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

IN WHAT POST DID YOU SAY THAT? -- again I ask.

I missed it and said so right away when I got back a day later.

I will go looking but honestly, your attitude sucks here.

Those are two very different terms with entirely different meanings. You're throwing up a strawman every single time you claim it's "compression."

If you think that the difference in color gradient is the only way to see the corruption line... you're wrong. The corruption line runs all the way to the bottom, it cuts right through the occulter holding bar.

I never said she was hiding the motion you liar. She cropped it so tight you could not see the corruption to an extent that it was evident as corruption, something that became immediately obvious upon viewing the full image, which you refused to link to.

The right ones came up for me, I don't know WTF your problem is.

You'll probably fail. Again. Because you're deliberately dense. Please prove me wrong for once. I really hope you do.

Or, maybe you are just plain wrong. That would be a lot less convoluted and logical, but logic is not Clare's strong suit. Reminds me of a scene from Mash where Colonel Flag is trying to explain the levels of espionage he is involved in. ROFLMAO.

I said it not once but twice. I don't believe you missed it both times, sorry. My attitude sucks? Your willfully ignorant trolling sucks.

I know about blooming, by the way. And I know it's supposed to be fine for all images, but the image with the big round object which Bad Astronomy and I handled some time ago was NOT a planet we know of blooming for ...

And though they claimed a CCD "pixel flare," it had a PLANET-PLUS-BLOOMING shape. That was the issue with that one.

Finally, something CAN stick around if it is ELECTROMAGNETICALLY caught. You guys keep suggesting such a thing is impossible, irrelevant, or whatever, but you have not done your homework on that one -- outside your SCHOOLING.

There is much known about this OUTSIDE astronomy; astronomy precepts are stuck in a double-think of Newtonian gravity-only billiard balls with a HALF-ASSED grafting (since 1955 only) of electromagnetism onto the system WITH NO CHARGE accounted for.

In all other research this is ridiculous; but astronomers were stuck -- then, and teaching now -- in the "safety solar system" psychological comfort of no past catastrophes worth mentioning. They do now (some of them) posit asteroidal hits, but that took a lot of coaxing.

The history of the debates around this will tell you something about mental resistance and schooling wrongheadedness, if you study that aspect of current astronomy's positions.

A further confusion came because Einstein resisted UNTIL the last week before his death, that electromagnetism could be at work in the solar system ...

And then -- already enfeebled and shortly to check out of his body, shall we say -- he did agree it must be so and ordered a test which was never performed (the Cavendish experiment in a Faraday cage).

So, yes, a planet just MIGHT kick around near the Sun for quite a while in ROUGHLY the way Nancy describes. Perhaps she could get the positions wrong, but the principle is physically sound IF you treat your learning as archaic -- too-pure Newtonianism at root.

Einstein corrected Newton but also still thought of the solar system itself in more Newtonian, non-electromagnetic ways, until near the end. We all have our blind spots; but at least, thanks to Velikovsky, who was not perfect but was no slouch, Einstein was re-thinking how his unified field theory might apply here to accept electromagnetism into the gravitic forces, at the end of his life.

It's called a high energy cosmic ray.

LOL!!! Inverse square vs inverse cubed law. Your pseudoscience is debunked. Electromagnetically caught, wow clare, you really stepped it in there.

N-body calculations accurately predict and show the locations of the planets, electromagnetism is irrelevant to planetary motion.

LOL! Oh really? Name an astronomer who does not believe in asteroid hits, name ONE. You said only some do, name one who doesn't.

No, it wouldn't. You just exposed yourself as nothing more than a common zeta troll. It was a nice front you put up, pretending to not believe in certain claims of hers, but it's clear you actually buy into her nonsense and just won't admit that you buy into the parts that are easiest to debunk. There is no way to construct an orbit that would "kick around near the sun for quite a while in ROUGHLY the way Nancy describes."

The principle is anything but physically sound. You're completely clueless about orbital mechanics, period.

