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

This was posted before to you by someone else ... you seem to have now idea how relatively cheap the necessary equipment is these days:

This is the most cheap one:

[link to www.coronadofilters.com]

$499

It can see the sun this well:

[link to www.coronadofilters.com]
[link to www.coronadofilters.com]
[link to www.coronadofilters.com]
[link to www.coronadofilters.com]

This is about $4500 (still in the range of a bit more serious amateur astronomer).

[link to www.coronadofilters.com]

It can do this:

[link to www.coronadofilters.com]
[link to www.coronadofilters.com]
[link to www.coronadofilters.com]

So now you tell me again that with such a telescope that is mass produced and sold all over the world in large quantitys it is not possible for an amateur astronomer to see a huge Planet X near or in front of the sun ?

I know that that idea has been pounded into the very fabric of the internet that people think it is always a valid argument for about ANYTHING they want to believe in.


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.


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

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. :(


I asked you why you think those images are actually from the SPT. Did you answer? Your entire premise stands on that notion, you know.



And you can find similar reasoning to keep you believing whatever you choose to believe. World without end...



Oh... Masters MENTIONS that?! Well, why didn't you TELL me that!! That changes EVERYTHING!!!! /sarcasm



Don't you get that people create hysteria on the internet for FUN?!



Umm... you are skipping over, AGAIN, the issue of Lunar rotation. Why? You sided with Nancy on it. Why? You just can't accept that she and "Zetas" could be that FLAT WRONG about something so simple and basic?




Tired of wading through this.

It's not my job to work for you, chasing every tiny, paranoid straw, blowing in the wind, that you deem important. I am not an expert in astrophotography. Maybe you can get some of those who are to patronize you on it. They have already offered some leading questions, but you have/are brushing them off as if they had no valid basis to ask them.

Get a clue, Clare.

Excellent!

Would it be huge? I don't know that. I know it's supposedly 4 times the size of Earth.

And about the images from 2002-now from the satellites. Let's handle them. Just in case Nancy's claim that it's on this side is wrong, but if it came up and is still behind the Sun but in our plane of orbit -- or very very near the main centre body of the Sun ...

What of these images?

I'm aware that Yowusa suggests that the arrival will NOT be until 2011-2012 timeframe close enough and rounding the Sun enough to see anywhere on Earth except the Southern Hemisphere of the Earth currently.

??? So if that's the case, let's look at what the images actually say.

What direction is the "PX" or "pixel flare" in the SOHO images? (What's the orientation.)

Let's compare that to the Vatican images.

And the South Pole images.

And see if anything compares.

And even if all don't, 2 could be frauds and one not be, so let's handle what we can know about the images individually AND collectively.

P.S. I hope others are realizing by now I'm not an idiot and simplistic answers won't do here, period. We need to cover all bases -- Just in case.

I know it's a WILD IDEA (feels wild) that a planet would be coming by). But it's not impossible. So let's see if we have anything to indicate it, or which MIGHT indicate it, when we look into everything.

P.P.S. Thank you -- the real German Buddy. :) I got the nationality of 74444 (who is USA) wrong! And for both of you, I apologize either way. I WAS trying to be fair to everyone though. (Even Menow, whose nastiness was getting truly bizarre there.)

:) to all.

Clare

Yeah...THAT'S the reason amatuer astronomers can't see the PX thingy... WEAK FILTERS!!!

BWAAAAAAHAHAHAAA.AA.A.A.A.A.A....!!!!

You take the cake, Clare... you really do...!

The SPT are fake IMO. First: its not an optical telescope. And M. Masters claim that the people at SPT create images from the microwave data input I could not yet verify from another official source. It might be possible they can do this ... but I can't find an official source. On their website there seem to be no such images: [link to pole.uchicago.edu]

When I google " south pole telescope image " I can only find some images of the telescope itself and the rest what comes up are links to nibirushock2012 videos or other PX websites.

Second: Nibirushock2012 admitted it was a hoax ... well, maybe they tortured him to say that. But I don't think so.

The SOHO images are not fake and not Planet X it are CCD glitches IMO. They have been there since SOHO is up. They also appear in the most different areas of the viewing-field, often they are one day in the upper right , a day later they show up in the lower left etc.. So if this was Planet X it would violate the physics law of inertia. PX would have to have an propulsion system of some sort to do that.

