Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 1,368 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 585,385
Pageviews Today: 770,632Threads Today: 146Posts Today: 3,671
08:36 AM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

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

 
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 908953
Canada
06/15/2010 04:58 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
I am not "clunk" so I will not reply to you if you use the term again.
 Quoting: mclarek 1004307

Hallelujah! This might be the key to getting Clunk to STFU. If we all call her Clunk maybe she will stop baiting and replying. I bet she is just bluffing though. I don't think she can stop herself from inserting herself into this thread and making a fool of herself.
The Commentator

User ID: 587619
United States
06/15/2010 05:00 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
I am not "clunk" so I will not reply to you if you use the term again.

Hallelujah! This might be the key to getting Clunk to STFU. If we all call her Clunk maybe she will stop baiting and replying. I bet she is just bluffing though. I don't think she can stop herself from inserting herself into this thread and making a fool of herself.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 908953



We all know clunker is a liar so when she says she won't reply to any post that calls her "clunk" she will. Why, see "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!!!!!
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 908953
Canada
06/15/2010 05:04 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Well, where is it in those posts? Or is it in some other?

 Quoting: mclarek 1004307

It's buried in page upon page of Clunk spam that you yourself have posted. Now maybe you understand how frustrating it is to those of us that don't give a shit about your off topic ravings and try to find topic related posts on this thread. Gawd you are a moron, Clunk.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1003867
Ireland
06/15/2010 05:10 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Well, where is it in those posts? Or is it in some other?


It's buried in page upon page of Clunk spam that you yourself have posted. Now maybe you understand how frustrating it is to those of us that don't give a shit about your off topic ravings and try to find topic related posts on this thread. Gawd you are a moron, Clunk.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 908953

Plainly, Clare does not read replies to her rambling posts
mclarek
User ID: 1004307
Canada
06/15/2010 05:22 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Where are the fake photos? There are no fake photos. You haven't been able to show one fake photo plausibly.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1001905


No, you refuse to see. That's ALL.

If you refuse to call the sky blue when it is, even if there's a cloud in it and you want to focus on that, you are misrepresenting, not me.

And even if there would be a fake photo in some website, what makes you think that the person in the photo faked it, or their family did it, or some secret government organization did it, or whatever. You have no proof. What you have is mere speculation and not even clever one at that.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1001905


There are too many. And the photos have no reason to be faked by others. And the names are in odd code morph groupings, and this is in the context of an intelligence op of the whole day (and before and after, to set it up and cover it up).

There is even a ridiculous photo of a woman on her OWN SITE with an impossible arm -- but it looks ALMOST like a shadow could do it. When you really look, though, it's an impossible arm and was photoshopped.

This is the level of anomaly you see here with Wainio and others -- only Wainio and some others are even more glaringly obvious.

They are from OFFICIAL MEMORIAL SITES and are suspicious photos. Real families should complain and question, wouldn't you think?

So you're suggesting that we should ask the September Clues website about their hoaxes?
 Quoting: Anonymous coward 1001905


You have shown nothing accurate to say they are hoaxers.

Many people have tried to discuss these things with them only to be banned from their forums. There simply is no way to make them change their beliefs or to make them admit they're hoaxing. They delete the posts and ban the posters just like Nancy.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1001905


The way you go about it, of course you would be banned. To bring up inanities again and again does not further research.

There ARE flaws and over-statements in their work, but that is all; and most of it hangs together very well.

The fact is, many people don't have a legal-type, or philosophy of science language, where they can explain where a piece fits and how it does not have to be conclusive on its own to be PART of a general hypothesis.

Also, most people who present original research do not have the legal-type or philosophy of science language to explain how muc of their work will be able to fit BOTH hypotheses, and so all pieces do NOT have to be exclusive to their argument.

Much of your video -- besides the actually inaccurate coments or baiting language -- siply ends up pointing out how there could be another explanation for some of the stuff. People at Sept Clues are not likely (any more than your video did) to take the "meta-position" and see that BOTH are right on some of the points, and this does not "debunk" Sept Clues (or your video) on these points.

Rather, the issue is inconclusively part of either hypothesis; thus it is perfectly fine for Sept Clues to show their interpretive placement for it.

DO YOU GET THAT?

