Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 2,336 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 1,267,149
Pageviews Today: 1,594,395Threads Today: 251Posts Today: 5,412
11:38 AM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

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

 
Menow
User ID: 1003573
United States
06/14/2010 11:56 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Yes. But I know the parallax difference from winter to summer n the fixed stars is slight,

 Quoting: mclarek 986233



NO ONE but YOU has mentioned parallax in relation to Nancy's claims about the stars. This is another example of you absorbing technical jargon you don't really understand and regurgitating it in inappropriate ways.
mclarek
User ID: 986233
Canada
06/15/2010 12:00 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
And yet these “fake” photos seemed fine to me when I examined them and this is my area of expertise. It’s funny because on 9/11 a friend of mine who lives in New York went on top of his brownstone after the first plane hit and proceeded to watch the second plane hit the second tower. I looked into your claims despite his observations and the hundreds of other witnesses. I looked into your claims despite the videos showing otherwise. Your theory simply conflicts with almost every single account from that day…it defies common sense…it is just pain wrong. I don’t think I have every conversed with someone who suffers from “confirmation bias” as much as you Clare.
 Quoting: Setheory 869850


Really! I would turn that around on you: Wainio's a fraud set. Simple.

The lips were adjusted a tad; the actual top lip and the rest are the same. You can see the bottom was smudged. The heads vary a tad. The rest is exact.

You have the confirmation bias. I didn't -- I looked hard and some of the photos are duplicates with minor smears or a shadow added (which gives an optical illusion of narrowness and "turns the features" in your mind, but which when measured are the same) ... but some are iffy and may not be problems.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1003545
United States
06/15/2010 12:01 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
And yet these “fake” photos seemed fine to me when I examined them and this is my area of expertise. It’s funny because on 9/11 a friend of mine who lives in New York went on top of his brownstone after the first plane hit and proceeded to watch the second plane hit the second tower. I looked into your claims despite his observations and the hundreds of other witnesses. I looked into your claims despite the videos showing otherwise. Your theory simply conflicts with almost every single account from that day…it defies common sense…it is just pain wrong. I don’t think I have every conversed with someone who suffers from “confirmation bias” as much as you Clare.


Really! I would turn that around on you: Wainio's a fraud set. Simple.

The lips were adjusted a tad; the actual top lip and the rest are the same. You can see the bottom was smudged. The heads vary a tad. The rest is exact.

You have the confirmation bias. I didn't -- I looked hard and some of the photos are duplicates with minor smears or a shadow added (which gives an optical illusion of narrowness and "turns the features" in your mind, but which when measured are the same) ... but some are iffy and may not be problems.
 Quoting: mclarek 986233

So the pictures are all the same, except where they are not.
mclarek
User ID: 986233
Canada
06/15/2010 12:02 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Yes. But I know the parallax difference from winter to summer n the fixed stars is slight,




NO ONE but YOU has mentioned parallax in relation to Nancy's claims about the stars. This is another example of you absorbing technical jargon you don't really understand and regurgitating it in inappropriate ways.
 Quoting: Menow 1003573



Idiotic. I have used parallax correctly all throughout; I corrected Stoopid (a.k.a. Commentator) and was backed up (unofficially) by Astronut on the fact all layers move -- but then he spun off onto an inconclusive test.

I have known of parallax and stars since studying Kepler in university; well, actually, since reading, "The Sleepwalkers", by Arthur Koestler.

AMAZING book; try it sometime if you haven't.

xo! ;)
Menow
User ID: 1003573
United States
06/15/2010 12:05 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Yes. But I know the parallax difference from winter to summer n the fixed stars is slight,




NO ONE but YOU has mentioned parallax in relation to Nancy's claims about the stars. This is another example of you absorbing technical jargon you don't really understand and regurgitating it in inappropriate ways.



Idiotic. I have used parallax correctly all throughout; I corrected Stoopid (a.k.a. Commentator) and was backed up (unofficially) by Astronut on the fact all layers move -- but then he spun off onto an inconclusive test.