It never ceases to amaze me how people can get themselves so worked up over things that don't exist, while remaining oblivious to REAL THINGS that are happening NOW, and that they might be able to affect for the better if they were engaged in real life instead of doom and conspiracy fantasies.

Okay, if this is the post you were talking of with the "lengthy" nature -- and I'm not sure it is -- I will go to all the .mil sites (as I said, I'd already tried but did it wrong).

If this is not the post where you say you "described what happens when they corrupt an image," then hopefully I'll find it -- if you are ungentlemanly enough not to repost it for me.



But as to the rest: NANCY DIDN'T LEAVE OUT THE PROBLEM AREA TO VENUS'S TOPSIDE RIGHT. She showed in the video AND her pages that there was a whole-area movement, not just Venus.

That much she DID do.

And as to me and my interest in truth, you have that SO wrong to suggest I'm not.

I'm the one who is asking these interesting but tough things -- at least asking about our sacred cows.


-- Also I know why ... and challenged you to think why ... an optical test done without PROPORTIONAL DISTANCE is unscientific (unsound).

Plus I described why you CAN figure out distance from an object (viewpoint) in a moving but zoomed (optically cropped) image. So though I don't have the equations to show what would happen, I know the principle. You should know that too.

And I mentioned how, when you figure out each viewpoint (tower-bridge lateral movement determines how far the bridge is and your viewpoint, and tower to buildings in front determines your viewpoint there), which I have done roughly, you see that the towers don't transform in relation to the other buildings around them in the way they should if the bridge moves like that.

(It's almost a stationary object if the towers aren't tracked. So are the towers if they show so little movement relative to the buildings in front of them.)

Finally, one image in that video actually has the bridge "taking a walk" while the movement in front barely occurs.

And the bridge is different sizes in very different clips but the towers to the other buildings are in almost the same relationship, meaning our viewpoint is the same roughly on NYC, but the bridge is bigger. This occurs without other things distorting, so it's not lens distortion. It's a layer.


3:25-3:30 shows no movement total in foreground -- well, it actually goes one way a touch and then back and it's all teensy movement! -- but the bridge takes a walk the whole time. [link to www.youtube.com]



So, yes I AM interested in the truth. All truth. And hope there are no more cover-ups to uncover -- including that SOHO is okay.

Dear Astronut -- or anyone else:

My Windows says it doesn't recognize .FTS file extensions and when I searched the Web from that page, the options seem to require searching my registry and downloading software to read it.

Any advice? I don't want to just click and download possibly suspicious software.

Whatever. It does not create planets with bloom. (THEY called it "pixel flare" at Bad Astronomy -- and ALSO said it was from cosmic rays.)




If charged, its reaction to the Sun's charge AND gravity AND other planets could affect it quite differently in observable behaviour even while keeping the law intact.




No, our calculations INCLUDE the electromagnetic BALANCED effects in the solar system, and anything anomalous is "adjusted as mass" calculations. This may mean the "mass calculation" is off and electromagnetics are in fact adding to attraction. If a new planet came in, it would ADD a "magnet" and gravity issues.

Slight perturbations would increase, not to mention purely e-m effects, and repulsion where the sun is attracting: which is WHAT WE HAVE HAD for the last few years.




Actually, it was some geologists, I think -- sorry. There are some who are disputing the K-2 layer. They are suggesting other reasons for the mass extinction.

I am not saying there is the idea we've NEVER been hit; but the idea of extinctions from it is very new and took a LOT of effort to get through the astronomy and geology groups --- even when the geology group included those who had proved it.

It is the FEAR OF CATASTROPHE of which I am speaking.

And Velikovsky derived the knowledge of e-m in the solar system FROM THE CATASTROPHE myths; this is what intrigued Einstein that, a) there must be e-m in the system, b) the EARTH MIGHT HAVE CHARGE (never tested, never done, that is), c) catastrophes of the historical myth and geology of Cuvier kind may have taken place RECENTLY: in the Pleistocene.




