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

Is this for real ???

[link to poleshift.ning.com]



I just visited the poleshift site linked above. Have you folks read the first two rules of the site?

1. No debunking and disruption. Debunking and disruption will lead to a ban.
2. The existence of Planet X and ZetaTalk are not debatable.

Are you kdding me? This is like saying no logic allowed. It is a plea for bunk.

<shaking head>

Wow! This explains Nancy's move!


That was Nancy's original intent at the old TT-watch. She just called it 'disruption' there. It means you cannot question anything she says. It's just a little more blatantly stated on the ning.

I've been reluctant to link to that Poleshift Ning.

In my experience, linking to or even writing the name of websites that engage in discussing certain specific allegations about Godlikeproductions results in a an automatic ban here.

Is this ning getting a pass because of Nancy's involvement?

If so, why has she been involved in discussions bashing GLP over there if she's a mod here?

What are people like Menow, Circuit Breaker, Dr. Postspam, and the robot Lone Ranger going to do with their time now? You've just ruined their lives!! lol

What are people like Menow, Circuit Breaker, Dr. Postspam, and the robot Lone Ranger going to do with their time now? You've just ruined their lives!! lol

What are people like Menow, Circuit Breaker, Dr. Postspam, and the robot Lone Ranger going to do with their time now?

Another Crack In The Cover-Up!

A debunking site, www.zetasquawk.com, has "gone out of business." Here is the story.

A while back, we heard that this known debunking website was stating that Zetatalk.com was misusing the word "trimester," a weak attempt to impugn the Zetatalk message (i.e., if they can't even speak English correctly, would you trust them with science?) Weak is too strong of a word actually, more like a last desperate attempt grasping at straws. Here is a screen shot: ZQ1.doc

A rebuttal was posted here [link to poleshift.ning.com] Read the blog part first (not the comments, yet).

Then a known debunker rejoined this group for the express purpose of addressing the rebuttal. As you can see, his priority was to argue the definition of the word trimester rather than help forward the purpose of this ning. He was, of course, suspended. Unfortunately, content is deleted when a member is suspended, so there are gaps in the comments. I posted what he said as the last (latest) comment so you can see

After his suspension, he thought he got the last word in by posting his rebuttal on that website. Here is a screen shot: ZQ2.doc

Now, go back to the debunking-the-debunkers blog and read the next to the last comment (the one with all the links proving three four-month divisions of a year are now in public usage as "trimesters," which was posted after the zetasquawk comment personally directed at me. Sorry, Greco, but that's the way it is.

It is now a month later, and the ever-vigilant Gerard discovered some good news. After reviewing it, I found some shocking (that it was publicized) news. Thus, Gerard and I, besides ROFLOCAO*, are pleased to announce that zetasquawk.com has been closed down, with the reason being stated as:

"UNFORTUNATELY, GOVERNMENT FUNDING WAS PULLED FOR THIS PROJECT"!!!!!!!!!!!!

a statement you can see directly on that website at www.zetasquawk.com now, if you hurry, or on this screen shot: ZQ3.doc

ZETAS RIGHT AGAIN!!!!!!!

And on May 15th, Nancy got some Zetatalk on it (see below in the Comments), and there is a new screenshot: ZQ4.doc in which the message has changed...corroborating someone is having fun at the funders' expense.

*rolling on the floor laughing our collective ... off :-D Hey, no coarse words, this is a family website!

I say we celebrate the debunker victory!

Oh... I was able to track down the originator of that Polaris image that Clare was going on about. Freestore was also trying to use it to support Nancy. The guy doesn't know if he still has the original, but I asked for a copy if he can find it. One question is cleared up by this comment of his, however:

"The red is light leakage from the LED light metering system."

I do have a niggle of interest that some people say we are a LITTLE bit off: enough that shadows are a bit variable from year to year -- which to be open minded, I don't discount as absolutely having to be wrong, for very little change would have to occur for that to be slightly off.


Why are you ignoring my post from last night where I demonstrate that even a few arc-seconds of change in the NCP would be immediately obvious since all photographic telescopes on the planet would then have to adjust their rotational axes...and most are set in concrete?

The FACT is that the earth's rotational axis is extremely stable on a scale that could possibly be noticed. Note that the Chandler wobble is measured in milli-arcseconds...less than one millionth of one degree. Do you think that this is detectable by eye?

AC:
If those yowosa people would be sincerely trying to save humans from doom&gloom they would not sell their stuff. This is the oldest trick in the book and that kind of racket is around for thousands of years now.

Dr.
Marshall Masters (the guy who controls Yowusa) has done this
crap before, as part of the Millennium Group trying to scare
people about Comet Lee. He's an old pro at selling things
through fear:
[link to www.2012hoax.org]
[link to yowcrooks.wordpress.com]
[link to www.skepdic.com]


Here somone just posted another example:

Thread: Survive PX, solar flares, nukes, 2012, ect. in luxury comfort. $50,000

By far the most "professional" i've seen by now. Smart thing, they don't even put out the end of the world hoaxes themself, they just refer to the plenty that are already around.

Oh... I was able to track down the originator of that Polaris image that Clare was going on about. Freestore was also trying to use it to support Nancy. The guy doesn't know if he still has the original, but I asked for a copy if he can find it. One question is cleared up by this comment of his, however:

"The red is light leakage from the LED light metering system."


Good job Menow ... did you link some of Nancys stuff to him ? I am sure he would laugh his ass off.

Oh... I was able to track down the originator of that Polaris image that Clare was going on about. Freestore was also trying to use it to support Nancy. The guy doesn't know if he still has the original, but I asked for a copy if he can find it. One question is cleared up by this comment of his, however:

"The red is light leakage from the LED light metering system."