I have known of parallax and stars since studying Kepler in university; well, actually, since reading, "The Sleepwalkers", by Arthur Koestler.

AMAZING book; try it sometime if you haven't.

xo! ;)
 Quoting: mclarek 986233


The POINT is that it has NO PLACE in a discussion of whether Earth has been artifically TILTED, you insufferable loon!
mclarek
User ID: 986233
Canada
06/15/2010 12:07 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Really! I would turn that around on you: Wainio's a fraud set. Simple.

The lips were adjusted a tad; the actual top lip and the rest are the same. You can see the bottom was smudged. The heads vary a tad. The rest is exact.

You have the confirmation bias. I didn't -- I looked hard and some of the photos are duplicates with minor smears or a shadow added (which gives an optical illusion of narrowness and "turns the features" in your mind, but which when measured are the same) ... but some are iffy and may not be problems.


So the pictures are all the same, except where they are not.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1003545



Very funny. Technically true. :)

This would be the case in fact.

But of course in terms of IDENTIFYING problems, we have some definites, some highly likelys, and some maybes or probably nots.

Nevertheless, one could be wrong about some of them either way: one might be a fake and yet you thought it was maybe not -- or vice versa.

But the "good" thing in all this is we have some definites (for those willing a) to look really, and b) to learn a few things about optical illusions).

Wainio is one which can't really fool you, unless you really don't care to know, or you don't know ANYTHING about smudging a mouth and creating thereby the impression of a wider mouth than really the jaw can quite handle (one of them). But it's subtle. And the rest are pretty basic cut-paste jobs, with a bit of tint shift.
mclarek
User ID: 986233
Canada
06/15/2010 12:12 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Yes. But I know the parallax difference from winter to summer n the fixed stars is slight,




NO ONE but YOU has mentioned parallax in relation to Nancy's claims about the stars. This is another example of you absorbing technical jargon you don't really understand and regurgitating it in inappropriate ways.



Idiotic. I have used parallax correctly all throughout; I corrected Stoopid (a.k.a. Commentator) and was backed up (unofficially) by Astronut on the fact all layers move -- but then he spun off onto an inconclusive test.

I have known of parallax and stars since studying Kepler in university; well, actually, since reading, "The Sleepwalkers", by Arthur Koestler.

AMAZING book; try it sometime if you haven't.

xo! ;)


The POINT is that it has NO PLACE in a discussion of whether Earth has been artifically TILTED, you insufferable loon!
 Quoting: Menow 1003573


No, your POINT there was that I know nothing about parallax.

And the longer point was if there was anything which might fool people or stay the same. Well, the fixed stars ALMOST would.

So why not just get it and be happy someone thought out what the hypothesis entails and why people might be fooled; instead of insisting that because you never took the time, and no-one else did, that it's not an important point!

There would be a lot that would NOT be too noticeably different (even for most amateur astronomers): the fixed stars. That's all. It was a TOSS OFF truth comment and you've dragged it on and on.

Why do you get so angry when someone points out HOW a person could be fooled by a certain Nancy claim? You just want her to be "wrong and a liar leading stupids" -- how uncharitable. People usually have REASONS for not getting something.

Including some fakery (... not even the least obvious type which could really fool most) just because it is found in unhappy situations ... :)
The Commentator

User ID: 587619
United States
06/15/2010 12:13 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Yes. But I know the parallax difference from winter to summer n the fixed stars is slight,




NO ONE but YOU has mentioned parallax in relation to Nancy's claims about the stars. This is another example of you absorbing technical jargon you don't really understand and regurgitating it in inappropriate ways.



Idiotic. I have used parallax correctly all throughout; I corrected Stoopid (a.k.a. Commentator) and was backed up (unofficially) by Astronut on the fact all layers move -- but then he spun off onto an inconclusive test.

I have known of parallax and stars since studying Kepler in university; well, actually, since reading, "The Sleepwalkers", by Arthur Koestler.