You are too quick to be in an idiot mind attitude and call names! Lol.


I said it MIGHT and ROUGHLY. I don't mean PX is here.

But it MIGHT have some of those effects. That means Nancy could be describing something accurately IN PRINCIPLE, roughly, AND STILL BE WRONG ABOUT PX's being here or existing at all.





No, orbital mechanics can/could be hiding a lot of other influences (as Velikovsky/Einstein discussed with the CHARGE ON PLANETS; and which Einstein pointed out in his unified field theory in a different way -- hoping to marry e-m with gravity and if so, perhaps the two combine in effect sometimes; and which T. Townsend Brown's extensive experiments might show, even if unfinished -- he eventually went with Stanford Research labs; and deBroglie, Hoyaux and Schwinger and so on and on, if COMBINED).

All food for thought.

So don't be so hasty, Shapley. (The dignified idiot who so resisted all of Velikovsky's work and had him slandered, quite effectively in some circles, to this day, even as aspects of his work continue to be confirmed.)

Some people do that.

I am trying to get "worked up" about knowing what DOES exist before we act, and it means testing what we THINK exists --

We also test if lies exist in and around what we know exists in a basic sense: for instance: BP and the oil spill. Oil spill exists; all else said about it or its cause and coverage is questionable.

That is called testing received wisdom/claims.

And it HELPS US GET OUR WORLDVIEW STRAIGHTER, even if we make some mistakes along the way. It does clear out some of the crap we THOUGHT we knew, so we can make some better judgments even if other people who don't know it yet think we're wrong. Ah, poor Copernicus and Kepler ... to use cosmologists politically and socially and ideologically assaulted as an example ... instead of something ONLY political as an example.

:)

She's asking and people are answering over and over.

She just doesn't like the answers

I use GIMP operating under Ubuntu. J Image is also good under windows but it has many more features to deal with and the casual user (like the bunkers) would be befuddled by it.

Stop rolling, pull your A back on and get a grip: logic IS my strong point, you ninny. Sometimes I make a mistake along the way, but overall, I at least think through whole hypotheses. That's why people here get pissed off:

For example:
They want a newspaper article to "disprove" photo fakery because they want all victims to be real.

Why, I don't know: in an intelligence op one must be prepared to wonder if anyone is who they say they are, JUST IN CASE.

Anyway, I continued to be extremely logical about it: maybe real victims with fake photos? Then why? -- Maybe sprinkled plant families? -- Maybe all fake?

But whatever's true too many of the same type(s) of co-incidences occur to be normal, and some are obvious shams. So ... how far does it go?

Are ONLY some photos fake and all victims real? Highly unlikely.

No browsers recognize fits files. It takes a program like GIMP or Jimage.

Suspicious software? Jimage is freeware put out by the National Institute of Health. GIMP is available in Windows (I think as I use Ubuntu most of the time) and Linux.

It creates a very bright blooming blotch or streak that you mistook for a planet. As I already proved, it's been happening ever throughout SOHO's history.

Inverse squared vs inverse cubed law. Electromagnetic forces are irrelevant to planetary motion. Gravity is all that matters.

Bullshit. Electromagnetic forces operate on a totally different formula with respect to distance; if they were relevant you couldn't compensate for it just by fudging the mass number and claiming it's gravity. It wouldn't work as the planet moves closer to and further away from the sun on each orbit. You = debunked.

See above. And if your theory were correct, where are the issues in the predicted positions of the planets?

Wrong. Perturbations are not present.

Wow, way to change goalposts. You're just full of fail tonight.

LMFAO! Not that I agree with them, but that's a far cry from claiming asteroid impacts don't happen.

That's what you were saying. You've now changed horses.

Which doesn't exist. If anything, astronomers are promising it and have been for quite a while.

The shoe fits, wear it instead of getting defensive.

Equivocation and avoidance. I don't know why I expect anything else from you.

