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

I was out of town and missed about twenty odd pages. Did I miss anything good or was it just the same incessant clarebabble with the atrocious grammar and endless comma splicing?

That's about it. Good luck finding anything related to the thread subject, it's buried under page upon page of clunkspam.

Nothing too unusual, clunker did her typical ranting, lying and attention seeking bullshit. Mostly she just made stuff up and lied.

Most folks have decided she isn't worth the trouble and have decided to boycott her like maxibridget and luser.

Last Edited by The Commentator on 06/09/2010 11:01 PM

Yup, like in her video which I was finally able to view, she cropped out evidence of image corruption from a previous day's data. Sometimes SOHO's processing software spits out crap preview images which contain chunks of data from an older image. Nancy cropped out those chunky seam lines so that you wouldn't see the fact that it was obviously corrupted data.
[link to sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov]
You can clearly see where the corruption in the image is located, but of course Nancy doesn't want you to know that, nor does clare who refused to link directly to the images. Here's the thing though, if you go and get the actual raw fits file you find that the problem occured between the raw file and the internet displayable jpg. Here's the raw unprocessed file:
[link to sharpp.nrl.navy.mil]
(indeed this image agrees with the previous and successive images as to the location of Venus)
[link to sharpp.nrl.navy.mil]
[link to sharpp.nrl.navy.mil]

Same story with the "missing" Saturn; it's not missing in the raw image:
[link to sharpp.nrl.navy.mil]
The image is 180 degrees different than Nancy's (as are the adjacent images), so it's at the top but it's there.
The previous image:
[link to sharpp.nrl.navy.mil]
The successive image:
[link to sharpp.nrl.navy.mil]

Last Edited by Astromut on 06/09/2010 11:11 PM

You are typing much, but saying little, it appears to me. What experiment can you propose that demonstrates your E-M theory as superior to the more traditional models? What does it predict better? What does it explain that the current theory does not? Can you propose an observation that can demonstrate your repulsion force? How about your repulsion gaps? And why don't boring old magnetic compasses demonstrate this remarkable effect? Or are ships veering wildly throughout the oceans of the world, and no one is telling us or noticing (I know -- they are all using GPS now!)?

I have a large ship's magnetic compass sitting about 4 feet from me, and it still accurately points to North (with the given magnetic deviation -- which hasn't altered) How can it be doing this successfully if a huge new magnet is hovering near the Sun throwing its magnetic weight around (pun intended)?

Of course, none of this is here or there. Even if there WERE huge magnetic deviations -- the jump from that to huge, invisible inbound planet is simply too large. So, Clare, since you avoided answering it earlier:

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. Images on SOHO ain't going to make or break this case, Clare.

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 further conversation with you truly is pointless.

Which is looking more and more like the truth.

Now that I've explained it AND provided links to the raw uncorrupted images, do you retract your claim that Saturn vanished and Venus bounced?

Then you weren't looking very close because the corruption lines are evident all over the "background"
[link to sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov]
Oh wait, sorry, you didn't want links posted to the actual images, just Nancy's cropped video crap. Sorry, guess that trashed your bull.

Okay, Menow, you never asked to see them. Whatever.

The originals AS OFFERED in the video are the issue.

They do not show merely a "Nancy claim" about planets; they show mutually exclusive impossible planetary positions -- AS PRESENTED THERE IN THE VIDEO.

So, either they were faked for the video or they were faked from NASA or they were a tech glitch. Which are they?

If you decline to handle the video images, you ae suggesting Nancy is lying about what came off NASA. That's fine. But it doesn't prove she is. The images are supposedly from NASA and captured as is and are now removed from their site.

If not, then Nancy / her followers faked them.

MY point is that she is not lying in saying those positions are impossible: those positions ARE impossible: planets don't blip out of an image and back on in consecutive frames; nor do they go further in from the edge and back out IN ONE FRAME.

So, either Nancy/ her followers faked them,
NASA faked them,
or there's a weird computer glitch.

:)

Astronut thinks Saturn blips in and out of SOHO in one frame? That's nuts. Or Venus moves in and out in one frame? That's also nuts. I don't think he thinks that -- !

I am sure he's talking of other images in the vid.

Raining again but no real clouds -- just smear. :(

Hi.