This is why some people (on either side) will ban people for raising some points. They don't explain what I have just explained to you. But it's true: a pink sweater in a law case "could" fit either interpretation, but it is fine for BOTH sides to mention it with their interpretation.

Some aspects of Sept Clues' work, however, fit the connected full facts -- and some details -- better than their opponents' work. In fact, your video does not handle some of the thornier issues (the 17-second delay, the non-glitch in the Fox putative fade-to-black) even in that Volume 1 of Sept Clues which they took on.

They can't.

No, the Colaios are not weird. You've just been misinformed.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1001905


No, they ARE. That there would be ONE mention each on CNN's memorial page for them IS odd. It may be okay, but it may not be. Thus, it is weird enough to warrant putting them in with the other possible fakery mess.

Because we have some definite fakery messes, we are doubly obliged to look at all possible fakeries.

And still, SOME OF THE MESS IS/COULD BE FAKE AND THE PEOPLE NOT FAKE, but then, why?

It's so obviously clear that you haven't studied the material or researched the subject where you claim to be an expert. Just like the other poster said in the first quote, you or your September Clueless sources haven't spent much time looking into this case.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1001905


No, you have not.

Work through the items I put to you about the video. And we could work through the rest of the videos by Sept Clues and you would see some startling tidbits mixed in with these first (mostly) suggestive but inconclusive aspects.

As to Wainio's photos being fake and why the family is not complaining about them, well, why should they? You and your sources are the ones complaining and shouting about that, but any normal person would just think you're insane. Normal people don't talk with the insane but tend to avoid them.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1001905


Inane.

Why should they NOT if they're fake and they are?

Don't you think if memorial sites got doppel-headed photos up of your loved one, you'd make a comment?

Also, even if they did not, it is up to the DA to defend the victims of a crime: and if the family is a victim of fakery in photos, then Sept Clues is acting as the only DA they have on that issue.

This issue of possible fakes - people creating false identities hoping to benefit somehow from the scam - is way out of your league or that of your con artists.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1001905


Again, you have no evidence for conning.

And if you do come to recognize it's well intentioned research, even if they get it wrong completely, and still call them cons, then you are merely numbskulled.

All must be investigated and thought through, is all. And preconceptions of what's normal and okay must be tossed aside UNDER THE EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES (compared to our lives), but which are quite common for intelligence operations.


Clare, you do sound much like an agent, since you're quite paranoid. I find it very unlikely that you were one, however, since they ain't as stupid as you are, Clare.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1001905


No, you sound like a dupe. They are smart: they know how people do't think clearly when they want to believe in sad tales and real people. But they're sloppy and stupid in other ways: this was an intelligence op. All aspects must be investigated. The hijackers and the victims are the least investigated of the whole case. Sept Clues has made a brave salvo and has pointed out several clear fakes and some likely ones; the rest is impossible to know without a real inquiry.

But if you got INTO REALLY UNDERSTANDING their videos before you said they're conning, you might not fall for the innuendoed posturing of the video you sent me ... even if it was well intentioned in its creation ... and the outright blank spots in its argument, i.e., it argued incomplete evidence (only the first video of Sept Clues, which is a) not their whole case anyway, and b) RELIES on some of the other videos to nail down some of the issues) ... and your video left one issue (the fae to black) as if it was settled (the CNN glitch-cut) but by the end this issue came back with a vengeance (Fox's fade to black, with NO glitch) and was not handled.

Anyway ... you are the fanatic closed person with insufficient types of evidence. You do realize, don't you, that "insufficient evidence" doesn't always mean "how much" evidence there is, but can mean what key "types" of evidence there are to disprove something or prove it.

Wake up.
The Commentator

User ID: 587619
United States
06/15/2010 05:22 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Well, where is it in those posts? Or is it in some other?


It's buried in page upon page of Clunk spam that you yourself have posted. Now maybe you understand how frustrating it is to those of us that don't give a shit about your off topic ravings and try to find topic related posts on this thread. Gawd you are a moron, Clunk.

Plainly, Clare does not read replies to her rambling posts
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1003867



I seriously doubt that the clunker CAN read, except on the most basic level. It is quite apparent she has never read an elementary school science book.....
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!!!!!
Setheory
User ID: 869850
United States
06/15/2010 05:22 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
As I've always said: the people in the photos are fake OR they've been framed after death. This has a CONTEXT -- I repeat CONTEXT -- of the whole intelligence op of 9/11, which makes all anomalies make sense into an hypothesis of further wrongdoing about the victim identities.

