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

Sure thing.

How about Einstein-Hapgood? Don't think we've done that for a while.

Here's a copy of the original:
[link to antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov]
Freestore pulled it up as a "comparison" which showed star trails around the NCP in a much wider field, so naturally at first glance it looks like polaris didn't trail at all while the other stars did. All I did was take that image and resize it to fit the image scale of the "red picture" and rotated it till all the stars matched. As you can see, they matched just fine. In fact, because he happened to chose two photos with somewhat similar exposure times, even the lengths of the trails is similar. That just makes it all the more obvious that the pole hasn't "shifted."

Why am I thinking of the Wizard of OZ film?...boots sticking out from under a house…midgets singing….

Thanks! I should probably upload it to photobucket so that anyone can reference it without an enhanced account.

Absolutely!

I do almost all my observing under very light polluted skies (6 or 7 on the Bortle scale), just a shade darker than downtown orlando and with street lights all around. By eye deep sky objects are basically impossible. By astrovid camera you can detect pretty much all the Messier objects and even make some degree of "structure" on some of the brighter galaxies. Globular clusters and small planetary nebulae still look fantastic as well. Here's an example video with a globular cluster, some galaxies, and a planetary nebula.
[link to www.ustream.tv]
If you're willing to drop the extra $150 you can get a decent integrating video camera which will show you at least as much from a light polluted area as you'd see by eye from a dark sky location. The catch is that you need GOTO and good tracking capability to make it work.

Last Edited by Astromut on 05/18/2010 04:40 PM

I already thought of starting a thread called: "Ding Dong, the Witch is Dead!"...

I don't guess I will, tho...

He will be back ... he's the Zeterminator.

We'll see if Nancy comes back when her page hits are dismal.

Yeah, it would be interesting to monitor what goes on over there, but it would lead her/them to believe there is more support than there actually is.

Nancy's page hits have always been dismal, apart from May 2003!

Nancy will retreat from this thread and declare victory for running.

I think it is unfortunate because there are some folks on that site that have some genuine questions due to a certain lack of knowledge (yes, I’m being nice). A “for instance” from said site:

“I saw this question posted but no answer is given. I live in Friendswood, Texas so this will tell you the geographic area of this. For several months I have been seeing this very bright star In the heavens. North southwest. Could someone tell me what this is? It seems so low and so bright. I know all who live in this area see it.My directions probably are bad but I know it is seen and has been seen for a long time now. Everyone I ask tell me it is just a star or a planet. I dont know about that. I also see the red star (?) which I have been told is a UFO on fire. I dont know about that.”

I know it is somewhat funny…UFO on fire and such. However, there are really people out there whose lack of understanding makes them vulnerable to these beliefs, not to mention the ZetaTalk material. I think many of us have a sincere desire to educate those who genuinely have questions about these things and this is the unfortunate bit. They are on their own at “said site” and unfortunately the rules ensure their indoctrination.

I see your point. Dont know what to think about it. On the one hand you're right. On the other hand I can't feel for someone even thinking about asking Nancy anything after reading a few pages of zetatalk.com. As long as these people are alone I don'thave a problem if they fall for Nancy. But then I see people with family over there who probably indoctrinate their children about that crap. Like he for example:



It's in their thread about Zetaswquak being down.

Whats your opinion about Nancy going over to the ning with her chat Dr. ? I for one welcome it a lot.

If Nancy is no longer doing the weekly ZetaChat on GLP, will she still be a mod?

Probably yes I guess. She is a good friend with the website owner. I doubt she will post much though ... maybe a little update if she made a new video or something. For the next weeks she will post a pinned thread on saturday so people who don't know yet will find their way to the ning.

Well, that will only work for so long. Eventually, her die hard followers will start to wonder why "Planet X" continues to be a no show. People will generally only buy bullshit for so long before they realize they've been had.

In actuality, her moving to that ning thing really changes nothing. We can every easily copy and paste her bogus claims here and debunk it because you know that at least a few of her shills will remain here. Some of them can't help themselves and some of them are here under orders.

Last Edited by Circuit Breaker on 05/18/2010 06:54 PM

Yep, basically it means you either believe everything Nancy tells you or you're out.

For those who are not so keen to think they know everything about what they know, I will say this one final time:

Things may all be a dream. Barring that, let's say they aren't.

If we know things about the world, something is or it isn't.

But how do we know what we know about it? Could we be fooled by our own tests? Of course we could.

Normally, we are not: pendulums and so on are good tests and necessary, and so we know.

But a radical philosophical doubt admits even then that we are human, and perhaps something else is fooling us, or our instruments were flawed, etc.

Normally, this is not necessary to think. What I test for (or use my senses to know) is there; I know it.

