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

So it may have been real, like the Norway spiral, whatever that was.

You do realize that the hoaxer admitted it all ? Just like Kid A with his nibiru pics back in the days !

BTW, I'm still waiting for your prove that the Vatican images are really made by the Vatican.

And those Bad Astronomy claims about the SOHO images ... could they be right? So far, no comparable "flares" have been presented, except from comparable photos since PX was supposedly already possibly here.

I have read Kepler, and took 7 years of Latin training, for example. If you don't know how this trains your minds in orders of magnitude distinctions, try it!

Sheesh.

Regarding the Vatican images i first suggest you link them again, as I have no time to wade through 40 pages back until I find them.
Then your next task would be to prove beyond doubt that the source of the images are really the Vatican Telescope, so far you failed to prove this, you only link to other more than dubious websites like yowusa.com.
After you have proven to us that these images are originated from the Vatican Telescope then it's time for us to debunk them.
Until you have proven that these images are truly by the Vatican Telescope (and not photoshop) discussing them will be a waste of time.


I linked to them -- and others wouldn't re-link for me on other things. So why should I? :)

I'll do so later, though. Off to the movie about Tony Blair's treason with Bush, cloaked in a fiction form: "Ghostwriter".

Re. MY proving it: they make claims. You test it. I wanted your opinions.

I want to know: CAN they be from the Vatican -- their own telescope, or a satellite they share with NASA?

And the magnetosphere ... what's up with that? Repulsion while the Sun attracted it. Hm.

And those Bad Astronomy claims about the SOHO images ... could they be right? So far, no comparable "flares" have been presented, except from comparable photos since PX was supposedly already possibly here.


It doesnt work that way in science ... YOU make claims out of the ordinary, so YOU have to prove them ... that's the way the scientific community works, period.

I have read Kepler, and took 7 years of Latin training, for example. If you don't know how this trains your minds in orders of magnitude distinctions, try it!

Sheesh.


With you, it quite obviously didn't do any good. You are one of the dumbest posters to GLP.

Just like the crop circle hoaxers linked to British military funding claimed they did all the circles, when all their circles didn't replicate ANY of the special crop circles?

Or maybe in the Norway case, it was really hoaxed?

Again, we need more than a claim of hoaxing to take the person's word as true.

Off to the movie ... hope it's good.

I have read Kepler, and took 7 years of Latin training, for example. If you don't know how this trains your minds in orders of magnitude distinctions, try it!

Sheesh.


With you, it quite obviously didn't do any good. You are one of the dumbest posters to GLP.


Gobledygook. To quote others' word.

I submitted it as a claim from THEM; I make no claim about it. I just recognize that they purport these may be accurate images. Do you think they are? I don't know, myself, and thought maybe you (all) would have some thoughts relevant to the claims.

Or maybe in the Norway case, it was really hoaxed?

Or maybe in the Norway case, it was really hoaxed?

The norway Spiral has been proven to be a failed russian rocket test months ago ... there are about 5 other videos on youtube that show similar spirals (though not that spectecular) and all of them are proven to be failed rockets ... a rocket which messes up its guiding system has the habit of swirling around.

It doesnt work that way in science ... YOU make claims out of the ordinary, so YOU have to prove them ... that's the way the scientific community works, period.


THEY make the claims, and have what they think is proof. You test it -- this is the way science testability works: replicability. Do you find the same results they did and if so, on what points?

I submitted it as a claim from THEM; I make no claim about it. I just recognize that they purport these may be accurate images. Do you think they are? I don't know, myself, and thought maybe you (all) would have some thoughts relevant to the claims.

And those Bad Astronomy claims about the SOHO images ... could they be right? So far, no comparable "flares" have been presented, except from comparable photos since PX was supposedly already possibly here.

I, too, thought the vids, at least one of them, looked fake. But usually the military doesn't issue statements on things such as this -- and they did, because so many people called in. So it may have been real, like the Norway spiral, whatever that was.

As to the issue of my "not thinking", this is ridiculous! ROTFL!

I have read Kepler, and took 7 years of Latin training, for example. If you don't know how this trains your minds in orders of magnitude distinctions, try it!

Sheesh.

Agreed, the photos and video looked fake. Additionally, the person has admitted it was a hoax. Am I understanding you correctly that you think this STILL may be real?

But the Moon would not fly off if the Earth disappeared. It would continue around the Sun.


Yes, but we were not (as far as I know) talking of the orbital factor of the SYSTEM of the E-M. I thought he was just asking relative to the E-M system, but yes, add in the Sun again, and that movement would yes, pull the Moon. It would take some time to stabilize, but anyway, the Moon would in fact fly into whatever direction it was turned when the Earth disappeared -- making an ellipse around the Sun.

Anyway that's why I said "off in circles", but without the Sun, no, it would be straight in whatever direction it was faced at that point/

No spin, though in that: it faces its next turn around the Earth at each point it gets there. It does not spin as well more than it has to for the path.

Thank you. Just popping in. I said many times the semantics were screwing things up, the the egos here refused to work with me as I worked with them in their lack of understanding of which items we were talking of. (The "We" by the way, referred to the conversation in total, back-and forth between us all, that is.)

And as Wikipedia said, the "laymen" include astronomers, who use "rotation, spin, orientation, orbit and revolution" interchangeably for different real motions, which require specifications in addition to these words, just like me.

