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

Do you seriously think anyone here qualified to discuss this is going to bother with you now?

Talk about clueless.

Did you see this prediction by Gerard?:

[link to poleshift.ning.com]

The world has not yet been shocked, but those who follow ZetaTalk know that it will involve "one of more" of the following by the end of 2010, when arrival at a 7 has been predicted by the Zetas. This is the holographic presentation attended by Nancy in November, 2009:

"The Mediterranean is shown, while Africa rolls somewhat. This opens up the southern Mediterranean above Algeria such that the Mediterranean floor there is a crumble, not supported. Over to S America the Andes are shown doing mountain building, while some islands in the Caribbean are sinking, their plate pushed under as S America rolls. Then over to India where the western side of India sinks significantly, the plate tipping sideways a bit, raising eastern India during this process. Then islands in Indonesia sink, the plate supporting them sinking more than the surrounding area. Southeastern US is pulled down slightly, while the land just to the west of the Mississippi drops slightly. As the Atlantic rips open, this causes water adjustments. First water rushes from elsewhere to fill the void, then piles up, clashing in the middle, so that a tide rushes toward Europe, assaulting the lowlands there."

And a lousy one at that.

Get lost, Clunk.

There were certainly people in the buildings. But they were not even close to capacity - too early for that. If the planes had hit a couple hours later, a different story entirely. I'm not offended though - there were a LOT of anomalies on that day! It's definitely challenging for anyone who tries to sort it all out.

No shit, SOHO and STEREO-A are in completely different locations with respect to the sun. STEREO-A is ahead of us in our orbit while SOHO travels along side us between earth and the sun.

It's your claim troll, not ours. It's up to YOU to do the research for YOUR claims, not us.

You really DON'T have a functioning BS detector.

Just curious... How do you 'know' that?

I already tested it troll, the test proved you wrong. You're now attempting to move the goalpost, but NO ONE here is buying your crap. You refuse to admit you were wrong. The faraway object moved far more than the close vase. You don't need to duplicate the proportions from WTC to see this. That's it, end of story.

Last Edited by Astromut on 06/09/2010 11:07 AM

Clare,
Your observations are why people don't buy the official line of the authorities . . . they emotionally react to what they see. Is what they are seeing new, only because they never watched before or have things changed from the past? What is fact and what is fiction? What they are seeing is fact . . . but is it just old history, benign, evil or just expedient. I hope my CHEMTRAIL/CONTRAIL Trial in early July will sort all this out. In my opinion intuition can be as important as empirical data. Data without a conscience is often misused or worthless.
Remember the agencies that have the best technology and resources to prove or disprove Chemtrails may well have the greatest vested interest in keeping it under wraps.

Last Edited by George B on 06/09/2010 11:39 AM

Yes, I have often wondered why all the aircraft involved had minimal passenger loads . . . coincidence or plan? Just like the aircraft 3 hits for 3 tries . . . luck or conspiracy?

Good observations . . . makes you wonder doesn't it?

Can't handle the challenges, eh.

DO YOU SERIOUSLY THINK YOU'RE DEBUNKERS IF WHEN SOME BIG QUESTION IS ASKED ABOUT YOUR TOPIC YOU DECLINE? LOL!

You have not shown any reason to distrust Nancy on this one -- or Hoagland for that matter. It is bouncing planets on the images. WHY?

So we got off topic? It was because of one of you maligning the big true conspiracies of history, and trying to malign me thereby. Off topic for a while? So what? You'll live.

First, you haven't handled the full Nancy questions.

Second, you haven't debunked the side topic.

As to the latter, you CAN'T. That's why.

As to the former, let's go! Seriously: I don't want PX to be true and if there's "adjustments" fakery going on in NASA images, WHY? Even if it isn't for PX! So why the bouncing planets. What does that make you think?

TY. Yes, I was careful to observe comparisons.
I really tried.


I discovered, George, a main reason. It smeared over from clear to crap-smear in different phases, at one point like oil, and from a perfectly low-humid day we "got rain". Lots of wind and rain. It was building this morning like fine mist but didn't FEEL heavy.

You know what I mean? Now it's raining. But there was no feeling of it all night -- just misty by 4 in the morning and building clouds but still see-through to the sky in some parts through the smear.

