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

And yet these “fake” photos seemed fine to me when I examined them and this is my area of expertise. It’s funny because on 9/11 a friend of mine who lives in New York went on top of his brownstone after the first plane hit and proceeded to watch the second plane hit the second tower. I looked into your claims despite his observations and the hundreds of other witnesses. I looked into your claims despite the videos showing otherwise. Your theory simply conflicts with almost every single account from that day…it defies common sense…it is just pain wrong. I don’t think I have every conversed with someone who suffers from “confirmation bias” as much as you Clare.

I meant to type “plain” instead of “pain”. Freudian slip?

What has that got to do with the TILT of the Earth? If the Earth were tilted differently that predicted, EVERY STAR would be out of its predictable place. Do you not see this?

I am going to respond at length only because this person has for some days suggested all work by Sept Clues is lying and "this should be obvious" and that I "don't know fakery" (which has some bearing on the SOHO question, too, even if I turn out to be wrong there -- but I do have some experience questioning things).

He presented a video which purports to shoot down Sept Clues. I have presented fairness to both sides, for when things are inconclusive I have said so. And when Sept Clues or this video didn't support their case well, I have said so.

I did not do the whole video (NOR DID THIS VIDEO HANDLE ALL OF SEPT CLUES). But in my case, I am stopping where the video switches to the Amateur vids (a different set than the "live images" of the day). Whereas, the video here stopped at section 1 of 12 about the LIVE video.

Though that might seem fine, some of the issues in section 1 are not fully handled in that section (the fade to black, the zoom-out timing of the plane's not being there, and the beeps at 1 seconds, seemingly to synchronize the vids), which have DIRECT BEARING on some of the "confusion and claims" presented in this video.

In other words part 1 of Sept Clues partly RELIES on other parts. I have pointed out the problems which ensue for the linked video maker debunker, because of that fact, or because he's ignoring subsequent videos.




First claim in your video:

- that "it is doubtful that the claim" by Sept Clues is accurate, referring to the fact that Sept Clues says in its main video, that the TV coverage is recorded by many American families. The idea of your video is that it is also kep in archived copies by the news media.

This is misdirection and straw man argumentation: Sept Clues never says there are no news archives; they are stressing many ordinary people have copies as well.

Not only that, but they have gone on to DOCUMENT THE CHANGES in the archives of the news media.

DEBUNKED.

Second claim in your video:

- that the Sept Clues statement that the video from CNN showed a fade to black at the precise moment of impact, is a double falsity: no fade to black and not at precise moment of impact b/c we are not on impact side.

The true falsity is in the disingenuousness of your video commentator: the intent of Sept in using the words "precise moment of impact" incorrectly, technically, becomes clear over the rest of the videos. What they mean is at the moment the plane goes behind the towers and through them (a very short time, hard to name succinctly, as Sept Clues attempted in their title "precise moment of impact").

The point will become clear to the fair-minded listener, that the claim, drawn out into longer words, would be that after going behind the towers and presumably hitting them, the plane image goes through and there is a fade to black when that is noticed. Well, that doesn't make a nice title sentence, does it? We have to give the witness for the prosecution (Sept Clues) some leeway in wording, since the point becomes clear over the long haul of their video testimony.

The other point here which your video makes is whether there is a fade to black. The narrator claims he didn't "see" one and it could be a technical glitch.

Now, first of all, the disinfo agent or simple biased viewer who is narrating cleverly (or innocently) uses SELECTIVE EVIDENCE -- ONLY THE EXAMPLE which had a CUT in it. In the cut, there is a moment of a glitch, a true glitch.

But there are OTHER, FULLER versions of the fade to black (from 2 different angles!), which clearly show it is a fade to black. These come in at the end, but your video doesn't mention this ----- and they are shown in some of the other Sept Clues sections with their full fade in slow-mo and there's no streaky glitch.

Your video stops you from seeing the rest of the proof: there is a WAY TO KNOW if it is a fade to black: the OTHER shots, which Sept Clues will come to at the end and show in slow-mo in other sections. Only in the CUT version, which switches camera and on which this video spends time to the exclusion of the exampls at the end, do there appear any true signal glitches.