AMAZING book; try it sometime if you haven't.

xo! ;)
 Quoting: mclarek 986233



Care to point out exactly where this "correction" happened?

Oh, right, it didn't. You just LIED and made it up.

That is because, clunker, you are a fucking LIAR.
non sufficit Orbis

Being a zetatard means never having to make sense.

"Nancy pays me to post on Her threads"

Free Store admits to being a paid zetadrool shill

NO max/bridget EVER!!!!!
NO luser EVER!!!
NO clunker EVER!!!!!
Menow
User ID: 1003573
United States
06/15/2010 12:13 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Yes. But I know the parallax difference from winter to summer n the fixed stars is slight,




NO ONE but YOU has mentioned parallax in relation to Nancy's claims about the stars. This is another example of you absorbing technical jargon you don't really understand and regurgitating it in inappropriate ways.



Idiotic. I have used parallax correctly all throughout; I corrected Stoopid (a.k.a. Commentator) and was backed up (unofficially) by Astronut on the fact all layers move -- but then he spun off onto an inconclusive test.

I have known of parallax and stars since studying Kepler in university; well, actually, since reading, "The Sleepwalkers", by Arthur Koestler.

AMAZING book; try it sometime if you haven't.

xo! ;)
 Quoting: mclarek 986233


You started out with this language... Quoting Clare:

"As to tilting..."

And:

"...Zetas really are changing our tilt!"


THEN, you blithely change to talking about The halted Earth claim. Those are two COMPLETELY different claims! You applied 'parallax' to the TILTING issue, but now CHANGE it to apply to the halted Earth issue. Apparently, you don't even KNOW when you do such things in discussion.
Setheory
User ID: 1003594
United States
06/15/2010 12:16 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
But of course in terms of IDENTIFYING problems, we have some definites, some highly likelys, and some maybes or probably nots.

Nevertheless, one could be wrong about some of them either way: one might be a fake and yet you thought it was maybe not -- or vice versa.

 Quoting: mclarek 986233


WTF?
Menow
User ID: 1003573
United States
06/15/2010 12:22 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
The POINT is that it has NO PLACE in a discussion of whether Earth has been artifically TILTED, you insufferable loon!


No, your POINT there was that I know nothing about parallax.

And the longer point was if there was anything which might fool people or stay the same. Well, the fixed stars ALMOST would.
 Quoting: mclarek 986233


I know we are all waiting with baited breath for you to expound on the 'longer point'. Heh.

So why not just get it and be happy someone thought out what the hypothesis entails and why people might be fooled; instead of insisting that because you never took the time, and no-one else did, that it's not an important point!
 Quoting: mclarek 986233


Absurd! There are WAAAAAAYYYYYY easier method of confirming a normal Earth orbit than parallax of distant stars. Why must you find the most difficult, obscure and anal way of looking at things?

There would be a lot that would NOT be too noticeably different (even for most amateur astronomers):
 Quoting: mclarek 986233


Bullshit.

the fixed stars. That's all.
 Quoting: mclarek 986233


That's ALL???????


BWAAAAAHAHAHHAHAHAAAA.A.A.A.A.A....A.A........!!!

That's the entire sky, you boob! ALL sky objects would be radically out of place by the SAME AMOUNT!

SHEESH!

It was a TOSS OFF truth comment and you've dragged it on and on.
 Quoting: mclarek 986233


You cited parallax as related to an allegedly tilted Earth. That is so miopic as to be laughable!

Why do you get so angry when someone points out HOW a person could be fooled by a certain Nancy claim? You just want her to be "wrong and a liar leading stupids" -- how uncharitable. People usually have REASONS for not getting something.
 Quoting: mclarek 986233


People are fooled because they believe what Nancy says without question. Period.

