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

[link to poleshift.ning.com]

I love the first 2 comments in particular

`Zetas right again '
`The accuracy of zeta is very surprising!! '



`Geological investigations in the Himalayas have revealed evidence that when India and Asia collided some 90 million years ago, the continental crust of the Indian tectonic plate was forced down under the Asian plate, sinking down into the Earth's mantle to a depth of at least 200 km kilometres.

"The subduction of continental crust to this depth has never been reported in the Himalayas and is also extremely rare in the rest of world," said Dr Anju Pandey of the National Oceanography Centre in Southampton, who led the research.

Pandey and her colleagues used sophisticated analytical techniques to demonstrate the occurrence of relict majorite, a variety of mineral garnet, in rocks collected from the Himalayas.

Majorite is stable only under ultra-high pressure conditions, meaning that they must have been formed very deep down in the Earth's crust, before the subducted material was exhumed millions of years later.'

originally from Deep Subduction of the Indian Continental Crust Beneath Asia

ScienceDaily (May 28, 2010) (I rather give credit where it's due rather than the ning)

what I can't get over is that they apparently don't even bother to read the articles they post anymore before exclaiming `zetards wrong again!!'

Really- the zetas caused this to happen...
(shhh dont tell anyone from the ning to read past the first half of the first sentence) 90 million years ago...

(slaps forehead)

and of course nancy or the zetas didn't actually `predict' this discovery either

Science - its what real people do
cults - its what conartists do...

That guy totally rocks:

[link to zetasquawk.com]

wonder how long before the zetatards catch it???
(thats should set the cat amongst the pigeons for sure...)

I know we said no clunk- so here is noclunk

Just had a wander around that `interview' she was trying to push (2hrs of streaming audio on a limited download account- I think not...)

Going to the mainpage shows what sort of site it is..
if it's a wacked out `theory' of anything and everything, you can get an interview there no problems...
suprised nancy hasn't already appeared there- she makes some of them look positively insane by comparison to her...

(and god only knows how hard that is LOL)

only good thing about nancys move to the ning- she seems to be writing there a lot earlier (ie about now) so its early saturday night for me now instead of being all over, early sunday morning by the time I got up

wasn't the oil spill `in the hands of man' last week- now the zetas are riggers to boot...

this should be interesting.....

more meaningless babble

(one thought I had- to restrict the traffic to the zing (we dont want it to appear popular by giving it lots of views afterall)

not every post is worthy of reproducing here- but if we list the most ridiculous of them here, with any comments or as not- we could seriously reduce their page views (seeing as `some' zeta supporters here find that that is important enough to have to fiddle the numbers so to speak)

so we could decrease the traffic to the ning (which IMHO) could only be a good thing

WRONG! As proven by M. Clare K.

`Benign aliens of course would have other options, if allowed to intervene, which they are not allowed to do due to the Rule of Non-Interference.'

An `interesting' choice of words that she probably will regret later on....

Seeing how we already know that the zetas do not subscribe to the `Rule of Non-Interference' seeing as how they keep bobbling the earth to and fro to simulate the seasons, moving Venus and the moon to simulate various eclipses etc etc

We now have it from the `horses mouth' (IMHO- it's more likely the other end) that the zetas both neither subcribe to the rule of non-interference, and are not benign aliens either...

Again

`Benign aliens of course would have other options, if allowed to intervene, which they are not allowed to do due to the Rule of Non-Interference.'

So if the zetas aren't benign- them what are they???


[link to www.google.com]

The opposite of benign is malignant


It's lucky they don't exist then, because I would hate to be the leider of a cult channeling malignant aliens

because that is kind of a sucky thing to do IMHO

NO MAX IN JUNE!!!!!
NO luser IN JUNE!!!
NO clunk EVER!!!

that first paragraph once again shows that nancys aliens (if they did exist) are certainly not benign...


`It is not the intention of those in attendance during the pole shift and the Transformation of Earth to perpetuate the human species. We are developing a hybrid race, have you not heard?'

I'm afraid that (if they did exist), I for one would fight the zetas tooth and nail because despite it's little quirks and even it's dumbest ones shouldn't be wiped out by a malignant alien race intent on replacing us with a race of hybrids (I wouldn't wish that even on nancy or any of her intellecually handicapped little trolls...)


It would kinda suck to be someone actually actively helping such critters though (assuming they existed- luckily for us all they dont LOL)- because that would make them not only inhuman- but antihuman....
that would suck...

Well, I listened to a large portion of this interview.

Clare is not Nancy and is not "trolling" in the sense of intentionally making inflammatory statements just to get a reaction.

Clare, you need to open your mind to the possibility that you and the people you are involved with are fundamentally wrong on a number of levels.

