(massive snip)
I said absolutely nothing about the magnetosphere. I said that I thought you were referring to a previously touted glitch in the monitoring system. Nancy commonly finds normal, but unusual-appearing, to the lay-person, bits of 'data' and misrepresents them as supporting her PX story. Again... don't you GET that?
Yes. But I think it fools her too, maybe. I think she's got an image of PX in her head/soul, and knows of the electromagnetism at play at a distance, and the rest (mere claims from Zetas) is unknowable to us, believable to her.
Quoting: mclarek 971744Nancy absolutely refuses to 'see' anything which would undermine her steadfast belief in "Zetas" and that they are 'always right'. That does not lead her to honesty, in the least.
(snip)
No. You said that the image showed Polaris to be too far 'off-center'... too far from the NCP. Even if that WAS what was shown by that image(it wasn't), that DOES NOT support Nancy's claim(or yours) of an abnormal 'wobble'. This is about the 4th time I have brought this up.
Yes it would. It would be an off-centre pole (which is contained in the assumptions about a wobble: if there's a wobble, the pole is off). And if you want to split this up and say they're two slightly different things, Nancy's word wobble being an ongoing pole which moves around off-centre from the old one, but keeps going (like a mini chandler wobble) ... versus a NEW, STABLE off-centre pole, which still implies we "wobbled" or were "torqued" off centre.
Fine.
Quoting: mclarek 971744No, it shows, if you had been right, that there is a new NCP, since it shows no motion other than around one central point. That is NOT what Nancy claims. She claims an on-going, several times a day, abnormal re-orientation of Earth's axis.
(snip)
So you overlook the specifics of Nancy's claims in favor of a nonspecific 'wrongness'?? Priceless!
Nonspecific? I don't know the number of degrees it would be. I knew it seemed (probably a scale issue) that there was too much distance and too many nearer-the-Pole stars caught on the image, for it to be the Pole Star in its right placement. However, scale is an issue, and I've dropped it.
Wanna quibble some more?
Quoting: mclarek 971744It's not about a number of degrees. It's about what Nancy claims is happening. That image does not show what Nancy claims is happening, even if Polaris was too far from center. Get it now? Ohh.. and as far as a few degrees might be an issue... it would also be nowhere near Nancy's other absurd claim that aliens have tilted the Earth far enough to provide summer(N hemisphere) when Earth is in the fall/winter side of its orbit.
However, it definitely hypothetically relates to the Chandler Wobble backwards motion: did we "just move" or were we "pulled" that way? Those are the key questions, and thus we see which way each hypothesis would treat of that evidence.
You have yet do show, despite requests, that the alleged 'anomoly' you found is unprecidented or even unusual.
Oh look it up yourself. Do some deep "support PX" research. It'll be good for you! Just for the brain cells (and the heart, for trying).
I could be like you, and ask nastily, "What's an 'anomoly'," or what does "have yet do show" mean! :)) You are so cruel it distracts from your argument. Or -- is that your point? I think it's just your manner and surety of what you say. You CAN be sure without being unopen of heart or mind to following things through, and being kind.
Quoting: mclarek 971744You hve no idea how much inane, nasty, attacking, lying retorts I/we have had to field from Nancy and her followers over the years. Dozens upon dozens of claims made which, when followed up, have absolutely no basis in fact. Now you expect utmost courtesy when defending Nancy's claims when NONE has been forthcoming from Nancy's camp for literally years. Even YOU said that I was being PAID for my actions here. You expect to be given some slack? You'll have to EARN it, sweety.
Anyway, the Wobble has gone forward (slightly slowly or relatively faster), in ring-spiral mapping, since it was studied first in the 1940s. Also, we are not talking of standing still a while, or going a bit to the left or right; we are talking of a spinning top, with its own wobble GOING BACKWARDS IN WOBBLE.
You have YET to....
Like a jig-jog in space? Made it tip back as it spins?