Including some fakery (... not even the least obvious type which could really fool most) just because it is found in unhappy situations ... :)
 Quoting: mclarek 986233


I have no idea what...
mclarek
User ID: 986233
Canada
06/15/2010 12:26 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Yes. But I know the parallax difference from winter to summer n the fixed stars is slight,




NO ONE but YOU has mentioned parallax in relation to Nancy's claims about the stars. This is another example of you absorbing technical jargon you don't really understand and regurgitating it in inappropriate ways.



Idiotic. I have used parallax correctly all throughout; I corrected Stoopid (a.k.a. Commentator) and was backed up (unofficially) by Astronut on the fact all layers move -- but then he spun off onto an inconclusive test.

I have known of parallax and stars since studying Kepler in university; well, actually, since reading, "The Sleepwalkers", by Arthur Koestler.

AMAZING book; try it sometime if you haven't.

xo! ;)



Care to point out exactly where this "correction" happened?

Oh, right, it didn't. You just LIED and made it up.

That is because, clunker, you are a fucking LIAR.
 Quoting: The Commentator


Oh, so Stoopid is still out there.

What correction? Of course, Mr. Picture-Stoopid missed it. (Sorry: picture perfect, of course! blue, muscley and ripply!)

You emphasized math only and kept saying I had to prove to you in equations that there should be shifts in the forward layer(s). Astronut's first moments in the issue emphasized CHANGES in the first layers, which is why he DID the stereo photobucket attempt, and then went on to test how much he found with an (unsicentifically distanced) fridge and vase.


Your pigheaded name-calling, etc., of me, was useless. You simply showed you were ignorant AND a lover of unecessary obfuscation: equations.

The latter can help in complex or untestable situations, but this is neither.
mclarek
User ID: 986233
Canada
06/15/2010 12:28 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
To: Commentator:

Not that you're likely to care right now, but I am only responding with nastiness because you do it so often.
The Commentator

User ID: 587619
United States
06/15/2010 01:02 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Yes. But I know the parallax difference from winter to summer n the fixed stars is slight,




NO ONE but YOU has mentioned parallax in relation to Nancy's claims about the stars. This is another example of you absorbing technical jargon you don't really understand and regurgitating it in inappropriate ways.



Idiotic. I have used parallax correctly all throughout; I corrected Stoopid (a.k.a. Commentator) and was backed up (unofficially) by Astronut on the fact all layers move -- but then he spun off onto an inconclusive test.

I have known of parallax and stars since studying Kepler in university; well, actually, since reading, "The Sleepwalkers", by Arthur Koestler.

AMAZING book; try it sometime if you haven't.

xo! ;)



Care to point out exactly where this "correction" happened?

Oh, right, it didn't. You just LIED and made it up.

That is because, clunker, you are a fucking LIAR.


Oh, so Stoopid is still out there.

What correction? Of course, Mr. Picture-Stoopid missed it. (Sorry: picture perfect, of course! blue, muscley and ripply!)

You emphasized math only and kept saying I had to prove to you in equations that there should be shifts in the forward layer(s). Astronut's first moments in the issue emphasized CHANGES in the first layers, which is why he DID the stereo photobucket attempt, and then went on to test how much he found with an (unsicentifically distanced) fridge and vase.


Your pigheaded name-calling, etc., of me, was useless. You simply showed you were ignorant AND a lover of unecessary obfuscation: equations.

The latter can help in complex or untestable situations, but this is neither.
 Quoting: mclarek 986233



Yup, you are still out there stinking the place up with your idiocy and lies.

I see you are unable to point to the message where you claim to have made this "correction," but since it smells of clunker bullshit we know you pulled it out of your ass.

Do you have some sort of sick anal fixation? You seem to pull a lot of your bull from your ass.
non sufficit Orbis

Being a zetatard means never having to make sense.

"Nancy pays me to post on Her threads"

Free Store admits to being a paid zetadrool shill

NO max/bridget EVER!!!!!
NO luser EVER!!!
NO clunker EVER!!!!!
mclarek
User ID: 986233
Canada
06/15/2010 01:24 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Yup, you are still out there stinking the place up with your idiocy and lies.

