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

Irrelevant to whether she's fake.



Irrelevant: if planted, she could be from nowhere.



Nonsense. These images are all over the Web and were merely COMPILED by September Clues. Also, some have ow been removed from places (the Colaios, whose photos were not in question in the first place). Straw man argument.



I said this was a SUSPICIOUS aspect, not conclusive, except for:

a) the FAMOUS CONDITIONS OF THEIR DEATHS if geniuine would surely get them a mention, no?

b) so many of the questionable ones with family (a subset of the total questionable ids), i.e., the photo fakes most duplicated from 9/11 -- are not in the SSDI, so this is highly unlikely in probablility , again given the particular conditions of their deaths.



Then give your eyes a wipe and check your impugning process: researchers COMPILED seeming anomalies. They could get them wrong but they were doing comparative forensic (visual fakery) science hypothesis, no more.



The general practise of believing in these victims because of the claim they are real from a tragedy. You are constantly saying not to question their identities and so on: this is an emotional motivation (especially under the circumstances of an intelligence op that day), whether you feel visibly moved or not. It is affecting your approach.



You are wrong on all counts.



Your judgement factor of the Internet (or other sources) is not straight. You can get information off anywhere and it is vetting the information with other sources (official, etc.) which shows the claim to be true. These photos are the photos collected from memorial pages, etc., all over the world. They were merely collected by September Clues for comparison.




Some information should be consistent. Such as having DIFFERENT photos for different people, not pasty heads.

And having memorials for big shots NOT screen shots from 2009 with no memorials. The people at September Clues did not doctor the other images, and clearly are trying to get word out. They are ordinary people from every word they utter: they make mistakes and change them and plod ahead and get maligned and compile and compare. Thus, it is highly doubtful they faked the screen shot ... when the rest was faked. They are compiling the rest; there is no reason to assume they are faking.

There is, despite your protestations, reason to suspect the warmongers are faking: not only a priori reason to suspect (lots at stake for the perps so they'd pull out the stops most likey), but also the photos themselves compiled at September Clues show paste-heads AT ALL but a LOT of them (and a LOT of other anomalies in large numbers).



Sure. But now multiple mentions back-dated? In a context of other fakery?

:-/

And for the Colaios not to have mentions (but for one) -- originally --when they're big shots?

:-/



Oh yes I did. I even challenged him on many points. Re-read and think. He also only did the initial tests because I pointed out there would be movement in the buildings.

Re-think the optical truths and you'll see.



You see nothing so how could you see through me?

LOL



At September Clues there's a screen shot. These people have no reason to fake that, given that their other photos come legitimately from memorial and other sites all around the world and CNN.



No comment.



Ridiculous. Anyone claiming the work done on the sites I sent is intelligence ops to discredit 9/11 Truth groups is a) a 9/11 truth person who is afraid of "turds in the punchbowl" so much that they miss the punch; b) an intelligence source him/herself.

The real researchers doing some of the more emotionally challenging work on the case are largely maligned and ignored, but the evidence in the videos and photos is clear to anyone objective and/or willing to do the comparative WORK to see it, and THINK about it hypothetically first.

Just think what's REQUIRED for fakery to occur. What would you FIND?

You'd find layers of inaccurate and sloppy data, all the way to finer and finer data -- but they couldn't even get that right. Just as the FBI photos of Oswald's gun show they didn't even bother to photograph the same gun; they used 3 with the same serial numbers but different number plates, and different proportions.

Sloppy, but it fooled people like you.



You're so sloppy -- or biased, perhaps -- that nothing challenges you. I have been challenged and have mostly

-picked, chosen best evidence to make it EASY for you

-mostly clearly stated what is inconclusive and why

-what is near-conclusive due to comparative evidence in other areas.

I notice that most people of your mind-set as evidenced in your last few posts, tend not to see comparisons.

You also do not tend to think through hypotheses if you don't yet see a connection. You handle a piece at a time, but with no thought of what it MIGHT mean and what you should LOOK for if it does mean one thing or another.

This means you don't GET TO THE POINT OF COMPARING. Instead it's piecemeal for you.

So you look at a photo and say you might be fooled, and don't compare all those that look odd. And say, maybe they're not BUT IF THEY ARE then what else would we find?

And what combinations and permutations would fake-photo (if so) victims' families be? -- They would be plants, or real but set up with fake photos so other fakery would be protected.

This is called thinking through the hypothesis.

Not "dissing victims".

