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

Nah. The chemmies make my head hurt. Not nearly as entertaining as Clare-bear.

As witnessed on GLP, a bunch of people think the sun is not where it belongs in the sky.

Heh.

Same crap, different day.

Old, tired, regurgitated garbage... not worthy of response.

Or, they use your method... being so verbose and inserting so many false premises that no one can possibly keep up with all the corrections needed. Then, JUST WHEN it seems the troll might finally 'see the light', he starts all over again with repeats of 'mistakes' which drive people mad. Gee, Clare, that's EXACTLY what you did with your last 'explanation' about how the Moon behaves!

So you don't think you can defend you position against a jury of your selection with rules of your choice? I personally think it would be entertaining and worthwhile because there is a limit to the duration of the argument and there is a judgment made by independent minds as to the strength of the evidence and power of the presentation. Sorry you refuse!

Ya THINK??????????

You know I used this only to demonstrate the photographs of the trails, I would not use this in any demonstration of anything else. Sorry, I have to go for now I know you won't miss me!

Last Edited by George B on 05/30/2010 10:27 AM

Start yet another chemtrail thread and see if you can get anyone to wade through that same old inane crapola with you... AGAIN!

Good luck with that.

The difference my friend would be that there would be a limitation of time, an endpoint and judgment (temporary as it would be). We could use this method to go through that list you or someone gave Clare. Rational debate versus Ranting! I would be willing to take either side of a debate except for the one on Chemtrails. I would be willing to take Nancy's position if that would make you feel better. I in no way wish to embarrass you or myself; I just think this format could be a gas! Think about it!

Last Edited by George B on 05/30/2010 01:56 PM

Hi.

I actually was out for a Slurpee two days ago while on my way to "Ghostwriter", and had the thought, therefore. It was an incongruous situation: to talk with a friend about spies and sell-outs in gov't, while at an "ordinary" place. But both are truly going on.

One does not have to be condescending to be telling the truth about people who do not INTEGRATE their knowledge: they sit in a bar, say, and discuss politics, and vote -- so in that sense it's part of their life -- but to integrate the knowledge/feeling that the hell is going on right now and all the time, that's rarer, IN FACT.

A lot of people also are deliberately not informing themselves. There are some things which are not actually debatable any more. There is a lack of media pundits acknowledging these truths (issues which are for sure, like JFK's death's being a conspiracy with current implications). Because of this, people remain very often in a haze of uncertainty, or if they do bother, they can reach "different conclusions", having read "the sides" but not the analysis of the sides, to help them compare the mistakes.

Or they get furious just hearing of "that kooky stuff." Because it's been KEPT OFF-LIMITS, made off limits by official denouncements.

In fact, it's history, reality. Some of it is now KNOWN.

As to family or obsessiveness, this is true, it can be a problem. But there is a fact that when one wakes up it does become a constant fire to learn more and stop the insanity in the world. In time, this fire, if you're healthy, does diminish into a smoulder -- but it should NEVER go away entirely for importan applications.

As Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr, said (and I paraphrase): Don't go suggesting I shouldn't care. Rhere are some things which are important and I do care and I should always care.

Obsessiveness and deep care not only can look similar to those who resist the challenge of the latter, but in fact they overlap at times. And it is hard to stay more on the side of deeply caring.

No-one wants to be actually obsessive, of course. So it helps to remind ourselves that it is hard work and time to discover and be upset about these things, which can look like morbid obsession or turn to it sometimes. As long as we keep it to the mostly healthy "obsessive" side though and in the end, if we keep our spirit focussed on the caring aspect, we won't be obsessive, so much as active and caring -- even if others call demean that focussed and knowedgeable care as obsessive anyway.

"They" mean they will not interfere with it to STOP IT, as people keep asking -- whereas they are interfering to keep things calm as long as possible and give us a chance to prepare, supposedly.

Is that too hard for you, Menow, or Do "Ya THINK???" at all about what you write to insult?

[Quoting for literal meaning this time, what was originaly Menow's own sarcasm about my writing -- and his lack of comprehension, combined, though he didn't know the latter, of course.]

Jim Fetzer. I said in the previous post that u could send your e-mail to him and he'd forward it to me, I'm sure. He's listed at www.911scholars.org (Scholars for 9/11 Truth) and other places. Because his e-mail is public, I feel it makes sense to go through him if you want.

Love your Triceratops!

:) :) :) There's a trismiley!

I will give it a try. The Triceratops is a good avatar . . . successful but extinct creature of the past but dangerous if resurrected!

