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

George, it would be easier to find it if you posted p. 1 link, in case it gets "lost" in priority over time.

:)

Good afternoon Clare . . . welcome again to the Thread Wars. I wouldn't be too quick to accept their backhanded complements. They like house guests and fish will begin to smell in two days.

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

Last Edited by George B on 06/12/2010 04:13 PM

Good grief, you still don't know how to follow simple directions and save a file as a .fts file? You can't just open it in your browser, as I've said, you must save it as a .fts file... if you don't know how to do that then read your browser's help files or manual.

I don't need to provide any such link since I have already provided the uncorrupted raw images. I already explained how those images were corrupted, you utterly failed to comprehend the ramifications of that explanation though and wasted my time with a lengthy and totally irrelevant reply.

How many times do I have say it? 5? 10? 20?! It's not new information, the corruption overwrites parts of the image with OLD information, from OLD pictures taken days before, NOT NEW INFORMATION! The problem occurs between the raw file and the processed jpg available online. The raw files do not contain or show any such problem.

Conciliatory message? LOL, whatever. If you choose to believe that Nancy wasn't hiding anything by selectively cropping her images to not show the full extent of the corruption in the images, fine, you go be ignorant all you want, but you will get NO conciliatory response from me.

I never said you suggested that, I said you clearly wanted that by refusing to provide links to the images when they were repeatedly requested. You did go to the trouble of making long replies to those requests, but you would only reply with videos, not links to the images, wasting my time and hiding the originals. I will not give you the benefit of a doubt that you were just clueless on where and how to find those images.

Oh right, like you don't even know how to type a date in a form correctly. You're not stupid clare, but you are a troll.

Clare is a real expert on fakery, being one herself. First hand knowledge is a powerful thing.

Astronut, most of this is drivel. What do you mean by troll here? Usually it means a shill or something like that, right? So what do you mean?


Not your issue, however, with the images.
I respect what you say there and hope that your upset at me about not seeing your post on "rewriting info" -- whichever one is the key one --


Okay, so when you say "original images" why was there reprocessing if it was okay to start with? Do you mean in converting the file from .fts to .jpg?

But still ...

If it rewrote the data in the area, why was Venus the demarcator -- both top and bottom and left and right? (Why did the information split at Venus?) And why did Venus and sky above and below show left-hand information at all? -- in fine proportion?

And why was the MIDDLE bright star below Venus missing in the previous and subsequent images?

Back to you again ...
I still didn't see your "lengthy reply" and am sorry about that. I asked you to re-post the date/time or page so I could find it easily. I have been replying to other posts as last few pages and then would run out of time and have to go. By the time I got back there was new stuff. Sorry! Seriously.



Regarding Nancy: she did NOT crop out the "compression errors". The issue is that it ISN'T compresion in her mind and my analysis of what compression would do -- to Venus, to stars and so on -- and how the edge information would be lost naturally is a comparative mutual exclusivity when applied over several images.

Your issue with .fts files (as when I clicked it was a link and I didn't know about that special format) might seem at first to be relevant but it's a straw man issue.

A person can know about mutual exclusive issues and so on and not know a particular file saving mechanism.

Did Michelangelo know Chinese printing? No, but he knew images.

:) I know both. Well, not as he did, quite. -- lol. Anyway, you get the point. It's a joke but it's a point.

And I do know Photoshop AND can think.

...........

I also know your test was unscientific, for the bridge. You MUST test the real proportional distances -- as you should know (/ do know?) -- and one can think it through as well.

By the way, the problem wasn't the date.

The problem was whether I went to the right page or satellite name maybe:

I went to Lasco general option.

I tried C3 as well.

I didn't specify anything else.

It pulled up different image TIMEs for that date.

Here was my process:
archive: [link to sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov]
traditional archive choice: [link to sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov]
start the user interface: [link to seal.nascom.nasa.gov]

So, if I did something wrong here, please tell me.

But it still doesn't prove that I know nothing about images or that this image makes sense with the other ones ...

And yet, if the "original images" had no problems then why the reprocessing? Please explain (nicely) and tell me where your post is?