You also do not have a strong enough science and technical background to evaluate much of the information you have assimilated.

I'm saying this as someone who was once obsessed with the 911 conspiracy movement and who once believed in an impending poleshift.

WRONG! No it isn't. The Moon's rotation is INDEPENDENT of everything else. It is certainly nothing to do with the Sun!

It's not fatigue that makes you post bullshit, it's stupidity. You never post anything else.

You are an arrogant idiot.

Brilliant statement . . . neither one of us can prove the other wrong; however, the preponderance of the evidence (though it be circumstantial) in front of an unbiased jury I am confident will find unexplainable, persistent trails of something other than just water vapor trailing aircraft in many parts of the world. Since my computer crashed a few days ago (mother board failure) my evidence resources are a bit scrambled . . . however, I am willing next week to challenge you to a trial by fire of evidence . . . to be judged by three individuals on this thread or a new one of your choice. The winner will be awarded by the majority vote. I propose three days of discussion. First day: opening arguments to prove: unexplainable, persistent trails of something other than just water vapor trailing aircraft in many parts of the world exist or doesn't exist. The next day all evidence possible will be presented. The last day cross examinations, rebuttals, and final statement. The vote will then be taken. You game?

Last Edited by George B on 05/29/2010 12:57 PM

Go for it Menow.

Just one of many, many examples:

[link to www.rense.com]

UK Denies Evidence Of
Widespread Illegal Chemtrail
Aerosol Operations
7-8-7

DERBYSHIRE, UK ­- Following the submission of a report, backed by over 20 signatories from diverse backgrounds, detailing widespread illegal and unacknowledged aerosol spraying from aircraft, UK agencies have ignored or denied the significant data it presented. Copies of the report were sent to UK Greenpeace, the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), The Royal Air Force, DEFRA and, sometime after, to the UK World-Wide Fund for Nature, challenging them to investigate the data themselves. Four responses were received and all of them have denied the basic science presented in the report, which was backed up by the clear evidence.

(PR Web) ­ An independent lay researcher, with a background in Software Engineering, from Derbyshire, UK, has continued to try and draw attention to the report he compiled which documents ongoing illegal aerosol spraying activities which could be affecting our climate, our health or both.

In May 2007, a previous Press Release [link to www.prweb.com] described how he had sent copies of this report to several UK Agencies.

Andrew Johnson said that, "It has been an interesting exercise. Though the responses from official bodies have been largely as expected, I have been gratified and surprised by the response of a number of people from all around the world."

Since submitting the report in May 2007, Johnson said that he has received responses from DEFRA, The Department of Transport, the UK World-Wide Fund for Nature and the UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA). He said "The response from DEFRA was a 1-page flat denial, stating that what I was describing was ordinary contrails. They did not refer to any sections of the report, nor did they attempt to explain any of the data it presented. I had already included in the report that I would not accept such a flat denial and suggested that, if that was the sort of response they were intending to make, then they would be better sending nothing. This is another strong indication they did not even read the report." The response came from the "Customer Contact Unit" and Johnson said "I wrote back to them explaining again that a simple 'denial' type of response was not acceptable. I also wrote that I did not consider myself a 'customer' of DEFRA ­ after all, I hadn't bought anything from them."

Johnson said that he was surprised to receive a response from The Department of Transport, "I did not send a copy to the Department of Transport (DoT), but in their response they said that the report had been forwarded to them for comment by DEFRA Ministers. The DoT response was by far the most comprehensive, and referenced one specific section of my report, so it seemed they had actually read it.

They included reference to a Scientific Paper about Persistent Aircraft Trails, written in 2005 by Professor Ulrich Schumann of the Institute of Atmospheric Physics. I studied this report in some detail and could not really find anything that was specifically relevant to the data in my own report ­ such as how grids and parallel lines are formed.

The Schumann Paper talks about contrail formation being possibly linked to cirrus cloud formation, but states there is no proven link between them. It does indeed discuss persistent "contrails" but does not explain why they form and the duration of their persistence is not discussed in detail or with any empirical data.

In particular, my attention was drawn to 2 figures in the report: the standard contrail duration of maximum 2 minutes (with which I have no argument) and also the discussion of regions of ice supersaturation. It states that ice supersaturation in the atmosphere may be the cause of persistent contrail formation, but no firm link is documented or established. Indeed, a figure of 150 km is quoted for the maximum size of a region of ice supersaturation. However, I have measured chemtrails that are over 300 km long."

