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

Of course, you ae right. But to be fair in understanding the gist of the words here, from the (somewhat hyperbolic) witness on the stand (Nancy/putative Zetas), whatever her/their actual knowledge level (if the Zetas exist), we should recognize that she, as their conduit, would mean that the Moon is ENOUGH off to be considered noticeable.

I am basing this assessment from having listened to her (/their) comments on many topics, which sometimes are more off-the-cuff in expression, but whose contents' subtleties come out over many individual comments.

In other words, if it were WAY off (as you or I might think of it), sure, it would be noticeable naked-eye. But in the context, it seems she/"they" mean it is off enough to be detected, i.e., "way off" enough to be excited about for proving her case.

I am not saying it IS off; and I am not saying that this part of the claim would be NECESSARY to actually positing a PX hypothesis, logically speaking. But it is one facet of her/ "their" testimony. So this is what I think she means.

I notice some people jump on her for these statements, but over time her expressions of enthusiasm for a point get mitigated; the real predictions (anomalous movement, say, with the Wobble, or whatever, as possibly being part of an argument for PX) can be separated from mistakes and over-emphasized claims, such as this one about the Moon seems to be.

I am, again, only emphasizing that to understand if the basic claim of PX is to be understood, we must eparate the witness-claimant (so to speak) Nancy/putative Zetas from the issues of what a PX would do, were it really here, and do we have anything which might be linked to that -- and we do, even if it's flimsy or inconclusive. A case is a case; some cases have no support whatever. This one does, but we must separate the wheat from the chaff if possible, and even so, we can be wrong (either way). Of course.

A couple few hundred thousand over the last several days...I make it worth my while ya know...:)

Ah ha! I thought I had: I did answer you. See below.
Good night!

from memory we passed that about 4 months ago I thought, I'll see if I can find the post it was noted down on

i do find it `VERY highly unlikely' that every post in this thread (all 15,645 posts on 500 pages was only read by 4 people to give your 65,653 view count

About as likely as a giant planet/brown dwarf hovering in the inner solar system one might say...

[link to www.godlikeproductions.com]

Take a look at the page numbers and post counts of the same sized threads there as ours, and consider how much traffic this one gets every saturday night
65k views

I call shenannigans

No, of course because hypothesis asks what is possible vs impossible vs unknown. In order to test a proposition, it must be worked out in full; and in something as "hairy" as a legal case or similar reasoning over many topics, one must figure out the fullest set of what might account for all evidence. A "pink sweater" might mean different things in different hypotheses, for instance: a co-incidental non-evidetiary item, a murder weapon (strangulation or some such), etc.




No, I am explaining why we do things, in reasoning. So that we are on the same page. In order to understand a proposition, unfortunately even a seeming outlandish one, we cannot rely on piecemiel fact-testing; it may be that it is the relationship between one fact and another which is the salient evidence, not an object or individual event.

So, we test the objects/ideas as best we can, reason as fully as we can in all directions related to the proposition, and then return to the object/idea.

If you want sound bytes you cannot reason. If you were in a court, hearing PX arguments, you would have to sift through all the pieces AND all the potential links, without prejudice to the claim -- which includes not reasoning with only what things would be if you had your way.

What if three items/claims were found together in the same years, and roughly conforming to PX predicted period (last 10 years):


One physical item: could be a or b hypothesis
Another physical item: could be b or c hypothesis
And a third (a claim only): q

Let's say, a and c are versions of co-incidence or non-planet X in some way. And b is planet x possibly doing it physically. And q is ACTUALLY untestable or impossible (and known to fit with NO physical effect we know of, not magnetism, not gravity, nada.)

Well, for item one, isolated, you would like to make it a.
And for item two, isolated, you would chose c.
And for q, you'd jump up and down saying, "Told ya so! A flaw!"

But in fact in combination (in this symbolic example):

Items one, two, and three would logically require b and q.

What does that mean?

It means that in fact in combination, item q could be tossed as completely physically impossible and unknown ...

But items one and two HAVE TO BE "B".
In this logical example, ab and bc leave b.

Follow me, dear sound-byte guy?

I am not saying that Nancy is telling the truth. What I am saying is when BUILDING A CASE, which is NECESSARY FOR UNDERSTANDING, you can't toss what seem to be small things or co-incidental. You actually have to COUNT them into your case.

Then the case rises or falls on the totality.

So, the Wobble example may be small, but it WOULD fit PX if there were one, figuring in electromagnetism. (And to understand the latter's role in planetary dynamics takes a digression and requires one do poo-pooh the institutional errors of many astrophysicists who don't think of it when they think of measuring "Gravity" effects and Sun charges over aeons.)