I am still looking for the vatican images. Maybe you can link them again, if not ill search the past pages tomorrow, its bedtime here for me now.

The images in 2002 were thoroghly debunked so long ago that the websites dedicated to that no longer even exist! Nancy has simply outlasted her competition. And why not, she has no other life beyond the PX thingy! I'll see if I can find some of that in the wayback. It used to be there.

Here's some of Sarah Mac's stuff from back then.

Clare, you simply don't know how much you don't know about all of this.

[link to web.archive.org]

Clare, why did you ignore the offered expanded historical data on Chandler?

Ohhh... just so you are clear on what real astronomers concluded about Nancy's 2002 images.... She was flat lying or delusional... Sound familiar? That always ends up being the only 2 choices when you look closely into Nancy's claims. Always.

Just a quick answer to this ... i'll see that I answer the rest tomorrow, since it's past 3 am here now ...

here are the sizes of planets compared to the sun:

[link to btc.montana.edu]

If PX is 4 times the size of earth and if it's in front or nearby the sun I am absolutely certain the people who own such a sun telescope would recognise it immediately ... a few years back when the sun was pretty active with big sun-spots I used a welding mask to black the intense light and could see sun spots with bare eyes. Sunspots were first detected in 28 B.C. by the chinese:

[link to en.wikipedia.org]

Since a sun spot is often about the size of earth or larger I am convinced a Planet X the size of 4 times earth could be easy seen even with bare eyes and simple filter (like the one from my welding mask) if it was in front of the sun.

Anyways, bedtime now ... see ya, goodnight.

Alright... here are some waybacks of John Oliver's pages on Nancy's images. This stuff was way more than Nancy's silly claims deserved, but he did it because lives were being threatened by Nancy's shit.

[link to web.archive.org]

Ooh! Cake! Thanks! "Dear"!

Look, I already responded to this above. Didn't know. One is ALLOWED TO LEARN A FACT. I am questioning --

If you want this thread to be more than self-congratulation (mixed with inanity and mistakes too) you will welcome questions. AND be questioned.

BWAAAAAHAHAHAHAAAAAA.AA.A.A.A.A.A.A.

:)

LOL! Gee. Give up the nastiness. :P :)

Well, thank you.

Except I never thought any of Nancy's images themselves were accurate. But I'll work through that at some point.

I am concerned about the Soho, and putative Vatican and South Pole ones.

But thanks!

Good night.

Good to know.

Thanks!

As to its being on the approach still (as Yowusa thinks, and the South Pole AND Vatican telescope putative images show), we should locate where it would be from those, comparatively.

AND the SOHO "pixel flares" (and Stereo-Ahead images). Where would that direction be? I mean, where would that satellite be seeing it? Would it be naked-eye visible if it's in the position in the SOHO or Stereo-Ahead images?

Clae

Here's another, Clare. I had to work to find this one. It is a simpler explanation of how "Zetas" were simply lying about what was in the images. Check it out.

[link to web.archive.org]

Oh... let that page load. There are some animated images.

Your questions are constant implications that it is IMPOSSIBLE to know anything, Clare! It will ALWAYS be possible to conjure up a scenario where the PX thingy still might exist, but is hidden somewhere!

Umm... you are skipping over, AGAIN, the issue of Lunar rotation. Why? You sided with Nancy on it. Why? You just can't accept that she and "Zetas" could be that FLAT WRONG about something so simple and basic?

Well, you mentioned images from 2002. Who else is claiming PX images from then? I'm not sure how an image can be judged in terms of being "accurate" or not. Why the odd language on that?

What that whole saga demonstrated was Nancy's("Zetas") willingness to be wholely disingenuous. *I* gave Nancy the benefit of the doubt until the 2002 image debacle proved, without a shadow of a doubt, that Nancy was, er... somewhat dishonest...

By the way... Nancy's images were muuuuch more convincing than any of that crap you're going on about. Still, they were rubbish, in the final analysis.

Once again, WHAT images from the South Pole?

To be blunt, I think you're an intelligent person who wants to believe the PX Myth and are resorting to this solipsistic we-can't-really-know-anything-for-sure crap to rationalize your belief.

SOHO images as "pixel flares" (debunker suggestion on Bad Astronomy) ...

