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

Based on the 05.25.09 SOHO datestamp what do we expect this image is . . . Venus, Mars, etc.?


If you look at the sky map at

[link to www.astronomy.com]

and set the date for 5/25/09, you'll see that Mercury was in that location.

Whats that story about Nancy and the candy wrapper btw. It was mentioned here several times ... what bogus stuff did she claim about it ?

She claims that when she was told to start this "mission" she asked for a sign. Supposedly, the "Zetas" told her she would find a stack of UFO magazines upside down on a table in her office. She got up the next morning and anxiously went to work...all excited about this "sign" she would soon be seeing. When she got to her office she found the magazines exactly as she had left them the day before. She got upset and then claims that the "Zetas" told her they don't send signs on demand. A few weeks go by and she's at a movie with a package of Starburst fruit chews. At some point, someone entered the theater and sat near her and she got the feeling the person was a "Zeta." When she got to the last Starburst, it was missing a wrapper. She decided that was her sign.

I kid you not. The others will verify this.

Whats that story about Nancy and the candy wrapper btw. It was mentioned here several times ... what bogus stuff did she claim about it ?

She claims that when she was told to start this "mission" she asked for a sign. Supposedly, the "Zetas" told her she would find a stack of UFO magazines upside down on a table in her office. She got up the next morning and anxiously went to work...all excited about this "sign" she would soon be seeing. When she got to her office she found the magazines exactly as she had left them the day before. She got upset and then claims that the "Zetas" told her they don't send signs on demand. A few weeks go by and she's at a movie with a package of Starburst fruit chews. At some point, someone entered the theater and sat near her and she got the feeling the person was a "Zeta." When she got to the last Starburst, it was missing a wrapper. She decided that was her sign.

I kid you not. The others will verify this.

I see there was a large earthquake off the coast of American Samoa. I don't recall the "Zetas" saying anything about an earthquake hitting that region this past weekend or any other time. No doubt, Nancy will make a post-diction and claim "Zetas right again!"

Hey, you ascribed to a belief, but when the physical evidence showed that belief to be flawed you followed the evidence.

I don't see a hit to credibility here at all -- quite the opposite, in fact.

Nice to meet you!

BTW ... I guess we will have this thread to page 200 by the end of next week or earlier ... debunkers boycott ... epic win !

And how does JWD explain this

To: Nancy Leider
From: J.William Dell
Subject: SHAVAS 3-R, 4-R, 5-R

Greetings and to the point;

I have had an opportunity to look at all the SHAVAS R Filter pictures individually.
These were loaded in freeware Cadet Calibration Fits software using all 6 dark plates.

I would like to point out anomolies in Frames 3-R, 4-R, 5-R

In frame 3-R, is an object just above the circle known as Steve's candidate.
In frame 4-R, is an anomolie in the exact coordinates that were given.
In frame 5-R, is the object that has been given by the Zetas as Planet X.

These pictures were taken, so I am to understand, as 2 minute exposures.

With red light bending, are we seeing the actual Planet X in different locations in the
different 2 minute pictures? In frame 4-R specifically, have we captured the red light
shifting within this one picture (which has created what looks like a moving object on the
exposure)?

I am using the freeware Avis Fits Viewer program, which is quite good, and it includes
as part of its features an ability to recognize stars and indicate pixel intensity. When
passing the cross hairs over objects in Fits files it recognizes the objects in 4-R and 5-R
as filmed objects on the picture. It ignores the object in 3-R as it also ignores pixel noise
or Hot? pixels on all pictures. (Hope that makes sense, in essence, Avis Fits viewer considers
the objects in 4-R & 5-R as real.)

With the red shifting occuring, when doing a summary stacked image, especially median, any
object not appearing on different pictures in the same place would probably be removed.
Only in Sum, or with an object with high enough intensity in one picture, would an object
appear.

I was out last night looking (without telescope) to determine location.
Just at the horizon was the star above Orions belt (Ori_Alp_58, it has a common name, don't
know it off hand) which has a high red factor. Boy was it moving around in the atmosphere, it
made the point to me about shifting.

Kindest regards
J.William Dell

[link to zetatalk.com] ?





It appears JWD has some explainin to do!
How can somebody make observations like these and then turn around and say he didn't see this?

Either he saw it, or he didn't see it. He can't have it both ways. He gives detailed observations, and then he takes it all back ... later ... I don't think so!

Credibility a big ZERO.

I see there was a large earthquake off the coast of American Samoa. I don't recall the "Zetas" saying anything about an earthquake hitting that region this past weekend or any other time. No doubt, Nancy will make a post-diction and claim "Zetas right again!"

Good day.

Ahhhh. This takes me back. Memories.
Does anyone remember during the lead up to the 2003 no-show there would periodically appear ZetaTalkers on sci.astro and various forums who would present themselves as merely 'unsure questioners' looking for answers from the scientific community?
It was quite funny to observe them transmogrify from reasonable-sounding posters into ZetaTalk trolls.
They always used the same m.o. with their own individual twists, but the script was always essentially the same:
1) Enter the discussion and declare that you don't believe ZetaTalk but have some unanswered questions.
2) Produce "anomalies" which *only* PXers are interested in and ask for explanations.
3) Temper your questions with terms that are favourable to ZetaTalk if the answers received aren't completely explanatory and understandable.
4) Continue with the laundry-list of 'anomalies' until you find one that no one is sure exactly what it is. Then declare that due to this there 'may be something to ZetaTalk'. Ignore the dozens of other 'anomalies' that were presented and debunked.
5) Continue this pattern until the scientists/rationalists start laughing at you and arguing that your 'conclusion' is absurd.
6) Goad them on with increasingly inane and hostile statements toward science.
7) When they take the bait and blast you for being a moron declare, "With bad attitudes like that and your inability to answer *all* my questions it's no wonder that people choose ZetaTalk over you mean, nasty scientists."
8) Declare that you were undecided at first but now you've decided that ZetaTalk is probably the more correct explanation and you are now a ZetaTalk believer and others should follow your conclusion based on the discussion.
9) Leave the discussion.
10) Invent a new persona and repeat a few months later.