:)

I DO think these things through. As you can see -- or ... maybe not. If you think optics change because of Astronut's brave but insufficient test ... then maybe you don't even see that I do think things through. LOL

Astronut:

4:30 in the morning and replied to latest posts --- last page.

Will check for your reply tomorrow as to "all the rest" re. SOHO image.

I still get code only (some weird rectangle symbols mostly) at the .mil sites you linked to. And I didn't see yet a link from you -- but maybe I missed it -- specifically on what NASA says they do to corrupted images.

I would submit, however, they will not say they fill in with new information all areas which are missing and change previous and subsequent images to miss a star to cover for the error! Lol.

Filling in with new information is what 15:18 seems to exhibit, as its smooth top, bottom and Venus bloom extend too far to the left of Venus: its movement over would leave a blank space there, at the because the original edge of digital info captured would be moved to the right, too, if any section moved to the right by compression/lost data in between.

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

I will at the same time hope you bother with any kind conciliatory message you would like to make back to me -- re. your words to me (manner) and to show me that you see:

a) we had a misunderstanding which you had from the video (that it was hiding "compression lines" when I saw them there and they're on Nancy's site, too), which made you impugn me as well.

b) that I never suggested the images shouldn't be found and linked to.

c) that I somehow was "lying" in saying I couldn't access the images from SOHO. Whatever I did to pull them up pulled up not the right times. I do not usually use their database directly. Usually people have linked me to it for some reason or other. TY for doing that with the image here, by the way. :)

Hi!

Just noticed this post of yours.

Glad you're better!


Re. Gulf ...

You might like to see this:
[link to www.youtube.com]

and

in this (I link to 2 versions) at 27-29 secs and 32 secs -- the back door of the room opens: CNN is showing a film on a wall instead of a live camera or normal feed!

[link to www.youtube.com] (grainy)
[link to www.cnn.com] (original, high quality) if it works)

clunks back I see- with the usual `I'm right and everyone else is wrong' b.s.

I do find it fascinating that for someone who claims to be such a massive intelligence, that she so regularly and often fails to see that there are people here that do understand clearly things she herself has only a very vague and dim understanding of

I think this sums up every single thinking persons opinion of you clunk...


and so back to the ning

[link to poleshift.ning.com]

I see again they are desperate to justify their planet (non)X existance by claiming every and any disaster anywhere in the world as proof positive it exists

Also it is actually worthwhile (in a macabre way) watching the ning- it has already begun to go into meltdown as did her previous blog, with the ranks closing up on one side or the other, and the disbeleivers of `the word' as brought to you by the starburst kid are having their ranks thinned quickly anytime they oppose any part of nancy's ravings

it's actually quite fascinating

What evidence? Evidence that Beamer and Wainio are okay? Nada -- newspapers, etc., are sufficient when there's fakery involved; and in an intelligence op situation the high likelihood of finding fakes should increase your willingness to assess fakery.

Anyway, in that case you need to hypothesize why a real family would have fake photos up. If they do, they are being set up or are fakes themselves, even if their name is Wainio or Beamer (to cover for a fake kid). These become real POSSIBILITIES.

Only a DA would be likely to settle it in EACH INSTANCE, but overall: 100 problematic photo sets or so, plus coding problems and memorial problems.

And no, Sept. Clues is not likely the fakes: they compiled on-going tracking of the videos all along, and updated their info as the media changed THEIR OWN versions: the media now have taken out a lot of the original video clips. Some are only preserved in the discussion from some years back, by Sept. Clues and others.

Yes, there can be fakes AMONG THE FAKERY TRACERS; but these are hotly debated and exposed. No-one has claimed these photos are not from memorial sites originally.




You are not a wholistic thinker, clearly. The issue is we have layers of fakery and evidence on how they did it ...

All layers have a different problem set; and this is in fact what you find, in SPADES (i.e., in large number!).



No problem. Vatican, Israel, Jesuit.



Originally, I came on to Jim's show. Most people come on with real names. I was used to that and didn't think to have mine removed. I suppose I could have, but at the time I didn't think about that -- I knew a lot but was not careful (or paranoid) for myself, figuring anyone serious would have had my i.d. from the e-mails Jim and I exchanged for a long time before. Now I would be more careful, but the cat's out of the bag anyway.

Then Returner asked for the photos; that was not worth hiding because I am searchable to any spook already by my name's being up on Jim's site already; an implication of what someone here pointed out about the unwiseness of having used my name with Jim at all.