So the Wobble example goes into the mix. Then we also add the magnetic poles -- the North could be "just moving rapidly" etc., or for some as-yet-unpostulated reason, or, if PX were near, it sounds likely that it might push the magnetic charge in ways not conforming to the Sun's usual. So it goes into the mix.

And on we go.

And if the whole adds up into an image of possibility for PX, then so be it. (Awful reality that would be.) It still doesn't mean it is SO, but it means we've built a case.

Then we work on how it could all be co-incidence: your specialty. Well, here we have scientists saying it's shocking what's happening in the Poles, or with the "Holes" of the magnetosphere, and so on.

Whichever total theory/case is linked best and strongest in details as well, wins. (However, one could have a very strong case that turns out to be in fact wrong. Determining that, though, would be due to key pillars of the case falling, not to just any item.)



As you know, I never freaked. And I have admitted the points you raised about the Pole Star were likely -- though not absolutely proving, until we have scale. But yes, I am guessing now we are not wobbling as Nancy says. However, I do not think the other claims are so likely not true, such as the fact that the Chandler Wobble going backward was not -- both intuitively and in known record -- normal. I found an article on that, at one point. It was mainstream media -- and was talking of something else as well. I don't have the link handy.




Well, it adds up to a case for PX. A case doesn't mean it IS so, but it puts together the pieces in their possible relationship and yes, there are suggestions therefrom, that PX might be here ... but not all the claims about it from Nancy/putative Zetas have to be true for there to be a case to be made for PX.

And when sifted out, these facts and their relationships (why the magnetosphere "holes" of repulsion just after the same time as the Chandler Wobble went backward ... etc.) does make me wonder if yes, the best explanation -- other than the ubiquitous "co-incidence of factors" -- might be a third main magneto-gravitic body (a planet X) being the pull-push factor in the solar system relationship of the Sun and Earth.

This alone would be enough to at least posit PX (if of course nothing stood in the way to make it logically IMPOSSIBLE). Oh, and logcally impossible doesn't mean "unwished thinking", may I remind you.

Good night (for real this time). I napped this aft so I guess I was able to stay up later than usual.

Bye for now! :)

zzzzz
Me

It has nothing to do with any of that - but when thread's views are MOD-ified downwards to ~65k, as a computer geek/mathematician, this is easily recognizable as 2^16, which equals 65,536 decimal.

Could also likely be FFFF (hexadecimal) which is 65,535 decimal, but in hex you begin counting at ZERO, so ends up the same amount of digits (65536).

Well SHR, although I dont like you very much you are absolutely right on this one.

The debunker thread was auto-refreshed. I am pretty sure I know who did it, the person I mean was online 24/7 for days know (a subscribing member) but didn't post anywehere here or in other threads.
So you're right. To set the count back to 65000 is a bit thick ... to about 350000 would have been more realistic.

BTW: documented what happened:
[link to www.freeimagehosting.net]

On may 13th we had about 500000.

If you look at page 515 of our debunker thread you will see the posts I made regarding the problem. Soon after that post the auto-refreshing of this thread began and continued until you stopped it now.

What you should also consider is not only to reset our thread, but those two , too:

[link to www.godlikeproductions.com]

Thread: Holy Shit! LOOK at the Magnetosphere!! (Page 215)

The miracle mineral supplement thread was also auto refreshed. You should correct all their viewing counts.

^^ I regocnized days ago that they were auto-refreshed 24/7 and the one and only reason this was done was to push our debunker thread down in the charts. This probably even caused the one who refreshed the debunker thread to fight them. I have thought about the same, but I did not as I didn't think we need this, as we have proven Nancy to be wrong all along without being in the top 20 anyways.

Look at my observations posted in those threads and you'll see ... I have plenty more screenshots on my other PC btw.

Actually I posted my observations for YOU mods to see and stop it, but you did not care or were lazy about those threads being auto-refreshed. I posted it several times in those threads and here in this one on page 515. IF you are a fair mod you should reset the viewing counts of above mentioned threads, too ... if you do not you obviously only care to attack us debunkers of Nancy LIEDer.

What you and the site ownder and all GLP'lers should realize is that the Top 20 are TOTALLY rigged from beginning to end. Since it is possible to push the view count by auto-refreshing from the same IP every retard can manipulate the viewing count. A few weeks ago someone auto-refreshed a Nancy Lieder chat thread from out of nowhere into the top 18. We discuss this here around page 400 I think.

My suggestion to improve the totally worthless Top 20 list is that you only up the view count by one view for every IP in 24 hrs ... or only allow 10 view counts from one IP in 24 hours, similar to the voting system.

The html for that would only be one like of code.

And to the person who did the auto-refreshing ... well you're busted and you hurt all of us debunkers.

