Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 2,745 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 949,847
Pageviews Today: 1,262,607Threads Today: 239Posts Today: 4,872
10:24 AM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

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

 
AstronutModerator
Forum Moderator

User ID: 922113
United States
06/12/2010 07:22 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Here's the really bizarre thing: Clare agrees that Venus is
right where it should be but then claims that NASA is altering
images. It doesn't make any sense. I don't really expect it
to but damn Clare is dense as hell.
 Quoting: DrPostman

+1
astrobanner2
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 908953
Canada
06/12/2010 07:44 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Here's the really bizarre thing: Clare agrees that Venus is
right where it should be but then claims that NASA is altering
images. It doesn't make any sense. I don't really expect it
to but damn Clare is dense as hell.
 Quoting: DrPostman

As long as it makes sense to Clare, I mean it's not like NASA has better things to do than tinker with photos to make things look normal, when things are normal. There must be some really dark reasons behind it all. ROFLMAO.
mclarek
User ID: 986233
Canada
06/12/2010 07:50 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
For anyone who noticed my post re. the Banglaeshi claims of a tsunami coming from a planetary alignment (and I know DrPostman laughed because years ago there was a tiny increase from a "big" Jupiter effect) ...

They must have known SOMETHING; and if they knew it was an earthquake from their seizmographs, then why did they say "planetary alignment"?

[link to earthquake.usgs.gov]

Magnitude 7.7 [first 7.7, now DOWNGRADED to 7.5, as usual for USGS -- they did that with Chile quake then upped it again a month or so later --- Kinda remind you of the Colaio brothers and now-added memorials?! -- !]
Date-Time

* Saturday, June 12, 2010 at 19:26:50 UTC
* Sunday, June 13, 2010 at 01:26:50 AM at epicenter
* Time of Earthquake in other Time Zones

Location 7.702°N, 91.975°E
Depth 35 km (21.7 miles) set by location program
Region NICOBAR ISLANDS, INDIA REGION
Distances 150 km (95 miles) W of Mohean, Nicobar Islands, India
440 km (275 miles) WNW of Banda Aceh, Sumatra, Indonesia
1155 km (710 miles) SW of BANGKOK, Thailand
2790 km (1730 miles) SE of NEW DELHI, Delhi, India
Location Uncertainty horizontal +/- 7.7 km (4.8 miles); depth fixed by location program
Parameters NST= 52, Nph= 52, Dmin=614.3 km, Rmss=1.23 sec, Gp= 65°,
M-type=teleseismic moment magnitude (Mw), Version=7
Source

* USGS NEIC (WDCS-D)

Event ID us2010xkbv

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


Warning center issues tsunami alert for Indian Ocean


(AFP) – 37 minutes ago

WASHINGTON — The Pacific Tsunami Warning Center Saturday issued a regional tsunami watch for all areas of the Indian ocean, following a 7.7-magnitude earthquake near India's Nicobar Islands.

"A tsunami watch is in effect for India, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Thailand, Malaysia, for other areas of the Indian Ocean region," the Hawaii-based warning center said.

A major quake hit the Indian Ocean Sunday, around 160 kilometres (100 miles) from India's Nicobar Islands, the US Geological Survey said.

"Earthquakes of this size have the potential to generate a destructive local tsunami and sometimes a destructive regional tsunami along coasts located usually no more than a thousand kilometers (620 miles) from the earthquake epicenter," the tsunami warning center said.

However, it added, "it is not known that a tsunami was generated. This watch is based only on the earthquake evaluation."

The bulletin, it said, "is issued as advice to government agencies," adding that the responsibility for issuing official alerts rests with national and local governments.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 635100
United States
06/12/2010 07:51 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Bummer, no ZetaCrap tonight?

Still, lots of free entertainment to be had.

lmao
mclarek
User ID: 986233
Canada
06/12/2010 07:52 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Here's the really bizarre thing: Clare agrees that Venus is
right where it should be but then claims that NASA is altering
images. It doesn't make any sense. I don't really expect it
to but damn Clare is dense as hell.

+1
 Quoting: Astronut



I meant Venus in REALITY is the same as it should be.

I have emphasized it's the IMAGES which I'm questioning.

How many stupid comments -- this one is REALLY OBVIOUSLY stupid -- can you guys come up with?!