I see you are unable to point to the message where you claim to have made this "correction," but since it smells of clunker bullshit we know you pulled it out of your ass.

Do you have some sort of sick anal fixation? You seem to pull a lot of your bull from your ass.
 Quoting: The Commentator


First off, you should remember the exchange -- oh that's right, you don't get it when you're corrected first without anyone ponting it out, b/c you don't have "being wrong" on your radar until it bats you over the head.

Second, I made several references to it in messages to Astronut, jokingly. I don't know if I wrote to you directly.

Maybe in the middle of something else you were on about.

Anyway, it's pages back. You wanna see what it all meant and what happened to your idiocy, you find it. Why should I bother with you except in passing ...

LOL!

You probably STILL don't know why you're wrong. (Which is not a crime, but it does show a thud on any effort and a huge ego not to wonder if you got something wrong.)
mclarek
User ID: 986233
Canada
06/15/2010 01:39 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Hey, if you believe that, I have a centred tower with one behind it, which as you move around them doesn't begin to be eclipsed by the front one ...

Nor should it be, in fact it should do just the opposite since you're moving around it to the left and the tower was being eclipsed on its right side by the foreground tower. Indeed, it does just the opposite and when you look at in stereo, voila, 3d towers with the foreground one in the foreground, background one in the background, and background bridge way the hell in the background...
[link to i319.photobucket.com]

[link to i319.photobucket.com]

In nature, dear, either you see more of the background tower and less of the visible opposite side of the front one, or you see less of the back tower and more of the front tower's opposite side.

In this photo, if we're moving to the left, we will see more of the tower behind (fine: we do) but we will ALSO SEE LESS of the opposite side of the front tower: the shadow side.

And by the way, there's NO change in the video I was pointing out originally. The bridge moves and -- though Commentator doesn't understand it, which at least you sort of get here -- the towers DO NOT move relative to each other at all in the other video.

Here they do, but one side is flubbed. :)
 Quoting: mclarek 986233


Commentator, if you get this concept without an equation to help you, I give you a kissy. MMMUH! :))

Okay: here's a post from way back in this exchange.

First note:

I had misspoken -- you will be happy about that -- referring to the tower in back being on the right and getting eclipsed, instead of on the left and being revealed (which it was, in this image set); Astronut was correct in pointing out the movement should be the opposite of what I said ... not because I saw the motion wrong, for we both knew it was motion to the left. ----- Rather, I misremembered/misspoke: I had forgotten which side the tower behind was on.


Anyway, the main point is a) Both of us were talking of (and I was the first to talk of) THE MOVEMENT OF FRONT LAYERS. I just got a dyslexia of which tower was in front and which behind.

b) Astronut (in correcting me on which tower would go where, because of which was in front), was confirming my main point and the point you missed. It is that FRONT LAYERS MOVE when you move.

More than that, I'll leave you to figure out on your own.

Such as: why the front buildings can give te viewpoint on their movement; and why you need to test for movement viewpoints; and why the bridge seems to move when really it's the front layers moving away from it; and why any tests need to be done in PROPORIONAL dstances.

Do you know what proportional distances are? I hope so.

Okay -- enough aggression back. Have fun ...
mclarek
User ID: 986233
Canada
06/15/2010 01:51 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
The POINT is that it has NO PLACE in a discussion of whether Earth has been artifically TILTED, you insufferable loon!


No, your POINT there was that I know nothing about parallax.

And the longer point was if there was anything which might fool people or stay the same. Well, the fixed stars ALMOST would.


I know we are all waiting with baited breath for you to expound on the 'longer point'. Heh.
 Quoting: Menow 1003573


You just reminded me of an old friend, who always types "Heh" instead of laughs. How quaint.

Second, when I said "longer" I meant "longer lasting" and therefore the bigger point you have been making. The one you wanted here to deflect to without acknowledging the side point of your insult and my reply. :P

So why not just get it and be happy someone thought out what the hypothesis entails and why people might be fooled; instead of insisting that because you never took the time, and no-one else did, that it's not an important point!