Johnson explained that, after reviewing Prof Schumann's Paper, "I e-mailed a copy of my report, along with these and other comments to Professor Schumann, but so far, I have received no response." Johnson responded to the DoT and CAA asking that, if their assertions were correct and the chemtrails were just contrails, it must mean that the picture of the "grid" he took in 2005 and the 42 aircraft he recorded leaving persistent trails over a period of 212 hours on Feb 4th 2007 must be ordinary air traffic. He therefore asked if they could please supply flight data for these days? "As I have videoed the actual aircraft from 4th of Feb and have the files time-stamped on a disk, I can prove they flew over the place where I was. I have received no response to this request so far."

There has been interest and support expressed from around the world, Johnson has found. "During the week after I first posted the report, I received a number of complimentary messages from around the world, which was a pleasant surprise. It seems that more people are aware of and concerned about this issue than I thought".

Brian from Ontario, Canada also contacted Andrew with information regarding chemtrail identification, "I have put together this webpage [link to www.holmestead.ca] for people in the USA which helps them to identify Chemtrails.

One important consideration, for example is that most commercial aircraft are tracked by the FAA within the U.S. Other countries may have similar tracking programs and in turn make that tracking data available to the public via tracking programs such as 'FlightAware' and 'Flight Explorer' in near real time.

If the aircraft that you have observed do not show up on these tracking programs then you must assume that they are exempt from being tracked. Only military type aircraft, and some Government aircraft are exempt from tracking. That should cause many questions to be asked as it is against FAA regulations as well as military flight regulations for any large body jet aircraft to conduct operations, manoeuvres, or training exercises over populated civilian areas without notification by the Secretary of Defence ninety days prior to any such operation - and only then with the express permission of the Governor(s) of the affected state(s), unless National Security is at issue."

Johnson said "I was grateful that Brian has contacted me with this information - I have come across a similar tracking system which is available in the UK called the SBS-1 but this is quite expensive to buy." John from Australia said "I have been following this issue for some time and have been videoing our local skies for 3 months I think the Greens really need to look at this but so far here it has fallen on deaf ears and the other parties deny it."

Susan from Arizona also contacted Johnson to say "I have tracked [chemtrails] here in northern Arizona for the past two years, where skies are normally a bright, clear blue (or at least they used to be) for most days of the year. The chemtrails have increased and become far worse over the past several years, along with extreme changes in local climate and environment. Respiratory problems are virtually epidemic and long-lasting."

James from Exeter said "I agree 100% with your views and conclusions. I have taken digital camera pictures of these unmarked aircraft spraying overhead, sometimes as many as thirty or more aircraft in a very short time, spraying in a grid pattern it seems, and have looked up some mornings to find an X marks the spot in the sky overhead - looks like a St. Andrews cross. I have a large pair of binoculars 80 x 20's , but even with these there are no markings on these aircraft. I have seen a couple of aircraft with what look like extra tanks under the fuselage. So, yes we are being sprayed. I'm so pleased to see someone that is voicing the concerns I've had for a while now."

John from Kelso (Scotland) also wrote to say "Chemtrails first caught my attention after reading an article in about 1998/99, and to be honest at that time in the UK I was not seeing any, so I just dismissed the idea as something that was happening in the US. In 2002, I was leaving my nephew's house in North Shields Tyne & Wear to come home and from the main road near the Tyne Tunnel and I could see in the distance a huge X in the sky. I have since taken many photos and videos of this phenomenon."

Rosalind from California wrote "We believe, that the program here in Northern California and Arizona dates back to 1988 or 1989. We believe that there may have been experiments prior to this date... however, technology and funding became available on a massive scale in the late 1980s."

Andrew Johnson added "Rosalind also kindly sent quite a few related documents that she has obtained, though I simply have not had chance to study them yet."

Caroline, a Financial Consultant, from Surrey, UK also described her own thoughts and experiences, "I do not believe that any government-sponsored scientist has or will be sanctioned to look into all the evidence relating to chemtrails with the depth that you, I and many other private individuals have. Any scientists who may feel that chemtrails should be investigated would, I think, have to consider the 80 untimely and unexplained deaths of some of the world's top scientists that have taken place since 1994. DEFRA has not and will not act impartially and has, I consider, erroneously decided to accept scientific discussion as fact rather than theory. One must wonder why there was not one time lapse experiment undertaken (or reported on if undertaken) when this economical way of confirming facts could quickly turn a theory into a proven point. I do feel that time is of the utmost importance with regards to halting these chemtrails, at least until a full and open public enquiry has taken place."

Mark, a Rail Worker in the West Midlands, has recently written an article regarding his observations about the Chemtrailing activity in which he says...