Right or wrong about manipulation, that much was CLEAR.

yeahsure
AstronutModerator
Forum Moderator

User ID: 922113
United States
06/12/2010 07:57 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
I meant Venus in REALITY is the same as it should be.

I have emphasized it's the IMAGES which I'm questioning.
 Quoting: mclarek 986233

We know Clare, we know. We think you're being very, very silly for just that reason.
astrobanner2
mclarek
User ID: 986233
Canada
06/12/2010 07:57 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Or that the compression lines (if they are that) show in the video.

You're the only one here saying that they are that.

Now, for the post I am waiting for: what was the problem with my pulling up the images on SOHO's site?

If you're having problems loading images from SOHO's site then it's your problem because it's working just fine for me.

And where is your "lengthy post" with "all the rest" about the "rewriting" process. I am very interested to know.

WTF are you even talking about?
 Quoting: Astronut



I am the only one who is saying what? That it's compression or rewrite? No, you think that it's an innocent explanation; I think it's manipulation, now, possibly.

I was questioning your inability to see the colouration difference in the video (it's there, but grainy) and in Nancy's page and the original post from the .ning poster of the .gif compilation. And since you didn't see the colouration difference in the vid, you spun off saying Nancy's seeing things move when she "shouldn't" in this case. Well, it DOES move as you now know, in the image you sent and in her crops of it. So THAT much she wasn't HIDING and YOU got wrong at first.

As to loading images from SOHO's site, I guess I did the right process then. And no, the wrong time stamps came up. Oh well.

Re. the .mil site: okay. I will try to get the images when I can. Thank you.
mclarek
User ID: 986233
Canada
06/12/2010 08:02 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Here's the really bizarre thing: Clare agrees that Venus is
right where it should be but then claims that NASA is altering
images. It doesn't make any sense. I don't really expect it
to but damn Clare is dense as hell.

As long as it makes sense to Clare, I mean it's not like NASA has better things to do than tinker with photos to make things look normal, when things are normal. There must be some really dark reasons behind it all. ROFLMAO.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 908953



What things "are normal"? ALL of them?

What if ...

there were massive flares they wanted to cover for?
or a real ET UFO or human UFO?
or a spy craft?

Or whatever -- including PX in the image?

Now, I don't think it could be PX because we'd see it if it were that far away from the Sun, I am assuming. Unless it were directly in our line of sight and shrouded in glowing clouds which our amateur telescopes might show us, but we might confuse it with bulbous solar flares and solar surface, if it were right in our view directly ... I.e., then it could be on the edge of the SOHO image but misinterpretable when we look directly at the Sun ...

How do you really know all is fine?

Next, IF all is fine, then why such weird effects in the images? It's worth asking each time, in case.
mclarek
User ID: 986233
Canada
06/12/2010 08:04 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Good grief, you still don't know how to follow simple directions and save a file as a .fts file? You can't just open it in your browser, as I've said, you must save it as a .fts file... if you don't know how to do that then read your browser's help files or manual.
 Quoting: Astronut


IN WHAT POST DID YOU SAY THAT? -- again I ask.

I missed it and said so right away when I got back a day later.

I will go looking but honestly, your attitude sucks here.
AstronutModerator
Forum Moderator

User ID: 922113
United States
06/12/2010 08:05 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
I am the only one who is saying what? That it's compression or rewrite?
 Quoting: mclarek 986233

Those are two very different terms with entirely different meanings. You're throwing up a strawman every single time you claim it's "compression."
I was questioning your inability to see the colouration difference in the video (it's there, but grainy) and in Nancy's page and the original post from the .ning poster of the .gif compilation.
 Quoting: clare

If you think that the difference in color gradient is the only way to see the corruption line... you're wrong. The corruption line runs all the way to the bottom, it cuts right through the occulter holding bar.
And since you didn't see the colouration difference in the vid, you spun off saying Nancy's seeing things move when she "shouldn't" in this case. Well, it DOES move as you now know, in the image you sent and in her crops of it. So THAT much she wasn't HIDING and YOU got wrong at first.
 Quoting: clare

I never said she was hiding the motion you liar. She cropped it so tight you could not see the corruption to an extent that it was evident as corruption, something that became immediately obvious upon viewing the full image, which you refused to link to.
As to loading images from SOHO's site, I guess I did the right process then. And no, the wrong time stamps came up. Oh well.
 Quoting: clare

