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

The pot calling the kettle black again.


Let's talk about your claim of increasing earthquakes. What about that chart you yammered about that ended up being a fake? Care to support your claim of increasing earthquakes, or have you embarrassed yourself enough on that topic and want to move on to something else to embarrass yourself with? Perhaps you'd like to present some fake data and graphs to show there's something odd about fireballs. You do know that the Geminids meteor shower was this past week, right? And those have a tendency to produce some occasional bright streaks or fireballs, right? No, you probably didn't. It's best for you to not research any of this stuff. Nor will you actually discuss this topic with us. You'll scamper off like you did after claiming earthquakes were increasing...only to have your ass handed back to you.

Last Edited by Circuit Breaker on 12/17/2009 12:54 PM

And this is why he is called the Luser. Too chicken to defend the graph that you said we were afraid to address, and when we did and when it was proved it was bogus, the silence from Luser was deafening. Not too bright and a pussy to boot. When you can't defend yourself and you're too proud to admit you were wrong, just change the subject. Right Luser?

Challenges "User # 78/68" Continues To Run Away From
(also known as The Number Of Ways "User # 78/68" Continues To Embarrass Himself)

1) When asked for proof that "Planet X" exists, he simply spews insults and runs away.
2) When someone wanted to bet him money (something that's very important to him) on Nancy's accuracy, he disappeared. And each time it is brought up, he ignores it.
3) I provided photographic proof that the sun was NOT rising 20 minutes early. When I asked him to dispute this, he ran away.
4) I provided a diagram proving that constellations behind the sun cannot be made visible by simply tilting the Earth or lowering it in the ecliptic. Instead of providing charts of his own to show it would be possible, he simply threw out insults and ran away.
4) When I personally invited him to Tampa to prove that I am exactly who I say I am, he initially showed interest and then ran away.
5) Hap, ID 88145, invited "User" to call him at work or e-mail him, instead of doing so he threw out more insults and ran away.
6) When asked why GOTO telescopes continue to accurately track the moon if it were moving unpredictably (i.e. too far north, too far south), he spewed more insults and ran away.
7) Hap invited anyone who believes in "Planet X" to come view the skies with him to search for this elusive "rogue planet" that "believers" all claim is so easy to see at sunrise. Instead of taking up that invitation, "User" threw out more insults and ran away.
8) ID 74444 suggested that Nancy is NOT the most popular poster on GLP and explained how he came to this conclusion. Instead of providing any evidence to prove otherwise, "User" spewed insults and ran away.
9) When asked if he believed that Earth was halted in orbit, or if he believed that "Planet X" would cause a "pole shift" and wipe out 90% of Earth's population (both of which are claims made by Nancy) - "User" called them trick questions, refused to answer and ran away.
10) "User" claims that "debunkers" lie. When asked for examples of these lies, he spews insults and runs away.
11) He claims that "debunkers" are government agents. When asked for proof of this, he spews insults and runs away.
12) Since "User" refuses to take Hap up on his offer to search for "Planet X," it was suggested "User" contact a local astronomy club and view with them. "User" spewed insults and ran away.
13) "User" claims earthquake activity is increasing. But instead of providing data to support this claim, he spewed insults and ran away.
14) Nancy claimed that Adam Air Flight 574 crashed in an inland lake. "Debunkers" have provided several links showing that Nancy is wrong. Instead of providing evidence showing otherwise, "User" spewed insults and ran away.
15) "User" contends that "Debunkers" are always wrong. When asked for examples of when "Debunkers" have been wrong, he spewed insults and ran away.
16) When asked for examples of when Nancy was right, especially when pertaining to astronomical claims and predictions, "User" spewed insults and ran away.
17) "User" has seen this list several times and has yet to dispute anything on it. Instead, he spewed insults and ran away.
18) "User" doesn't believe that vaporized water contaminated with arsenic was responsible for the illness in Peru after a meteor strike. When asked what HE thought caused it, he spewed insults and ran away.
19) Nancy claims that the Minneapolis bridge collapse was caused by some "stretch zone." When asked for evidence of this, "User" spewed insults and ran way.
20) "User" claims that I lied about amateur radio operators using their equipment and the moon for EME communications. When asked for evidence to support his claim that I lied, he spewed insults and ran away.