I AM interested, Astronut, in spite of your manner.
And I will have a look through the last 10 pages to see if it's there but I can't this next few hours, prob. --- so if you DO get this message please let me know what page is the one you would like me to notice.

Ty.

By the way, Astronut -- I never saw your lengthy reply -- I was always playing catch-up with other items subsequent.

I cannot see the uncorrupted raw images so how do I do so?




As to not giving someone a benefit of a doubt: that is unscientific. You do not know whether I am telling the truth or not -- unless of course you actually see the MANNER of my replies. It seems you do not: many times if there is a brusqueness in my reply, you revert to thinking it's malice.

If you let that speak to you you will see overall my attempts to be forthright.

Now ...

I never "refused" to provide links. This is an ad hominem attack, for it's baseless. I was BUSY.

I wrote on what I thought at the time was important -- as you did, re. the bridge (lol) -- and if I made errors, I did. But I did not "refuse" (in the sense of a maliciousness) to give you images.

I didn't want you to hunt to tease you, just because I had little time and much to say elsewise, even if it was wrong. I had my priorities and the first thing you asked was the video.

Since the compression error -- if it was such -- was IN the video (and I thought you'd SEE that or KNOW that there was likely such a line, and I was suspecting a PHOTOSHOP line instead of a REAL compression error ...) I didn't think more than the video was necessary for you to see what was happening in a cursory way.

Finally, since you MIGHT BE ON LINE and want to look -- you might find the images before I could. I was presenting something anomalous. You want to debunk it, it's your job to look it up if there's something you need to find in order to do so, unless I'm around and know where it is easily and can find it for you. I didn't have that info at my fingertips. It wasn't MALICE.

But I did think the video was sufficient to see the error and compression and I was out of time ...

You should know better by now than to think I'm malicious! :-/

You haven't produced any evidence of this.

Regardless, I've produced more than enough evidence BESIDES the memorial pages that the Colaio brothers exist.

You just can't accept any information that contradicts the theories you're shilling for.

I have said several times, btw, if you missed it, that the top edge colouration difference did show in the video (I thought) ... and on her site it's clear it's there, too.

So that's why I say Nancy wasn't hiding the compression if it was only compression.

But since it's not compression, she thinks, which does this, she doesn't mention the lines when Venus moves. To her that's insignificant.

To me it's a possibility it is pure compression but then why was Venus and sky filled in to the left, very well, and why were top and bottom of Venus sky was different (Venus the demarcator)?

Clare

Why can I locate Venus anytime I like by using Mayan tables drawn up thousands of years ago? I'll tell you why. Because Venus is still where it should be, behaving as it always has, and the tables are accurate.

The evidence is the screen shot (hard evidence) and the reputation of the researchers (which you impugn but it is not their conclusions which you can base that on; you have to base it on their track record of sleuthing -- and on that they are great).

What does the latter issue mean?:

Well, even if they're wrong in a given instance they have all along been careful to pull accurate info over the years to support their evidence (even if they come to false conclusions).

I have more than a passing experience with them and the sites they cite, and how their work has progressed to track different changes in media claims over the years. When stories go down (are scrubbed/changed), they do another video or page on how the change now appears.

In that sense they are excellent detectives and are not impugned by those who -- pro or con -- are very familiar with them and the claims of video fakery FOR THEMSELVES FAKING. Even their detractors know they do not do fakes.

So I trust their screen shot and description. It is hard evidence from these detective types at Sept. Clues.

And now there are "memorial mentions".

There is ALSO the context with the other fakes, like the Wanio pics. I am not saying she particularly can't have been real -- but her photos are fakes.

Contextual evidence IS ALSO hard evidence in the sense YOU need it ... in the sense that it is as strong as hard evidence if the latter is lacking. It is not technically the hard evidence, but we don't always have that.


But now to the former issue:

In this case, though, we do have hard evidence: the screen shot. I have described here how we can trust the makers of the page overall, so it is hard evidence.



Aside:

If you want more than Sept. Clues' work and screen shot ...