Absurd! There are WAAAAAAYYYYYY easier method of confirming a normal Earth orbit than parallax of distant stars. Why must you find the most difficult, obscure and anal way of looking at things?
 Quoting: Menow


Yes, Menow. And I said so. I am merely pointing out that most of the stars would stay the same and some people would picture that and not realize how much else would change.

Get that? Moving on ...

There would be a lot that would NOT be too noticeably different (even for most amateur astronomers):


Bullshit.


the fixed stars. That's all.


That's ALL???????


BWAAAAAHAHAHHAHAHAAAA.A.A.A.A.A....A.A........!!!

That's the entire sky, you boob! ALL sky objects would be radically out of place by the SAME AMOUNT!

SHEESH!
 Quoting: Menow


Crikey. You should take a pill, man.

Okay so anyway, yes, all would be off. But you know, we would also see different lengths of movements of retrograde and prograde in the planets.

When I said, "That's all," I was speaking in context -- emotional context, and had already said what I meant. So when I said, "That's all," I obviously didn't and NEVER meant only the fixed stars would be off! I said they would be off by a bit, the other things would be off total distances the same amount but show much more radical movement changes in difference.

And the "That's all" was to indicate -- before you poop your pants, man -- I meant ONLY the background stars would show LESS OBVIOUS motion changes.

It was a TOSS OFF truth comment and you've dragged it on and on.


You cited parallax as related to an allegedly tilted Earth. That is so miopic as to be laughable!
 Quoting: Menow


The word is "myopic" and no, it isn't. People THINK of the blanked ot stars, or have that impression that they wouldn't shift, and that a tilt would do. It wouldn't.



Why do you get so angry when someone points out HOW a person could be fooled by a certain Nancy claim? You just want her to be "wrong and a liar leading stupids" -- how uncharitable. People usually have REASONS for not getting something.


People are fooled because they believe what Nancy says without question. Period.
 Quoting: Menow


And new sentence AFTER the period: they also do it because most stars seem stationary ... and this gives a false impression.

As fakery does to some on this forum.
mclarek
User ID: 986233
Canada
06/15/2010 02:01 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
And new sentence AFTER the period: they also do it because most stars seem stationary ... and this gives a false impression.
 Quoting: mclarek to Menow


I should add, hon, that because most stars seem stationary but AREN'T (and most people don't know of that parallax issue, which is why I brought it up) ...

and because they DO know about the tilt-shift relative to the Sun for seasonal changes -- though they probably mostly don't know of the finer details for the sky -- ...

some would be fooled into thinking that a seasonal tilt adjustment and a few light-bends for planets would fix everything if we were stopped.

In fact, all stars would also slightly have to be adjusted. That was my whole point.

Are you done with this now? I hope so.

Good night.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 908953
Canada
06/15/2010 02:10 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
WTF? Is this the Clunk Show or a Debunk Zetas thread? At this rate, any mention of the Zetas will be buried by hundreds of pages of Clare Spam. So what happened to your own thread, Clare? Throw a party and nobody showed up? Looked like you had some real believers there. But you abandoned ship. I guess you post for the sport of baiting your intellectual superiors. Pathetic troll.
mclarek
User ID: 986233
Canada
06/15/2010 02:11 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
But of course in terms of IDENTIFYING problems, we have some definites, some highly likelys, and some maybes or probably nots.

Nevertheless, one could be wrong about some of them either way: one might be a fake and yet you thought it was maybe not -- or vice versa.



WTF?
 Quoting: Setheory 1003594



Christ! Setheory:

a) some photos are definite fakes (Wainio, etc., plus at least 1 out of 2 of some of the wilder FDNY black-white shots)
b) some seem very strongly to be fakes to the point of high likelihood because of the context of a).
c) some seem maybe to be
d) some have subtler connection visually to fakery -- and could be constructed morphs or could be not faked at all

So ...