It is a fine hypothesis, fits all facts and accounts for any errors along the way. YOURS DOES NOT.

 Quoting: mclarek 1004307


It fits ALL facts and accounts? How does your “NO PLANES” theory FIT with the scores of “accounts” that claim they saw “planes” fly into the pentagon and WTC? How can you say something like this? I haven’t agreed with this whole “Clare is a troll” thing, but you are starting to make me rethink my position.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 969583
United States
06/15/2010 05:25 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
The other thing about PXers is their absolute inability to absorb anything which runs counter to their beliefs. They simply cannot SEE it! It's like they have large blind spots in their vision and thinking. I know Nancy is that way, and Freestore and Andrew, etc, etc, etc,.... Show them something which would disprove any part of the PX story and they simply CANNOT take it in. They 'avert their eyes' from the offending information so quickly so they don't even grasp that it exists.
 Quoting: Menow 1003573



One positive effect for me from reading these conspiracy sites and following the PX debate is observing what you've described above, recognizing it in myself (to a lesser extent I hope) and attempting to correct it.
mclarek
User ID: 1004307
Canada
06/15/2010 05:33 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Well, where is it in those posts? Or is it in some other?


It's buried in page upon page of Clunk spam that you yourself have posted. Now maybe you understand how frustrating it is to those of us that don't give a shit about your off topic ravings and try to find topic related posts on this thread. Gawd you are a moron, Clunk.

Plainly, Clare does not read replies to her rambling posts
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1003867


908953 and 1003867

You guys are being simply jerks.

Astronut said I had just quoted it. I took the one I'd quoted and found the other, and neither had it.

So: jerks you be.

As to the "rambling" posts: they ARE replies, dimwits.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 908953
Canada
06/15/2010 05:35 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
As to the "rambling" posts: they ARE replies, dimwits.
 Quoting: mclarek 1004307

Off topic, that's what they are. Idiot clunker. Take it to a 911 thread and stop spamming this one with your clunkspam.
Menow
User ID: 1003573
United States
06/15/2010 05:35 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Well, where is it in those posts? Or is it in some other?


It's buried in page upon page of Clunk spam that you yourself have posted. Now maybe you understand how frustrating it is to those of us that don't give a shit about your off topic ravings and try to find topic related posts on this thread. Gawd you are a moron, Clunk.

Plainly, Clare does not read replies to her rambling posts


908953 and 1003867

You guys are being simply jerks.

Astronut said I had just quoted it. I took the one I'd quoted and found the other, and neither had it.

So: jerks you be.

As to the "rambling" posts: they ARE replies, dimwits.
 Quoting: mclarek 1004307


You are actually saying you can't find where Astronut posted the link to the software to open FITS files?
Menow
User ID: 1003573
United States
06/15/2010 05:49 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Hello???

Earth to Clare....

He even requoted those sentences to you after you denied it had been given.

Geebus, Clare, how do you feed yourself?
mclarek
User ID: 1004307
Canada
06/15/2010 05:50 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
This is STUPID. I have said all along I don't believe in the Zeta wobble, for one thing, OR believe anything would look okay if we were stopped-but-tipped.

So do you now agree that there is no "zeta" wobble and the earth is not halted in its orbit?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1003867


I never said there was. And it was handled in the beginning when people mentioned pendulums. And I said, yes, they would show we are moving -- unless we have some supernatural/Zeta thing going on, but I don't know that (nor do you).

I repeated and repeated I don't believe we're stopped.

Do YOUR homework.


(The one almost-exception would be the toughness most people would have in figuring out the fixed stars' lack of parallax difference, as that's slight -- so they would look okay to many people, even most amateur astronomers).

Please explain stellar parallax and its meaning in your own words. No bogus links, just your understanding of it.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1003867


You are such a jerk that your "simple little questions" for me are clearly baiting: as if I don't know what parallax is!

I am the one who BROUGHT IT UP: about video fakery on 9/11 (spawning Astronut's ill-fated inconclusive experiments to see what parallax shifts there were), AND about stars.