Hmm. Hope it's normal or something NON-PX related. But it could very well be from such a Planet, if such a planet is really here by the Sun, first entering our system. Hope not. The hypothesis does fit though. That's all I wanted to show on that.
Then why are you not waiting until you can show an acutal anomoly, to go into such a tirade as this?
In trying to mock me for ONE typo, in the middle of my excellent English (and having your own typos along the way) you look dumb and cruel.
Quoting: mclarek 971744Huh? Where did I do that?
Answered again and again: seemingly it would be still by the Sun, and only visible to satellites ... some of which seem to have been showing it, along with cover-up.
Ridiculous. Show any such satellite images.
I already mentioned several. Most are not on line anymore; there are several at Zetatalk, however; and Bad Astronomy has that half-assed (pretend-to-be-scientific but then don't-do-the-key-test) page on some of them.
Quoting: mclarek 971744So... like the other thing... you just claim that certain evidence exists, but don't provide it, or say that *I* should go looking for it. Priceless.
You are the spiteful, condescending one, making fun of two typos of mine. I finally made fun of one of yours. :)
But okay, I already answered that about the images: I said there are some suggestions of PX on imges, and NO KEY TEST done by the debunkers, on their own claim that it's pixel flare.
Quoting: mclarek 971744According to you. No link to alleged event.
<shrug>
They left themselves wiggle room (or know that they're lying, as you say Nancy does, so I'll copy you on that hypothesis). But hey, it means you and I simply cannot technically know if pixel flare could account for it.
I doubt it was called "pixel flare" and since you admit to not knowing, why are you accusing them of falseness?
Even if it could be a pixel, so could it be a Planet, so it could be actually from either ... and either lawyer could use it for their side, on the way to another argument point.
You seem not to like reasoning about arguments.
No, it's just that you are arguing minutia. It's as if you want to know if there is an elephant in your living room, but instead of just looking, you are sending off for equipment to determine if there are any molecules of the scent of its dung in the air.
In fact I am not arguing minutia: is a speck of dust on a sweater in a court case, a minutium? Of course not, if it COULD be critical to an hypothesis.
Quoting: mclarek 971744Not if the question is whether the sweater exists.
Now, you and I CANNOT JUST LOOK for this elephant. I am not on a satellite; are you? So we MUST smell the dung, or in fact, we must use others' pieces of memos about having smelled dung, to go by. And I don't mean "just Nancy/Zetas", I mean by "memos" the tidbits from the earth and science which might relate to the case.
Quoting: mclarek 971744BEcause the world's astronomers, and the ones who post on GLP are all in on the coverup of the PX thingy?
Hence we have to BUILD a case, before we can compare.
Having said that, I'm glad it's not visible. It means it might not be in the system.
Then what is causing all the 'anomolies' you claim to see?
Oh! Rude and stupid to be rude on typos, again. Good one. :)
Now, if you had noticed I misspell a lot of the time, and clearly from the types of errors I hypothetically made, that I really didn't understand spelling and grammar very well, you STILL would be being rude.
Quoting: mclarek 971744Lady, I was doing no such thing. I was simply asking a question.
(snip)
Then why is Nancy lying about it?
In claiming I follow her, merely because I pointed out that, and how, she could be possibly NOT lying: how that would work and what symptoms it would show in her claims ... which are not merely "more and more covers" but have a pattern of types of wording she uses. All this shows she is likely not LYING but CONVINCED most of the patterns are correct ... and has misunderstood pieces of the science along the way.
But I'm more concerned because some of the science may add up -- if you know what to look for in the events AND how to rigorously argue with an intrepid willingness to find out (technically speaking, an open mind, not a simple sponge).
Clare
Quoting: mclarek 971744The idea that Nancy is simply
misunderstanding is a reach of such vast proportions as to be beyond silly. She has avoided; obfuscated; falsified; twisted; perverted; contorted and outright lied, too many times to mentions.
Yeah... it was all an
accident...