Do you think CNN would do a news article on its own fakery? No. You're going to find it IN THE WORK OF THE PEOPLE WHO ARE ALREADY LOOKING.

Sept. Clues is an excellent site for motives and method of collection of data over the years, whatever their conclusions.

One can tell by how thoroughly they track the video cuts from different years. (These have changed too: to cover up what used to be available but was more glaring evidence of fakery than some of what the official archives have up now.)

See, there you go trolling again trying to get me to waste my time defining what the word "troll" means. Whatever.

Linking to the jpg would have been original enough for me to clearly see was going on. Linking to the fits would have revealed that the most original form of the file was uncorrupted and undamaged. Converting to a jpg that can be displayed online is just one reason and way in which it is processed. As with all astrophotography, certain calibrations must be done in processing a raw image, be it from a spacecraft or a ground telescope. I'm not going to write an entire course in astrophotography here to explain the what and why of every possible calibration that can be done, but there are many things that need to be reprocessed. Some of the general areas that need to be addressed in each image include dynamic range compression (basically tonemapping), flat fields (if avaiable), permanent hot pixel subtraction (dark subtraction), bias frame subtraction, and so forth. These are the kinds of things that are done to each image automatically before it becomes a jpg you see online. The raw fits file does not have any adjustments, so it's uncorrupted by the process of reprocessing each image, but it's a double edged sword because it's not as easy to work with and by its nature it's uncalibrated.

It isn't. You don't even know what you're looking at or how to look at it. If you play with the curves of the image you can see the corruption line runs past venus, it doesn't stop at venus (in fact, it runs the entire length of the visible image; you can see this by the disjunction it forms in the dark line caused by the occulting plate's holder bar), nor does it cut through venus, only through venus' bloom spike which spans a large part of the image anyway. From tip to tip, had the compression not truncated it, it would have spanned about 191 pixels. That's almost 20% of the image.

Because it was data from a previous day's image when the sky that far left of Venus WAS visible. How many times am I going to have to say this Clare? How many?

Just to be clear; I don't intend to shove your teeth down your throat, but you ARE this dense.

Same reason as above; Venus' position with respect to the stars changes day to day. The stars' positions all change in the previous and subsequent images for the same reason.

She cropped her images in such a way that I was unable to tell what was going on until I loaded the original full image. It's clear to me that she and you both did not want the full images to be seen. Of course neither one of you is going to admit this, but it's clear as day to me that her cropping of the images was way too tight and totally unnecessary. She could have simply animated the full three images, as others did on the ning, but she didn't go that route as she knew it gave away what was going on.

I never said it was compression, it's not, it's corruption, and you clearly still don't understand the effect that old data overwriting parts of a new image has on the edge information, or more precisely, that it wouldn't be missing information even though it shows more to the left of venus than is seen in current images.

Look, there is nothing mutually exclusive about the edge information in these images, you just don't get it. Your failure to save the fits files properly is preventing you from seeing what the uncorrupted image looks like, but it's your willful ignorance that is preventing you from "understanding" what should be seen or not seen to the left of venus in the corrupted image.

I will not address this issue until you admit you were wrong. I can't believe you're still trolling me on this. You're the ONLY one here who still thinks you're right about that.

Last Edited by Astromut on 06/12/2010 06:25 PM

When we make up words, we know the other people reading know they are made up - zetatards, for example. At least most readers with IQs above the Earth's AU range will know. But I believe Clare really thinks that as long as it can be spelled out, it is a word. Like assumptiveness. Yeah, I can assume what she thinks it means, but it's still not in the MW dictionary.

OMG Astronut, if you had read the past fifty pages, you would have seen that she doesn't answer about 90% of the questions posed to her. I hope you didn't waste too much time, though I imagine you probably were able to find all those references pretty quickly.

This all began as a simple "the moon does not rotate" argument and has since gradually bloomed into a "there's a conspiracy behind every fart" 'tard thesis.

