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

Tidal "lock" is not really like a padlock, Clare-bear.

Reality calls... Y'all have fun now!

I have to admit this is a loaded question. Many of us have concerns about your list. Rational people can doubt details about the official reports about JFK's murder (official files of the Warren Report sealed for 76 years). The official report on 9-11 even the members of the commission have serious concerns, abductions . . . I am not sure but I have seen the evidence of cattle mutilations. Chemtrails . . . some admitted weather mods are common knowledge.

Last Edited by George B on 05/28/2010 12:59 AM

That's the classic Betty and Barney Hill case.

I guess you've all seen this:

[link to poleshift.ning.com]

They've got more rules than the Baptists.

I like number 6:

"While groups may form outside of this ning, they are beyond our control and thus we disclaim any and all liability arising from participation in such group(s)."

I guess if you get a bad banana worm bread recipe on someone else's pole shift page, it's not Gerard and Nancy's fault.

So if you are dumb enough to use nancys idea of aftertime contraception and start attacking your `bits' with powertools and 4x2 hardwood- she gets to say `hey it wasn't MY idea'

(actually watching the `ningiots' at work and play, I think more than a few probably have picked up the drill, they just haven't figured out how to plug it in yet....)

thats a scary place- makes GLP look positively sane in comparison...
:-O

What's really funny is how they start talking about "nonsense" "bullshit" and "wishful thinking" to anyone making any non-canonical statements about "The Zetas."

Practice at improving your aim...;-)

Not baiting, Menow.
Asking for what you would see.

Hm?

so answer me (and many others) question first- if you are standing at the moons axis points (north or south) and look straight up...

ASKING FOR WHAT YOU WOULD SEE.

Considering it was asked first and you STILL haven't answered despite several people asking it repeatedly

Good, George, from one person to another. No NEED for appreciation back and forth but yes, it is a loaded question.

Unlike Oswald's gun, which he didn't own.

Oh yah, and there were at least 3 of the same gun, with different lengths, ratios of sight to barrel, serial number styles (bad fakes).

And there were other guns found -- and slugs.

Oh ... and never mind on that one. Read Doug Horne, "Inside the AARB" for the most complete and modern information, or Fetzer, editor, "Murder in Dealey Plaza", "Assassination Science" and "The Great Zapruder Film Hoax". There are other works, more about the various statements by people (such as those in the Mob) who talked, but those 4 books will give you the science and the detailed overview.

Some people here think they're rational for NOT following objective evidence on some of these things. Eh, Returner?

9/11 is another doozy: on every claim of the gov't, the story falls. And if you understand optics, even non-photographic optics, you will know that the parallax doesn't work for SOME of the "live" images of that day. Nor did the parts break off from planes (the only parts were under tarps, in NYC, where FBI had been, and they were the wrong kinds of parts); there were no miles of wire, all time stamped and serial numbered. There's more ... but this post would go on for books. So I'll stop there.

Mutilations were so horrific and so unsolvable they caused local outrages -- but when the evidence from one region was to be presented to a panel, the people's vets and police agents were told it would be best to let experts speak, and the supposed experts said things that didn't relate at all to the statements of the witnesses and doctors and animal pathologists. I forget where this was, but you should look into that. Some mutilations were odd and real, it would seem.

Re. Chemtrails: a Canadian air force colonel just came out to say we don't have the planes for the spraying, so we ask Americans in. (Who are being used by others, one presumes.)

Moon landing hoaxing is a very interesting question, from the photographic problems, but also the Van Allen belts are a problem (for the craft AND the cameras, which were not protected, according to the makers, but which the NASA spokesman merely took on faith and poo-poohed questions implying what the camera-maker had said would be true), not to mention the lack of lead suits, or the fact the LEM had barely enough room for the men in backpacks, if all equipment and jutting apparatus were taken out, but with it in, it would seem they couldn't have gotten to the hatch: enough square inches of space, but not in one place big enough for them. But I don't know as much about that one.

However, just because we have been massively lied to in one thing does not mean everything is a lie. Much is, though. Too much. It really does feel overwhelming at some point. But we all can be non-compliant -- and if we know threats and lies are very real, and what they look like, then we can be WISELY non-compliant, i.e., in the right places in life.

You should look into it all and really test the evidence in your mind fully. Prepare to be shocked, if you want to know the full truth about some of these things. There are some ugly ones truths out there.

On the cryptozoology or alien issues: I do not know enought to comment much. Maybe more things might have survived from the past than we currently think; aliens have many serious and plausible reports, often with corroboration from many people, of SOME aspect of the phenomenon. I for one have no experience either way. Heck, I haven't even seen a ghost! No paranormal for me.

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

As to my posts to Leider's site: I take on the position while I am on there, of being more a believer, and thanking her for work, which I think is fair, in case it is for real. I also try to thank you guys for your efforts, when you'll let me: be nice and present ideas for discussion. When posing a question for Nancy, one must be sure not to offend or the human emotion of resentment, even if her story is for real, could cut in and not answer.

If I am dealing with one side or another, I try to be on side with what they have to say. In the end, we learn the most that way.

With Nancy LIEDer firmly at the helm, seeing that Gertard is nothing more the ning manager, then the Poleshit ning is sure to end in terminal failure....it is The LIEDer way.