All but a) (and some of b), maybe) could turn out to be wrong.

And even with a) real people could be being framed to cover for the others which are the bloating of numbers.

Because we ALSO have many bloated and even missing names with no photos, many horrible crappy photos (probably covering for laziness by the perps).

So ...

the overall operation would seem thus to be basically:

1. Create as many names as you can reasonably do.
2. Create as many false memorial mentions as you can for THOSE names.
3. Provide a lot of faraway and bad photos for many but not all names. Just throw them together.
4. Do a bit better for some: memorials, maybe 1 photo that's better, or two that are near duplicates.
5. a) Provide a few which are duplicates but in more poses and provide a family for them --- real people --- b) AND MAYBE frame a few real surviving families in the process too, to cover for points 1-5 a).

This is what fakery leads us to hypothesize. We won't know which of each is true about MOST SPECIFIC names/photos until someone tells or we have a true inquiry.

But this is the broad outlines; and it fits other intelligence ops; and since we're in that context for 9/11 anyway ... AND have fakes ... it makes sense this is what they did to us to give us a bigger impression.

And "so many" wouldn't believe it because it's so "horrible, awful or big or weird". But it's just ID fakery. Not TOO HARD to DO or to PULL OVER YOU, especially if the audience is so willing not to notice the more obvious bloopers like Wainio's photos.
mclarek
User ID: 986233
Canada
06/15/2010 02:14 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
WTF? Is this the Clunk Show or a Debunk Zetas thread? At this rate, any mention of the Zetas will be buried by hundreds of pages of Clare Spam. So what happened to your own thread, Clare? Throw a party and nobody showed up? Looked like you had some real believers there. But you abandoned ship. I guess you post for the sport of baiting your intellectual superiors. Pathetic troll.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 908953


My own 2 threads are fine: one is older news but gets the odd post still, and re. the other, I am in touch with someone about it and it got a lot of hits.

Anyway, you will see -- if you LOOK -- that I am replying to people.

:P
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 908953
Canada
06/15/2010 02:26 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Why do you insist on posting here? Don't you take the hint that most of us here don't want to read your drivel? Why do you insist on spamming the thread with crap most of us just scroll past looking for on topic posts? Don't you get that anyone who does reply is either toying with you or laughing AT you? If you have a receptive audience elsewhere, why do you hijack this thread? You are so disrespectful and ignorant to boot.
mclarek
User ID: 986233
Canada
06/15/2010 02:27 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
In fairness to the "This is an Orange" people you linked to ... AC 1001905 ...

They did an excellent job on Building 7.

Here is a very nice remix of their work on that, which you might enjoy: [link to www.youtube.com]

But as to fakery, they did not do such a good job. There are times when your eyes lie and times when the stories told are the lies. On the latter, they are doing fine.

Note: some people fall for all of 9/11, thinking it is not a lie on any level because "they saw" and "they know" it is fine.

So, though the This is an Orange people do a good job of trying to wake people up in general about the lies the This is and Orange people see, they do an awful and unthorough and misleading job about the lies they don't yet see: TV Fakery.

Enjoy the funny remix though.
:)
mclarek
User ID: 986233
Canada
06/15/2010 02:30 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Why do you insist on posting here? Don't you take the hint that most of us here don't want to read your drivel? Why do you insist on spamming the thread with crap most of us just scroll past looking for on topic posts? Don't you get that anyone who does reply is either toying with you or laughing AT you? If you have a receptive audience elsewhere, why do you hijack this thread? You are so disrespectful and ignorant to boot.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 908953


Sure, sure.

Most -- you -- others -- not all. You are not "the world". Consider that I don't want to read YOUR drivel --- and it is!

But I come here for the rest. Same as you.

You might learn something from my comments though: they're not just how Nancy is stupid or some similar repeated phrase.

Up to you. <shrug>

Good night, though.
mclarek
User ID: 986233
Canada
06/15/2010 02:39 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
To:

HEY 74444:

Did you see I replied to your posts when I saw them (1? 2? days after you posted them?).