The right ones came up for me, I don't know WTF your problem is.
Re. the .mil site: okay. I will try to get the images when I can. Thank you.
 Quoting: clare

You'll probably fail. Again. Because you're deliberately dense. Please prove me wrong for once. I really hope you do.
astrobanner2
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 908953
Canada
06/12/2010 08:07 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Or, maybe you are just plain wrong. That would be a lot less convoluted and logical, but logic is not Clare's strong suit. Reminds me of a scene from Mash where Colonel Flag is trying to explain the levels of espionage he is involved in. ROFLMAO.
AstronutModerator
Forum Moderator

User ID: 922113
United States
06/12/2010 08:10 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Good grief, you still don't know how to follow simple directions and save a file as a .fts file? You can't just open it in your browser, as I've said, you must save it as a .fts file... if you don't know how to do that then read your browser's help files or manual.


IN WHAT POST DID YOU SAY THAT? -- again I ask.

I missed it and said so right away when I got back a day later.

I will go looking but honestly, your attitude sucks here.
 Quoting: mclarek 986233

I said it not once but twice. I don't believe you missed it both times, sorry. My attitude sucks? Your willfully ignorant trolling sucks.

I'm guessing you've never worked with raw data before in astronomy. You need to be able to open and handle fits files, here's a free program I use frequently:
[link to www.astrosurf.com]
Save the images to your hard drive as .fts files and open them in IRIS.
 Quoting: Astronut


I told you how to fix this, I guess you didn't care to hear the answer. You have to save it to your hard drive as a .fts file and open it with the program I linked you to, no browser I know of can open fits files natively.
 Quoting: Astronut

astrobanner2
mclarek
User ID: 986233
Canada
06/12/2010 08:14 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
But in its own right, is THAT 1999 image genuine, in turn? ... If it is, it's conclusive proof the PX "flares" are flares, but it could be planted. There is only ONE such example known and it is also known that PX would likely be covered up as long as possible IF it were here.

It's not a "pixel flare" it's CCD blooming and you can see the same damn thing in other known planets that enter the view. In the case of streaks that bloom and give the appearance of "wings" it's high energy cosmic ray hits, and they've always been happening. There are many examples of this, even before 1999:
[link to sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov]
[link to sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov]
[link to sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov]
[link to sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov]
It's just sporadic high energy radiation from deep space, that's all it is, which is why it pre-dates the "supposed arrival" of PX by years and has stuck around for far longer than any object in such an elliptical orbit physically could.
 Quoting: Astronut


I know about blooming, by the way. And I know it's supposed to be fine for all images, but the image with the big round object which Bad Astronomy and I handled some time ago was NOT a planet we know of blooming for ...

And though they claimed a CCD "pixel flare," it had a PLANET-PLUS-BLOOMING shape. That was the issue with that one.

Finally, something CAN stick around if it is ELECTROMAGNETICALLY caught. You guys keep suggesting such a thing is impossible, irrelevant, or whatever, but you have not done your homework on that one -- outside your SCHOOLING.

There is much known about this OUTSIDE astronomy; astronomy precepts are stuck in a double-think of Newtonian gravity-only billiard balls with a HALF-ASSED grafting (since 1955 only) of electromagnetism onto the system WITH NO CHARGE accounted for.

In all other research this is ridiculous; but astronomers were stuck -- then, and teaching now -- in the "safety solar system" psychological comfort of no past catastrophes worth mentioning. They do now (some of them) posit asteroidal hits, but that took a lot of coaxing.

The history of the debates around this will tell you something about mental resistance and schooling wrongheadedness, if you study that aspect of current astronomy's positions.

A further confusion came because Einstein resisted UNTIL the last week before his death, that electromagnetism could be at work in the solar system ...

And then -- already enfeebled and shortly to check out of his body, shall we say -- he did agree it must be so and ordered a test which was never performed (the Cavendish experiment in a Faraday cage).

So, yes, a planet just MIGHT kick around near the Sun for quite a while in ROUGHLY the way Nancy describes. Perhaps she could get the positions wrong, but the principle is physically sound IF you treat your learning as archaic -- too-pure Newtonianism at root.

