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

what is a **credible source**, to you?

one that is supported by opinions of other "authoritative" figures?

then opinions of Nancy/Zetas should be a credible source to you,since it is supported by so many people, whose opinions are supported by many other people.

Sorry, but Nancy is not supported by anyone reputable.

Credible means to be given and passed a period of peer review, Non of Nancys claims havent even got anywhere near peer review.

Last Edited by VestanPance on 03/08/2010 08:38 AM

Which many people ? the ning has not even 1000 members.

impacts of space objects are an irregular event, catastrophic event.

"magnetic reversals" are too.



if our science doesnt admit it, but there are facts that point to it...

and btw, magnetic reversal does not cause any catastrophic events by itself, it is a sign of crust displacement.

Good grief, Andrew! You think FACTS are supported by OPINIONS? No. Facts are facts in spite of opinions, facts are facts regardless of how many people believe something or not. Facts are not groundless, but they certainly aren't based on opinions.

Based on what evidence? What are your qualifications to make that assumption?

Crustal Displacement was a theory by Hapgood in the 50's. Shame Hapgood wasnt a geologist though. It has since been debunked time and time again.

Hapgood

Velikovsky

Sitchin

numerous articles and works by different scientists.

this is our science - opinions differ

and if you claim that i twist facts to fit my theory, then you should know that at least there are scientists who stand for the same theories.

excuse me - are YOU?

its not necessary to even be a scientist to come to these conclusions

Last Edited by andrew on 03/08/2010 08:55 AM

Hapgood was a historian, not a geologist.

Sitchin has been proven to be wrong, and made translation errors.

Guess what, I have a degree in Geoscience.

what do i care what "reputable scientists" believe? who they are that i listen to them?

do they hold any exclusive knowledge or means to know for sure?

they are the same humans as you and i and Nancy. but we, for some odd reason, ascribe to them this supreme judjement ability.

They clearly are more intelligent than yourself.
Otherwise you wouldnt pin all your hopes on a debunked Historian, A Sumerian "Expert" who translated ancient writing wrong, and a russian who believed in Catastrophism, all of whom have been debunked.

what an entertainment!

what is "reputable", in the first place?

- worthy of respect
- Having a good reputation; honorable
- trustworthy

who decides what source is "worthy of respect" or not? based on WHAT?

"peer review" - that's exactly it, "reputable" simply means it is supported by other people. it all counts on opinions of other "reputable" people, who are credited by yet other "reputable" people....

No, Independently reviewed and work that can be verified by other people.

I am `ASSuming that as usual the zeta `max' (PMSL) got it wrong

in fact its probably part of his (many) maths problems...

maxipad may have `meant' that "Scientific Fact" = "Propaganda"

or then its possibile he meant "Scientific Fact" is't "Propaganda"


quite frankly no-one (probably not even Kurt himself knows anymore) knows if he is `kidding' or serious- whenever he posts, the fence shitter has spun his story so many times even Star Treks best`est' can't make heads or tails anymore of what he says...

IF by "Scientific Fact" = "Propaganda"- well yes- but easily checked - well by..... well.... almost anyone on or off this planet....

IF on the other hand he meant to say "Scientific Fact" isn't "Propaganda" then he's right again- it isn't... as most propaganda isn't scientific fact and never has been and never will be....

Using the zetawhoowhooooo definition of both Propaganda and Scientific Fact- which makes Melfries babblings interchangable in either case....




ummmm......



/zeta drunken babblings

;-)

she doesnt have to be, noone has to be.

she is supported by REALITY.

does someone who says Earth is round or that sunrise just happened on March 8, 2010 has to be supported by anyone "reputable"?

numbers dont mean anything here.

millions can be deluded to believe uttermost nonsense, and yet, does it make it true? no

Nancy is not supported by reality, shes in a far off land of make believe and your dumbass has been taken along for a ride.

as for your second statement, it does help if someone reputable with knowledge on the subject says "yes thats true" because its been independently verified.

what we know about the world is a CONSENSUS among people whom we grant that authority - to decide what we consider our world to be.

they can be wrong, and they are on number of issues

Name those issues then

and?

what an argument is that?

It means I know a damn sight more about this planet than you do.

why should i give credence to those who supposedly "debunked" them?

Debunked as in Data proven to be false.

You know talking to you is like talking to a brick wall, doesnt matter what FACT your given, you put your fingers in your ears you do need help seriously.

there is a number of reasons these "other people" reject some studies. and first of them is that these finds do not fit with their own worldview

cant utube link

but this one fits just as well

[link to www.youtube.com]

Dennis Leary : I'm An Asshole

(Is Luser's real name Dennis??- it would explain a lot...)

Im an asshole (hes an asshole)
Im an asshole (hes the worlds biggest asshole)

Sometimes I park in handicapped spaces
While handicapped people make handicapped faces

Im an asshole (hes an asshole)
Im an asshole (hes a real fucking asshole)

Maybe I shouldnt be singing this song
Ranting and raving and carrying on
Maybe theyre right when they tell me Im wrong
NAH!!!!!

Im an asshole (hes an asshole)
Im an asshole (hes the worlds biggest asshole)

no need to

as you know it pretty well - i said it many times

Sorry, but not the case, independently reviewed means by people with no vested interest. That goes the same for people of a certain world view.

do you seriously believe that? :)

i would say its not true,
if science promotes erroneous beliefs then one who is not "indoctrinated" by it but looking directly at facts and world around them, understand MORE!

Yopu probably believe Nancy that a Trimester has 4 months then ?