Okay -- I can't see the .mil images. They're not showing (they give weird code for me).

But I trust you.

However, ego ego ego! Wow. How do you know "what I want" (as per your other post)? I was ASKING.

When will you be nicer, or should I start talking to you like that?! Menow didn't like it back. Would you? CUT THE CRAP.


So ... since I can't see the images (?!?), do you know why Saturn was at top in one image then and bottom in the others -- I assume that's what happened? Or did she flip the images?

Clare

That's an oxymoron; they're video frames, they're not original images of any sort. They're compressed, cropped, etc. One look at the actual original on the NASA site and I immediately recognized the problem since I've seen it before. Tracing it back to the raw files solves the problem completely. This is why real researchers don't cite youtube for NASA data. They go to the source and get the real deal. Anyone could have done the homework I just did, and I wasn't even asking you to go that far, all I was asking for were links to the same jpgs from NASA that appeared in the video. You had the timestamps, you could have given me the links to the images but you refused because they exposed the nature of the problem, namely image corruption during processing.

That's a complete and total lie. Not only are the raw unprocessed data available but so are the corrupted jpgs, they're still up there.
[link to sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov]
So I call on you.

You really don't care WHAT you say... The video doesn't show THE ORIGINALS. That is an oxymoran, so to speak.



Nancy constantly misrepresents data.



What is 'removed'?



Nancy consistently misrepresents data. That's how she built Zetatalk... one falsehood at a time.



Astronut knows more about imaging than you will ever hope to know.

I'm guessing you've never worked with raw data before in astronomy. You need to be able to open and handle fits files, here's a free program I use frequently:
[link to www.astrosurf.com]
Save the images to your hard drive as .fts files and open them in IRIS.

I'll be nicer when you stop trolling your bullcrap to derail the thread. At least this subject is on-topic, but you refused a simple request to link to the images you were talking about. That means link to the actual SOHO images, not some useless youtube video showing nothing but selectively cropped, compressed crap. It became PAINFULLY obvious to me why you were so resistive to linking to the real images once I found them; the uncropped image gives the mystery away. Given your trolling behavior I don't buy the notion that you were ignorant of this fact, you knew damn well where the uncropped images could be found, though of course like a good troll you'll never admit it. If it were anyone else I'd give the benefit of a doubt, but since it's you...

No, what I'm saying is that the "missing saturn" jpg image is corrupted; it even shows an obvious seam where about half the image is replaced by part of one taken days beforehand. If you go to the raw image though it's uncorrupted since it hadn't been calibrated and processed yet, which is where the corruption took place.

Regarding Climategate.
The fact that NASA is associated with a blunder or intentional misinformation is not a surprise. They have long lost their luster as a world class organization through underfunding and brain drain.

Last Edited by George B on 06/10/2010 12:27 AM

Hi, 74444. (What a name! -- ha ha)

At least it's easy to type.

Of course, PX exactly as Nancy describes it is impossible -- but there are features of her description which are accurate, even if we are not taught them that way -- yet.

And if a PX were here, therefore, some of the issues she brings up would become operative. They are interesting questions, without PX, too.

Other aspects of her claims are unknown, period. They are simply unknown. And -- as I said -- some are definitely knowable: that we would see star-changes if we were stopped in rotation (unless -- like a God-hypothesis -- Zetas really are changing our tilt!). I don't believe the latter, but it is truly untestable, by a tautological argument problem.

Anyway, for one interesting feature of the world which she brings up but isn't taught YET:


Planets MUST have charge -- their cores, anyway, when metallic. This would sause little disruption as long as the system is stable, and any anomalies would be mostly below detectable levels. There IS a test for it, though, which Einstein ordered after talking to Velikovsky, but which was never performed.

Also, elecromagnetism must (probably through vortices) relate to gravity -- which is also predicted by Einstein's Unified Field theory, theoretically "only". T. Townsend Brown's experiments, and Sakharov, and others, have worked on the problems and have found specific correspondences with Einstein's math AND Tesla's findings.

Velikovsky came at the problem of electromagnetic charge on planets historically, through catastrophes of the past -- sort of as Nancy is, but he was a vast scholar and thinker. He was not perfect, but he dug at serious questions and leaves some tantalizing answers.