If there were other influences then orbital mechanics would not match up with reality and observational evidence. You are wrong, completely and totally wrong.

Thank you. No, I'm not usually using raw data files.

And Astronut, I still haven't found that post. So drop the superciliousness and resentment.

I didn't see/remember the program you linked to, Astronut. I'll check again.


And thank you both for the links. Especially (right now) 1001458, since it's handily here. That will get the .fts-es going for me sooner with less effort right now.

I have to clean a bathroom so I'll be off for a while.

Cheers, both.

Re: the Colaios---You're a trolling dickhead.

And you can't even spell "seismograph" but you claim to know what's usual for the USGS.

Gimp is good, but it doesn't handle high bit fits images very well in my experience, and ufraw is of no help for that format. Image J is excellent though, I use that one a lot too, especially for work since it has some specialized tools for analyzing band density in gels.

And Astronut--another thing she's doing is probing for pertinent technical jargon to make herself look like she knows what she's talking about in the future when trying to sell this crap to the uninformed.

No, dear: you guys don't like the answers. Especially about the "poor innocents who died that day" re. 9/11.

(Some were, some probably were not even real, and others may have been framed with fakery.)

Many of the "answers" offered here to what I've posted -- on 9/11 anyway -- are HOPES, on your parts (you plural: the ones who posted them). These "answers" are sputterings: they carry no logical weight IN FACT, when the totality of evidence is considered.

For instance,

Photo fakery of people is not ITSELF eliminated by an article about a real person (or a fake one!).

It stands in ITS OWN RIGHT.

And Astronut's experiment in optics was an inconclusive test, i.e., the perameters were not controlled.

IDIOT: I didn't say there WOULD BE A TSUNAMI; my point was that Bangladesh said there might ---- BEFORE THE EQ ------

And gave a weird reason: alignment of planets.


Why not say "our seizmometers have picked up that there might be an earthquake"?

No. They didn't do that. But they did know of something to cause a tsunami.

No. His experiment was inconclusive AND HE KNOWS IT.

Notice the SILENCE FROM HIM ON THAT ISSUE SINCE I BROUGHT IT UP.

I keep raising it and he keeps ignoring it -- just saying I should do the test. :) But I would do a DIFFERENT test, a real one, if I had the equipment handy.

:O)

I just quoted both of them, they're BOTH RIGHT THERE IN THE POST YOU JUST QUOTED. You could have gotten IRIS up and running a long time ago if you hadn't ignored it both times I referenced it or when I linked to it again earlier tonight. I'm done with this trolling nonsense.

By "that issue" in case you can't follow what I mean, I mean the issue of the INCONCLUSIVENESS of the test, not doing a test at all.

He does bring the idea of testing it up ... but not how his test was inconclusive.

If he were honest on that he'd say, Oh yah right. Okay. Well ...

I knew she'd bitch that I'm not feeding her trolling on that issue, I knew it. Don't take my refusal to feed you as proof that you have any sort of point. I produced evidence that refuted you on your own criteria. I will not engage you on that subject until you admit you were debunked. Your objections have no validity.

That's because you're a troll, that's what trolls do.

Last Edited by Astromut on 06/12/2010 09:34 PM

Why the hell would anyone bother faking a photograph of a real person who actually died?

What an idiot.

I thought this one was worthy of reposting- simply due to the fact that logic ISN'T her strong point, in fact it is quite clear that logic and clunk departed many, many moons ago...

I am beginning to see a similarity to another now apparently retired sock in clunks posts, much more wordy but similar word usage in places esp when she loses her temper and the real personality starts to emerge

So, did Nancy tell any whoppers today on the Ning? Or has she gotten so boring that no one looks any more?

If logic is her strong point then she must be living in an institution with 24 hour a day supervision.

Say in a loony bin somewhere. Or she is a fucking liar, but then we already knew that....

Last Edited by The Commentator on 06/12/2010 11:16 PM