They want to rain out the protests. Not only those who would protest anyway, but also those who now won't go, won't join from the street. People look more blinders-on when they're in the rain ... hunker down. Hope to comment/protest another day.

(Among other things, like hide their bots, maybe.)

Nice to hear from ya.

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

Now, what do you think of those (non-putative PX) NASA image problems. Are they controlling most images and sometimes getting the recreation wrong? Transmission errors wouldn't move whole planets only, and move them without edges (Venus), or make whole sections smudge out a planet, and looks like some background with it (Saturn). And there's cut-and-paste in some.

Maybe PX is there and our nice telescopes confuse it with a flare, but Nasa's covering it up?

Or maybe there are spy satellites going near and they are cutting planets out to cover. Very strange.

plan ... conspiracy

Only a FOOL would think otherwise!

Yes.

War games. One plane was to land in LA but the whole airport was closed after it didn't. Why?

And before it did close, reporters said and showed there were no family waiting for the plane at all, or standing stupefied or anything. The reporters weren't suspecting anything; they were just surprised.

Flights 11 & 77 were not listed at all; then they were but weren't delisted for several years (well, each plane was de-listed at a different point but some were as late as 2-3 years after 9/11 -- I forget the exact date details on that part of the fakery).

If anyone was taken out and killed for 9/11, it was of course diabolical, but it still was very few. There is some suggestion that at Shanksville mini debris was found 8 miles away, and some air force pilots were ordered by Bush to shoot it down but then were told it had crashed ... while another set of pilots actually had a Website claiming they did the honour of shooting it down (I don't know if their distinction page is still up or not -- ha ha).

So maybe they were killed, and it was on a plane, and it was at Shanksville.

Or maybe they were taken somewhere and used again in different identities. Or who knows. Or killed elsewhere. The point is, no planes were CREATING the EFFECTS of 9/11.

xo

Well, AFTER looking into it, ***ZetaMaX***.

I mean, let's be fair to all people, such as some of these on this thread who don't yet put the pieces together in fullness with all possible hypotheses on the table to explain the anomalies.

For instance, some people here have gotten stuck on one or another faked photo. And they forget we ALSO have Colaios with no mention (except one friend) before 2009 posted in memorial -- until back-dated ones come from 2009-2010.

And then they claim they have presented "lots of evidence". But each piece doesn't fit with the other!

I admit, of course, one could be fooled (sometimes) by one faked photo comparison. Each one must be tested since there is a possibility (sometmes) one could be fooled if a person almost had the SAME features in different photos ... fine.

Where "beyond reasonable doubt" comes in is seeing it again and again -- and knowing how to tell (not be fooled by a shadow being different). Then you probably HAVE fakery.

:)

And then all the proofs against it such as family or media articles do nothing to prove the person/family's legitimacy, without more investigation into the identities directly, by, say, subpoena power.

And IF the person checks out, but the photo was shown to be a fake, then why were they given an extra and fake photo? To confuse researchers and protect the sims from investigation?

Some people here have been fooled by the smokescreen.

And thus they keep the too-large "mourning" scene alive even if they know 9/11 was a set-up. As long as there were lots of deaths, the sim worked and people would argue as to whether it's worth it to go to war for it.

Dear DrPostman.

I know most of Hoagland's issues with the rainbows in the Moon scenes are not true.

He's wrong about the shields on the Moon.

Hey, he doesn't even get the images from Apollo were fake, given as he's focussed on how NASA has secret collusion with the Navy -- and they cover up things.

The reason is, in wanting to talk of UFOs on the Moon, etc., he has to hold we went there.

The rainbow effects were from the back screen Hollywood used for the layered images. There are many reasons to think Kubrick wasinvolved: the protection he received later and his collaboration (given in early version credits for 2010:A Space Odyssey but not later).

The guy's work here is just a part of the whole problem with the fake Apollo images (and remember, the images could be fake and maybe we still went! -- to comfort you). Keep in mind it's just PART of the problem: he's working only on the background-to-forefround with no true middle ground.