Always you guys first. So selfish. And every time I do, you don't give me credit. HA HA HA.

Already answered a day ago -- and it's why Menow got confused at my mention of the stars.

You or someone else posted about if there was rotation of the stars and Sun around the Moon, from the Moon's point of view.

Of course. Again. It rotates ... in its own sense of things, and from the viewpoint of other bodies EXCEPT the Earth.

This is already covered long ago, when I first said, OH you guys are talking of how the Moon rotates over space, from any view other than the Earth. This was on day 2 of my being here, I think.

So implicitly, this is long covered, anyway. So ... my question is the relevant one now: if the angular momentum continues no matter what, then when all motions are stopped, is the Moon still tidally locked or does it start to rotate RELATIVE TO EARTH?

you have chosen a single reference point that (mostly) fits what you want to believe, but that same reference point `shows' that the sun orbits the earth also...

Despite not knowing the correct usage of words (and continuing to use the incorrect usage even when shown otherwise) you still are and have always been WRONG- as shown by many posters here

The only good thing that clunk brings to this thread is that with each of her replies close to half a page, we are now on track for 1000 pages before the end of 2010, bringing it forward from maxipads best effort which was closer to the end of 2011

And a very useless one at that!!

so you are saying `it rotates' then
forget the word salad (which nobody except you seems to think is impressing us on your `massive intellect')

thank you- you finally admit that if you stand on the moons axis point- you can clearly see that the starfield rotates around you- hence the moon rotates

A chemtard, too.

seems like there isnt a conspiracy theory out there clunk doesnt subscribe to

I said this on day 2 when I realized what viewpoint you were talking of and the forces you were talking of.

What I am asking of YOUR useless words, since you missed the point entirely long ago ...

is, if all other motions stopped, would the angular momentum of the Moon break its tidal lock with the Earth and start to rotate then -- truly rotate RELATIVE TO EARTH?


Does anyone know? This is the critical point ... and I have shown long ago I know it rotates relative to OTHER bodies and not to Earth.

So, what happens when all the other motions are considered stopped: there is no more turning to account for and the Moon is considered stationary, and not rotating, then, right? Or does it break its tidal lock and start to, relative to Earth? ANYBODY KNOW?

Not the same thing. Because one can look above the system and see the relative motions.

One can also imagine the E-M system stopped relative to the Sun, which also means that the Sun (from the centre of the system) would stop seem to be revolving "around" the system.

But the Moon would still be revolving around the Earth and the Earth rotating (and revolving around the barycentre).

And relative to the Sun, the Moon's revolution would show different faces to the Sun, a rotation but not on its axis in one spot, unlike the Earth (minus its revolution around the barycentre), or Venus, if it stopped around the Sun. The latter would be rotating on their axes even if stopped in revolution.

So, would the Moon break its tidal lock if also held in place relative to the Earth and then rotate in place? If not, it cannot be said to be rotating on its own, like the Earth and Venus, whose turns (rotation) along their orbits are IN ADDITION to their revolution/orbit of the Sun.

Not true.

But there are many conspiracies. Sadly. Did you think the creeps wouldn't do them?

Lincoln, you know, was killed by an official conspiracy, but most people don't know that. It had reaches into Europe (Britain, the USA's traditional enemy).

Welcome to the real world. Learn some history -- lol.

What would Shakespeare do without real conspiracy?
And Julius Caesar would have lived on ...

Duh.

Still on this "Clare is a troll" thing? It's a waste of a line of thought to think so. Lol.

And the Canadian colonel is a "'tard", too, then! LOL!

Or the scientists testing and finding barium in samples ... and the scintists who point out a contrail doesn't stay condensed?

Oh, and the British officials who made outright statements in the '90s that they sprayed diseases on parts of the UK in the '70s and '80s ... but wouldn't answer if they were still doing it (a logical question, deserving an answer).

Your response is ignorant AND stupid, for it makes you part of an irresponsible group of the public.

You listen to everything your controlled news editor tells you? You should listen to local broadcasts where sometimes information gets through ... where samples have been reported tested and found "surprizing", etc.

Or seen the documents and samples sent to the gov't, and the gov't's non-reply form letters.

STOOOOPID not to look into it. This evidence is objective. Are you? NOOOO. :)

How the hell do you know what I listen to or whether or not I've looked into this?

I love it when these newbie bunkers start going off on the indignant "you believe the controlled media" riffs.

Why the hell would I be on a site like this if that were the case?

I'm distrustful of all sources of information. Including delusional chemtrail propaganda.

And I've looked into it extensively.

And just for grins, what's your source on that?

Sure. Okay. So the British admission doesn't count?

Or the fact that barium is found in high quantities?

Or the simple fact that contrails don't leave cloudy trails more than a few dozen seconds?

Research again. Sure, there's propaganda. Some of it is to confuse the real evidence which stands in spite of fakery.

JFK died. The film was fake. Which one u gonna listen to!

Back to the drawing board for you.

Sure. Laugh past the graveyard. The victims won't thank you.

Just for tears, a Torontonian local newspaper.

Now, if I told you that Paul Hellyer says there are aliens, even if he's wrong, would you laugh at the source? Or Lt. Corso ... etc., etc. I don't know if they're right -- that one is hard to be objective on. But chemtrails? Come on.