Einstein corrected Newton but also still thought of the solar system itself in more Newtonian, non-electromagnetic ways, until near the end. We all have our blind spots; but at least, thanks to Velikovsky, who was not perfect but was no slouch, Einstein was re-thinking how his unified field theory might apply here to accept electromagnetism into the gravitic forces, at the end of his life.
AstronutModerator
Forum Moderator

User ID: 922113
United States
06/12/2010 08:36 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
I know about blooming, by the way. And I know it's supposed to be fine for all images, but the image with the big round object which Bad Astronomy and I handled some time ago was NOT a planet we know of blooming for ...

And though they claimed a CCD "pixel flare," it had a PLANET-PLUS-BLOOMING shape. That was the issue with that one.
 Quoting: mclarek 986233

It's called a high energy cosmic ray.
Finally, something CAN stick around if it is ELECTROMAGNETICALLY caught. You guys keep suggesting such a thing is impossible, irrelevant, or whatever, but you have not done your homework on that one -- outside your SCHOOLING.
 Quoting: clare

LOL!!! Inverse square vs inverse cubed law. Your pseudoscience is debunked. Electromagnetically caught, wow clare, you really stepped it in there.
There is much known about this OUTSIDE astronomy; astronomy precepts are stuck in a double-think of Newtonian gravity-only billiard balls with a HALF-ASSED grafting (since 1955 only) of electromagnetism onto the system WITH NO CHARGE accounted for.
 Quoting: clare

N-body calculations accurately predict and show the locations of the planets, electromagnetism is irrelevant to planetary motion.
In all other research this is ridiculous; but astronomers were stuck -- then, and teaching now -- in the "safety solar system" psychological comfort of no past catastrophes worth mentioning. They do now (some of them) posit asteroidal hits, but that took a lot of coaxing.
 Quoting: clare

LOL! Oh really? Name an astronomer who does not believe in asteroid hits, name ONE. You said only some do, name one who doesn't.
So, yes, a planet just MIGHT kick around near the Sun for quite a while in ROUGHLY the way Nancy describes.
 Quoting: clare

No, it wouldn't. You just exposed yourself as nothing more than a common zeta troll. It was a nice front you put up, pretending to not believe in certain claims of hers, but it's clear you actually buy into her nonsense and just won't admit that you buy into the parts that are easiest to debunk. There is no way to construct an orbit that would "kick around near the sun for quite a while in ROUGHLY the way Nancy describes."
Perhaps she could get the positions wrong, but the principle is physically sound IF you treat your learning as archaic -- too-pure Newtonianism at root.
 Quoting: clare

The principle is anything but physically sound. You're completely clueless about orbital mechanics, period.
astrobanner2
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 908953
Canada
06/12/2010 08:37 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
It never ceases to amaze me how people can get themselves so worked up over things that don't exist, while remaining oblivious to REAL THINGS that are happening NOW, and that they might be able to affect for the better if they were engaged in real life instead of doom and conspiracy fantasies.
mclarek
User ID: 986233
Canada
06/12/2010 08:39 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Yup, like in her video which I was finally able to view, she cropped out evidence of image corruption from a previous day's data. Sometimes SOHO's processing software spits out crap preview images which contain chunks of data from an older image. Nancy cropped out those chunky seam lines so that you wouldn't see the fact that it was obviously corrupted data.
[link to sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov]
You can clearly see where the corruption in the image is located, but of course Nancy doesn't want you to know that, nor does clare who refused to link directly to the images. Here's the thing though, if you go and get the actual raw fits file you find that the problem occured between the raw file and the internet displayable jpg. Here's the raw unprocessed file:
[link to sharpp.nrl.navy.mil]
(indeed this image agrees with the previous and successive images as to the location of Venus)
[link to sharpp.nrl.navy.mil]
[link to sharpp.nrl.navy.mil]

Same story with the "missing" Saturn; it's not missing in the raw image:
[link to sharpp.nrl.navy.mil]
The image is 180 degrees different than Nancy's (as are the adjacent images), so it's at the top but it's there.
The previous image:
[link to sharpp.nrl.navy.mil]
The successive image:
[link to sharpp.nrl.navy.mil]

bump I'm not really bumping this for Clare's sake since I can already tell she's not paying attention nor is she interested in the truth, I'm just bumping this for everyone else as a way of countering her posts.
 Quoting: Astronut


Okay, if this is the post you were talking of with the "lengthy" nature -- and I'm not sure it is -- I will go to all the .mil sites (as I said, I'd already tried but did it wrong).