Absolutely.

There's a reason there are limited rules for argument in law or debate. It's so that people can't just say "poppycock" and sway the audience without reasoned comment.

Many in the gov't won't debate; they just want to hire trolls (as Harper, our Pirme Minister was just revealed as doing, and Cass Sunstein has been calling for doing,because "conspiracy theories" must be like terrorism in their "anti-American" -- establishment, but he doesn't say that -- point of view, so they should be defeated by a conspiracy!).

The story of what happened when Allen Dulles came to Berkeley (I think it was Berkeley) but was not given lee-way by the students to weasel out of a question ... is fascinating. It's in Lifton's "Best Evidence".

The real creeps get away with their crap when you don't see that the citizens have to count their own debates as authoritative, since the "Imprimatur" (printing press approval by the Vatican, originally) will not be given willingly or in a timely manner.

Over time, many covert things are roughly "acknowledged" by the institutions. (Before that, they are acknowledged too, but not directly or consistently. So we have to look and be consistent in our research and trust of our common sense, in the best sense.)

Or, Menow, they never answer the key question asked: I asked one of YOU:

The Moon is rotating, which I acknowledged on day 2, as if you count the revolution around the Sun and the perspective of points other than the Earth, then yes. For sure. And in fact this is the case so the Moon has angular momentum from that bunch of factors.

But what YOU never understood or acknowledged -- and thus thought I was saying it isn't rotating (at all) -- is that the Moon is not rotating from the Earth's perspective, and if all motions are eliminated (forward around Sun, in a Planet X cup with earth, per Nancy, plus the Moon's orbit of the Earth), then WOULD IT START TO ROTATE RELATIVE TO EARTH -- or would it just be still, facing the Earth?

The Earth would still be rotating until a Pole Shift. The Moon, whose rotation is at the superposition level of solar orbit, not Earth orbit, would be merely stopped in the cup once its forward motion was stopped, n'est-ce pas?

You answer what you think. Love to hear it.

True. I always liked triceratops. I had a stuffed one as a kid, which my Mom made. {>:-) There's sort of a triceratops smiley for ya: crest, double horns, eyes, nose-horn and smile.

As to dangerous: well, yes. They were the buffalo/cattle of the plains, in their day.

But more dangerous are the predators we have among us, at the top, and the unsuspecting people (or suspecting, but diminishers of the significance), who think most things are normal, or hope they are without really checking.

A mistake to assume that you guys are talking of the same thing. Of course without being there Menow, you would not know if something had happened, directly. However, you could know what events occurred as described. From the description, you could determine anomaly, in some cases.

And George, when you say "prove anything to you" you don't mean of course, prove you saw something. You mean prove the occurrence had characteristics which seemed not normal.

Of course.

Even Menow can understand that, right? That clouds which look like skywriting have distinctive quality and lasting effect, unlike contrails ... and in a layering effect, where other jets with ordinary contrails fly above and below -- if this happened -- then yes, it would be strong evidence they were skywriting or chem spraying.

BTW, some of the videos show the crap being turned ON AND OFF.

That's enough to know something's up -- or they were vids of crop dusters anywya, a similar concept. They cannot be contrails, however.

Oh please! You don't think moving planets around to cover up imminent doom is interference? Don't you think that if they left everything alone so we could all see evidence of said imminent doom it would encourage everyone to prepare for the alleged arrival of planet x and the pole shift? By covering it up, they are doing the opposite. People see things are normal in the skies and carry on as usual. Those Zetas are sicko. Their interference is akin to pulling the wool over people's eyes so they are unprepared when TSHF. Of course, the more rational and logical answer is that Nancy is full of shit, the Zetas do not exist and nobody is moving planets around to hide planet x, because it doesn't exist. But that just makes too much sense for a doomtard that needs to believe that all our problems will be solved by some outside influence.

You didn't ever believe I was Nancy. But if you did, you are dumb. Nancy doesn't speak of philosophy, doubt, and science for real! Lol. Your blindness to me, and my sometimes stilted way of expressing, combined into your thinking I was Nancy? That's rich. There's no way I cuold be realistically confused with Nancy. I include familiarity with my sources, even if I mke the odd semantic error which you either don't recognize or deliberately do not help with ... and then, OMG!, you can't understand the point. No, Menow, I think you were mocking so much you ended up confusing the rest, too. You didn't help.

He knows very clearly what I said and what I was trying to demonstrate to him. I have shown the same situation in the sky to at least two individuals, one my spouse and one my neighbor . . . they had no problem with the concept.

