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

I know ...
Compared to the other images.

BTW, the server ate your post because Trinity was conducting
a capacity test for the chat on the server and had to shut down
the forum for a few minutes. Sorry about that.

Now, I know Saturn and Venus are in their right real places,



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

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. :)

BTW, the server ate your post because Trinity was conducting
a capacity test for the chat on the server and had to shut down
the forum for a few minutes. Sorry about that.

It's ok, shit happens, I understand.

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.

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.

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

And Saturn was missing.

Link to the images?

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

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.

However: here it is:

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.



I have proven your original statement about the Colaios was wrong.

I have proven they existed..

You continuing to whine about the same nonsense doesn't deserve a reply.

It was in the video posted by another here, though I'm sure it's also somewhere on Zetatalk or elsewhere. The video is "Nasa excuses" and you'll find it if you go back 2-3 pages.

However: here it is:

So ... as I asked a few pages back, what but manipulation would give this ... "effect", since it is a fact, this comparative movement.

Anyway, do you see now why the towers vs. the bridge are mutually exclusive issues in this image, from the faraway shot and the distance of the bridge?

I DO send you the best wishes, and DO respect you. You and some others do NOT respect me. So ... !?!!

Anyway, do you see now why the towers vs. the bridge are mutually exclusive issues in this image, from the faraway shot and the distance of the bridge?

Here's a kissy: x
There. Hope you feel less there's Nazism from a FIGHTER of fascist lies.

I just like grammar. Now you know the point, anyway, if you didn't before. :) Grammar's a cool subject. :)

Dear scientist:

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

PROPORTIONS of distances.
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.

Dear scientist:

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

PROPORTIONS of distances.
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.

Nope, Astronut.

It is not irrelevant.

No matter where the chopper is, it can be deduced from the movement.


But what you'll find is you can deduce EITHER the tower movement's viewpoint OR deduce the bridge movement's viewpoint.

But you have to do a PROPORTIONAL DISTANCE test of the objects, to find the VIEWPOINT(S) and the movement(s). There are two sets of viewpoint and two movements. It's layers.

How so?

First set up proportionally distanced objects representing: two (towers), to see overlap, and a bridge at proper distance, and a building or two in front to test their overlap with the towers.

Next, derive derive the viewpoint for the movement seen in the foreground (tower-other NYC buildings).

If we test usig proportional distances of objects, ONLY, we can find that viewpoint.

And then test for the bridge.

Or you could test for the bridge movement relative to PROPORTIONALLY PLACED towers to find: the bridge viewpoint.

Once your viewpoints are derived by amount of movement, compare. What you will find is: the two don't match each other.

Why?

The viewpoint has to be far away, if the tower (near-non) movement is correct. Whereas, the viewpoint has to be nearer (or a massive distance travelled) if the bridge movement is correct.

This is knowable only if you place objects in real proportional distance. Just any objects at any distance won't do to derive viewpoint.

Once the viewpoint(s) on the proportionally placed objects are separately derived, compare. Each is on a layer of view.

Thus each was a separate (flat) layer of render.

Do the experiment.

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

Or you could think about it only. What would happen if little movement in foreground and lots in background?

So: if we are far away: the tower and other building movements are our reference. (We could figure out where our viewpoint is from the towers and oher buildings.) They are our movement reference then. To get such movement in the proportinally even much farther-away bridge would also require large distance travelled -- and you'd see more change in the towers and other buildings.

Just as if you are nearer.

So: if we are nearer (as if we travelled a long way from afar and zoomed in): the bridge movement is our reference for viewpoint. But then the towers and other buildings show not enough change.

This is why proportional distance is important: you would see one set of movements overall for any one condition (derived from viewpoint on one item) and another movement correct for the any other viewpoint derived.

(The bridge is also not correct in these images for its size, for lens distortion would distort all comparable points from the centre, not just thet bridge area.)

There was sloppy fakery -- but to prove it you have to think very patiently and hypothetically: realize what EACH aspect requires if separated -- even if they turn out to be fine, you have to parse the image and ask about all its aspects.

I have done so.

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


The point is, YOU don't have the slightest idea what YOU are looking at or talking about in the images or the sky.

Nope, Astronut.

It is not irrelevant.

No matter where the chopper is, it can be deduced from the movement.


But what you'll find is you can deduce EITHER the tower movement's viewpoint OR deduce the bridge movement's viewpoint.

But you have to do a PROPORTIONAL DISTANCE test of the objects, to find the VIEWPOINT(S) and the movement(s). There are two sets of viewpoint and two movements. It's layers.

How so?

First set up proportionally distanced objects representing: two (towers), to see overlap, and a bridge at proper distance, and a building or two in front to test their overlap with the towers.

Next, derive derive the viewpoint for the movement seen in the foreground (tower-other NYC buildings).

If we test usig proportional distances of objects, ONLY, we can find that viewpoint.

And then test for the bridge.

Then work on your commas Clare. You sprinkle them atop your posts like nuts on ice cream.

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


The point is, YOU don't have the slightest idea what YOU are looking at or talking about in the images or the sky.

You haven't handled the anomalies.
The positions are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE for each planet.

Try again.

Why Saturn -no Saturn- Saturn?

And why Venus -Venus in to the right- Venus?

Inconsistent motions.

It's not MY hoops; it's your own claim to know stuff. What made the anomalies?

If you don't want to watch the video first, and justify that as getting back at me, it's still sloppy of you.

But even if you're uncharitable, now that I've RE-POSTED it -- when you watch, I'm not the issue and handle the ISSUE of the NASA claims here.

They are incompatible planets. Your self-wanking is reprehensible. What caused this in the images?

Then why don't YOU fucking ****do**** that, Clare!?!?!

You mean why does Nancy SAY that Saturn dissappears?

Nancy lies.


And why Venus -Venus in to the right- Venus?

Inconsistent motions.


You mean, why does Nancy SAY there are inconsistent motions?

Nancy lies.

[...]

I did watch it. It's the usual Nancy crap. Seen it for 15 years.

Nancy lies.

George: I've seen the chemtrails! I'd wondered at the streaks we've been having but never caught it in the act.



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

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.

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."