If this is not the post where you say you "described what happens when they corrupt an image," then hopefully I'll find it -- if you are ungentlemanly enough not to repost it for me.



But as to the rest: NANCY DIDN'T LEAVE OUT THE PROBLEM AREA TO VENUS'S TOPSIDE RIGHT. She showed in the video AND her pages that there was a whole-area movement, not just Venus.

That much she DID do.

And as to me and my interest in truth, you have that SO wrong to suggest I'm not.

I'm the one who is asking these interesting but tough things -- at least asking about our sacred cows.


-- Also I know why ... and challenged you to think why ... an optical test done without PROPORTIONAL DISTANCE is unscientific (unsound).

Plus I described why you CAN figure out distance from an object (viewpoint) in a moving but zoomed (optically cropped) image. So though I don't have the equations to show what would happen, I know the principle. You should know that too.

And I mentioned how, when you figure out each viewpoint (tower-bridge lateral movement determines how far the bridge is and your viewpoint, and tower to buildings in front determines your viewpoint there), which I have done roughly, you see that the towers don't transform in relation to the other buildings around them in the way they should if the bridge moves like that.

(It's almost a stationary object if the towers aren't tracked. So are the towers if they show so little movement relative to the buildings in front of them.)

Finally, one image in that video actually has the bridge "taking a walk" while the movement in front barely occurs.

And the bridge is different sizes in very different clips but the towers to the other buildings are in almost the same relationship, meaning our viewpoint is the same roughly on NYC, but the bridge is bigger. This occurs without other things distorting, so it's not lens distortion. It's a layer.


3:25-3:30 shows no movement total in foreground -- well, it actually goes one way a touch and then back and it's all teensy movement! -- but the bridge takes a walk the whole time. [link to www.youtube.com]



So, yes I AM interested in the truth. All truth. And hope there are no more cover-ups to uncover -- including that SOHO is okay.
mclarek
User ID: 986233
Canada
06/12/2010 08:44 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Dear Astronut -- or anyone else:

My Windows says it doesn't recognize .FTS file extensions and when I searched the Web from that page, the options seem to require searching my registry and downloading software to read it.

Any advice? I don't want to just click and download possibly suspicious software.
mclarek
User ID: 986233
Canada
06/12/2010 09:04 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
It's called a high energy cosmic ray.
 Quoting: Astronut


Whatever. It does not create planets with bloom. (THEY called it "pixel flare" at Bad Astronomy -- and ALSO said it was from cosmic rays.)


Finally, something CAN stick around if it is ELECTROMAGNETICALLY caught. You guys keep suggesting such a thing is impossible, irrelevant, or whatever, but you have not done your homework on that one -- outside your SCHOOLING.

LOL!!! Inverse square vs inverse cubed law. Your pseudoscience is debunked. Electromagnetically caught, wow clare, you really stepped it in there.
 Quoting: Astronut


If charged, its reaction to the Sun's charge AND gravity AND other planets could affect it quite differently in observable behaviour even while keeping the law intact.


There is much known about this OUTSIDE astronomy; astronomy precepts are stuck in a double-think of Newtonian gravity-only billiard balls with a HALF-ASSED grafting (since 1955 only) of electromagnetism onto the system WITH NO CHARGE accounted for.

N-body calculations accurately predict and show the locations of the planets, electromagnetism is irrelevant to planetary motion.
 Quoting: Astronut


No, our calculations INCLUDE the electromagnetic BALANCED effects in the solar system, and anything anomalous is "adjusted as mass" calculations. This may mean the "mass calculation" is off and electromagnetics are in fact adding to attraction. If a new planet came in, it would ADD a "magnet" and gravity issues.

Slight perturbations would increase, not to mention purely e-m effects, and repulsion where the sun is attracting: which is WHAT WE HAVE HAD for the last few years.


In all other research this is ridiculous; but astronomers were stuck -- then, and teaching now -- in the "safety solar system" psychological comfort of no past catastrophes worth mentioning. They do now (some of them) posit asteroidal hits, but that took a lot of coaxing.

LOL! Oh really? Name an astronomer who does not believe in asteroid hits, name ONE. You said only some do, name one who doesn't.
 Quoting: Astronut


Actually, it was some geologists, I think -- sorry. There are some who are disputing the K-2 layer. They are suggesting other reasons for the mass extinction.