Seeing as you are simply STILL assuming I am stupid and ignorant, and thus ending up wasting my time, no. FUCK OFF.

I am not "clunk" so I will not reply to you if you use the term again.


Your continuing abuse of the scientific method, and mangling of facts has earned you that moniker deservedly. You have a lot of work to do to convince anyone that you have the foggiest clue what you are talking about, and let me tell you now, you have a mountain to climb.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1003867


I am the one challenging YOU to use the scientific method to its fullest: not to fall for simple debunker threads or videos on topics they do not properly assess.

So F off.


You have hijacked a zetatalk thread and spouted your 911 goonery ad nauseum.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1003867


Again, the Latin is ad nauseam -- which I point out because if you KNOW you don't likely know something and it's not a genuine slip-up, so you KNOW you don't know Latin, then check it out.


And what I have said is not goonery. That is YOUR flaw coming in. Do the FULL analysis of both sides, and you'll find the side you PREFER EMOTIONALLY doesn't work; the one you don't does work, but has some errors, too, as an on-going investigation would.


This is a PX thread. Why is this so difficult for you to comprehend?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1003867


Someone tried to insult topics I know quite a bit about and I dared to reply. Since then, people who are willfully blind (trust only the discounters of the theory, but not working through the theory itself, and therefore are UNSCIENTIFIC), have insisted on being dumb about it, and I keep replying to help them see they didn't represent the facts in their FULL implications and position.

You obviously did not read my position, re-stated MANY times ... and are ASSUMING I am a follower of Nancy outright,

I did. You keep flip flopping. It is next to impossible to know what position you will assume on anything from one moment to the next, and you disguise your position du jour in opaque language, so that nobody really knows what you are rambling on about.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1003867


This is called NEUTRALITY: neutrality (read Aristotle) is to take on fully the weight of any position, so as to know its full nature, and do so for other positions.

In the end, the middle point is knowable (the "golden mean"): and is NOT a set middle point, but will vary from condition to condition.

So, I take on one bit here -- another side there -- and play around with the concepts figuring them out, while KEEPING IN MIND the ultimate purpose, which is to know what we can know about PX hypothesis, and to know what we CAN'T know about it, and see if it's definable either way.

Plus, in the PROCESS (which you call flip-flopping, because you can't see the higher dimension on which the centre is found) I have found some interesting questions along the way: such as, what the heck are the REPULSION holes in the magnetosphere from? And what is electromagnetism doing in our system WITHOUT OUR COUNTING IT as a charge on the objects of the system? ... and so on.

You can't see the overview so you think it's rambling.

instead of merely very interested in her and others' suggestions of a PX. Because if there is/were one -- it would be disastrous.

You expend all that energy on a non-existant pink fairy planet? Why?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1003867


That's your assumption, isn't it.

First: one learns things BY the inquiry.
Second: it would be life-death if it were here, so it's worth getting all information to show it's not.
Third: if it's not here, that's good but we have learned things along the way. (Which is like point the first, but point the first doesn't assume we have or have not a PX. So point the third is more about what we gain from our inquiry specifically if PX is not real.)
mclarek
User ID: 1004307
Canada
06/15/2010 05:55 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
As I've always said: the people in the photos are fake OR they've been framed after death. This has a CONTEXT -- I repeat CONTEXT -- of the whole intelligence op of 9/11, which makes all anomalies make sense into an hypothesis of further wrongdoing about the victim identities.

It is a fine hypothesis, fits all facts and accounts for any errors along the way. YOURS DOES NOT.



It fits ALL facts and accounts? How does your “NO PLANES” theory FIT with the scores of “accounts” that claim they saw “planes” fly into the pentagon and WTC? How can you say something like this? I haven’t agreed with this whole “Clare is a troll” thing, but you are starting to make me rethink my position.
 Quoting: Setheory 869850



Setheory,

the witness accounts are NOT as smooth as you think. There should also be THOUSANDS of people saying they saw a plane right then.

a) there were a lot of things in the air that day
b) many said they thought they saw a missile
c) some said they saw flashes coming from WTC7 during the destruction of the WTC 1 & 2, when they turned to dust
d) many said they saw explosions but didn't see anything else

And many witnesses would later also have confirmed their accounts to seeing TV, which would have told them their seeing "something going fast" was a plane.

