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

No, she EVADES it. All of the thought experiments with simple yes/no answer's that have been given over the last week, if answered honestly, would clearly show that she is in error in her thinking. She realizes that and avoids answering them at all costs.

Which is a good argument for boycotting her like the rest of the shills, fools, frauds, simpletons and liars that populate zetadrool.

why???..i miss all that stimulating dialogue....it is better than sex...

Then you aren't doing it right.

I haven't followed the past pages ... no time at all to read that kind of babbling.

BTW ... over at the ning they get all hot about the Spiral CGI that has been posted here like 40 times in the past hours:

[link to poleshift.ning.com]

That retard MORRIS LEVIN even made an analysis of it.

It's pretty hilarious.

What's sad is that they all do.

They seem to think that the chat will now be somehow 'energized' from its ning isolation. I don't think they get that there are only a certain number of new and 'valid' questions which can be asked without expressing any doubt about anything in Zetatalk. It has been the debunkers who have always brought the heat and interest to the discussion.

Probably very true and most will eventually lose interest. It won't be long before Nancy realizes that without "debunkers," she doesn't get the attention and exposure she craves.

Let's be realisic ... her days are numbered ... 2012 is close and only the most retarded retards will still follow her after that.

I cannot wait for 2012, not only because of Nancy but all the plenty of hoaxers around (David Wilcock, Micheal Tsarius, Marshal Masters, Patrick Geryl etc etc ... damit the list could go on over several pages just to list all of these people).

I think I'm going to create an account on the ning and pretend to be a believer and go along with everything for the next year and a half. But once 2012 gets here, I'm going to start asking all kinds of questions that will make Nancy very uncomfortable. Sure, she'll delete them...but not before some of the others see them. And some of those believers might still have more than two functioning brain cells and they'll start to think.

That's why I think she will make forays over here and/or send socks to generate text she can cherry-pick for useable material.

Good luck with that....the believers thinking.

AIEE!

Babbling?

Okay, 2 motions:

1. forward, turning, representable as a turn on a path: representable on the axis of the Moon AROUND ANOTHER AXIS (barycentre between E-M system).

2. turning relative to path: like Venus.

a) since Moon doesn't do what Venus does relative to its path, you are confusing the two, caling them the same, because they both show the axis and body turning: but one is a turn of the axial orientation as it moves forward on a path over space, the other is a turn even if all other relative movements (axis motion forward) stopped.

74444 got the difference. Why not you? Disentangle your graph representations by asking what they're showing, and you see the difference. Calling them both "rotation around the axis" is fuzzy and misleading, as if 2 movements are the same. But okay if you know the difference in face.

b) deflecting onto PX? Isn't PX proof/disproof the point of this thread? -- get onto the topic and can't you talk of more than one thing at once?

This is not a response to any of the questions, discussion points or thought exercises put to you.

This is not a response to any of the questions, discussion points or thought exercises put to you.

I have put thought exercises to you guys. Except 74444 you aren't doing them.

I have answered many questions, about static positions (thought exercises).

Yes, call it that, and I have said that a long time ago, you can talk of that that way. It is not the same as the movement I am identifying it doesn't do: unlike Venus.

The moon can be said to rotate around its axis IF you mean by that forward motion around ANOTHER axis determines it (orbit). This is ORIENTATION over time, but relative to another axis: then yes, the total movement can be called "rotation" using/around its axis.

But if you mean (as I do) rotation even if not moving around the Earth, AS VENUS SHOWS EVEN IF NOT MOVING AROUND THE SUN, i.e., relative to its orbital turn, is there MORE movement (spin), then no, the Moon cannot be said to do that. That is what I am distinguishing and what most people mean by "movement around its axis".

You are picturing total turn, total forward shifts, and yes, from the point of view of its axis, it has rotated. So yes, what you are talking of I agree, but it is not the same as rotation around its axis BARRING forward path motion around another.

NEXT!!!!!

The same words for two different motions:

yes (if you mean total turns forward) -
no (if you mean relative to the path it makes, as Venus does).

yes: On the order of magnitude of turning actually relative to another axis. LIKE VENUS, EARTH, and even SUN relative to galaxy centre, etc.

no: On the order of magnitude if considered without forward motion along its orbit, just how much it turns if all other movements were fixed. UNLIKE VENUS

So, anyone actually want to handle the PX questions?

Shall we next tackle the Vatican purported leaks, the SOHO "pixel flares" that have no comparable examples in the databases Menow linked to (and also none on Bad Astronomy before 2005, which is not a litmus test, so to speak, as PX is supposed by ZT to have been here already), or the magnetosphere holes of repulsion when they shouldn't be there?

Oh, and does anyone know what might have undone Jupiter's ring entirely?

Here is my take on two recent images hailed as legit by the Planet X crowd:

Very good.

Could one be a glitch and the other a leak of the planet, or both glitches but not the one in the ZT and Bad Astronomy pages?

I ask because the one which was so debated (e.g., on Bad Astronomy) was clearly round with bleed, like Venus next to it.

And these don't seem to be so round (though a close-up isn't available on your links).

The two images show the glitch commonly referred as "winged globe" by Lieder who claims it's the "Planet X complex" with it's "swirling moon tail" ... she often displays them together with some old sumerian swtuff, like here:

[link to www.zetatalk.com]

IMO these are lies targeted at people who have no idea what they see and are easy victims for Lieder.

I am pretty much done with all this shite ... I've a lot more important stuff to do than to discuss the goo coming from an old delusional women ... except a few one-liners once in a while there's nothing I will contribute to this crap anymore.

Not until you get the issue of lunar rotation correct, and so far you are not even close to addressing that question with anything but armwaving and BS.

Care to cite a source for anything recently odd about the ring around Jupiter? Apparently your understanding of planets could use a serious tuneup.

Is a "baby" a human, yes or no?
Yes, if a human, no if a kitten.


So, does the Moon "turn on its axis"?

Yes, in forward motion relative to another axis stationary,
No, if also stationary in the mind-experiment.

So ... for your purposes, yes.
For spin relative to its own forward direction, no, it keeps the same face forward for every move it makes "around its axis" around another axis.

Different movements, same names. Irreducible movements, same names.

YOU ARE NOT DISTINGUISHING MOVEMENTS and choose to name them both the same. Since you do, then yes, for the movement you are actually naming, you can say that. It's sloppy, undefined, but it does make sense and can be shown that way.

Further refinements show, however, you are graphing a total turn, in forward movement, around another axis which turns it on its axis, but not with its own spin as well, unlike Venus.

Do you care to make the distinction? They can both be CALLED "moving around the axis" but one means the axis moves around, and relative to an outside point it completes a circle. The other means no, it makes a turn no matter if forward or not.

Rotation relative to Earth: yes.
Rotation relative to its direction: no.

The latter is what Venus does.

YOU are the arm-waver. I am drawing a distinction of fact, and you are using the same words for 2 different things; to which I acquiesce, as long as you realize there is another movement "around its axis" which would be even more refined: that relative to its orbit. Venus has it. Moon does not.

Do you see THAT at least, even though you insist on calling forward movements in a circle, around another axis, but making a total turn on its axis, "rotation around its axis"?

I know on one level it is called that. Do you at least see there is another movement which the Moon is not doing, which would also be called rotation around its axis? Such as Venus does??????

DrPostman, was that the same ring? Just curious. Not that it has to be for "PX" to be valid. I was just curious.

Jupiter looks so beautiful in photos, too, don't you think?