There are none comparable at the Website linked to, through the site Menow suggested. The end site with the info on pixel and photo-streak problems is: [link to web.archive.org]

Any other pixel problems are pixelated: actually show the pixels ... as most of Steve Havas' "strange objects" and possible PX images showed, as given here, on Menow's suggestion:

[link to web.archive.org]

The big and circular centre, plus bleeding on both sides like Venus and other planets in SOHO images, means the anomaly -- and technically it is, even if it's a gitch-anomaly, it's an anomaly either way -- is something very odd ... at least compared to the compendia in the two links above.

Hm! So, could it be a PX and the other two on either side of its time-stamp without it, have been scrubbed?

Or could it be flare after all, somehow, as Bad Astronomy suggested (though they did so rather flippantly)?

What direction would an object there, be at? Would it be behind the Sun? (I don't know the SOHO direction.) Or would it be beside it?

If so, it would have to be fake, a pixel problem indeed somehow, or no-one was looking at the Sun in those few hours and it was a real PX bobbing into sight.

I wonder if anyone knows what view it would be in, from the Earth, in that position?

........................

As to the Nibirushock2012 and Vatican telescope images purportedly, are they showing Planet X farther out and BEHIND the Sun? I got that impression from the Yowusa site (which dealt only with the Nibirushock2012 images, not the Vatican ones).

Thanks.

Ciao 4 now.
Best wishes and thanks -- Clare

You *do* realize that SOHO was not designed to image planets?

Ridiculous.

You haven't been trained in absolute doubt, which is important. Why? Because though I know things for sure, they are never technically FOR SURE and so many things we think we know as we know them, have some radically different true nature -- discovered again and again. So never be TOO sure.

But of course, we can be sure in the ordinary sense ...

Who is solipsistic? Those who think they know but MIGHT not, or those who KNOW they know something but also know that that knowledge COULD be proven wrong maybe?

The former.

Think it through before you poo-pooh. Ever been in a philosophy of science class? Or even a deeper philosophy class? -- If this stuff wasn't discussed, or if you weren't in one, then think it through now that you're presented with it. It is in order to keep one rigorously honest, for SOMETIMES we end up discovering ONLY because we were very doubtful of what seemed obvious. That's all.

It doesn't rob you of discovery and knowing! Or "wins"! But it does make you aware that all or part of it MIGHT at some point become necessary to unknow or partly see differently. That's all -- good training in radical skepticism, to oneself too!

It is not important in ordinary situations to go to that devel of doubt. But it's good training for things which might actually bear fruit if we're open but would tend NOT to be. So it's a good thought to be aware of absolute doubt, even when it is/seems silly.

Anyway, the images purportedly from the South Pole Telescope are in the videos and discussed on the Yowusa site, to determine if the videos had any chance of being accurate. I have given the links.

The Vatican images are discussed and shown through the Project Camelot site (and linked to? or did I search them with search terms?).

Clare

Umm... you are skipping over, AGAIN, the issue of Lunar rotation. Why? You sided with Nancy on it. Why? You just can't accept that she and "Zetas" AND YOU could be that FLAT WRONG about something so simple and basic?

It is a valid argument, but not always a valid conclusion. Some conclude it too easily; some not easily enough. :)



Be charitable. Can you see how much I've been answering?

I must have missed that. And my tone and responses over the past 2 days would indicate to anyone neutral enough to be charitable, that if I miss something I apologize and am not skunking people.

As to whether they're from the SPT: I don't know: I want help figuring it out. Anyone who was clever enough to debunk for real, would know that that is what I've been doing.

The German fellow understands that, and has been providing thoughts on things.

Yowusa makes a good case that they are likely from the SPT. The debunking sites claim that they're not, but do not actually handle all the points raised on the issue. If they did, it would be case closed on those images.

Finally, the SPT is not "my whole claim". I have raised also the SOHO images AND the purported Vatican images.

You know this: or are you so quick to be "right" that you miss the opportunity to be?

I wish you wouldn't be like this. But until you aren't, I'll push back.



Prove it. So far, nope. Nothing sure on SOHO, not deep enough into the SPT possible images, and nothing at all on the purported Vatican images.

Oh, and nothing on the repulsion holes in the magnetosphere. Magnetics are well known; magnetics don't repel when there's an attraction force, which the Sun was at that time. Explain it. I have given an explanation (which requires understandings of what Newton's contributions were and weren't, and the history of the debates around him and electromagnetism -- including actual suppression, not mere "easy answer Internet conspiracy claims"), but you haven't explained them.