I am not saying there is the idea we've NEVER been hit; but the idea of extinctions from it is very new and took a LOT of effort to get through the astronomy and geology groups --- even when the geology group included those who had proved it.

It is the FEAR OF CATASTROPHE of which I am speaking.

And Velikovsky derived the knowledge of e-m in the solar system FROM THE CATASTROPHE myths; this is what intrigued Einstein that, a) there must be e-m in the system, b) the EARTH MIGHT HAVE CHARGE (never tested, never done, that is), c) catastrophes of the historical myth and geology of Cuvier kind may have taken place RECENTLY: in the Pleistocene.


So, yes, a planet just MIGHT kick around near the Sun for quite a while in ROUGHLY the way Nancy describes.

No, it wouldn't. You just exposed yourself as nothing more than a common zeta troll. It was a nice front you put up, pretending to not believe in certain claims of hers, but it's clear you actually buy into her nonsense and just won't admit that you buy into the parts that are easiest to debunk. There is no way to construct an orbit that would "kick around near the sun for quite a while in ROUGHLY the way Nancy describes."
 Quoting: Astronut


You are too quick to be in an idiot mind attitude and call names! Lol.


I said it MIGHT and ROUGHLY. I don't mean PX is here.

But it MIGHT have some of those effects. That means Nancy could be describing something accurately IN PRINCIPLE, roughly, AND STILL BE WRONG ABOUT PX's being here or existing at all.


Perhaps she could get the positions wrong, but the principle is physically sound IF you treat your learning as archaic -- too-pure Newtonianism at root.

The principle is anything but physically sound. You're completely clueless about orbital mechanics, period.
 Quoting: Astronut



No, orbital mechanics can/could be hiding a lot of other influences (as Velikovsky/Einstein discussed with the CHARGE ON PLANETS; and which Einstein pointed out in his unified field theory in a different way -- hoping to marry e-m with gravity and if so, perhaps the two combine in effect sometimes; and which T. Townsend Brown's extensive experiments might show, even if unfinished -- he eventually went with Stanford Research labs; and deBroglie, Hoyaux and Schwinger and so on and on, if COMBINED).

All food for thought.


So don't be so hasty, Shapley. (The dignified idiot who so resisted all of Velikovsky's work and had him slandered, quite effectively in some circles, to this day, even as aspects of his work continue to be confirmed.)
mclarek
User ID: 986233
Canada
06/12/2010 09:10 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
It never ceases to amaze me how people can get themselves so worked up over things that don't exist, while remaining oblivious to REAL THINGS that are happening NOW, and that they might be able to affect for the better if they were engaged in real life instead of doom and conspiracy fantasies.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 908953


Some people do that.

I am trying to get "worked up" about knowing what DOES exist before we act, and it means testing what we THINK exists --

We also test if lies exist in and around what we know exists in a basic sense: for instance: BP and the oil spill. Oil spill exists; all else said about it or its cause and coverage is questionable.

That is called testing received wisdom/claims.

And it HELPS US GET OUR WORLDVIEW STRAIGHTER, even if we make some mistakes along the way. It does clear out some of the crap we THOUGHT we knew, so we can make some better judgments even if other people who don't know it yet think we're wrong. Ah, poor Copernicus and Kepler ... to use cosmologists politically and socially and ideologically assaulted as an example ... instead of something ONLY political as an example.

:)
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 969583
United States
06/12/2010 09:15 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
And as to me and my interest in truth, you have that SO wrong to suggest I'm not.

I'm the one who is asking these interesting but tough things -- at least asking about our sacred cows.



 Quoting: mclarek 986233



She's asking and people are answering over and over.

She just doesn't like the answers
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1001458
United States
06/12/2010 09:16 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Good grief, you still don't know how to follow simple directions and save a file as a .fts file? You can't just open it in your browser, as I've said, you must save it as a .fts file... if you don't know how to do that then read your browser's help files or manual.


IN WHAT POST DID YOU SAY THAT? -- again I ask.

I missed it and said so right away when I got back a day later.

I will go looking but honestly, your attitude sucks here.

I said it not once but twice. I don't believe you missed it both times, sorry. My attitude sucks? Your willfully ignorant trolling sucks.