The accounts do not in fact hold together coherently.

Plus, there are parallax problems in several videos. We got 'em. Oh, and there are the 2 helicopters in mutually exclusive positions ... and the 17-second delay beeps for synchro (which match the problem of the seizmic data) ... and so on.

And the unmanoevrability to hit a vey fast-approaching narrow target, which John Lear pointed out, due to loss of engine air pressure capacity. Among other things ...

And so on. And on. And on.
mclarek
User ID: 1004307
Canada
06/15/2010 06:00 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Hello???

Earth to Clare....

He even requoted those sentences to you after you denied it had been given.

Geebus, Clare, how do you feed yourself?
 Quoting: Menow 1003573



Earth to Menow, I quoted his quotes.

Did I miss one?

Fine.

Point it out please. Stop picking on oversights. They are oversights and I went to the trouble to try to find his linked posts.

All the rest is mere nastiness.

I re-post for people and answer as best I can.

(Well, the idiot who called me the parrotted name from Commentator and then asked if I kenw waht parallax was, because supposedly I know nothing in all my comments -- him I didn't answer on that.)

By the way, did you check out Koestler's "The Sleepwalkers"?

I hope you love it, as I did -- if you haven't read it yet.

It started off as a bio of Kepler and then the author expanded it into a general history of cosmologists (astronomer-philosopher-mathematicians-etc.), with a view to their philosophical insights and the shifts in those insights.

:)

Hope you enjoy.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 973304
United States
06/15/2010 06:14 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Hello???

Earth to Clare....

He even requoted those sentences to you after you denied it had been given.

Geebus, Clare, how do you feed yourself?



Earth to Menow, I quoted his quotes.

Did I miss one?

Fine.

Point it out please.
 Quoting: mclarek 1004307

p.642
Menow
User ID: 1003573
United States
06/15/2010 06:30 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
I repeated and repeated I don't believe we're stopped.
 Quoting: mclarek 1004307


And you make NOTHING out of the fact that Nancy and "Zetas" are lying about that?



(The one almost-exception would be the toughness most people would have in figuring out the fixed stars' lack of parallax difference, as that's slight -- so they would look okay to many people, even most amateur astronomers).


That detail is equally absurd, each time you repeat it. Almost anyone could see that the major seasonal constellations were missing when they should be obvious in the sky.

Please explain stellar parallax and its meaning in your own words. No bogus links, just your understanding of it.

You are such a jerk that your "simple little questions" for me are clearly baiting: as if I don't know what parallax is!
 Quoting: mclarek 1004307


No one said you don't know what parallax is, you blooming idiot. It is that you are, as usual, wallowing in uneeded minutia. See above.

I am the one who BROUGHT IT UP: about video fakery on 9/11 (spawning Astronut's ill-fated inconclusive experiments to see what parallax shifts there were), AND about stars.
 Quoting: mclarek 1004307


And, as I pointed out, you applied parallax where it is not really helpfull. It's just you, pretending to know how to determine if something is wrong in the sky in the MOST difficult way, rather than the simplest. See above.

(snip)
Setheory
User ID: 869850
United States
06/15/2010 06:36 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
As I've always said: the people in the photos are fake OR they've been framed after death. This has a CONTEXT -- I repeat CONTEXT -- of the whole intelligence op of 9/11, which makes all anomalies make sense into an hypothesis of further wrongdoing about the victim identities.

It is a fine hypothesis, fits all facts and accounts for any errors along the way. YOURS DOES NOT.



It fits ALL facts and accounts? How does your “NO PLANES” theory FIT with the scores of “accounts” that claim they saw “planes” fly into the pentagon and WTC? How can you say something like this? I haven’t agreed with this whole “Clare is a troll” thing, but you are starting to make me rethink my position.