Good job Menow ... did you link some of Nancys stuff to him ? I am sure he would laugh his ass off.

Oh... I was able to track down the originator of that Polaris image that Clare was going on about. Freestore was also trying to use it to support Nancy. The guy doesn't know if he still has the original, but I asked for a copy if he can find it. One question is cleared up by this comment of his, however:

"The red is light leakage from the LED light metering system."

Did not see your post, I guess.

I have replied to others' comments on this -- I never said I believe in it AND I said I was only being honest in an extreme sense: that I don't TECHNICALLY SPEAKING, as a human who might be wrong even about the obvious, know.

This is called philosophical doubt. It does not mean I DON'T know in the ordinary sense; it means I always know I might be wrong in spite of everything, on things they think they know.

Ultimately, we never know anything ACTUALLY -- except, as Descartes said, that we are thinking. :)

But this is a very fine, fine point; not what you thought I meant.

And on a lower level of knowing, I also don't PERSONALLY have a sextant and pendulum and so on. If you read my posts about philosophical understanding, you'd know I didn't mean I don't "know" in the ordinary sense! I mean I am being RADICALLY questioning of myself and encouraging others to try it -- not because I don't "know" in the ordinary sense that we are not stopped. I keep saying it is not my belief/ or that I know that.

But philosophically speaking, we only ever have STRONG BELIEF, not KNOWING ... and it's important to remember ...

ONLY because most of the time we do know ... but sometimes we NEED such radical openness to discover a fact we didn't know.

Best wishes,
Clare

I do have a niggle of interest that some people say we are a LITTLE bit off: enough that shadows are a bit variable from year to year -- which to be open minded, I don't discount as absolutely having to be wrong, for very little change would have to occur for that to be slightly off.


Why are you ignoring my post from last night where I demonstrate that even a few arc-seconds of change in the NCP would be immediately obvious since all photographic telescopes on the planet would then have to adjust their rotational axes...and most are set in concrete?

The FACT is that the earth's rotational axis is extremely stable on a scale that could possibly be noticed. Note that the Chandler wobble is measured in milli-arcseconds...less than one millionth of one degree. Do you think that this is detectable by eye?


Did not see your post, I guess.

I have replied to others' comments on this -- I never said I believe in it AND I said I was only being honest in an extreme sense: that I don't TECHNICALLY SPEAKING, as a human who might be wrong even about the obvious, know.

This is called philosophical doubt. It does not mean I DON'T know in the ordinary sense; it means I always know I might be wrong in spite of everything, on things they think they know.

Ultimately, we never know anything ACTUALLY -- except, as Descartes said, that we are thinking. :)

But this is a very fine, fine point; not what you thought I meant.

And on a lower level of knowing, I also don't PERSONALLY have a sextant and pendulum and so on. If you read my posts about philosophical understanding, you'd know I didn't mean I don't "know" in the ordinary sense! I mean I am being RADICALLY questioning of myself and encouraging others to try it -- not because I don't "know" in the ordinary sense that we are not stopped. I keep saying it is not my belief/ or that I know that.

But philosophically speaking, we only ever have STRONG BELIEF, not KNOWING ... and it's important to remember ...

ONLY because most of the time we do know ... but sometimes we NEED such radical openness to discover a fact we didn't know.

Best wishes,
Clare

Oh... I was able to track down the originator of that Polaris image that Clare was going on about. Freestore was also trying to use it to support Nancy. The guy doesn't know if he still has the original, but I asked for a copy if he can find it. One question is cleared up by this comment of his, however:

"The red is light leakage from the LED light metering system."

That makes a lot of sense. We knew there wasn't supposed to be any bright nebulae in that area so it had to be some foreign object or light. The position of polaris with respect to earth's rotational axis is right where it should be in that image though (even when compared against an image freestore was touting as showing it had changed), so it proves the debunkers were right again!
:polenochan:

If you really listen to the ANALYSIS of the South Pole Telescope images -- JUST IN CASE THERE'S SOMETHING THERE THAT'S VALID --

If you really listen to the ANALYSIS of the South Pole Telescope images

Clare

This is called philosophical doubt.

Good job Menow ... did you link some of Nancys stuff to him ? I am sure he would laugh his ass off.


No. I didn't want to go into it.

No idea what you are babbling now about openess , philosophy and whatnot ... looks like this is your excuse for not having hard facts at all.

It is pretty simple:
Planet X is supposed to be a huge object that exists in the physical world and it's supposed to be in our solar-system since 2003 (Nancy said so). This means that it has to have physical effects on the rest of the solar system and our planet earth. If this claim would be true there would be hard evidence (plenty of it, undeniable by nobody on this planet, not even NASA, everyone would recognize it). There is no room for philosophical discussions about this topic, it's all about hard physical evidence.

Oh... I was able to track down the originator of that Polaris image that Clare was going on about. Freestore was also trying to use it to support Nancy. The guy doesn't know if he still has the original, but I asked for a copy if he can find it. One question is cleared up by this comment of his, however:

"The red is light leakage from the LED light metering system."

That makes a lot of sense. We knew there wasn't supposed to be any bright nebulae in that area so it had to be some foreign object or light. The position of polaris with respect to earth's rotational axis is right where it should be in that image though (even when compared against an image freestore was touting as showing it had changed), so it proves the debunkers were right again!
:polenochan:

If you really listen to the ANALYSIS of the South Pole Telescope images -- JUST IN CASE THERE'S SOMETHING THERE THAT'S VALID --