Whether Nancy and Zetas are full of shit is one thing, or if Zetas exist --

the point you are missing is that both are "interference" but whenever they say, "We cannot interfere" it is in context of "interfere to stop it" (as people keep asking). So it means INTERVENE in the sense of FIX IT ALL.

The other interference is mere MAINTENANCE OF IMPRESSIONS that the status quo is continuing.

"Interfere" is a vague term in this case and you have been confused, through Menow, clearly. Menow, stop it!

So, the "Zetas" are interfering (i.e., fixing appearances) but will not interfere (i.e., to save us from the PX disaster).

Get it?

ZetaTalk and chemtrails, the notion that the Moon is not rotating, that planes didn't crash into buildings on 9/11, that the many witnesses in NYC are wrong, that Apollo didn't go to the Moon and that the Zapruder film is a fake are not "history" and are all certainly debatable.

Once again, there are many people, especially here, who have extensively informed themselves on these sorts of issues and have come to different conclusions than you.

If you are "integrating" information and theories that are not based on reality, you're only digging deeper and deeper rabbit holes for yourself.

I also question the premise that the "kooky stuff" has been kept off limits. Are you seriously suggesting that for example, JFK assassination theories haven't been widely accessible for years? Or 911 theories?

You are covering a lot of ground in your interview and touching on some things that I might consider valid.

However, anything real that you might discuss is discredited by association with the implausible. That's frequently mentioned as a strategy of deliberate disinformation.. I don't believe you are involved in anything like that, but the function is the same regardless of intent.

I was being sarcastic to Menow.
Not because I hate him but because inanity has its limits.

There are some people who do not WANT to know the connections that show conclusively that something is going on.

I live in Toronto, but I have NEVER seen criss-cross as in some of those photos, and some are not bad photos at all. They are appropriate in lighting, etc., and have some dispersal -- like normal skywriting.

We have had trails which last and disperse (chemtrails), but not the wild ones some of these people are getting.

Most of our trails are contrails.

I HAVE seen crop dusters and yes, sometimes they turn their jets on and off a bit, when starting, or if there's a change needed in which tank they're tapping. Some of these vids show that kind of behaviour.

The satellite pics are likely doctored. Maybe not all, but it would be easier to do that.

Whoa, testy, aren't you. Leave Menow out of this. If I am confused it is about the gobbledygook you spew. How do you expect to have a civil discussion when you make assumptions and insult my intelligence right out of the gate?

It makes me think that you might be the shunned Luserboi trying to play nice, or maybe one of the other dumbfuck Canucks that do Nancy's bidding, like Agnes or Earth320 hiding behind a proxy.

When and if you see it . . . it will make a lasting impression on you. It hits you in the gut and you get angry.

Last Edited by George B on 05/30/2010 03:45 PM

This premise is very close to the most ridiculous claim in all of ZetaTalk, which is saying quite a bit.

It's obvious to any rational person that has followed the saga from pre-2003 that this is all just a bizarre, completely illogical and impossible rationalization for events not happening as Nancy predicted.

No one but a handful of very deluded people will take you seriously about anything if you attempt to defend this nonsense.

I don't know if that's fair or not but it's the truth.

No, she's who she says she is.

Get real. Of course the assassination theories have been around, but kept as "theory as a notion" not theory tht would stand in a court of law and yes, let's take it there. No -- the mendia have talking points and always present it as "no credible evience" whenever they can. This keeps good people believing there is no conclusion possible.

As to the Z-film it is debated but not "debatable" any longer. It was at issue before Costella's work on optics. Now, the case is done. It is only the after-party of debate teams which you are now listening to: where the losers keep sayng, "we didn't lose".

Regarding the video fakry AND the plane issue of 9/11, the former is also proven with conclusive optic evidence (not all evidence is of that calibre, but some is: the parallax issues are), and for the latter, there is conclusive lack of evidence: planes leave massive wire, parts, etc., and can only manoevre in certain ways.

The Moon hoax I said I am not as familiar with the total case, but it stinks to the stars because of the photo fakes (some are definitely), and like the Z film, they were presented on a continuous roll. They are studio prints and technically perfect ...

But also the Van Allen belts and the little LEM make the thing preposterous.

The Zeta thing is not at the same level of testability. Not unless they present themselves physically for testing. Or PX presents itself -- but in that case, this debate is moot.

Perhaps. I've been away for a while and am just catching up. One embarrassing fact is the amount of Canadian lunatics that take joy in expressing their delusions and ignorance on GLP.