Well I do not believe this is entirely right
According to one of the Ashtar Command channels
the Galactics are ready to help us
they are just waiting our invitation

[link to www.ashtarontheroad.com]

"Now, Obama could be quite influential, and we have asked preparations, knowing that we would make a suggestion. And that is you might want to fill up your computer airwaves with emails to Obama. You could simply ask him to call upon us to help. We know this is not exactly in the nature of the way that the announcement was planned to take place, but these are extraordinary circumstances. Again, understand, we will hear you and we will mitigate to the greatest extent possible; we cannot promise to show up in the skies over the Gulf coast of Louisiana and the other states of the United States, but we will do everything we can do. We have to have permission; we have to be called forth.

And BTW SHR ... if you mods would take your job a bit more seriously you would have been aware that this problem of a completely useless Top 20 list is around here at least for months and I posted about it several times in the past, here and in other threads.

Check for example your logs on this thread:

Thread: ZetaTalk LIVE Chat February 10

A zetatalk with 236,288 views ... this one was also autorefreshed and pushed in the top 20s as I posted in above post already ... you should reset that one too to the about 8000 to 15000 Nancy usually has.

Hi Dr. Postman ... in difference to SHR i really like you, but this one goes to all you mods:



As Trinity is changes the website features like underpants these days it might be a good time to implement improved top 20 list that will make auto-refreshing useless and therefor REALLY be an indicater whats popular on GLP and what not. You migth consider this in your next mod-meeting or whatever you guys do. Please take no offence, you're the only mod I like here, don't want to piss you off. But the top 20 definitely need improvement.

well its got another 40 extra page views from me since I last posted-

not to bump the page views, but as I am a very quick reader I am working backwards through the thread (back to p478 ATM)reading every post to see if I can find a then current page view (search found nothing as usual)

(I probably should have sarted around 400 as I think it was around there when I first mentioned the pages and pageviews then I think
never mind, I will find it soon or later even if I have to reread the entire thread.....

(actually I am enjoying it immensely, seeing the to and fro again but in fast motion so to speak)

Google can help searching too if you're good at using it ... im busy right now ... but ill check back later and see what i can find ... im taking part in this thread since about page 100, so I know it pretty well.

The only thing that stat measures is how "popular" DENIAL is!!!

Go back to nanny Nancy LIEDer and suck her saggy boobs.

Bonus? What bonus? Why is it all you "believers" think someone gets paid simply because they put up an argument against Nancy? Is that all you people have when losing a debate?

Not to worry because it isn't there to begin with.

I have to say his reduction of the page views to 65,000 is pretty drastic considering that the true page views was far higher than that.

Yep ... as you can see on my posted screenshot a page before we were at 500000 views before the auto-refreshing began.

But I remember remember seeing posts by SHR a longer while ago that he actually likes Nancys work (maybe not agreeing with it, but he accepts her at least) ... so he is into her hands with that.

You also can see that he is biased because he wont correct the 2 other auto-refreshed threads I reported several times, look my last posts a page before. OBVIOUSLY he is only pissed at us debunkers , not at others who altered the view counts of their threads, as I can clearly prove with the screenshot from May 13th I posted.

Anyways, this thread will be in the top 20s in no time.

well it was in the top 20 back then

The Lone Ranger  (OP)
Zeta Destroyer
User ID: 917701
New Zealand
3/16/2010 6:51 PM

thats exactly almost to the day 2 months ago on page 442

Thread: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!! (Page 442)

still going back page by page until I find a page view number and date we can use as correct

(obviously we are going to have to keep our own records from now on as site records are obviously untrustworthy, first being bumped artifically high then dragged unbelievably low)

maybe every 10 pages, have a `quotes' post, listing no. of posts, pages, views etc etc and anything else of possible importance

(I sat down and had a thunk about it, I regularly refresh the thread when a lively chat is going on once a minute- even more when a real lively string of posts is on...)

So in 2 hours during zetababble and probably an hour or more afterwards, I would be responsible for a minimum of 180-200 extra page views alone- in one night (day for me actually)

I read almost every chat (hey I am a stay at home ok) and have read almost every chat on the night except when I had to work, since the debunker thread started - that was 11 months ago- that works out at close to 9000 page views from me alone (say 10000 including midweek chats popping up)

I dont know who the other 5 people who have read the thread are- I certainly thought there were more of us there than THAT....

;-)

Yes, I witnessed that too. And not only were those threads auto refreshed but also "17P/Holmes - Enigma 'Comet'" thread. That continued for quite some time until it stopped and then the Debunker thread overtook it. It was like watching some really retarded competition for no reason except "winning".