Setheory,

the witness accounts are NOT as smooth as you think. There should also be THOUSANDS of people saying they saw a plane right then.

a) there were a lot of things in the air that day
b) many said they thought they saw a missile
c) some said they saw flashes coming from WTC7 during the destruction of the WTC 1 & 2, when they turned to dust
d) many said they saw explosions but didn't see anything else

 Quoting: mclarek 1004307


Clare:

I was commenting on your claim that your “fine hypothesis, fits all facts and accounts” and this is simply not true. And yes, there were probably many hundreds or thousands of people that saw the planes. Do you actually think every account is going to be documented? For God’s sake, my friend watched the second plane hit and he has never given an official story and I’m sure the majority of the witnesses are like him. This is what one would expect. I am sure MANY people saw only an explosion and again this is exactly what you would expect, as people who heard an explosion and turned to see what it was would not see the source! None of this fits your theory; it is WHAT ONE WOULD EXPECT. I have not seen many(any?) people who said they saw a missile, but it would not surprise me if a few existed as the planes were traveling at 500 mph!

Yet you claim your “NO PLANES” theory fits ALL FACTS AND ACCOUNTS!

AMAZING!
mclarek
User ID: 1004307
Canada
06/15/2010 06:42 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Earth to Menow, I quoted his quotes.

Did I miss one?

Fine.

Point it out please.



p.642
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 973304



THAAAANK you. cool2

:)
mclarek
User ID: 1004307
Canada
06/15/2010 06:45 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
a) there were a lot of things in the air that day
b) many said they thought they saw a missile
c) some said they saw flashes coming from WTC7 during the destruction of the WTC 1 & 2, when they turned to dust
d) many said they saw explosions but didn't see anything else



Clare:

I was commenting on your claim that your “fine hypothesis, fits all facts and accounts” and this is simply not true. And yes, there were probably many hundreds or thousands of people that saw the planes. Do you actually think every account is going to be documented? For God’s sake, my friend watched the second plane hit and he has never given an official story and I’m sure the majority of the witnesses are like him. This is what one would expect. I am sure MANY people saw only an explosion and again this is exactly what you would expect, as people who heard an explosion and turned to see what it was would not see the source! None of this fits your theory; it is WHAT ONE WOULD EXPECT. I have not seen many(any?) people who said they saw a missile, but it would not surprise me if a few existed as the planes were traveling at 500 mph!

Yet you claim your “NO PLANES” theory fits ALL FACTS AND ACCOUNTS!

AMAZING!
 Quoting: Setheory 869850



Just because some people said they saw one does not mean they did. Their evidence has other explanations: they saw other items in the air; they assumed after seeing it on TV; they saw a missile; and so on.

Thus, the hypothesis FITS all facts; it has accounting for all facts.

The other does NOT fit the anomalous fakery and the air pressure issues and the lack of appropriate debris (but that is a separate kettle of fish: what debris was found/not found, and what debris was photographed AND under what circumstances).
mclarek
User ID: 1004307
Canada
06/15/2010 06:53 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
I repeated and repeated I don't believe we're stopped.


And you make NOTHING out of the fact that Nancy and "Zetas" are lying about that?
 Quoting: Menow 1003573


Well, now that is interesting.

I find it interesting the Zetas are (not necessarily Nancy: her visions are -- if she's having visions).

I think Nancy herself believes it and is not willing to think through the whole science of it ... because she tends to think (I adjudge) that she is merely being set upon instead of CHALLENGED.

And unfortunately, a lot of her challengers -- du auch (German: "you, too") -- are debunkers, not disprovers. There is a difference. A theory may be debunked, but a person who IS a "debunker" is living a posture, not necessarily spouting total truth.


[quoting:Menow]
(The one almost-exception would be the toughness most people would have in figuring out the fixed stars' lack of parallax difference, as that's slight -- so they would look okay to many people, even most amateur astronomers).


That detail is equally absurd, each time you repeat it. Almost anyone could see that the major seasonal constellations were missing when they should be obvious in the sky.

Not if the tilt were being fixed. If we were being tilted, the constellations would show. Yes?

But other things would be wildly off over time (the planets, particularly).

The parallax difference in the relative positions would also be changed in the far stars, but hard to detect. It was all I meant.


Please explain stellar parallax and its meaning in your own words. No bogus links, just your understanding of it.

You are such a jerk that your "simple little questions" for me are clearly baiting: as if I don't know what parallax is!


No one said you don't know what parallax is, you blooming idiot. It is that you are, as usual, wallowing in uneeded minutia. See above.


I am the one who BROUGHT IT UP: about video fakery on 9/11 (spawning Astronut's ill-fated inconclusive experiments to see what parallax shifts there were), AND about stars.