[link to www.assassinationscience.com]

He debunks Hoagland on this issue of rainbows in the sky from crystal domes, and refraction mesh-like backgrounds ... but it isn't the way you seem to want it debunked. :)



Plus, by the way, dear Dr. ---- ;)

Hoagland IS right about the weird smudging of long (tall) items on Moon images and the shadows from them! LOL! So what the heck is happening with NASA's images again?

I'm not saying there are structures ... just fakery ... at least. The rest is -- well -- blocked and smudged and re-oriented (etc.) out.

So "mentioning Hoagland" for one thing doesn't mean mentioning him for another.

Some people here had that problem about Lear. They, like you it seems, don't understand a person can get a lot right in their quest -- but also get a lot wrong -- AND NOT ALWAYS OR ONLY THE THINGS YOU THINK ARE TRUE OR NOT.

:)

Yes, I did, many pages ago. In fact, so did you: you admitted Earth is not halted in orbit. Nancy's Cosmology falls apart UTTERLY at that admission -- particularly as another fundamental leg of Nancy's Cosmology is the absurd 'Zetas are correct 100 percent of the time.'

You showed, yourself, that they are not.

Zetatalk/Nancy debunked. You did it yourself.



I do not know why planets are 'bouncing' in SOHO imagery. But, honestly, editing out a planet from an image of a probe that isn't DESIGNED to look at planets is quite a conclusion to leap to -- and given they could shut off the public link to SOHO stuff at will (it's far beyond it's life expectancy, I believe). Particularly as you can see the planets yourself during the night, and see that they are precisely where they belong -- another observation belying Nancy's claims.

So, if you really don't want PX to be true: spell out EXACTLY what evidence will it take to convince you that PX is not true (particularly given the difficulty in proving a negative)? Spell out your goalposts, *EXACTLY,* in *concrete,* and depending on how achievable those are, you might be able to find an answer.

PX, as Nancy describes it, is utterly impossible. PX, as others have described it, is quite improbable. But you need to detail what evidence would convince you that PX is flim-flam, or the conversation with you is pointless.

As, no doubt, several others will point out to me.

<laughing>

Why am I thinking of the old adage about giving someone enough rope?

Maybe take a break from YouTube for a while?....a course in logic or critical thinking maybe?

I meant the images, 74444. But I could add to that the magnetosphere questions and the fact is some of you guys -- planet X or not (though it could have been the catalyst for you to get reading on the issues) -- never handled magnetic CHARGE on planets. And it was related to the find we now have REPULSION GAPS in our magnetic field, when the Sun is ATTRACTING US. This could only come from another MAGNET, no?

You argued that throws out Newton ... (which is already thrown out with field theory not only frim Einstein but even earlier it began with electromagnetism and Mawell).

But anyway, I wasn't talking of throwing out Newton at the time. I was talking of how we have to have charge: and if so, some of what our Gravity terms are naming in our algebra (from Newton and others since then) are actually naming Electromagnetism too. That some of the Earth's effects are BOTH together. And this would be seen if we had another (charged) planet near us.

So about throwing out Newton, it isn't true: it corrects him in two ways. First, and this is what I was referring to at the time, it posits some charge effect on the cores, as part of what we've been CALLING gravity (so instead of pure G we have IN OUR EQUATIONS g and e-m combining into G under some circumstances).

Second, it may in fact correct Newton more radically as Einstein's Unified Field math theory does: treat Gravity and E-M as both one force at root. But that wasn't even what I meant. We have to have a charge. We get electomagnetism from the Sun and have a metal core? Charge.

And Velikovsky mentions the former issue. Someone SAID FLIPPANTLY that V. was debunked, but no, his work is not. Specifics have been corrected, but not "debunked." Not at all. Not the total and the overall work. Nope.

So, no, the electromagnetics for PX and Earth are not covered either.

But even if PX isn't here/real, the points about e-m affecting us in our orientation IF a planet came near, yes, that only makes sense.

We have to have charge on our core.



Um -- no. Unless it's image compression or artifacts or something like that -- and this is not what we seem to have here -- here is NO REASON other than image manipulation for a planet to be missing (Saturn) and another to be moved over Venus.

Nada. They're doing something to the images. As to Nancy: if it is PX they're covering for, they're doing a good enough job because her debunkers can't understand this.