I was saying that mentioning one word or other would not be caught as important; it looks for combinations.



Whaaaaaa....t?



Astronut proved nothing about the bridge.

As to the rest in this section ... ?!?!

:-/



I will handle the bridge issues another time. I am exhausted. Bye.

Initial early-morning typo:




I meant to type: newspapers, etc., are INSUFFICIENT when there's fakery involved ... we need better proof of existence and it is not going to come from family claimants ALONE.

They could, in an intelligence op, be plants OR real.

Thus, they would need to be really checked out.

And if real, either that photo set was fine (some cases are less conclusive than Wainio and Beamer for fakery, but there are many which are as bad as their photos);

Or the real family is being framed.

If the latter -- think this through -- then why? Well, they could be disliked personally among the real victims. Or they could be used to distract ... from how many many other fake id names remain.

No you don't -- on the issues I am talking of here: video/photo faking on 9/11.

And no, I am not right about everything; I know what is clear here and what is inconclusive and admit them as often as possible.

Unfortunately, the bridge is NOT okay. Nor is the photo set AS A WHOLE -- too many same-face people. Some may be okay, but most cannot be (as a probability).

Plus a few definite fake photos exist: Wainio is among them.

If she was real, her family's being set up to block investigation into the rest. This might in fact be the case, since the Mom Wainio is a vocal disser of Bush. But ... that could also be an intelligence cover. It COULD be. It would need to be checked out. If she's set up or for real. Because there are 5 same-faced EH Wainio photos. (5!!!!!!!!!! are shown on this page and one is the link someone here posted -- to which I don't have the page up on my browser anymore, so I don't have the exact link at hand -- of a fatter-faced Liz but same exact paste job of features. That makes 6.)


And by the way, as to if September Clues is the fake one:

note they LINK TO THEIR SOURCE, last year --- and though CNN may have changed most IDs as they did with the Colaios (to cover their asses, guys), at least it shows the honesty of September Clues people, who were not afraid of your checking them out. [link to septemberclues.info]

:)
Clare

Bullshit.

I proved the Colaios existed, too.

They have a street named after them in New York.

They have all kinds of comments on their memorial page.

How dense are you?

One thing that is patently obvious is that she does NOT have ANY intelligence to speak of!

Time after time she proves herself utterly gullible, shockingly uneducated, and almost illiterate.

Typical troll!

It is fascinating to watch how Nancy's attempt at a cult has gone through all the typical cult-type machinations, with 'heretics' and former believers who eventually make a play for supremacy, or who break off into their own little cults when they cannot 'follow the leader' any more!

Hilarious bullshit!

You should note this so you maybe will get the astronomical unlikeliness that Wainio's photos are okay even if she was a real victim. EVEN IF SHE WAS.

Why? The idea that you could just have been mistaken in seeing a problem in 1 or 2 photos is eliminated here.

Because there are 5 same-faced EH Wainio photos.

(5!!!!!!!!!! are shown on this page and one is the link someone here posted -- to which I don't have the page up on my browser anymore, so I don't have the exact link at hand -- of a fatter-faced Liz but same exact paste job of features. That makes 6.)

Yes, 1 or 2 photos might fool you into thinking fakery was at play when it is not. But EVEN IF SHE WAS A VICTIM TOO there is no explanation for the 6 photos other than fakery, for a REASONABLE PERSON.

You may not LIKE it, but it's true.

So,
If she WAS real, her family's being set up to block investigation into the rest.

This might in fact be the case, since the Mom Wainio is a vocal disser of Bush!

But ... the Mom's dissent could also be an intelligence cover. It COULD be. It would need to be checked out.

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


And by the way, as to your unfamiliar and unthought-through suggestion that September Clues is the fake one -- completely unreasonable, not because someone couldn't pose like that, but because all over their site they link to originals wherever possible and explain the process of their findings and suspicions .....

Here you go:
note they LINK TO THEIR SOURCE, last year --- and though CNN may have changed most IDs as they did with the Colaios (to cover their asses, guys), at least it shows the honesty of September Clues people, who were not afraid of your checking them out. [link to septemberclues.info]

They always do this -- though in the videos they don't show the time signatures for the video; but others have never complained they faked it, over the many years it's been up. Simon didn't have the time to time-stamp all the work after it was done; he had moved on to new work. It is a shame, but the original video has been archived ----- and it's a good thing, since the news archives have now removed most video of that day!

:)

Why?

They have a lot to hide.