21) "User" claimed that many, many people are seeing the moon "not right." When asked for links of these claims or some form of evidence to support the claim that the moon is "not right," he spewed insults and ran away.
22) "User" claimed that Menow lied when he said the sun is not setting further north each day during the fall months. When asked for supporting evidence, he spewed insults and ran away. (Prof-Rabbit supplied a link showing the sun does not move north during the fall months in the north hemisphere.)
23) "User" demands that "debunkers" provide evidence or, in his words, "to put up or shut up." When "User" is asked to do the same, he spews insults and runs away.
24) Hap sent some photos to Nancy. He never stated what they were or what he believed them to be, instead he asked her what she thought they were. Nancy, and Nancy alone, stated they were photos of "Planet X." When asked which photos are "Planet X" and which ones are just lens flare, "User" spewed insults and ran away.
25) "User" continues to say I've exposed my lies. He has been asked what lies those are and to provide supporting evidence. Instead, he spews insults and runs away.
26) "User" tasked Nighthawk to demonstrate some contradictions from "ZetaTalk." Nighthawk came up with four. "User" made a weak attempt to explain them away, then spewed insults and ran away.
27) Hap provided a link to a website with photos of his equipment. "User" claimed it was all fake, spewed insults and ran away.
28) Hap's contact information is provided on the website, but instead of using it to verify Hap is who he claims, "User" spewed insults and ran away.
29) Several weeks ago, Hap again extended his invitation for anyone to come look for "Planet X" using his observatory. "User" again spewed insults and ran away.
30) "User" claimed that Nancy predicted the current economic recession...when in reality, Nancy said the recession would happen in 2003 and that the DOW would be worth a quarter of its value. When this was pointed out, "User" spewed insults and ran away. 31) "User" implied that Hap shouldn't be taken seriously because he doesn't have any credentials in astronomy...even though none are needed to be an amateur astronomer. When asked what credentials Nancy had that makes her more believable, "User" spewed insults and ran away.
32) "User" claimed that the Zetas never said they were preventing asteroid strikes. When shown exactly what the Zetas said, proving they did say it, "User" spewed insults and ran away.
33) "User" claimed that "The Commentator" outed himself as a NASA shill. When asked to explain exactly how this was done, "User" spewed insults and ran away.
34) "User" once again claimed that "The Commentator" is a NASA shill. When asked to provide evidence to support this claim, "User" spewed insults and ran away.
35) "User" stated that "debunkers" spend thousands of hours on Nancy's threads. When asked for supporting evidence, "User" spewed insults and ran away.
36) "User" claimed that only NASA would hire "debunkers." When asked for evidence of this, "User" spewed insults and ran away.
37) "User" once again claimed that "debunkers" lie. When asked for evidence of this or examples of such lies, "User" spewed insults and ran away.
38) "User" claimed I was squirming. When asked for specific examples of how I was squirming, "User" spewed insults and ran away.
39) "User" presented an article describing how GPS satellites might fail within a year. He claimed that Nancy and the "Zetas" predicted this. However, "User" failed to post the whole article which stated the reason for the potential failure is due to neglect and failure to replace key satellites...not because of some "rogue planet" as Nancy claimed. When this was pointed out to him, "User" spewed insults and ran away.
40) "User" claimed that Hap was afraid to answer his questions. Hap said he would answer any question "User" had. Instead of asking any questions, "User" spewed insults and ran away.
41) "User" claimed not to make assumptions. Yet, he assumes that people are paid to be here. He assumes that Hap is a fake and he assumes that Prof Rabbit works for NASA. When these assumptions are pointed out, he spews insults and runs away.
42) "User" attacked "debunkers" for calling Nancy crazy saying we had no business doing so, and yet he calls Candace crazy. When asked why, in his opinion, he considers Candace crazy but not Nancy, he spewed insults and ran away.
New to the list:
43) "User" once again claimed that earthquakes are on the increase based on a chart that another poster provided. He then claimed that "debunkers" wouldn't want to discuss it. However, "debunkers" did discuss it and discovered the chart is bogus. The link listed in it doesn't even exist. "Debunkers" then provided data showing the number of worldwide earthquakes for the past 9 years and it shows no such increase. Instead of backing up his claims, User spewed insults and ran away.

I suspect he'll now refuse to discuss fireballs and explain what his point is, so I'll probably be able to add number 44 to the list shortly.

