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

You do realize that Nibirushock2012 admitted that he pulled a hoax, do you ?

[link to yowcrooks.wordpress.com]

Yes. You gotta do better than that! Lol.

The fact is, so have many people under pressure. You do know that Moussaoui was outfitted with a 10,000 volt belt and he said various things.

Think outside the box a bit and let's see about not only those images, but the SOHO ones (not fully handled by Phil Plait, as I outlined: the key tests of his claim that it's pixel flares, have not been done), and also the Vatican ones.

Enjoy.

"Moi" --- Love French! :)

Ahhh ... cool ...

IF PX is real, it might very well require covering up in some people's thinking,

so any claims of retraction (though possibly true retraction or hoaxing) must be even more thoroughly investigated than under hypothetically more normal circumstances.

We must handle the images themselves as well as the claims, and handle ALL of them, before we know with as much certainty as the pendulum test on the Earth stoppage/wobble questions.

Think this whole thing through guys -- the WHOLE thing. I know you can do it.

I'd love to see what you could turn up for/against these images if you really tried, regarding the *whole* arguments about them.

Every part.
Clare

Ms LIEDer knows, in her heart of hearts, that she and her zetaculties would never ever win jackshite against the glorious debunkers. There is no doomsday rogue planet out there in our inner Solar System for her to attain any form of victory over us. Only fools and the truly gullible amongst us believe such nonsense.

And simply due to this wittle fact we will always win every time over Ms LIEDer and her zetacultie nutters.

The real funny part of it all is though that in all her many other claims, on a variety of subjects, Nancy is still running at the low low success percentage of 0% on prediction claims. LOL!! And the woman even to this day is so delusional that she "shouts from the roof tops".....there is no one else who can claim to have the prediction success track record that zetababble possesses.

Too funny at times!!

Je ne parle le francais tres bon. Mais je vois ce tu cherches l'alibi de plus en plus.

Thank you kindly.

And you guys keep up the great work here on GLP.

I will be here watching and enjoying!!

Is there a site where I can see these images as high resolution pics ? On the yowousa page you linked I only see an image with big blurry pixelised red something and I refuse to watch this 20 minute merchendising video my M. Masters.

And where so I find those SOHO images you mean ?

Hope you'll be back soon for real.

Yep, looks like :

[link to poleshift.ning.com]

^ see first comment by her

Hope she won't change her mind.

Possibly. But to use some of Ms LIEDer's nonsense......SOTLRT"it is in the hands of man"....EOTLRT.....lol!!

The stupid is strong with them.

I agree 100% .... and I bet the freak show over there will be much more entertaining than here on GLP ... as i posted before ... theres nothing more funny than to see complete retards in their natural habitat.

Parroting of unsupported conspiracy rumors noted.



Responses to your claims about the SPT were offered and your false premises challenged. It seems you are going to ignore them.



This would be you, pretending that we have not looked into those items.



You mean we haven't rambled on about vague, needless minutia in page after tedious page for/like you.

You have been challeged on things like your pronouncements that the Moon does not 'spin on its own axis' and that there are images showing a new planet from the SPT... but you brush these off, secure in a convenient delusion that is it only WE who are not thorough. How droll.



YOU have been challenged to discuss those very images! It is YOU who is running away and dropping the investigation!



What points would those be? You've done little but toss out vague, unsubstantiated innuendo, based on what seems to be false information. And now you waltz away, pretending that WE have not performed adequately??

What a piece of work...

Buh bye, Clare..



PS: Why don't you go and hang out at the 'ning? I'm sure they'll be more impressed by you than were we. Just be sure to lie and not admit you don't believe, anymore, that Earth is abnormally wobbling! You'll be gone like a fart on a windy day. ----------->

****WE**** want to be philosophically doubtful??? NO, dear, that would be YOU. WE want to be FACTUALLY doubtful.

I thought you were leaving...

(snip)

Please quote stuff from there you want to talk about. I don't want to have to go there and bump their numbers just to follow your point.

Your right, good point.

There are 3 sites with the SOHO images. I already posted them.

There is the debunker site Bad Astronomy (which no longer has good versions on it), there is also the place which quotes the BA site as authorities, i.e., Yowcrooks, and there the original close-ups are still up.

And the overall pics are available on the Zetatalk site.

The links are in a previous post.

As to the Yowusa site, they have 4 articles about it. I posted them. They have multiple arguments around them, and their provenance, and the circumstances subsequent to the initial posting of the images. All this is important to understand about the images.

And yes, if you're serious, you'll also listen to annoying videos (I do, from all perspectives), because they also contain information and pics. Otherwise one might miss some key piece: you gotta take gold where you find it: pro-PX AND debunk-PX gold. I would not be here if I didn't also have patience; and same with going to Nancy's site, which has much silliness mixed with possible info.