This technique is not exclusive to ZetaTalkers, it is in common use by many kOOks and cult members.
Been there, done that. Got the T-shirt.

Have fun.


R.

And how does JWD explain this

To: Nancy Leider
From: J.William Dell
Subject: SHAVAS 3-R, 4-R, 5-R

Greetings and to the point;

I have had an opportunity to look at all the SHAVAS R Filter pictures individually.
These were loaded in freeware Cadet Calibration Fits software using all 6 dark plates.

I would like to point out anomolies in Frames 3-R, 4-R, 5-R

In frame 3-R, is an object just above the circle known as Steve's candidate.
In frame 4-R, is an anomolie in the exact coordinates that were given.
In frame 5-R, is the object that has been given by the Zetas as Planet X.

These pictures were taken, so I am to understand, as 2 minute exposures.

With red light bending, are we seeing the actual Planet X in different locations in the
different 2 minute pictures? In frame 4-R specifically, have we captured the red light
shifting within this one picture (which has created what looks like a moving object on the
exposure)?

I am using the freeware Avis Fits Viewer program, which is quite good, and it includes
as part of its features an ability to recognize stars and indicate pixel intensity. When
passing the cross hairs over objects in Fits files it recognizes the objects in 4-R and 5-R
as filmed objects on the picture. It ignores the object in 3-R as it also ignores pixel noise
or Hot? pixels on all pictures. (Hope that makes sense, in essence, Avis Fits viewer considers
the objects in 4-R & 5-R as real.)

With the red shifting occuring, when doing a summary stacked image, especially median, any
object not appearing on different pictures in the same place would probably be removed.

Only in Sum, or with an object with high enough intensity in one picture, would an object
appear.

I was out last night looking (without telescope) to determine location.
Just at the horizon was the star above Orions belt (Ori_Alp_58, it has a common name, don't
know it off hand) which has a high red factor. Boy was it moving around in the atmosphere, it
made the point to me about shifting.

Kindest regards
J.William Dell

[link to zetatalk.com] ?

Gerard, as we all can observe, continues to avoid answering as to HOW HE DETERMINED that PX was imaged at Nancy's coords. He is avoiding saying that it was simply because NANCY SAID SO.

Gerard, as we all can observe, continues to avoid answering as to HOW HE DETERMINED that PX was imaged at Nancy's coords. He is avoiding saying that it was simply because NANCY SAID SO.


I have a life outside of the Internet.

But i will answer your question, mennow. It's because i take zetatalk serious.

And for the sake of it i will also answer another question. I don't have a astronomy degree. I am not a astronomer.

Gerard
[link to poleshift.ning.com]

I have a life outside of the Internet.

But i will answer your question, mennow. It's because i take zetatalk serious.

And for the sake of it i will also answer another question. I don't have a astronomy degree. I am not a astronomer.

Gerard
[link to poleshift.ning.com]

To me, and any normal person, before Nancy could claim "Zetas right again!" they would have had to been specific as to where and when such an event would happen...or at least be close.

I was out last night looking (without telescope) to determine location.
Just at the horizon was the star above Orions belt (Ori_Alp_58, it has a common name, don't
know it off hand) which has a high red factor. Boy was it moving around in the atmosphere, it
made the point to me about shifting.


This last bit we can only chalk up to hysteria. NO ONE saw PX unless they desparately WANTED to. It simply wasn't there.

I was out last night looking (without telescope) to determine location.
Just at the horizon was the star above Orions belt (Ori_Alp_58, it has a common name, don't
know it off hand) which has a high red factor. Boy was it moving around in the atmosphere, it
made the point to me about shifting.


This last bit we can only chalk up to hysteria. NO ONE saw PX unless they desparately WANTED to. It simply wasn't there.


Just to clarify this last bit. (Written Sept 2002)
I was referring to betelgeuse (Ori_Alp_58) not PX. Atmospheric conditions may have been the cause?

I never had any personal visual sighting of PX (and I was looking for it) in March-May 2003. One of the reasons I backed off in March 2003 and waited for final date of May 15 2003, to post the denial of claim on Sci.Astro.

Your other points made are accepted as correct.

Regards
JWD

I have a life outside of the Internet.

But i will answer your question, mennow. It's because i take zetatalk serious.

How can you take ZetaTalk serious when nothing the "Zetas" say would happen in regards to astronomical, meteorological and geologic events has ever happened?

How can you believe it when the person who took the image says there was nothing there?

Obviously, Nancy will never change her story because she can't admit she was wrong.


And for the sake of it i will also answer another question. I don't have a astronomy degree. I am not a astronomer.

Gerard
[link to poleshift.ning.com]

Then what makes you think that people should take you more seriously about astronomical observations than someone who has spent a good portion of their life and career studying the solar system and universe? Is it because you believe you're getting "expert" advice from Nancy?

To all of Nancy's followers that say the USGS never upgrades a quake, check out the latest quake, originally tagged at 7.9, has been upgraded to 8.3. See pinned thread.

He believes those things have happened. Don't ask me why, but he does.

Me too. It's a neat word that the Germans have - Schadenfreude

It fits perfectly the train wreak that is Zetatalk.

Whats that story about Nancy and the candy wrapper btw. It was mentioned here several times ... what bogus stuff did she claim about it ?

In her very own words: [link to groups.yahoo.com]