But AS AN EXTREMELY STRONG BELIEF, not absolute knowing, technically speaking.

Now under what circumstances does this become important? Very rarely, in fact. Most of the time, that extremely strong belief is basically KNOWING.

But once in a while, being aware that we live with EXTREMELY STRONG SCIENTIFIC BELIEF, not knowing, is important to remember:

for once in a while, admitting that we don't know what we know perfectly, allows something we would not have questioned to be questioned and turn out to be different.

I admit it's rare when such radical questioning is useful, in ordinary circumstances (as with the rather clear case showing we are not stopped in rotation -- but technically speaking we know nothing ever for certain though); but it is important to admit it to oneself, just in case something absolutely unthought-of is trying to get across to you and you DID miss some aspect of knowing.

Such as in the case of the South Pole Telescope and Vatican purported photos of PX ...

They may be fake or real, but no-one has properly handled all the issues raised about them by the pro-PX crowd. No, your debunking sites didn't.

So, in being less sure to start with, i.e., remembering you are human and could be wrong even where it's unlikely, you might find an interesting set of issues. And if any among you want to see if there is any evidence for PX and where it might be -- minus the stopped-Earth or wobbly-Earth of Nancy -- you will want to doubt your positon enough to look hard at the arguments about these photos and the SOHO photos.

The debunkers do not have complete answers here. I have checked.

By the way, on philosophical doubt, even radical doubt:

This is not rambling; it is explication (laying out/unfolding) of the necessary principles upon which our deepest insights come.

And when I say I know and agree with you about the non-stoppage of the Earth, and then say that TECHNICALLY I don't know ... it is this radical honest doubt which I am appealing to, not ordinary doubt, and stupid ignorance of the points made showing that the Earth isn't stopped.

And also when I cover the openness you require to look into the questions of the PHOTO ANALYSIS -- and not rely only on debunking sites which do NOT cover all aspects of those photos -- I am saying that if you could go to the level where even what you know to be true is humbly your deep belief (scientific belief) to the point of knowing, then you can come back and surely less strenuously be able to question the photos more honestly.

No-one has handled the photo evidence here thus far in these pages. Someone should take the time and effort, and not rely whole-hog on the debunker sites. They have not handled all objections.

Good luck. Have fun. Question ... and let's see if anyone can FULLY argue about the many points raised by these photos.

Clare

Not hardly. As long as Nancy continues to spew bogus claims, I will continue to point out how and why she is wrong. The only ones who will end up with ruined lives are those who believed her and wasted a lot of time and money on something that never happened.

You called?

I think she believes it is known to be true, and so wants to move the discussion on to other aspects: aspects of preparation and so on (action).

You want to be philosophically doubtful here and she does not.

But you are not doubtful of your own position, which is therefore not mere doubt in PX, and search for the truth.

I want you to be philosophically doubtful enough, though, to look at your own self-styled "questions" and ask if you really are always asking ALL questions; or if your doubt of her points is in fact cloaking over-confidence in an anti-position. This would mean you are in fact convinced before you start lookin, that PX is not so. I submit there are some possible suggestions of PX in these images, which need to be handled fully.

Clare

Oh... I think she'll hit GLP with all her new releases, as usual. I don't know that she will be allowed to totally pimp the ning from here. Remains to be seen what the relationship will be.

?

No, we are scientifically doubtful.

Yes this is totally correct, CB.

And I even have examples of the reality of people's lives being "ruined" due to their "belief" in the zetacult. Quite sad indeed.

It is I.

And just isn't the cult like following of ZetaTalk. How many people have died while following other doomsday style cults?

Thank you! I believe you though. I "know" that the pendulums are normal. It was only admitting that we are all human, and even where we know, we MIGHT not know, that I was pointing out.

Einstein's work "corrected" Newton's ... but Newton's was fine and most things we come to see as "hints of Einstein's" were "just within a margin of error" -- until Einstein said, no, there's a whole bigger determinative structure of thought and reality going on here.

So I am saying that we never for sure can say we know, even when we do. This is an abject humility, NOT a dismissal of what you and I normally mean by knowing.

In ordinary terms, yes, I know there's no stoppage.
But radically speaking, I know I MIGHT be wrong, and so could all our perceptions.

That's all.

It keeps one humble; and in these circumstances, it's not important probably; but it keeps one's mind and humility limber ... for about other aspects of the PX claims it is important. Such as the images.



This in fact shows you have not done your research into the claims.

They talk of how it's false-colour.

They discuss the resultant COLOURED AND VISUAL images.

:)

The Vatican one I think was optical. But maybe not, I don't remember. Been a while since I looked into that issue.