(Personally, I don't like MM's voice; but the attempt to be thorough, by him, about these images, is admirable. He talks of various negative issues AND suggestive evidence about the images and provenance, over time.)

Be a detective. Check out ALL leads, is my motto.

Radical philosophical doubt doubts even what you "know" to be true, IN SPITE OF factual clarity.

Others were suggesting that when I said, "I am not sure even though I know the pendulums indicate no stoppage" -- that I meant somehow I thought realistically that there could be stoppage and pendulums don't indicate it.

I meant no such thing: I am NOT an uncareful thinker, as should be obvious.

I of course know that things are just fine, at last count, with our pendulums and sky maps and Moon. However, RADICAL philosophical doubt doubts even that, SOMEWHAT, just as a personal reminder to stay open IN CASE our science ever turned out to be off in some way.

That is the ONLY sense; it is a rigourous point, not a sloppy discounting of known science. And it most of the time is unnecessary, but sometimes it is key to learning. So I remind myself of it. But people misinterpreted me.

Stop calling me "dear". Unless it's in a genuine context of a compliment, dear.

(When I say, "dear Menow", I mean it. I didn't mean it this last time, though, in the last sentence. But you brought that on.)

You mean these SOHOs ?

[link to www.zetatalk.com]

And btw, I see nancy still has the Kid A images online:

[link to www.zetatalk.com]

In case you don't know ... Kid A hoaxed these pictures and sent them to nancy and she bought it. Kid A then came clear that he was faking the images. Happened all here on GLP a few years back ... the thread where Kid A admitts it was then deleted as far as I know.

I am NOT an uncareful thinker, as should be obvious.
{/quote]

Right... then why do you think the Moon doesn't spin on its axis?

Right... then why do you think the Moon doesn't spin on its axis?

Yep. Nancy took the same tack as Clare on that(with the SPT thing)... that somebody must have GOT to them.

It is to laugh! They just make up whatever conspiracy component is needed to keep the story alive.

Clare just doesn't have the outside, loooong-term, experienced point of view of all this stuff like we do. She, like most people can't bring themselves to believe that Nancy would be that chronically disingenuous!

Then why don't you check out the statistical probablity of the idea that the world's astonomers are covering up the existence of a new planet in our Solar System?

Indeed ... and it are quite a few:



[link to www.astrosociety.org]

And that article is only talking about the USA. Nancy basically claims all of them are lying, or paid to lie or are under pressure so they lie. In my opinion this is even more ridiculous as her claim we here are paid for what we do.

So fond of thinking that carefully worked out philosophical stances, are "equivocation". What they are is an antidote to fanaticism, which leads, even in its milder forms -- of overweening surety in debunking, not only in proposing -- leads to possibly missing a key point.

:)



Parroting? Ha ha. Merely mentioning that IF PX were real, it might very well be covered up, hence, to be honest with the materials we get, that is ONE of the lines we must consider.

You know this, surely. :)



I responded with how they are inadequate, for they are. We must think more fully about the issues than to be pat and so self-assured. There are plenty of "responses" which are NEVER adequate. Be reasonable about the issues and take them ON, or fall away from contributing.

You have handled none of the points. I have shown WHY. If there were no WHY, I would be at fault. In this case, you are. :(




Clearly no-one has deeply enough to present the full case. In fact, the debunking links have not either. Look into it more and you'll see.

One response here was "he said he hoaxed it", which hypothesis does not cut it: anyone can say a retraction, especially IF they're real images!

Another suggested that they were colour images, but the South Pole telescope is not visual-image-producing, and oh how silly all these proponents are, who miss that. I pointed out that Marshall Masters mentions several times that the telescope would give a false-colour image set, not direct images (even if THESE are hoaxed, that shows he knows that).

In fact, there's no indication with any deep familiarity with these issues, or that anyone has thought deeply about the SOHO images. In fact, *I* was the skeptic who presented key tests for the SOHO images and the "debunker skeptics" (skeptics with a pre-set agenda) never answered that. So those images LITERALLY REMAIN undecidable as to whether they're fake or simple "pixel flare" evidence.



I mean the links put up to "answer" the issues with the SOHO images have not handled the complete issues. Nor have those who claim to have "done away with" the South Pole purported images (false colour).

And NO ONE is handling here or there the complicated questions around the Vatican Telescope purported leaks.

As to the "rambling" charge, it only proves that you are not capable or willing to follow truly cautious reason methods. This is bad on you, not me. I have laid it out so that it was on RECORD here, how to proceed NEUTRALLY and fully.

To consider this "rambling" shows no facility with the issues of HOW we know what we know. It also keeps you safe in your own mind from having to keep to a standard, by appeals to that standard.