He said we've had massive upheavals and such things didn't happen from a "hit" but from a sky-orientation shift (a pole shift or slowing and near-stopping briefly). This he detected in not only myths relating to catastrophes but also in the osseous breccia and mammoth death details and so on (geology and zoology details of the finds).

He approached Einstein [link to www.varchive.org] saying planets must have charge and gravity must relate, [link to www.varchive.org] (they're different levels of the problem, of course) [link to www.varchive.org] [link to www.varchive.org] -- and though he got some things wrong about it early on, (see footnote at [link to www.varchive.org] ) he did predict the correspondence and lo! a week before Einstein died the electromagnetic effect (Jupiter radio waves) [link to www.varchive.org] was detected in a putatively "Newtonian" mass-only solar system, for all intents and purposes. Einstein ordered a test of charge on the Earth, but it was, to anybody's knowledge, never performed. It would be the Cavendish experiment in a Faraday Cage [link to www.varchive.org] (same page link as last one, but the mention is further down on the page) or you can look here where he lays out partly inadequate "plans" but they're along the right lines in general -- and mentions the Cavendish experiment in a Faraday Cage too in this: [link to www.varchive.org]

Now in case you didn't click on all of those, let me mention the following:


March 7, 1955

Dear Professor Einstein:

I thank you again for the discussion of the first 8 pages of my letter. Here are the quotations from John Herschel and W. Pickering I have mentioned in our last conversation:

“There is beyond any question some profound secret and mystery of nature concerned in the phenomenon of their tails”; “enormous sweep which it [the tail] makes round the sun in perihelion, in the manner of a straight and rigid rod, is in defiance of the law of gravitation, nay, even of the recorded laws of motion.”

J. Herschel, Outlines of Astronomy, p. 406

“What has puzzled astronomers since the time of Newton, is the fact that while all other bodies in the sidereal universe, as far as we are aware, obey the law of gravitation, comets’ tails are clearly subject to some strong repulsive force, which drives the matter composing them away from the sun with enormously high velocities.”

— W.H. Pickering, article “Comets” in Encyclopedia Americana.

Look at the CONFUSION and inability to think outside the "gravity only" matrix.

Velik. was onto electromagnetism in the solar system as an active force, before Einstein ... and the reason is? ... Newton stood in the way unnecessarily even for Einstein at first, whereas Velik. (like Nancy but far more erudite) looked at catastrophes and DETAILS, but RELATING ALSO to each other in those catastrophes. Plus, he and Einstein talked of its doing MORE than just blowing around onto perfect billiard ball mechanics of Newton. That CHARGE might be involved -- had to be.

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

Your question about "negatives" not being provable requires a distinction, of course.

There are two types of "negative":

one shows a positive "not there" in a test: going to look for an elephant in a room would be one such example.

one is a negative result, meaning, no result: not looking for the elephant in the room -- or postulating something which has no test ("God", for example").

Now that that's said,
unless we get to the fine point of our sensory inability to know ANYTHING for certain (radical philosophical doubt -- a good reminder sometimes but a dead end of "unknowing" at other times) ...

in a reasonable sense, we should be able to observe PX on satellite, from certain angles. We would also see strange electromagnetic and wobble- or rotation effects (relations: gravity-induced changes leading to different speeds of rotation or revolution or angle in our "spinning top" of a planet).

To disprove its presence would mean knowing that it could not be cloaked in gases in a way that our amateur telescopes couldn't see it.

Why? We are POSSIBLY not dealing with undoctored or unsifted information from the satellites, so we must rely on our own viewpoint and our own equipment, either of which might cloak it from us.

I submit doctoring MIGHT be the case in some images, because of example of the inadequate "pixel flare" nonsense from Bad Astronomy about some of the putative PX images: it's unsettled what some of the sherical bleed, planet-like image anomalies are. (I say this knowing there is NOW a find of ONE 1999 comparable image which would prove a pixel flare nature of some of the "PX" images. But in its own right, is THAT 1999 image genuine, in turn? ... If it is, it's conclusive proof the PX "flares" are flares, but it could be planted. There is only ONE such example known and it is also known that PX would likely be covered up as long as possible IF it were here.