And, as I pointed out, you applied parallax where it is not really helpfull. It's just you, pretending to know how to determine if something is wrong in the sky in the MOST difficult way, rather than the simplest. See above.

(snip)
Menow
User ID: 1003573
United States
06/15/2010 06:53 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
With respect to the Earth halted in its orbit, I am surprised that nobody has pointed out to clunk that the sun amazingly still progresses through the constellations as normal.

No amount of "zeta" wobbling can achieve that.



This is STUPID. I have said all along I don't believe in the Zeta wobble, for one thing, OR believe anything would look okay if we were stopped-but-tipped.


Bullshit. You have said that some stars would still be 'OK'.

very interested in her and others' suggestions of a PX. Because if there is/were one -- it would be disastrous.


If you weren't being a shill for Nancy, there would have been NO discussion about any possible abnormal Earth tilt.

Crikey: I meant would seem okay to most.

CRIKEY CRIKEY.

I have mentioned parallax and did so several times -- so obviously I know they would not be actually okay. But it would be subtle.
Quoting: mclarek 1004307


Once again sssllloooooooowwwwlllyyyyyyy....

PARALLAX - OF - DISTANT - STARS - HAS - NO - APPLICATION - IN - DETERMINING - ANY - POSSIBLE - CHANGE - IN - EARTH'S - TILT.

Repeat:

PARALLAX - OF - DISTANT - STARS - HAS - NO - APPLICATION - IN - DETERMINING - ANY - POSSIBLE - CHANGE - IN - EARTH'S - TILT.

Repeat:

PARALLAX - OF - DISTANT - STARS - HAS - NO - APPLICATION - IN - DETERMINING - ANY - POSSIBLE - CHANGE - IN - EARTH'S - TILT.

Repeat:

PARALLAX - OF - DISTANT - STARS - HAS - NO - APPLICATION - IN - DETERMINING - ANY - POSSIBLE - CHANGE - IN - EARTH'S - TILT.

Repeat:

PARALLAX - OF - DISTANT - STARS - HAS - NO - APPLICATION - IN - DETERMINING - ANY - POSSIBLE - CHANGE - IN - EARTH'S - TILT.

(snip)

GET IT?
 Quoting: Menow 1003573



Note: NO response.
Menow
User ID: 1003573
United States
06/15/2010 06:54 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
It IS THE PROOF of my knowing that all stars would be off -- but some more than others.
Quoting: mclarek 1004307





UTTERLY FALSE.

Repeat:

UTTERLY FALSE.

Repeat:

UTTERLY FALSE.


Repeat:

UTTERLY FALSE.


Repeat:

UTTERLY FALSE.


Repeat:

UTTERLY FALSE.

(snip)


Get it?
 Quoting: Menow 1003573


Note: NO response.
mclarek
User ID: 1004307
Canada
06/15/2010 06:59 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
If you weren't being a shill for Nancy, there would have been NO discussion about any possible abnormal Earth tilt.

Crikey: I meant would seem okay to most.


PARALLAX - OF - DISTANT - STARS - HAS - NO - APPLICATION - IN - DETERMINING - ANY - POSSIBLE - CHANGE - IN - EARTH'S - TILT.

GET IT?
 Quoting: Menow 1003573



It would not be the determinant of tilt. It would show we are stopped -- but so would other things. Unless the OTHER things are being changed by Zetas to fool us (light bending or whatever). Then maybe they missed the fixed stars' parallax problem.

So, now, if Zetas bothered to adjust the planets, they might not quite bother with all the fixed stars. In that case, if there are Zetas, maybe they slipped up and we can test whether we're stopped, using parallax.

I mean, it's probably silly, but still, one could test that, since all else seems to be fine.

It was merely an hypothetical thought experiment, Menow.

a) If there are Zetas
b) If they are tilting us and adjusting the planets
c) If they missed the farthest stars' parallax light adjustments
d) Then we could test the parallax and know if we're stopped.

It's a lot of IFs, some of them a priori, seemingly highly unlikely.

But ... it's an interesting, probably useless, but interesting question.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 969583
United States
06/15/2010 07:04 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Thus, the hypothesis FITS all facts; it has accounting for all facts.