And it also demonstrates a LIKELY incapacity to actually DO the standard ... though I will be radically honest, you could DO the standard and not KNOW the standard, of course. However, PROVE YOU CAN follow careful, cautious, full and NOT off-the-cuff reasoning in ALL these issues.



This is the funniest you've been so far!

I presented the material for debunking. Do your job HONESTLY and FULLY, which means I can ask questions and point out anything you've missed yet. Let's help each other get to the bottom of these images.

But we may end up inconclusive or change our minds, both of us. We should, however, concur, as reasonable people, if indeed we follow full and calm reason on all hypotheses around these images.

This has not been done yet; I am waiting.

As for me, I think they seem genuine, but I'd like really good cross-referential discussion of any flaws, and any indications of genuineness.

Is it that, more than you, I wish really to know the whole truth about PX?



If you cut off from discussing the images, claiming my presenting them is "innuendo", I would welcome your leaving the discussion. :)

Of course, you meant me. Well, I WANT a discussion on the images and have claimed no "innuendo" ... only startling lack of testing on the images by the Bad Astronomy crowd (I was, in fact, the one who presented the debunking science to them and they didn't answer.)

All the rest of what you called "innuendo" (in a sloppy-minded use of "innuendo" towards me), was, as others have seen, already, merely keeping the questions going, since they had not adequately been responed to yet.

The German fellow came closest to LOOKING at the issues involved.

Lol.
Clare




Ah, how nice. To be free of your nonsense about reason.

I have no reason to "go" there or anywhere. I check out both.

I have never said I believed in the "wobble" except for that one photo which I thought might mean that, and came on strong about that ... and which we've handled, you and I.

Are you yet getting some idea why so many people have given you slight? You are so dismissive even when offered comradeship in discovery.

:)

Clare

Indeed! And do you know the numbers of people in the FBI, Police in Dallas, Mob scene, New Orleans Anti-Castro Scene, Montrealers who knew Bronfman and Lansky, and pepople in the secret service, and image manipulators in Hollywood? Just to name a few? Of course ALL of them would have to know of JFK's death to pull it off.

:)

But fair enough, if PX were visible big enough beyond the Sun and if amateurs had good enough filters to block the entire corona -- Nancy's claims that it's right in front right now, notwithstanding -- then sure, maybe others would be able to see it.

But if the filters have to be that strong, and only professional institutions be able to see it, that makes cover-up possible.

I don't know if this is the case -- not wiggle-room, as if everything is fearful ego, who has to "win". I really don't know enough about whether small-time astronomers would have powerful enough telescopes to see into the corona of the Sun.

I DO know however that for a long time, PX was supposedly just beyond, out of sight to anyone in direct line of sight.

So, what about the images from the satellites and Vatican & South Pole?

Let me know what you find. A few toss-offs will not do, unless they stand on their own with no other possibilities. This is not MY standard; it is reason.

Otherwise, you are NOT debunkers and detectives on this issue.

:(

Clare

Here's the thing, Clare... You are doing the same thing that all of Nancy's believers do. It's just that you are, er... wordier about it. You want to point out each and every tiny thing you think miiiiiight indicate something remotely related to the PX thingy and have it debunked for you, or you will declare it positive evidence that it DOES exist and add it to the pile. There is NO END to that exercise! We debunkers have been around and around and around and around and around that block. Every time we debunk something, those who 'believe' ignore it and add it to the steaming pile of 'evidence' and it gets regurgitated again some months later along with a large ration of NEW, but similar, BS.

It's getting OOOOOOOOOLLLDDD!!![/color]

And then, Clare, you also ignore points made to you about the very subjects you claim to want to discuss in favor of continued wallowing in that unlimited pool of minutia where you can find any number of reasons to continue BELIEVING in PX. It NEVER ends! It CAN never end if you insist that the PX thingy COULD be hiding someplace you/we have forgotten to look thoroughly enough.

Think about it.

Look s like you guys won't have Nancy to push around anymore.

I merely suggested it was an INSUFFICIENT claim to say that hoaxes are always properly admitted to. We know better, in this day and age, don't we? Nancy is too quick to assume it is cover-up. There are many reasons for all these events with different people.

Just as she assumes you and most of you are or were paid debunkers. Most are not. Reason says some may have been, but may not.

Likewise, some of these images (or all) could be hoaxes; but they NEED not be, even with a claim that they are, by the maker.

Each item should be handled fully in its own right, to see if it was hoaxed, or if the claim by Nibirushock2012 that he hoaxed them was itself a "hoax".

Ever read Agatha Christie or Sherlock Holmes -- or about real detective situations?

Witnesses of big crimes get scared sometimes. This is a possible reason for NS2012 to claim he hoaxed those images, IF PX is real.

But then there are the SOHO issues, and the Vatican issues too. :( Good luck.

Clare