They came up with NEW cuts, which were originally in other stations' days. Yes, all to cover for some of the embarrassments and sloppy mistakes.

No, Sept. Clues may be wrong or right, or both at times, but they're not the fakers.

Clare

This proves only your lacks.

Typical small mind -- or biased fear.

You couldn't even write that correctly, you illiterate troll!

By the way, if PX is here, the media have a weird way of "predicting" events to us:

[link to www.bangkokpost.com]

Or maybe a different panetary alignment or something else is setting them off on alarms?

No, I meant LACKS. Several of them. Chalk up one more.

It's not worth it- everyone here (including I suspect clunk herself) knows that she is nothing more than a bullshit artist.

correcting her only give it more exposure and eggs her on to more and more grandiose claims in order to support her mammoth ego

If(and WHEN) she finally realises that everyone is actually laughing at her, not with her... then clunk, I would suggest calling your local suicide watch hotline.

I know it can hurt that you aren't half as smart as you wanted everyone else to think you are, but life WILL become a lot more satisfying when you can actually see that you a human with human flaws.

And when you give up on all these fantasies of saving the world from imaginary evil plots- you will find that exploring the real world can be a damn sight more satisfying than any made up bullshit could ever be

so come on out Clare, and find out that the real world isn't THAT scary after all...

Yep, starve the troll. She is a pretty boring one anyways. Kinda like Freestore, Soledad and Max all rolled into one self important and stupefyingly ignorant package. You'd think that if she was as hot shit as she thinks, she would have been visited by the men in black by now. Or maybe the men in white coats with butterfly nets. ROFLMAO.

I gave up actually reading any of her posts about 100 pages ago, it's always the same old word salad

Oh I'll flick a half eye over it in case some particularly stupid statement stands out, but that rarely happens anyway, so all in all clunk is a particularly disappointing troll of the `intelectulus pseudo smartus' breed

What it comes down to with this brainwashed shill is that any source that contradicts her close minded opinions has to be approached with "deep philosophical doubt" but any ridiculous youtube video or Sorcha Faal wannabe that she agrees with is accepted at face value.

I DO!!!

those massive high tides washing ashore leaving massive devastation in their wake ....
Oh the humanity, the huge loss of life and property...

what were they again???

oh thats right...


`There was some influence by the planets, with high tide calculated at 0.04 millimeters higher than normal'
( [link to en.wikipedia.org]

;-)

I think that Clare is a real, sincere person who believes everything she says. This is from when I took the time to interact with her. She is extremely miopic, but truly THINKS she is viewing things more broadly than the rest of us. She does function as a 'shill', though, without really knowing it. She drags people through 'discussions' of things by focussing on meaningless minutia which distorts reality radically.

Hey, she exhausted *my* patience...

And that's saying something...

Oh yeah, those were the days! I also remember the "Harmonic Convergence" in August 1987, just months before the real end of the Mayan calendar. There were fruitcakes all over the ruins in Mexico soaking in the ascension vibes, dancing nude in the moonlight, preparing for the end that was coming in 2012. Too bad they didn't know back then or now that as they did that, real Mayas were preparing for the end of cycle ceremonies to be held in April 1988.

Some things never change.

RE: Sept. Clues having faked the photos or the screen shot of Colaios with 1 memorial mention last year, from 2003:


So many of you lose the forest for the trees: and THEN get the exactness wrong too.

For instance, there are those who suspect Sept. Clues of being the fakers; a short acquaintence with their work will show however the sincerity and cross-referencing they go to, whatever else.

But that idea of THEIR being the ones likely to fake, can only come to someone who can't identify the Colaios as possibly having a problem, and HOLD THAT IDEA long enough to check if maybe Sept. Clues is the one with the accurate screen shot, not the current memorial site.

yeah I'd forgotten that- was a combo of the jovo's 144k(again- first time around in 1974) and the mayan end of the world as we know (knew) it cycle (first time around)
We had about a dozen wacko's all marching around in suits carrying signs (in 40 deg heat) all saying the end is nigh

something about sacred triangles or something...

from memory it was all the planets were in a triangle and so giant tidal waves would drown us all (again) as the earth was ripped apart (again)

it was a change from the giant tidal waves that had drowned us all four years earlier as the planet was ripped apart because the planets were in a straight line.....

(then we had the 2000 end of the world- from computers and because jc was coming back and all but 144k would be killed horribly (again)
then there was 2003 and we were all going to die horribly as giant tidal waves drowned us all (again) as the earth was ripped apart (again) as planet x dove through the solar system at several times the speed of light...