Neither of those things are happening.

Dear scientist:

The faraway object would move. But remember, you are ALSO far away from the towers taking the shot.

PROPORTIONS of distances.

If you are, say, over the empire state, or how about further out (more likely, from most of these zoom-out shots), the towers are not near enough to be near objects.

So, they are faraway objects, too, in a crop image (in-camera crop of frame done optically and called a zoom, to be more exact).

Now, both faraway objects will move slowly, yes? For it takes you longer to get around them from far out, yes? Think Saturn, Neptune looking at Mercury, Sun ... to get the point.

So --

EITHER ...

You are faraway. The tower low movement now makes sense AND THE BRIDGE SHOULD MOVE EVEN LESS! ... and makes no sense ...

OR ...

Or you are much closer to the scene and flying mostly laterally and the bridge is moving quite a lot -- because really it's the towers which are moving by, but you're tracking them so you notice the bridge. So in this case you do see the bridge moving a lot laterally (though it's really the towers but they're centred) ... But in this case, you are so much closer to the towers that they should show a massive amount of shift.

THINK DEAR.

So, it's either or. Either the towers are correct or the bridge is. And you will find that out if you do proportional studies in distance.

But it's nice you're making the attempt instead of quitting or saying you need the math to know (ha ha ha Commentator). Optics ARE fun, are they not?! Unless they're lying. :)

Oh yes, that Venus is not in the same place in the image.

And Saturn was missing.

So ...

Unless fooled by people grabbing the images ... somethin's going on. Not ncessarily PX ... but something.

Hi, Astronut.

(By the way, it's a pet issue of mine, but just so you know, it's "neither IS happening", not "neither are ...".)

How are you?
Sheesh, I just got another sex spam in my Yahoo. It used to filter all that out. I wonder why it's not catching them lately. It's really getting annoying.

Anyhow ... :)

Good. Someone who doesn't get offended by truthseeking and facts.

Yes, early and a some were warned that very morning specifically (Isr. company Odigo, at LEAST). One man worked on stock trading software which he said was used in the trades before 9/11 and so he knows how they could pull off the extra trading. He said they didn't build the software to do that but only a few know how exactly it was done.

He said to Tarpley in a chat after a 9/11 Truth Conference and didn't happen to make it to the meeting because he had decided to quit anyway. (But he too could be lying, maybe.) Anyway, he lost his co-workers but not the man they did the software for: he decided the day before not to show up and have it as a teleconference from his HOME instead. Was THAT guy warned? And so on.

Were many people away -- those who weren't "inconvenient" to somebody?

Perhaps.

Companies may very well have warned many. Isr. itself may, too, b/c Odigo's warning was definitely specifically that morning.

So -- how many died in NYC (not counting from aftereffects, which is on-going and callous or deliberate)? Let's say it was 1300. That's about how many they claimed for DNA, or 1500.

Okay -- that's still 1500-2000 or so not accounted for in their own numbers.

FAKE IDS to boost numbers.

Possible? Damned straight: with all those problematic facs and memorials and names in coding?

:)

Hi, Returner. Whenever you get this. Hope you're a bit better? Bruising can be WORSE feeling but it is at least a bit of healing ...

I know ...
Compared to the other images.

Now if THEY're off, there's more of a problem because there's one on either side of the problem image ... from just before and just after. LOL!

Sarcasm follows:

So ... technically, I don't know they are. And technically I only know these middle ones are off COMPARED to the others. Maybe the one where Saturn is MISSING is correct, and the other two ADDED it? ????? ... Or Venus was in the WRONG position in the other two but the RIGHT one in the middle one? ????

Concialiatory comments follow:

Look at the source video with the claim before you ask please ... dear who loves furry hats. :)

Link to the images?

No one likes or cares about a grammar nazi. I'm tired, cut me some slack. Or don't. I don't care either way, actually.

The damn server just ate my lengthy reply. Fuck it, the proportions are irrelevant, closer objects being tracked show less percent movement than far objects not being tracked, my video proved that. The distance from the chopper to the towers is not quantifiable with the evidence available and is irrelevant. Admit you were wrong.

Last Edited by Astromut on 06/09/2010 03:41 PM