I'm guessing you've never worked with raw data before in astronomy. You need to be able to open and handle fits files, here's a free program I use frequently:
[link to www.astrosurf.com]
Save the images to your hard drive as .fts files and open them in IRIS.



I told you how to fix this, I guess you didn't care to hear the answer. You have to save it to your hard drive as a .fts file and open it with the program I linked you to, no browser I know of can open fits files natively.

 Quoting: Astronut


I use GIMP operating under Ubuntu. J Image is also good under windows but it has many more features to deal with and the casual user (like the bunkers) would be befuddled by it.
mclarek
User ID: 986233
Canada
06/12/2010 09:17 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Or, maybe you are just plain wrong. That would be a lot less convoluted and logical, but logic is not Clare's strong suit. Reminds me of a scene from Mash where Colonel Flag is trying to explain the levels of espionage he is involved in. ROFLMAO.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 908953

Stop rolling, pull your A back on and get a grip: logic IS my strong point, you ninny. Sometimes I make a mistake along the way, but overall, I at least think through whole hypotheses. That's why people here get pissed off:

For example:
They want a newspaper article to "disprove" photo fakery because they want all victims to be real.

Why, I don't know: in an intelligence op one must be prepared to wonder if anyone is who they say they are, JUST IN CASE.

Anyway, I continued to be extremely logical about it: maybe real victims with fake photos? Then why? -- Maybe sprinkled plant families? -- Maybe all fake?

But whatever's true too many of the same type(s) of co-incidences occur to be normal, and some are obvious shams. So ... how far does it go?

Are ONLY some photos fake and all victims real? Highly unlikely.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1001458
United States
06/12/2010 09:19 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Dear Astronut -- or anyone else:

My Windows says it doesn't recognize .FTS file extensions and when I searched the Web from that page, the options seem to require searching my registry and downloading software to read it.

Any advice? I don't want to just click and download possibly suspicious software.
 Quoting: mclarek 986233


No browsers recognize fits files. It takes a program like GIMP or Jimage.

Suspicious software? Jimage is freeware put out by the National Institute of Health. GIMP is available in Windows (I think as I use Ubuntu most of the time) and Linux.
AstronutModerator
Forum Moderator

User ID: 922113
United States
06/12/2010 09:21 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
It's called a high energy cosmic ray.

Whatever. It does not create planets with bloom. (THEY called it "pixel flare" at Bad Astronomy -- and ALSO said it was from cosmic rays.)
 Quoting: mclarek 986233

It creates a very bright blooming blotch or streak that you mistook for a planet. As I already proved, it's been happening ever throughout SOHO's history.
If charged, its reaction to the Sun's charge AND gravity AND other planets could affect it quite differently in observable behaviour even while keeping the law intact.
 Quoting: clare

Inverse squared vs inverse cubed law. Electromagnetic forces are irrelevant to planetary motion. Gravity is all that matters.
No, our calculations INCLUDE the electromagnetic BALANCED effects in the solar system, and anything anomalous is "adjusted as mass" calculations.
 Quoting: clare

Bullshit. Electromagnetic forces operate on a totally different formula with respect to distance; if they were relevant you couldn't compensate for it just by fudging the mass number and claiming it's gravity. It wouldn't work as the planet moves closer to and further away from the sun on each orbit. You = debunked.
This may mean the "mass calculation" is off and electromagnetics are in fact adding to attraction. If a new planet came in, it would ADD a "magnet" and gravity issues.
 Quoting: clare

See above. And if your theory were correct, where are the issues in the predicted positions of the planets?
Slight perturbations would increase, not to mention purely e-m effects, and repulsion where the sun is attracting: which is WHAT WE HAVE HAD for the last few years.
 Quoting: clare

Wrong. Perturbations are not present.
Actually, it was some geologists, I think -- sorry.
 Quoting: clare

Wow, way to change goalposts. You're just full of fail tonight.
There are some who are disputing the K-2 layer. They are suggesting other reasons for the mass extinction.
 Quoting: clare

LMFAO! Not that I agree with them, but that's a far cry from claiming asteroid impacts don't happen.