Try. Or leave it open on your side. That would be good.

I don't mind who "wins" here. I want to see where the truth MIGHT lie, and then either way, we'll all end up finding out if PX is real or not. A good argument can still be wrong, and a very slight hint can in fact indicate a truth. And some truths can be unthought-of altogether, of course.

:)



It would only go on forever if there were no facts and arguments which are thorough. I am testing and in the process; hence I must follow ALL lines as long as they lead. The open questions stop if we KNOW it was hoaxed (as we now physically scientifically know the Zapruder film of the JFK assassination was composited and therefore hoaxed -- which is now absolutely known through optics inside the film: when the lens distortion is corrected, the Stemmons Sign and foreground Lamppost go out of true ... and there are reasons the compositors made this error, but that's another story. There are internal inconsistencies optically which are mutually exclusive, in other words).

Until we have such proof over the SPT images and Vatican and SOHO, we have to stay open IF WE'RE HONEST.



Menow loves his sarcasm. /sarcasm

HA HA HA!

Anyway, I told that right away, the first time someone (you?) suggested that the SPT is not a visual telescope and laughed at Masters, etc. I replied that the proponents of the authenticity of the images, Masters, etc., DO know that and mention it.

It doesn't change "EVERYTHING!!!!" /sarcasm ...
But it does debunk the claim of the debunker here, that the whole image would HAVE to be fake AND that the proponents of authenticity are ignorant of this reason for supposedly having to be fake.

They are -- or purport to be -- false-colour images of, yes, a not-visual-image SPT.

When will you actually handle the issues I raise? Or ARE you paid? Goodness. You are acting as if you are. Or is that your personality? SOOOO smug.

I wish you'd stop being that.

It would lead to a great discussion. You are smart, but seem distractedly off-the-cuff emotionally. If you were less so, it would be oh-so-much-more interesting.

I give you credit. Give me some. See where it leads -- even if PX is false. I'd be happy! I am questioning as far as needs be and trying to remain open so we can see if any debunking point really is solid.

THIS IS SCIENCE.



You didn't handle it yet.

As to others ... for fun ... etc., of course some do.

Some things however get leaked.

Hence, my seriousness.

Hey, people joke about murdering people. But some people DO murder. There's a distinction. "Don't you get that ..."?



For you to go back to lunar rotation is silly, to me. I have said all the evidence about stoppage and rotation wobbles and so on is faulty, as far as I can tell, and you all, as well, have presented.

PX is not Nancy (total Nancy);
PX could be related to Nancy's claims or not.

If it is real AND Nancy is related, not ALL of Nancy's pronouncements (received from ETs or not) have to be correct.



Me too. Give some thoughts on the images themselves, work through the issues around the orbits and the authenticity problems ... or give up on claiming you're scientific about the whole thing.

I can deal with only the German buddy to wade through all this, if you like.

:)

Clare

It is impossible to do that. Someone simply has to suggest that there is, let's say, a second scope capable of those images hidden at that site. There is no end to the 'points which could be raised', and that you would consider possible.

You are intentionally obtuse enough, here, that you could BE Nancy.

The Lunar rotation issue has no relataion to those other things. It is about whether the Moon is rotating on its own axis or not. You can't not know this.

I think you just might be a fraud, Clare.

If the points are invalid on their premise, then they aren't points at all. The SPT is not an optical telescope, it's a radio telescope operating in microwave wavelengths. Its images look like this one:
[link to spt.uchicago.edu]
The fake images presented as claims of PX are designed to look like optical light images, not the long wavelength images produced by SPT. Case closed.

How could "planet X" hide near the sun indefinitely unless you accept Nancy's wobbly nonsense? Please explain that. Frankly I have yet to see any compelling evidence affirming its existence, including SOHO images showing cosmic rays and other random and recurring artifacts, and I don't know which photos are the "vatican images," but the point is that if PX were real it couldn't remain near the sun for this length of time, not even close.

I can't believe you're defending an admitted hoax. This is insane, you realize that right? You're demonstrating the hoaxer's point all the better by defending him. When someone admits they lied you disregard their evidence.

You're still not answering the issue of lunar rotation. The moon rotates, you were wrong. Yes you admitted Nancy was wrong about the earth being stopped in its orbit and wobbling, but the moon DOES rotate as well.

Last Edited by Astromut on 05/18/2010 11:49 PM