Last Edited by Circuit Breaker on 12/17/2009 12:55 PM

Page 9 of Nancy's latest thread primarily discusses Loser's claims about increasing earthquakes. Did he bother to dispute that the chart was bogus? Did he provide any kind of factual data to support his claims? No. This is the best he could come up with:



As you can see, in Loser fashion, he dodges the topic and tries to change it. At the same time, his statement is rather vague with no real point. What fireballs is he referring to? How many are we talking about? Was it just this week? If so, what makes him think they weren't related to the Geminids meteor shower this week? If he's talking about other times, can he show there's actually an increase? Is he claiming "Planet X" is causing them? How can "Planet X" be causing these when there's no sign of said "rogue planet?" Does he have any data to support whatever claim he's making? Will he present it? Or, will he do as he did above and try to change the subject as usual? It's funny how he claims "debunkers" won't discuss anything when time and time again he proves the only one refusing to discuss is him.

Last Edited by Circuit Breaker on 12/17/2009 01:53 PM

Here's a calendar of meteor showers that occur normally every single year.

[link to meteorshowersonline.com]

I'm surprised that Luser can see fireballs in the sky at all, since his head has been firmly stuck up his own ass since I came here.

True that...or attached to Nancy's kissing it.

Don't try to confuse things with stuff like empirical data and observations!

ZetaTalk fans think 'empirical data' has something to do with the Empire in Star Wars...

That wouldn't surprise me...just like some of them might think Taco Bell is the Mexican phone company.

Luser really outed himself this time. It's there for all to see. All hail the King of Evasion!

Last Edited by Circuit Breaker on 12/17/2009 07:56 PM

He won't do it. User lacks spine.

Along with quite a few other things.

So, let's see...he completely avoided discussing his claims about increasing earthquakes (probably because he was proven wrong), so he'll probably avoid elaborating on his statement concerning fireballs. I wonder what subject he'll come up with to refuse discussion on next.

Luser is, even now, in a huddle with Nancy, trying to come up with something new to bleat about. He can't use quakes (his graph was fake), he can't use 'fireballs' (annual meteor shower), I'm guessing they'll trot out broken water mains as evidence of crust stretching or something equally stupid.

They certainly can't use bridges. They tried when that one in Minnesota collapsed, but in the two years since then, none of the bridges near that one have collapsed nor have any others along the Mississippi River. So, water main breaks is all they have really. But even that is weak considering breaks aren't uncommon. If they want to use them, they need to provide something showing how the break is different than any other break.

Crop failures

Changing the subject again spawn of Nancy?

And? What's your point? Are you going to claim that "Planet X" is responsible for every crop failure in history? Such as the dust bowl and the great potato famine?

I should have assumed Melfy was also in the huddle.

Crop failures, Melfy? Wow, you're right, such a thing has never before happened in all the annals of human history. It must be a Sign, yes, a Sign!

That's weak even by your laughable standards.

Anyway, why are you still posting about all this? You claimed if nothing happened by Thanksgiving you were going to turn your attentions elsewhere. Have you failed to notice the Christmas decorations, Melfy old boy? Got a calendar (not a Mayan one, the more recent kind)?

Maybe you could ask Elle what major holiday is approaching, and which one passed nearly a month ago...

I watched a program on the Discovery channel the other night...I think it was called Apocalypse 2012. They spent roughly 45 minutes talking about doomsday scenarios caused by the sun and portrayed in the movie 2012. They spent just over five minutes discussing one last doomsday scenario - Planet X. The people on the show discussed how the physics involved to cause a "pole shift" were simply impossible. They also pointed out that even if it could happen, no one would survive because of the energy released. For instance, the Earth is wider at the equator caused by Earth's own rotation. Similar to being on a spinning carousel at a playground. As it spins, forces try to pull you off. If Earth were to suddenly shift and have a new rotational axis, the plates would all fracture as the new poles compressed and the old ones expanded after becoming part of the new equator. The caldera in Yellowstone would more than likely erupt, which would spew enough smoke and ash into the atmosphere to shroud the entire planet with a thick veil preventing sunlight to warm the Earth. It would take several years for that to dissipate. In addition, over half of the U.S. would be coated with ash. That ash is going to kill a lot of stuff that ends up buried. And, with the plunging temperatures and lack of sunlight, how are you going to grow crops to survive? This upheaval would also kill off Plankton, which is the base of the eco-system. Without it, the entire eco-system would be pretty much destroyed. The last thing they mentioned is that, of course, "Planet X" doesn't exist. They also stated that, contrary to many claims, if there really was a "Planet X," they would be able to see it considering how big it's supposed to be. Now, they didn't mention Nancy's name at all...but I wonder if they were referring to her when they said that.

