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

So Nancy FINALLY, after FIFTEEN YEARS, MAY have figured out why her 'to the right of the Sun at Sunrise AND Sunset' was so galaticly wrong...

Lucky you can still find those radio archives where she claimed this, over and over again.

Nancy is well known for cherry-picking the data bits she likes and ignoring the bits that don't support her claims.

Oh, yes...I forgot about that unproven and unsupported claim.

Last Edited by Circuit Breaker on 12/18/2010 08:30 PM

Wrong again!

[link to www.zetasquawk.com]

Nancy claims there was no corresponding CME - yet there was.

Update! Only 12 days to go! Time is running out for the Ningcompoops, Fence sitters, Nancy and the weasels!

We just need to capture the excuses for posterity and so we can point to their lack of basic intelligence.

no you are [as always] mistaken.
it is a requirement for being a debunker.

it was in the ning chat and i asked that Q. they answered that yes, 2007 article "Christman Hammer" was describing predictions for 2010 (7 of 10, plate movements)

"
Q.: This article (Christmas Hammer, [link to www.zetatalk.com] speaks about a "wakeup call" for the inhabitants of planet Earth, "A major adjustment.. unleashing a series of great quakes", caused by "increasingly violent daily lurch" jerking the Earth's plates. Is this a description of Plate Movements associated with a move to a "7" and during the "8" of 10?

ZT: This ZetaTalk, written in late December, 2007 indeed describes what the holographic presentation that Nancy attended in November, 2009 was intending to relay. We have confirmed that some of these incidents will be part of a movement to the 7 of 10 stage, and by the end of 2010. In that we have also confirmed that burning oil fields in Iraq, caused by the rolling of the Arabian Plate, will be part of an 8 of 10, our 2007 ZetaTalk was also speaking of this point in time.
"

[link to www.zetatalk.com]


this further proves that you (all your bunch) are either:
- so arrogant/ short-memoried or unattentive to not remember/ notice this writeup about the subject you are trying to debunk;
or
- that you are deliberately confusing the issue [which is far more likely].


btw, im waiting for you (all of you) to admit me right and you wrong on this.

you are twisting. read that article thoroughly [and carefully. - what you always FAIL to do]:

"
"These trees lived at a particularly rough time in the Arctic," Barker explained. "Ellesmere Island was quickly changing from a warm deciduous forest environment to an evergreen environment, on its way to the barren scrub we see today. The trees would have had to endure half of the year in darkness and in a cooling climate. That's why the growth rings show that they grew so little, and so slowly."

"

these trees lived in the time of the pole shift - when climate swiftly changed from warm temperate to poresent arctic scrubland - "half of the year in darkness and in a cooling climate".

never did they nor i, say that they dont get involved.

they DO!
and when they do it is to maintain the balance of influence - STO vs STS.


--------------
Noninterference means not interfering with individual free will of men to make moral choices in their lives.

[and to ensure that intervention is often needed to provide equal opportunities for choice -

e.g. situation where there is or seems that there is no choice, no way out for human - is NOT allowed to exist. it is arranged such that human sees opportunity to change their lot, to change the circumstances and sees the light at the end of tunnel.

---------------
---------------
we both know that you understand it perfectly well, as me and others have explained this to you countless times. but lets pretend that you are dumb and continue this game. i will not tire to do what i can to make sure truth is known and out there.

look here:
[link to earthobservatory.nasa.gov]

Pretty sure we've all seen those satellite images, Andrew. The point is that there's no "admission" of a change in elevation - that's something that was completely fabricated by Nancy. Notice also that the coastline looks exactly the same in the two December images, which it certainly wouldn't if Pakistan was sinking.


Last Edited by Marquis on 12/19/2010 09:02 AM

I've read all three articles and you're twisting the interpretation to fit your beliefs.

The articles in no way, shape or form suggest that a "pole shift" was occurring. The articles say that the climate was changing. The trees were seventy-five years old when they were covered by the landslide and during their entire lives were under stress. That's seventy-five years which the time frame of this earth's existence is considered a short time. In human terms, that's a life-time.

According to your dear leader's claims, a pole shift occurs in days - not in 75 years.

The ning debunks zetatalk!

[link to www.zetasquawk.com]

You mean kind of like they 'SAID' that the May 2003 pole shift prediction was s "white lie"?

No, YOU are (AS ALWAYS) mistaken...and naive. Those are the top two requirements for being a cult member.

It was clearly proven that the "Christmas Hammer" was supposed to happen years ago. But, since it failed to happen, Nancy had to back pedal and you swallowed everything (as you always do) hook, line, and sinker.

We won't because YOU'RE the one that is wrong. The statements above are absolute proof that you believe whatever your master tells you...even when faced with glaring evidence that she back pedaled on failed predictions. Either way, Andrew, something big is supposed to happen by the end of 2010...which means she only has 12 days left. And I can guarantee that whatever excuse she comes up with, you'll buy it and, like a good believer, will do your best to spin everything above when it's pointed out she failed again.

That's funny...the article makes absolutely no mention of a "pole shift." It is simply you and Nancy that are spinning this article to support your delusional beliefs.

Yep, Andrew was proven wrong again. I imagine we won't hear from him again for another week while he thinks of a way to spin that information to support his master.

You mean kind of like they 'SAID' that the May 2003 pole shift prediction was s "white lie"?

Failures can always been "explained" away, Andrew, but if the "explaination" is pure BS...

im here with you, constantly

Strangely, it's like they don't see the contradiction to Nancy's claims. If one of us had said exactly the same things, they would be shrieking about 'paid debunking'.

What difference does that make?

In 12 days 2010 will be over and she'll still be wrong.

Nancy is firmly pushing back the prediction and frantically pointing at all sorts of other stuff she says is related.

Quote Nancy Lieder:

"And I DO think that by mid-January when the full effect of the sinking of Indonesia and the S America disaster unfolding is apparent, that the world will be at least very uneasy if not 'shocked'."

Nancy, massaging her prediction... Partial ning quote:

"Comment by Nancy Lieder 3 hours ago Of course, as the Zetas said, the TRENDS will be present before any of the large plate movement expected occurs."

No need to "pay" anyone to debunk Nancy. Her gaff's are so obvious that a child of 4 could easily do it.

I'm glad the ningcompoops are finally realizing the NORMAL apparent motions of the moon. That animation at the end is great...it shows the lit portion of the moon constantly aiming at the sun over the course of the night.

Most of the nincompoops fail to understand that the Earth rotates under the ecliptic and that the path of the Sun, Moon, planets and stars is an arc.

It's a cognative dissinence I don't think they are willing to confront. At the same time as they 'debunk' that one, that ning is still filled with blogs agreeing with Nancy that the Moon shouldn't do that and many anecdotal obecervations of it acting 'wrong'. Every single one of those reports could have the same logic applied to it as that one did, but they won't do that. Somebody could sign up for a suicide mission there and try to get those same people to turn their attention to the other examples. I don't have the time right now.

Sorry,,,

Cognitive dissonance