Nancy was saying too, that there is no motion of spin on the Moon other than the forward motion, which is locked onto the Earth by gravity pulling it in.

Watch out, boys!

Clare once picked up a book by Kepler AND she claims SEVEN YEARS of Latin!

Either rates a full doctorate in Astrophysics from the prestigious College of Forced-Air Systems and Vending Technology of legendary Duluth.

What fools we were to challenge Clare's intimate knowledge of rotary go-motions and spinable round-abouts!

If only we could abandon our preconceived notions of spin and still, of left and right, of up and down! Unfettered by the chains of convention, perhaps then we could see the universe as Clare sees it -- through the eyes of a none-too-bright child.

But I think I'll stick with boring old astronomy.

Also, Clare, since you seem to have ignored it...

The earth will eventually become tidally locked to the sun as Mercury is now. Several mllion years before that, its rotation will be 'almost" synchronous with its orbit in that its rotation period on its axis will have slowed to one every 100 days. Will it still be rotating on its own axis?

When it finally settles down with it rotating on its axis once every 365 days, will it in your opinion still be rotating? If not, then when did it stop rotating?

And those Bad Astronomy claims about the SOHO images ... could they be right? So far, no comparable "flares" have been presented, except from comparable photos since PX was supposedly already possibly here.

A planet would appear in consecutive images and move with some kind of logic. Cosmic ray hits don't.

But the Moon would not fly off if the Earth disappeared. It would continue around the Sun.


Yes, but we were not (as far as I know) talking of the orbital factor of the SYSTEM of the E-M. I thought he was just asking relative to the E-M system, but yes, add in the Sun again, and that movement would yes, pull the Moon. It would take some time to stabilize, but anyway, the Moon would in fact fly into whatever direction it was turned when the Earth disappeared -- making an ellipse around the Sun.

Anyway that's why I said "off in circles", but without the Sun, no, it would be straight in whatever direction it was faced at that point/

No spin, though in that: it faces its next turn around the Earth at each point it gets there. It does not spin as well more than it has to for the path.

Anyway,
on a positive note, I wish you well in spite of it all.
I really do hope you can debunk PX one day fully. It would be nice.

Clare --



How can we start missing you if you don't leave, clunk?


I never asked you to miss me, Comic-book mutant.

You just want me gone. I don't need to be. Maybe I change my mind, or check back.

I submitted it as a claim from THEM; I make no claim about it. I just recognize that they purport these may be accurate images. Do you think they are? I don't know, myself, and thought maybe you (all) would have some thoughts relevant to the claims.

Wrong. Just like the creationists you don't understand how
real science works:
:scicreat:

But the Moon would not fly off if the Earth disappeared. It would continue around the Sun.


Yes, but we were not (as far as I know) talking of the orbital factor of the SYSTEM of the E-M. I thought he was just asking relative to the E-M system, but yes, add in the Sun again, and that movement would yes, pull the Moon. It would take some time to stabilize, but anyway, the Moon would in fact fly into whatever direction it was turned when the Earth disappeared -- making an ellipse around the Sun.

Anyway that's why I said "off in circles", but without the Sun, no, it would be straight in whatever direction it was faced at that point/

No spin, though in that: it faces its next turn around the Earth at each point it gets there. It does not spin as well more than it has to for the path.


Hello,

Been trying to play catch up on this thread -- still maintaining popularity after Nancy's 'departure.' Interesting.

Clare,

I think you do make a point regarding the motions of the Moon -- but I think that point is invalidated because of the Moon's unique orbital characteristics: it falls primarily toward the Sun. You are largely incorrect in your guess regarding what would happen: if the Earth did vanish, the Moon's orbit would vary only slightly, and the Moon would continue to orbit the Sun much as it does now, and rotate on its axis roughly 12 times each Solar Year, as it does now. If the Sun lasted long enough, the Earthless Moon would eventually slow and tidally lock to the Sun. But its rotation would not cease even then, if you were, say floating 50 million miles above the Solar System, observing the Earthless Moon in orbit below you.

Of course, the Moon does not spin in a frame where it doesn't spin, and the Earth does hang nearly motionless in the lunar sky. But this, I would say, is the illusion. Both are engaging in all sorts of motions.

I don't think you can honestly claim that the Moon is 'not spinning' up until the hypothetical moment that the Earth vanishes, and then is 'suddenly spinning.' (although some haggling over relative motions could be argued, I suppose) Although such hair-splitting of movements over other planet/moon/moons systems might have some validity, since they fall toward their primaries. But not ours.

Therefore, I believe the more traditional models explain and predict this behavior with greater accuracy -- an accuracy that demonstrates many of Nancy's claims to be hopelessly incorrect. The Moon does turn on its axis, as evidenced by the fact that the Sun and stars rise and set on the Moon. That motion would not stop whether Earth was here or not. Those motions have little dependence on the Earth, as Menow has been trying to point out with his 'angular momentum' questions.

I apologize for my tardiness to the thread -- real life calls, and all that, and thank you for your kind words earlier in the thread. I hope you understand and can accept my explanations and positions on this matter, or perhaps propose an experiment/predictive model which can demonstrate your explanations as being superior. But, for now, I think that the traditional model stands.

In the meantime, PX certainly continues to be almost as dangerous as the Invisible Dragon in my Garage.

Be well.