These arguments that pole shifts are not survivable are silly - for they ignore the huge amount of cultural and even archeological evidence that humans experienced AND survived previous pole shifts. For instance, human bones are found mixed in the Alaskan muck heaped up against valley walls. (Of course THOSE PARTICULAR HUMANS did not survive - but obviously the RACE did [or we wouldn't be here]). Ergo - the energy behavior must have been different than what these debunker fools assert. Obviously the crust did not "liquefy" as they would have us believe.

Cultural evidence suggests that survivors had an awfully tough time of it, but mainly subsisted on fish and shellfish. As for lack of sunlight - the volcanic vents prove that life can subsist and even thrive without sunlight. And it won't be that there is "no" sunlight - just reduced sunlight.

Life "finds a way".

Last Edited by ***ZetaMaX*** on 12/18/2009 11:02 AM

"These arguments that pole shifts are not survivable are silly - for they ignore the huge amount of cultural and even archeological evidence that humans experienced AND survived previous pole shifts. For instance, human bones are found mixed in the Alaskan muck heaped up against valley walls. (Of course THOSE PARTICULAR HUMANS did not survive - but obviously the RACE did [or we wouldn't be here]). Ergo - the energy behavior must have been different than what these debunker fools assert. Obviously the crust did not "liquefy" as they would have us believe."

Melfy, Melfy, Melfy. All those late-night bull sessions with Elle around the campfire have taught you nothing about physics, have they?

The 'energy behavior' of which you mumble is quite simply beyond your comprehension. As such, you really have no business casting aspersions on it. But nothing you can say will change the reality that any force sufficient to induce a pole shift will also sterilize the planet. I know you and Nancy live in a fantasy world where Smurfs with levers can move worlds around, and that's nice for people of your limited intellect, but it just ins't so.

Would you care to provide links to this supposed evidence?

[link to all-ez.com]

Damn, Melfy, that link leads to one butt-ugly website.

And sadly the content is even more dismal than the format. Edgar Cayce? some dumbass who thinks he can look at glaciers and determine their history?

Holy shit, dude, you honestly don't have ANY mental bullshit detectors, do you?

Color me not only utterly unconvinced but laughing my ass off at your gullibility.

No, they are not silly.


There is absolutely no evidence of any kind to show that there has ever been such an event in Earth's history. Everything you cite is just pure speculation and not accepted by mainstream science. Try again.

OMG!! That site is even less convincing than Nancy's. Care to find some evidence presented by someone who actually knows what they're talking about...someone reputable?

Here's a random excerpt taken from the front page of the shit -- er, the 'site' linked by our very own Melfy:

"From details that Edgar Cayce revealed in the readings, and my observations of the path of glaciers, it seems to suggest that a poleshift occurred around 50,000 bce, that reversed the poles 180 degrees. The former south pole was near where the north pole is today. Then about 26,000 bce, the poleshift of Noah located the north pole to the southwest in Canada, near Hudson Bay. The poleshift of 10,000 bce returned the north pole to near its former position before Noah's deluge. It is my opinion that the rotation of the earth is opposite to what it was prior to the poleshift of 180 degrees that occurred in circa 50,000 bce. In those days the earth turned counter-clockwise, and the sun rose in the west. This is why the careful observer will note that we are seeing the signs of the Zodiac move in a reverse direction across our heavens, and that the precession of the equinoxes is going backwards thru the signs."

There is SO much wrong with just that excerpt that an investigation of the rest of the site could only be safely completed by someone sporting a fresh lobotomy. Which I suppose explains Melfy's fondness for it.

Utter, unadulterated, 100% pure industrial-grade heavy-duty family sixed BULLSHIT.

Nice catch, Melfy. I expect no less from you.

Why haven't we observed any other planet 'pole shift?'

Why do the oldest astronomical charts ever discovered still have Polaris as the North Star?