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

Clare


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

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.

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.

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
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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

Clare


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


Didn't see it. Where?

Re. Moon rotation: her point was it doesn't show a different face. Her examples show she's trying to say that. She clearly doesn't understand both can be true.

Cheers.

Re. Moon rotation: her point was it doesn't show a different face. Her examples show she's trying to say that. She clearly doesn't understand both can be true.

filters

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 ?

So Clare can't pretend she doesn't remember this:

As to the final point, it was my own way to express spinning on its own axis in a north-south self-referential way, as the Earth does.
Quoting: mclarek 971744


Menow: No, that can't be it, since you went on to clarify that a "self-axis spinning" body is also "(not having an orbit)", which Earth certainly does. Care to try again?


This, the moon does not do. It has a ROTATION but not a spin on its own axis.
Quoting: mclarek 971744


Menow: Wrong. The Moon DOES spin on its own axis! Why would you think it does not? What motions would the moon display if Earth(and even Sun) suddenly went missing?

Good image to compare the SPT images.

Re. saying hoax, merely wanted to keep the line open because it doesn't OF ITSELF prove it was.

Your image suggests it was.

Good!

Re. Moon rotation: her point was it doesn't show a different face. Her examples show she's trying to say that. She clearly doesn't understand both can be true.

Cheers.

filters

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 ?


So how big would 4x Earth be on this image, with PX's supposed light-absorbent qualities as well, given that the Sun's light would seemingly overwhelm it?

So how big would 4x Earth be on this image, with PX's supposed light-absorbent qualities as well, given that the Sun's light would seemingly overwhelm it?

So Clare can't pretend she doesn't remember this:

As to the final point, it was my own way to express spinning on its own axis in a north-south self-referential way, as the Earth does.
Quoting: mclarek 971744


Menow: No, that can't be it, since you went on to clarify that a "self-axis spinning" body is also "(not having an orbit)", which Earth certainly does. Care to try again?


This, the moon does not do. It has a ROTATION but not a spin on its own axis.
Quoting: mclarek 971744


Menow: Wrong. The Moon DOES spin on its own axis! Why would you think it does not? What motions would the moon display if Earth(and even Sun) suddenly went missing?


I already said several times the Moon rottes. I was presenting how Nancy could be unclear on that and in the CONTEXT try to say something about how we woudn't fly off any more than if the moon stopped, someone would fly off it. THat was her point the day I watched the exchange on ZT about it. It was a misunderstanding by Nancy of the rotation AND a misunderstanding by the questioners of her main point, which was that the Moon faces us, and does not rotate in our view in the key way we do, like spin on an axis in relation to us.

Unimportant issue here. Why pick on this point? Just to say she's stupid and so on?

So Clare can't pretend she doesn't remember this:

As to the final point, it was my own way to express spinning on its own axis in a north-south self-referential way, as the Earth does.
Quoting: mclarek 971744


Menow: No, that can't be it, since you went on to clarify that a "self-axis spinning" body is also "(not having an orbit)", which Earth certainly does. Care to try again?


This, the moon does not do. It has a ROTATION but not a spin on its own axis.
Quoting: mclarek 971744


Menow: Wrong. The Moon DOES spin on its own axis! Why would you think it does not? What motions would the moon display if Earth(and even Sun) suddenly went missing?


I already said several times the Moon rottes. I was presenting how Nancy could be unclear on that and in the CONTEXT try to say something about how we woudn't fly off any more than if the moon stopped, someone would fly off it. THat was her point the day I watched the exchange on ZT about it. It was a misunderstanding by Nancy of the rotation AND a misunderstanding by the questioners of her main point, which was that the Moon faces us, and does not rotate in our view in the key way we do, like spin on an axis in relation to us.

Unimportant issue here. Why pick on this point? Just to say she's stupid and so on?

Unimportant issue here. Why pick on this point? Just to say she's stupid and so on?

Now, does the Moon rotate on its axis or not? A simple "yes" or "no" will suffice. Look at the Moon relative to the fixed stars. Does it rotate or not?

filters

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 ?


So how big would 4x Earth be on this image, with PX's supposed light-absorbent qualities as well, given that the Sun's light would seemingly overwhelm it?

Good image to compare the SPT images.

Re. saying hoax, merely wanted to keep the line open because it doesn't OF ITSELF prove it was.

Your image suggests it was.

Good!

Re. Moon rotation: her point was it doesn't show a different face. Her examples show she's trying to say that. She clearly doesn't understand both can be true.

Cheers.


Ohh.... and Clare... Nancy says that Astronut is a lying government agent. Why would you believe what he just said? All you have to do is lump him in with all the other conspirators and you have your precious, overarching doubt fully intact again! YAY!

[snip]
Ohh.... and Clare... Nancy says that Astronut is a lying government agent. Why would you believe what he just said? All you have to do is lump him in with all the other conspirators and you have your precious, overarching doubt fully intact again! YAY!

[snip]
Ohh.... and Clare... Nancy says that Astronut is a lying government agent. Why would you believe what he just said? All you have to do is lump him in with all the other conspirators and you have your precious, overarching doubt fully intact again! YAY!

Clare, why have you ignored the historical Chandler's Wobble data presented today?

Clare


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


Didn't see it. Where?


It was posted by at least two people. Dr P. and at least one other. Don't you even glance at the responses as you go rampaging past them?

Sherlock Holmes was written to say, "When you've eliminated the impossible ..." Well, we have to be careful truly to eliminate what's impossible, not leave possibilities unacknowledged and merely off-the-cuff treat them as self-evident.

:)

"Moi" --- Love French! :)


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

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

No, we are scientifically doubtful.

Clare, why have you ignored the historical Chandler's Wobble data presented today?


Missed it. Where?

I have been on and off, and my pages maybe refreshed in a way I didn't see it?

:)