I am not saying there is the idea we've NEVER been hit;
 Quoting: clare

That's what you were saying. You've now changed horses.
It is the FEAR OF CATASTROPHE of which I am speaking.
 Quoting: clare

Which doesn't exist. If anything, astronomers are promising it and have been for quite a while.
You are too quick to be in an idiot mind attitude and call names! Lol.
 Quoting: clare

The shoe fits, wear it instead of getting defensive.
I said it MIGHT and ROUGHLY. I don't mean PX is here.
 Quoting: clare

Equivocation and avoidance. I don't know why I expect anything else from you.
No, orbital mechanics can/could be hiding a lot of other influences
 Quoting: clare

If there were other influences then orbital mechanics would not match up with reality and observational evidence. You are wrong, completely and totally wrong.
astrobanner2
mclarek
User ID: 986233
Canada
06/12/2010 09:21 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Astronut: I'm guessing you've never worked with raw data before in astronomy. You need to be able to open and handle fits files, here's a free program I use frequently:
[link to www.astrosurf.com]
Save the images to your hard drive as .fts files and open them in IRIS.

I told you how to fix this, I guess you didn't care to hear the answer. You have to save it to your hard drive as a .fts file and open it with the program I linked you to, no browser I know of can open fits files natively.



AC 1001458: I use GIMP operating under Ubuntu. J Image is also good under windows but it has many more features to deal with and the casual user (like the bunkers) would be befuddled by it.
 Quoting: Astronut and Anonymous Coward 1001458 to mclarek



Thank you. No, I'm not usually using raw data files.

And Astronut, I still haven't found that post. So drop the superciliousness and resentment.

I didn't see/remember the program you linked to, Astronut. I'll check again.


And thank you both for the links. Especially (right now) 1001458, since it's handily here. That will get the .fts-es going for me sooner with less effort right now.

I have to clean a bathroom so I'll be off for a while.

Cheers, both.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 969583
United States
06/12/2010 09:21 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Magnitude 7.7 [first 7.7, now DOWNGRADED to 7.5, as usual for USGS -- they did that with Chile quake then upped it again a month or so later --- Kinda remind you of the Colaio brothers and now-added memorials?! -- !]

 Quoting: mclarek 986233


Re: the Colaios---You're a trolling dickhead.

And you can't even spell "seismograph" but you claim to know what's usual for the USGS.
AstronutModerator
Forum Moderator

User ID: 922113
United States
06/12/2010 09:23 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
I use GIMP operating under Ubuntu. J Image is also good under windows but it has many more features to deal with and the casual user (like the bunkers) would be befuddled by it.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1001458

Gimp is good, but it doesn't handle high bit fits images very well in my experience, and ufraw is of no help for that format. Image J is excellent though, I use that one a lot too, especially for work since it has some specialized tools for analyzing band density in gels.
astrobanner2
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 969583
United States
06/12/2010 09:24 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
And Astronut--another thing she's doing is probing for pertinent technical jargon to make herself look like she knows what she's talking about in the future when trying to sell this crap to the uninformed.
mclarek
User ID: 986233
Canada
06/12/2010 09:26 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
And as to me and my interest in truth, you have that SO wrong to suggest I'm not.

I'm the one who is asking these interesting but tough things -- at least asking about our sacred cows.




She's asking and people are answering over and over.

She just doesn't like the answers
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 969583



No, dear: you guys don't like the answers. Especially about the "poor innocents who died that day" re. 9/11.

(Some were, some probably were not even real, and others may have been framed with fakery.)

Many of the "answers" offered here to what I've posted -- on 9/11 anyway -- are HOPES, on your parts (you plural: the ones who posted them). These "answers" are sputterings: they carry no logical weight IN FACT, when the totality of evidence is considered.

For instance,

Photo fakery of people is not ITSELF eliminated by an article about a real person (or a fake one!).

It stands in ITS OWN RIGHT.

And Astronut's experiment in optics was an inconclusive test, i.e., the perameters were not controlled.
mclarek
User ID: 986233
Canada
06/12/2010 09:29 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
We know Clare, we know. We think you're being very, very silly for just that reason.

:qft:


And then she goes and posts a tsunami warning hours after
it has been canceled.
 Quoting: DrPostman



IDIOT: I didn't say there WOULD BE A TSUNAMI; my point was that Bangladesh said there might ---- BEFORE THE EQ ------

And gave a weird reason: alignment of planets.


Why not say "our seizmometers have picked up that there might be an earthquake"?

No. They didn't do that. But they did know of something to cause a tsunami.

News