Oh oh, I feel another quiz coming on . . .






a) the hopelessness of Clare's lack of understanding
b) Astronut trying to reason with Clare (just recently, but it could apply to all of us)
c) what this thread makes me feel like doing






a) this should be legal
b) what everyone wants to do to Clare
c) Nancy's secret handshake






a) the anonymity of cyberspace
b) how Planet X was able to infiltrate the inner solar system without detection
c) 911 plane victim who opted out of witness protection





a) what happens to your sense of reason when you watch The View
b) a normal person's first reaction upon hearing that earth has a dark twin hiding out on the other side of the sun
c) my face after skimming one of Clare's long, pointless posts, esp after she discovered red bold





a) bowling night at the 'tard convention (insert your own brand of 'tard here, ex. zetatard, claretard, 911missilepaintedtolooklikeplanetard)
b) how Nancy really channels
c) Planet X hitting an unbeliever





a) after bowling
b) Clare's ego when this is all over
c) what Hilary did to Bill after he did Monica





a) Zeta graduate
b) the kind of face I'd have to have to suggest to someone's face that their loved one didn't really die in 911 like we've been told
c) BP manager who bypassed safety issues



:adore:


a) what people from Planet X look like
b) person with an air of ASSUMPTIVENESS that just won't quit
c) damned if I know, somebody ask the Zetas

Duh.
Of course it is.

It was the IMAGE we were talking of, as manipulated in a deceptive way or not manipulated at all (just compression errors), or manipulated innocently by a re-write program.

And there are, I submit, some factors in the image and in it in context with the others, which suggest this image AS PRESENTED was fiddled with deceptively.

IF AND ONLY IF that is right ...
Perhaps now they've fixed it all on the .mil site and claim THOSE are originals?

I don't know. It's a possibility and I am not ruling it out. It can be innocent completely, but the issues I brought up do not fit simple rewriting or compression, because of what is consistent and where, and what is not.

Idiotic.

I can coin a word: Shakespeare did. It's called creativity.

And it's not because I don't know the language and just misspell or fall for an error which everyone now uses.

That would be "alot" for "a lot" and "alright" for "all right" -- something that crept in with some rockers who were sliding everything together and didn't know better either.

LMFAO! That's one of the funniest things I've read in a long time, thanks for that. That just made this all worth it.

"OMG" Catseye, get your eyes checked out. What questions did I not answer that weren't baiting or unimportant -- very few.

I did miss some important ones on the Astronut / me SOHO problems. I have also shown I intend to answer them.

And "OMG", Catseye, you misrepresent the "moon does not rotate" issue STILL!

I never said it didn't rotate from the Sun's perspective. I said it didn't rotate RELATIVE TO THE EARTH. Anything else is a misrepresentation.

All the rest was semantic confusion for a time and the fact that Menow still at the end disavowed the differences in superposition and how that accounts for people saying the moon doesn't rotate.

So, Poll: who's an un-patient and biased reader?: Catseye? Yes, you.



In this instance, anyway.

Console yourself away, Astronut. You didn't even realize you have to do a PROPORTIONAL DISTANCE test if you're going to test the fakery.

And why.

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

Or that the compression lines (if they are that) show in the video.

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

Or that I don't "refuse to post" links in malice.



So.


Now, for the post I am waiting for: what was the problem with my pulling up the images on SOHO's site?

And where is your "lengthy post" with "all the rest" about the "rewriting" process. I am very interested to know.

Be back in a while.

You're the only one here saying that they are that.

If you're having problems loading images from SOHO's site then it's your problem because it's working just fine for me.

WTF are you even talking about?

+1

As long as it makes sense to Clare, I mean it's not like NASA has better things to do than tinker with photos to make things look normal, when things are normal. There must be some really dark reasons behind it all. ROFLMAO.

For anyone who noticed my post re. the Banglaeshi claims of a tsunami coming from a planetary alignment (and I know DrPostman laughed because years ago there was a tiny increase from a "big" Jupiter effect) ...

They must have known SOMETHING; and if they knew it was an earthquake from their seizmographs, then why did they say "planetary alignment"?