I say all this about "plants" hypothetically but necessarily: such a thing must be considered if we want to get to bedrock, given the gravity (pun intended) of an approach of a putative PX. I do not contend we know ENOUGH to say there are plants, but the question is not closed by "pixel flare" and the 1999 image, for both explanations have unknowns.

Also, I do find the magnetosphere repulsion and attraction combination very strange ... as did the scientists who looked at it. I don't think -- if PX were real -- that they'd be connecting their find with that hypothesis, but rather would just be bewildered at the effect, which is what's happened -- either way.

Bullshit, you could change the tilt all you want, all it would do is make the changes in the positions of the stars even more obvious. There's no way to cause the constellations to appear to rise when they should by moving the tilt if we were halted in orbit. Their angular separation from the sun would be constant and unfixable, period.

Bullshit you troll, if you changed the tilt of the earth all the stars would not appear where they should in the sky. Telescopes whose alignments depend on the stars appearing where they're supposed to would stop working. It is an easily testable claim, and it's been proven to be false.

Wrong. If it were approaching the inner solar system it would have massive effects on the positions of the planets, repositioning their orbits due to its gravity. Again, this is a testable claim and it's easily shown to be false.
[link to www.youtube.com]

Clare pretends not to buy into zetatalk as a cult, she feigns skepticism, but when it comes down to it she actually believes these ridiculous claims that blatantly violate astronomy in a way only a true zetatard could believe. "Tilting to hide changes in the positions of the stars" is one such belief.

Well, also as a NATIONAL SECURITY APPARATUS MEMBER.

:)

For instance, there is now not only Hoagland's, but others' research into an affilitated second space program -- an entirely non-civilian, NAVY space program from the start -- but there are increasing photos of such members (with Navy insignia but "astronaut" insignia at the same time) and verbal testimonials from persons who are sons of people who supposedly were part of it.

I do not support all of Hoagland's inquiries or flights of fancy arguments or blind spots. But on the Navy more-secret program and some (SOME) of the lies, he may be right.

[ Where is he definitely wrong? As I mentioned in passing in another post:

Wel, at least there is the fact that is so concerned about fakery in long-shot Moon images and what he thinks are lies about discovering UFOs and structures on the Moon, etc. that he insists Apollo went and there was no fakery of the actual moon LANDING images, when there was. -- you can "disagree" but whole shadows are midding on flat land and backpack PLSS flaps are visibly down in TV and up in photos of the "same moment", and so on.

Anyway, only in one interview does he pause when reminded there could be Apollo photo fakery AND we still could have gone. (Note, aside: he may be right about some objects smeared out in early photos of the Moon itself from afar. But that's complicated, so never mind it for now.)

Another reason he doesn't think there's any fakery is that he's attached to the "rainbow effects" he sees in the photos and yes, THEY'RE THERE in some. -- They are not ordinary lens artifacts either, guys, though to get into that would be another issue.

But he thinks those rainbow prisms are from lage glass domes on the Moon; an interesting theory ... but let's say it's wrong, not just because we're prejudiced against the idea. Rather, it has been proven wat it was -- something I mentioned in passing in another post: these prism effects were part of the faking process for the images!

It was the high-tech approach in Hollywood, of which Kubrick was a master and impresario for a while over the secrets on how to do it best, to use a screen with tiny glass beads -- off which to shoot a complicated outdoor background, while live action took place at an angle on a set.

They didn't have blue or green screen tech yet, but it was roughly equivalent in SOME ways. Anyway, not every glass bead would be perfect, and could leave a tiny prism in the film final, usually not noticed! (Whatever you think of the other thoughts in this paper, its analysis is excellent of the prism effects, plus the split-space quality in many images from Apollo, and the criss-crossing in the sky when enhanced, which I'm getting to momentarily. [link to www.assassinationscience.com] )

As well, the criss-cross effects in the NASA images which Hoagland rightly said are odd and are there, but which he posits are from huge glass domes, are light scatter from the screen technology used in the real-time compositry of background to foreground in many shots.)

By the way, OF COURSE, even though the Apollo photos were partly or all faked (or to defer to you on that, IF some or all photos were faked), it does not necessarily mean that we didn't go.