The other does NOT fit the anomalous fakery and the air pressure issues and the lack of appropriate debris (but that is a separate kettle of fish: what debris was found/not found, and what debris was photographed AND under what circumstances).
 Quoting: mclarek 1004307



Your problem here is your previously stated premise that pieces of evidence that are not conclusively proven can nevertheless be incorporated into a hypothesis.

You're rejecting the overwhelming majority of the eyewitness reports due to confirmation bias and you're supporting your theory with falsehoods.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 969583
United States
06/15/2010 07:07 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
That detail is equally absurd, each time you repeat it. Almost anyone could see that the major seasonal constellations were missing when they should be obvious in the sky.

Not if the tilt were being fixed. If we were being tilted, the constellations would show. Yes?

 Quoting: mclarek 1004307


No, you're completely out to lunch on this one and making yourself look like even more of an idiot.
mclarek
User ID: 1004307
Canada
06/15/2010 07:08 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
But Menow -- the SUN wouldn't rise in the constellations appropriately, unless it too is bent in light.

Anyway, I consider this one of the stupidest or most possibly lying elements of the Zeta/vision/Nancy claims.
mclarek
User ID: 1004307
Canada
06/15/2010 07:09 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
No, you're completely out to lunch on this one and making yourself look like even more of an idiot.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 969583


The tilt would put the constellations in the right place, but not the Sun.
Menow
User ID: 1003573
United States
06/15/2010 07:09 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
I repeated and repeated I don't believe we're stopped.


And you make NOTHING out of the fact that Nancy and "Zetas" are lying about that?

Well, now that is interesting.

I find it interesting the Zetas are (not necessarily Nancy: her visions are -- if she's having visions).
 Quoting: mclarek 1004307


'Interesting'? Not an indictment of veracity?

Quoting: mclarek 1004307
I think Nancy herself believes it and is not willing to think through the whole science of it ... because she tends to think (I adjudge) that she is merely being set upon instead of CHALLENGED.


As if the 'whole science' of it is complicated? It simply is not... and Nancy bends over backward to CONTRIVE false evidence that "Zetas" are right about it. It is a blatant system of self-supporting lies. Period.

'Challenged'? Challenged by whom? What are you talking about?

Quoting: mclarek 1004307
And unfortunately, a lot of her challengers -- du auch (German: "you, too") -- are debunkers, not disprovers. There is a difference. A theory may be debunked, but a person who IS a "debunker" is living a posture, not necessarily spouting total truth.


You seem to be indicting someone, perhaps me, for something... but your are being vague and cryptic. Why?


[quoting:Menow]
(The one almost-exception would be the toughness most people would have in figuring out the fixed stars' lack of parallax difference, as that's slight -- so they would look okay to many people, even most amateur astronomers).


That detail is equally absurd, each time you repeat it. Almost anyone could see that the major seasonal constellations were missing when they should be obvious in the sky.

Not if the tilt were being fixed. If we were being tilted, the constellations would show. Yes?


What? I mean huh? I mean, wtf does that even mean?

Quoting: mclarek 1004307
But other things would be wildly off over time (the planets, particularly).


Wrong. Every single thing in the sky would be 'off' by the exact same amount. Do I need to repeat that 25 times more for you?

Quoting: mclarek 1004307
The parallax difference in the relative positions would also be changed in the far stars, but hard to detect. It was all I meant.


And you APPLIED that to detecting changes in TILT, you fucking lunatic!

Quoting: mclarek 1004307
Please explain stellar parallax and its meaning in your own words. No bogus links, just your understanding of it.

You are such a jerk that your "simple little questions" for me are clearly baiting: as if I don't know what parallax is!


No one said you don't know what parallax is, you blooming idiot. It is that you are, as usual, wallowing in uneeded minutia. See above.


I am the one who BROUGHT IT UP: about video fakery on 9/11 (spawning Astronut's ill-fated inconclusive experiments to see what parallax shifts there were), AND about stars.


And, as I pointed out, you applied parallax where it is not really helpfull. It's just you, pretending to know how to determine if something is wrong in the sky in the MOST difficult way, rather than the simplest. See above.

(snip)



I wondered how Clare would claim to be 'differently right' about this. And now we see it in action!
Menow
User ID: 1003573
United States
06/15/2010 07:10 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Quotes didn't work right. I don't care to fix it, since Clare ignores most of what is posted to her anyway.

News








Proud Member Of The Angry Mob