Chemtrail Poll . . . do you think chemtrails are real? See the Results NOW!

Thread: Chemtrail Poll . . . do you think chemtrails are real? See the Results NOW!

Quote
POLL: Chemtrail/Contrail Pool . . . do Chemtrails exist?
Yes 81.5% (53)
No 15.4% (10)
I need more information 3.1% (2)
No Opinion 0% (0)
Blank (View Results) (0)

Non-Blank Votes: 65



Chemtrail/Contrail Debate/Trial is scheduled for early July 2010.

I am the Advocate (George B.) my Opponent at this time will be (The Guy).

I do believe there are Chemtrails . . . my purpose is to present all the available evidence in July and compare the results of this Poll with an identical Poll after the debate/trail is completed.

The plan now is to have at least a three day debate . . . then the Poll.

Please respond to this Poll so we will have a basis for our conclusions regarding the debate.

My primary purpose is to gather on my time and effort all that the average person can realistically understand and go against an Opponent.

PUBLIC SERVICE: with a reasonably thorough presentation of the evidence, its rebuttal, counter arguments and the final vote by you via Poll.

WHY? So one can point to a point in time when there was a process and a result (if only temporary). I also think it can be rather entertaining as well. I am perfectly willing to be trashed but don't think I will go down easy. I really do believe there is something to the Chemtrail issue.

Last Edited by George B on 6/12/2010 at 2:27 PM

Please go to my Thread and Vote!!!!

Last Edited by George B on 06/12/2010 04:11 PM

Yes, I am real.

Yes I am sincere. TY Menow for recognizing that.



As to the rest: there is a difference between exactitude of analysis where possible, and losing the point of the analysis.

Many people here do think in a myopic manner: to suggest that the Colaios "have memorials" when the whole point is they DIDN'T ... and now DO ...

It is not mere unfamiliarity however which makes people here sugest a news article can trump fakery of a photo in importance, even if a person ultimaley turns up!

And it is not mere unfamiliarity with the site which makes the notion bloom for someone -- who then suggests that Sept. Clues must be the liers, when all their work shows they link to their sources and where the SOURCES CHANGE to cover their asses they cover that too.

A small familiarity with their work would show that the notion SC is faking is the opposite of the situation.

But even so, the clarity of the mass of evidence of fakery which takes a shrt while to see, would show you you were more likely dealing with an intelligence op than a Sept. Clues attack on victims.

So ... then, these "miopic" persons here would be thrown back on how to explain the Colaio non-memorials until now (new and back dated as they are now)?

So who is losing themself in "miopia"? So many here! I see the forest for the trees and can give relative weight to evidence and not produce inadequate articles to "prove there's no fakery" -- just because I want a victim to be real.

I can think of how a victim could be real AND there be fakes, and some reasons why.

Plus, I can recognize the basic fakery and DETAILS of it, if I NEED to. But that's not my purpose once that's done: it is thinking on the totality! So, yes, I have both capacities carefully developed and therefore am not likely to misuse them.

If you stay on the big you may miss a changing featrue of detail; if you stay on the detail you may refuse to switch everything around in order.

It is the latter paragraph which sums up the tendency here on this thread of some people.

I have a very good grasp of the big and small re. the fakery issues. You don't: a news article doesn't undo fakery even if the people were real. There's something going on and most are likely to be in fact blated numbers for WAR.


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

I am being exact when I can and ALSO working through the hypothetical possibilities and necessities which flow from the relative BREADTH of each feature's merits.

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

But ... to be exact and perhaps a bit unkind back for all the nastiness you've spewed at me over these pages ... it's "myopia" except in Italian and so on, so it's listed as "miopia" in one dictionary which redirects to myopia.


And the plural of "minutia" is "minutiae". (Fem. singular/fem. plural)

Hi, George. They were at it last eve again and a dissenter (disbeliever) watched the same trail stay for 35 min's.

He was feeling hopeless at the evidence before his eyes. We all acknowledged a puff might last a minute or so, in a special atmosphere.

Plus there were many others at all heights and others not leaving trails. :)

It's raining without clouds again: just the bleary gray they created.

Some people suggest it's against high solar storms right now.

Prob. many reasons.

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

By the way, I like your running triceratops. You changed your avatar!

:)

I still think they're cuter when not charging though. Lol.


Here's a cute one:

{>:-)