This was pointed out to Hoagland and stopped him in his tracks for a minute. There could have been many legitimate reasons to fake the images (IF only them): one being that film tech wasn't trustworthy for the actual trip, and another being guaranteed excellence of (positive?) propaganda motivators for the people about the (if we went) historic event. ]

Anyway, Hoagland has good arguments about the secret space program overall and did notice the prisms and criss-cross sky backgrounds (with no stars), and anomalies of airbrushing on parts of the total-Moon pictures, but he doesn't attribute AT LEAST the former two accurately.

So it's possible those "SOHO flares" could be a PX ... ha ha ... or other anomalies could be found which are fakery -- even if Nancy's finds are not.

That's all.

Cheers!

F-k. Mis-edited and typos in a para. Sorry.

Here's a corrected para:

"Well, there is the fact that he is so concerned about fakery in long-shot Moon images and what he thinks are lies from NASA about their having discovered UFOs and structures on the Moon, etc., that he insists Apollo went definitely but more specifically, that because of that possibility (that they went) that there was ALSO no fakery of the actual Moon LANDING images, when there was. -- You can "disagree", but whole shadows are missing on flat land and backpack PLSS flaps are visibly down in TV and up in photos of the "same moment", and so on."

Just wanted to correct that para.

So I suspect NASA images, AS WELL AS suspect Nancy Leider ... and am judicious about Hoagland's (or anyone's work): they can be right about one thing and wrong about other thing, or notice something very fine, but then misattribute it.

No. I feel I have some people I'm talking to and it's interesting.

:)

Lots of free time lately.

Oooh. Good one -- not just as "mean" or anything, but true! :)

Yes, sometimes it does come down to a ridiculous level of only that vs. positing determined group action (conspiracy).

Yes. I sure hope so, for all of us! Probably no PX -- but there may be NASA's CME breakdown of everything in pieces, plus martial law and so on ... whaddaya think?

:-/

That is definitely possible.

But I did want to see the images handles -- and I got part way. I could only see code on the .mil sites.
:(

Dr. Postman, how many posts in a row constitute spam? Does the bot pick that up, or does it have to be rapid fire multiple posts?

Excuse me? I know what I do and why I do it and I do know fine grammar points, though not all of them.

And my commas are DUE to interjected sentences ... though that may well be harder to read and leave "too many" commas in feeling -- but not in GRAMMAR.

However, as I've said before, sorry for the complex and spoken style. When I have time to edit a lot, I change the style a bit away from speaking manner ... and I do try to do SOME of that here.

The spoken version would not be so difficult to understand, though, Setheory, because then my interjections leave TONAL differences and pauses (usually where the comma also goes in the grammar). I also use dashes ("--") and ellipsis ("..."), to try to help with the writing for you ---- so I don't have to edit it for hours.

The commas are supposed to help because they DO show where there's a sub-clause.

Crikey.

I had a lot to reply to.

Whatever.
Each post was for a different person. And ANYWAY ... there's a lot there. Maybe have a look.

Usually this thread doesn't have discussions much, just laughter and the odd segment from ZT without much analysis of the claims in detail.

This NASA fakery/ PX issue is interesting. Nacy misrepresenting, or photos being wrong and then faked into being right again?

Hm. :) Interesting.

Stooopid again.

You don't know any better it seems, but it's pathetic anyway.

You still think objects don't move when you move, eh? And don't show different angles or disappear/creep from behind each other?

You still need math to help you on THAT part of that concept, eh?

"Stooopid and lovin' it!"

:)

Not all things can be, reasonably speaking: not all things.

You know that.

We can only hope. She is really tiresome.

It's not a "pixel flare" it's CCD blooming and you can see the same damn thing in other known planets that enter the view. In the case of streaks that bloom and give the appearance of "wings" it's high energy cosmic ray hits, and they've always been happening. There are many examples of this, even before 1999:
[link to sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov]
[link to sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov]
[link to sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov]
[link to sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov]
It's just sporadic high energy radiation from deep space, that's all it is, which is why it pre-dates the "supposed arrival" of PX by years and has stuck around for far longer than any object in such an elliptical orbit physically could.

I told you how to fix this, I guess you didn't care to hear the answer. You have to save it to your hard drive as a .fts file and open it with the program I linked you to, no browser I know of can open fits files natively.