clare doesn't even consider that possibility. I suspect that no amount of evidence will change that firm belief in their trustworthiness.

The Twin Towers the Orange and September Clues:
[link to video.google.com]

Using secondary sources is not acceptable scientific research.



Not only does September Clues use secondary sources but they twist them too to maintain their sad hoax.

In the end of the Vicsim Report (PDF-file 4,67 MB [link to www.septemberclues.info] ) researcher by the name of Hoi Polloi says that: ”There are absolutely no assurances I can give you that I am a real person anymore – none, especially, that couldn’t be exploited by the simulation operators to come up with creative solutions to their numerous and deserved tribulations. As such, I give you 1 lie and 3 facts, in no particular order and leave you to sort it out: I have a BFA in comic book art from the Minneapolis College of Art and Design, a school which causes students to go into debt up to their eye-balls. The art world is being cajoled and abused by bad artists and corporations. I am nothing but a robotic automaton funded by MIT and the Merry Christmas Institute to defend against the discovery of alien beings who eat children on Halloween night. My name is Maxeem Konrardy and I am 26 years old.
Always do your homework, even if it’s turned in late. Love, hoi.polloi”

Maxeem Konrardy is a cartoonist AND a 9/11 CT-loon (easily verified with Google). Clare trusts a cartoonist in optical, technical and physical matters as well as a ”trustworthy researcher”.



Sure this is all ”just detail” for Clare who supposedly is seeing ”the bigger picture”.

Clare, you haven't even started to see the bigger picture of fakes, frauds, charlatans, hoaxers, con artists and like. You haven't a clue about media, optics, frauds, and how those can be used to create fakes. You don't see the bigger picture. You've been hoaxed with details.



You don't grasp these fakery issues at all, Clare. You're so easily duped it's almost unbelievable.



You're being exact when you can? So you're being exact when pointing out the typos of others but you still can't write Wainio's name correctly!

What are you talking about? Don't you remember? The "Zetas" are making everything appear normal. They're absolute gods!

we are gods!!!....

get with the program.....

come on...big guy....u ought to know that us gods have the right to alter future, past, and present events to suit our needs....learn from the best....

And by the way, I figure out this bit of misinformation you've been spouting over and over.

You and your September Clueless friends are mixing up two separate memorial pages.

The one with the lone entries from "Desiree" is from CNN and IS STILL ONLINE:
[link to www.cnn.com]
[link to www.cnn.com]

On the other hand you have the Legacy.com national obituary listing with pages and pages of tributes from family, friends and co-workers most of whom left their full names and location:


[link to www.legacy.com]
[link to www.legacy.com]


So much for your bullshit about the memorial page being altered after the fact.