[link to earthquake.usgs.gov]

Magnitude 7.7 [first 7.7, now DOWNGRADED to 7.5, as usual for USGS -- they did that with Chile quake then upped it again a month or so later --- Kinda remind you of the Colaio brothers and now-added memorials?! -- !]
Date-Time

* Saturday, June 12, 2010 at 19:26:50 UTC
* Sunday, June 13, 2010 at 01:26:50 AM at epicenter
* Time of Earthquake in other Time Zones

Location 7.702°N, 91.975°E
Depth 35 km (21.7 miles) set by location program
Region NICOBAR ISLANDS, INDIA REGION
Distances 150 km (95 miles) W of Mohean, Nicobar Islands, India
440 km (275 miles) WNW of Banda Aceh, Sumatra, Indonesia
1155 km (710 miles) SW of BANGKOK, Thailand
2790 km (1730 miles) SE of NEW DELHI, Delhi, India
Location Uncertainty horizontal +/- 7.7 km (4.8 miles); depth fixed by location program
Parameters NST= 52, Nph= 52, Dmin=614.3 km, Rmss=1.23 sec, Gp= 65°,
M-type=teleseismic moment magnitude (Mw), Version=7
Source

* USGS NEIC (WDCS-D)

Event ID us2010xkbv

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


Warning center issues tsunami alert for Indian Ocean


(AFP) – 37 minutes ago

WASHINGTON — The Pacific Tsunami Warning Center Saturday issued a regional tsunami watch for all areas of the Indian ocean, following a 7.7-magnitude earthquake near India's Nicobar Islands.

"A tsunami watch is in effect for India, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Thailand, Malaysia, for other areas of the Indian Ocean region," the Hawaii-based warning center said.

A major quake hit the Indian Ocean Sunday, around 160 kilometres (100 miles) from India's Nicobar Islands, the US Geological Survey said.

"Earthquakes of this size have the potential to generate a destructive local tsunami and sometimes a destructive regional tsunami along coasts located usually no more than a thousand kilometers (620 miles) from the earthquake epicenter," the tsunami warning center said.

However, it added, "it is not known that a tsunami was generated. This watch is based only on the earthquake evaluation."

The bulletin, it said, "is issued as advice to government agencies," adding that the responsibility for issuing official alerts rests with national and local governments.

Bummer, no ZetaCrap tonight?

Still, lots of free entertainment to be had.

I meant Venus in REALITY is the same as it should be.

I have emphasized it's the IMAGES which I'm questioning.

How many stupid comments -- this one is REALLY OBVIOUSLY stupid -- can you guys come up with?!

Right or wrong about manipulation, that much was CLEAR.

We know Clare, we know. We think you're being very, very silly for just that reason.

I am the only one who is saying what? That it's compression or rewrite? No, you think that it's an innocent explanation; I think it's manipulation, now, possibly.

I was questioning your inability to see the colouration difference in the video (it's there, but grainy) and in Nancy's page and the original post from the .ning poster of the .gif compilation. And since you didn't see the colouration difference in the vid, you spun off saying Nancy's seeing things move when she "shouldn't" in this case. Well, it DOES move as you now know, in the image you sent and in her crops of it. So THAT much she wasn't HIDING and YOU got wrong at first.

As to loading images from SOHO's site, I guess I did the right process then. And no, the wrong time stamps came up. Oh well.

Re. the .mil site: okay. I will try to get the images when I can. Thank you.

What things "are normal"? ALL of them?

What if ...

there were massive flares they wanted to cover for?
or a real ET UFO or human UFO?
or a spy craft?

Or whatever -- including PX in the image?

Now, I don't think it could be PX because we'd see it if it were that far away from the Sun, I am assuming. Unless it were directly in our line of sight and shrouded in glowing clouds which our amateur telescopes might show us, but we might confuse it with bulbous solar flares and solar surface, if it were right in our view directly ... I.e., then it could be on the edge of the SOHO image but misinterpretable when we look directly at the Sun ...

How do you really know all is fine?

Next, IF all is fine, then why such weird effects in the images? It's worth asking each time, in case.