"During the summer of 2006, my attention was directed to unusual cloud formations that were becoming a frequent and alarming feature of the daytime skies over the Wolverhampton area of the West Midlands, UK where I live. On a sunny Saturday afternoon in July 2006, I actually witnessed the entire vista was filled with criss-crossed and checkerboard patterns constructed of thick, milky white lines of cloud. I have been an aviation enthusiast for as long as I can remember, and maintain what I consider to be a good working familiarity with most types of civilian and military aircraft. The aircraft I saw appeared to be of three types, two larger types of the KC-135 (a derivative of the Boeing 707) and Boeing KC 767 (the military tanker version of the Boeing 767) varieties, and a smaller and faster type which recalled the configuration of a McDonnell Douglas MD-80. These aircraft were all flying at high speed, and initially deposited thin, white trails in their wakes. It was also patently obvious that the patterns visible above were being constructed to some kind of design."

It is therefore clear that a wide range of people are aware that the spraying is going on, and basic science proves it is really happening. The question has to be asked, then, how do we proceed and obtain answers to has authorised this spraying and what is its purpose? In summary, Johnson comments, "I see this as a stage in the process of getting both Governmental Organisations and Non-Governmental Organisations to look at this issue realistically and responsibly. The research of many people and the report I compiled proves the issue is real, even though we don't know who is responsible for the spraying.

Anyone who has an interest in protecting our environment should be looking at this issue and asking questions. The official responses I have received so far have done nothing, realistically, to refute or correct any of the data or overall conclusions I included, disturbing though they are.

Perhaps the main problem is that it is difficult for us all to accept, in the face of everything else we are told (about things like global warming, for example), that something like this is really going on. I think we must therefore continually apply pressure in various places so that we can get more answers. I strongly encourage everyone to try and do something to increase awareness of this. Write to government and environmental agencies (especially if you are a member) and send them copies of the report, or any other data on Chemtrailing which you feel is important."

Most of the responses that Andrew Johnson has received, both official and unofficial, can be viewed online here:

[link to www.checktheevidence.com]

or using this dont_use_this2: [link to Do_not_use_this.com]

The original report submitted can be viewed, online at [link to www.checktheevidence.com] or using this dont_use_this2: [link to Do_not_use_this.com] Johnson actively encourages all interested parties to contact him for any required clarification or further information required.

Just to be clear-- is this the report referenced in your post?

[link to www.checktheevidence.co.uk]


I don't think a three day debate on this thread with the parameters you suggest is a practical suggestion. It certainly wouldn't be definitive.

This has been a constant subject of discussion for many years on GLP.

Just looking at your linked information I see many red flags.

I'd want to see the input of GLP posters like Duncan Kunz, The Guy, SnakeAirlines, G. House who are up to speed in addressing these claims.

This particular post was just a quick and dirty to demonstrate that many people around world think what they are seeing in their sky is not normal. I realize most postings will not be without controversy . . needless to say. The difference in this debate is that it will be judged by three individuals of my opponent's choice. I am not suggesting that the controversy will be resolved . . . that is probably not possible at this time. I am proposing a battle of existing evidence and a preliminary finding of up or down . . . that is all. Seems this could be very entertaining for all.

Last Edited by George B on 05/29/2010 02:24 PM

laff sweetly my pet and i will laff with u....

Since I cannot obviously show you what I saw . . . I did not and have not taken pictures . . . but I found a youtube clip which demonstrates much of what I have seen. I do not support all photographs or the implied message throughout this clip but I bring your attention to images found a 30 seconds, 2 minutes:29 seconds and again at 7 minutes and :22 seconds. I am sure you will most likely disagree with my interpretation but at least you have some idea of what I saw.


Last Edited by George B on 05/29/2010 03:01 PM

Please don't turn this thread into a Chemidiot thread. Start a different one.

THIS one is about Zidiots.

Whoa fuck! They predicted something that happened 90 million years ago? Fuck! That is some accuracy track record to chew on!

That is exactly what I offered Menow.

I'm not bothering with that video.

That first image that's showing has been definitely debunked over and over and over again.

[link to contrailscience.com]

It's a plane that's used to test flight characteristics and the tanks are used to pump water around to displace the center of gravity.

The "Hazmat" sign was photoshopped in, so it's a deliberate hoax yet is offered again and again in these threads.

That's about the level of this debate in my experience.

BTW--anybody know if RrEeNnSsEe is on the GLP verboten link list?

I had no idea any list of clips was off limits?

What about this:
Here is another good clip showing the difference between a chemtrail and contrail within the same general proximity. I bring your attention to images found at 4:37 to end of clip.



Last Edited by George B on 05/29/2010 04:17 PM

Good catch on doctored images . . . this is what is needed to debate the issues; however, my point was the images showing Contrail and Chemtrail examples together. Now if the images I point out were doctored I agree this entire clip is bogus.

Yes, please take your 'chmetard' bullshit off this thread.