Yes, the whole system of "Popular threads" is flawed. It has clearly been manipulated all along. Imo it would be much better if the most popular threads would be those with most replies. That would be so much harder to manipulate as spam gets deleted.

Dear Deutschland über alles! (small attempt at some Teutonic humor there)

Let it go dude! You seems quite obsessed with all this "view stuff." Chill dude. Life is not alway fair. You think the LIGHTWORKERS thread REALLY has/had over 1.6^10x6 views??? About half were artificial. So be it.

Act III. Scene II. Hamlet:
"The lady doth protest too much, methinks."

While my guess would be you're a dude (babes generally don't bother with screenshots and all the other time you've spent on this), I think the quote is apropos. Your vociferous protestations could almost make you sound complicit.

While I think a "view count" of 350,000 is a probably more fair valuation, I cannot discount the notion that, likely, a "regular" of this thread participated, and hence, the punishment.

That having been said, I think those Zetatalk nutjobs are functionally delusional... reference: [link to www.webmd.com]

Having been involved with many such trials during my clinical training, it is impossible, and worthless to try and convince them otherwise, through rational reasoning - as the disorder itself, precludes such approaches.

So in my interactions with such people, I just play along, but in no way attempt to show them they're wrong; not only is it a waste of time (we all have better things to do... let me revise that; most of us have better things to do!), but proceeds with the notion that their diagnosis is somehow "treatable" if "only we can show them the truth."

As a male, I can't help but compare the female Homo sapiens' incessant desire to "change" a male "jerks" behaviors... get over it ladies - you're NOT going to change him! OK, a little gender observation to make the point... (go for the "nice guys" - we're worth it!)

With people who are delusional (think ZetaTards), there is no changing them - so no matter how much rational banter you throw at them, you will not effect any change.

A few last thoughts: I cannot discount those who are wise as a fox; i.e., those who set up 501(c)(3)'s to take advantage of charitable contributions to maintains an often rather healthy lifestyle (think: all the paranormal conference-circuit people). However, this also applies to plain ol' people who have donation links on their websites. Crazy as a fox.

So to almost close... my actual advice would be to ignore these 'tards and cease rational rebuttals as they will clearly have not effect, and, at least I, have certainly better use of my time (think: family time, BBQ's, quality TV, interacting with rational humans, nurturing loving relationships, etc., etc.)

Of course, following my advice would mean far fewer posts and views on this thread... but consider the alternative - complete waste of our precious time allotted on this earth. I'm just sayin'...

So now, in real conclusion I say: Dear Deutschland über alles!: Enjoy a good meal, some great music (Wagner in your case???), good company, a good book, the majesty of a clear night sky... these are all so much more precious than responding to ZetaTards via bits and bytes.

The Rational One

OR one of the zetatards was doing it to try and bump it to extremes so the view numbers would have to be discounted??

Look back at when it first hit the top 20, and then the top ten- a couple of `those who shall not be named' were particulary indignant that it was so popular compared to zetababble...

No doubt. Which will show how truly popular it is. It's obvious because the page is frequently near the front while Nancy's threads sink into oblivion rather quickly. Look at the page views as it is - they were set to 65,000 and already it's over 66,000 over night. In addition, we have over 500 pages. Something Nancy cannot claim.

Last Edited by Circuit Breaker on 05/17/2010 07:42 AM

I don't know if you're asking what that is. If so, it's a Denial Of Service attack...or so SHR thinks.

These refresh number are normal for me too when I watch threads closely and when I'm chatting with others. But SHR is right about one thing, this thread here was artificially pushed in the past days. The one who did it used probably something like this:

[link to addons.mozilla.org]

And he was pretty stupid, as IF you do something like this, you dont do it 24/7 day after day.

BUT: Other threads in the top 20 are pushed artificially too ... as I posted before several times and which I can prove with screenshots. But SHR just supports Nancy, therefor he does NOT care about those other threads AT ALL.

You can easily see if a thread is auto-refreshed ... just look at the top 20 charts when the thread your observing is not on the frontpage and hasnt been posted in for a while (so changes are good not many are looking at it at that time). Then you reload the page every second (with your mouseclick, not some tool) ... if the thread is autorefreshed you will see that the view count goes up every time you refresh the top 20 page. It did so with this thread until recently BUT it did so with several others and it will continue with them I am sure (I am closely monitoring that for quite a time now).

well I have read backwards from 523 back to 435 so far
plus close to 4 hrs with my usual once a minute or so refresh (a little bit less than normal as I tend to only refresh the current page at the same time as I go back a page unles a couple of posts have been made, then I'll refresh a bit more often to see any new replies- so that would probably be around 200-300 page views alone tonight I would think

I'm a monarchist, supporting the german-austrian monarchy (like many bavarians), no Nazi.

But of course your right about that.