I answered your questions at length and would love to hear what you think about electromagnetism and planets, too.

:)

Not that planets would normally have special perturbations, but it may be we've misidentified some of their mass in the already-counted perturbations.

And it's interesting, isn't it, that it was by Velikovsky, that a major prediction was made and push was done to Einstein to recognize e-m in the solar system at all, before it was thought to be there by astronomers and astrophysicicsts? And that he did it from historical myths and geology suggestions ... of a Planet X-like catastrophism (though he attributed these catastrophes to a possible late arrival for Venus)?

... Another who was interested in the idea of e-m in dynamics of planets was T. Townsend Brown, the electricity scientist, and Nicola Tesla, though he only hinted at that, by positing -- and possibly proving -- the Earth is resonating with electromagnetic-gravitic pulses.

Fascinating.

Lots of good ideas out there, even if the original thinkers were wrong in some part of what they said about it. Heck! They're pioneers.
mclarek
User ID: 986233
Canada
06/15/2010 02:42 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Anonymous Coward 1001905 ...

In case you missed this post to you above ...


In fairness to the "This is an Orange" people you linked to ...

They did an excellent job on Building 7.

Here is a very nice remix of their work on that, which you might enjoy: [link to www.youtube.com]

But as to fakery, they did not do such a good job. There are times when your eyes lie and times when the stories told are the lies. On the latter, they are doing fine.

Note: some people fall for all of 9/11, thinking it is not a lie on any level because "they saw" and "they know" it is fine.

So, though the This is an Orange people do a good job of trying to wake people up in general about the lies the This is and Orange people see, they do an awful and unthorough and misleading job about the lies they don't yet see: TV Fakery.

Enjoy the funny remix though.
:)
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 908953
Canada
06/15/2010 03:30 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Maybe we should have a poll to see how many thread regulars are tired of Clare and how many want her to keep taking the thread off topic.

I guess my vote is obvious. We started this thread almost a year ago in protest for not being able to speak our minds on matters related to Zetatalk without being censored and banned. If I wanted to "learn" anything from you Clare, I would post on your thread.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 763624
Australia
06/15/2010 03:57 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
+1 from me

clunk has spammed this thread long enough with off topic crap about 911 and fake photos and all the rest of the crap she spews page upon page about
the only thing it has done is bump our page count up by close to a hundred (seems impossible in only a few weeks, but go back and pick random pages over the last 100 pages- and on any given page probably 3/4 of the page is clunk's bullshit)
The Commentator

User ID: 587619
United States
06/15/2010 04:07 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Maybe we should have a poll to see how many thread regulars are tired of Clare and how many want her to keep taking the thread off topic.

I guess my vote is obvious. We started this thread almost a year ago in protest for not being able to speak our minds on matters related to Zetatalk without being censored and banned. If I wanted to "learn" anything from you Clare, I would post on your thread.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 908953



+1E10^6

There, that will confuse the liar clunker.
non sufficit Orbis

Being a zetatard means never having to make sense.

"Nancy pays me to post on Her threads"

Free Store admits to being a paid zetadrool shill

NO max/bridget EVER!!!!!
NO luser EVER!!!
NO clunker EVER!!!!!
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 763624
Australia
06/15/2010 04:18 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
And to get back to zetacrap, I see nancy still has no understanding of how tilting the earth makes absolutely no difference whatsoever of making the seasonal skys appear correctly (as does our other troll)

[link to www.windows2universe.org]

Now if the Earth was actually stopped in a November position as she claims, then there is a slight problem.We would be seeing the Spring constellations, however I just walked outside and I am definately seeing the Autumn ones...
Now no amount of tilting could make that happen, as the Spring constellations are currently in the daytime sky and cant be seen because of the Sun's glare. Tilting the Earth still wont get them out from behind the Sun, the only way to get them back in the night sky is to move the Earth to where they are in the night sky.... um isn't that what we were saying???
and I might glance at my user details

News