The fuller versions on other networks show a fade-out of the whole image from frame to frame evenly and within human reaction time.

I used to use editing suites (with dials; some could have levers though maybe); the other full clips show precisely what happens on a fade to black. They may be glitches, but if so, they have the qualities of a fade to black, unlike the CNN clip's glitch

DEBUNKED that the CNN clip is representative.

Third and fourth claims in your video:

That the in-house news presenter would not have noticed the plane and that the impact sound (or flyby sound) weren't on the on-site anchor's mike because he may have been anywhere and not heard it.

Both these issues are fair enough, but are not "deception" by Sept Clues any more than they are clearly "deception" by your video. They are merely inconclusive issues: seen as suspicious by one and not the other.

(However, a faint massive incoming sound probably should have been on the mike.)

Your video however takes the anchor's comments about hearing explosions as "hearing something", but that could very well be not a plane but an explosion. It is, however, inconclusive, and your narrator should not say it's "very clear" that the anchor "heard something" -- as though that had to be a plane. The issue is inconclusive on BOTH sides.

As to your narrator's claim this is "deception by innuendo", he is then, too, "deceiving" by innuendo: not only in the issue itself -- for both sides (he and Sept Clues) are dealing with inconclusive evidence, and this is what your narrator should have pointed out! -- but also in saying it is deception at all: sometimes a compiler of evidence overstates their confidence in some issues. The investigation was ongoing.

By the way, quite OFTEN, Sept. Clues will put up notes that they are not sure quite what something is. So they seem to have overstated this inconclusive evidence, but presented it anyway (which is fair); just as your narrator overstated his confidence in the issue of the in-house presenter's gaze and that the anchor "heard something", which the anchor said were explosions and your narrator "deceptively implied" this had to be a plane.

INCONCLUSIVE BY NATURE, for BOTH SIDES.

Fifth claim of your video:

- that the video's suggestion that someone in Chelsea would not likely have heard the impact is false.

But wait! Your narrator just got done saying the mike of the other anchor shouldn't have picked up the sound, and clearly he was near the scene enough that people started running.

Anyway, even if Ms. Renaud in Chelsea COULD hear the impact, and the other anchor couldn't or some of the explosions WERE the impact (which it is likely the anchor would have said, or would have commented on the large sound of the plane in the air, from anywhere near the towers, at the speed it was supposedly coming in) ...

Your narrator moves on to say that Sept Clues is withholding evidence because they edited the sound on the claim by Ms Renaud that she is in the tallest building and it faced south. First, we have no knowledge she is telling the truth in fact, but second, if she is, it's still Chelsea and Sept Clues doesn't dispute her VIEW DIRECTION at any point, or the height of her building -- they, instead, go on in the video to show the DISTANCE from Chelsea.

So, the video maker is misrepresenting the full position of Sept Clues on this issue. I submit they croped the sound to cut the video time, since she'd already said she lived in Chelsea and they are going to focus on the distance of Chelsea from the towers, not the height or view direction of Ms Renaud's apartment claim.

Thus, I submit it is not necessarily deception on Sept Clues' part, since it is a straw man to the point they ultimately make about Ms Renaud's claim.

DEBUNKED.

Sixth claim of your video:

- that the titles are gratuitous while Theresa speaks (that she didn't see what aused the explosion because she said so and hadn't mentioned a plane at all).

But wait! Your narrator is now making a "deceptive innuendo" himself ... that these titles have no bearing on her testimony. But they do! For in a moment the 2nd putative plane (at least its image, since that is under suspicion by researchers) goes into the building ... and Ms. Renaud says, "Oh, a second plane just went into the building."

Now, if she knew of the first one why didn't she say so? Could the anchor have told her before the phone interview and she have failed to mention it? It's not likely -- but I am generously positing that idea, in case the first impression which Sept Clues has made is incorrect: that she didn't know of a plane until she saw it on a screen, herself, from live feed (since she's a person connected to the TV company and Sept Clues suspects, as we'll see in other videos, that the first people on the line's having been all but one related to the media, were in on the deception, or most were).

But first impressions would suggest that Renaud had not seen or heard or knew of a plane until the 2nd one hit and for her to then say, "Oh a second one just hit! A second plane just hit," would then be evidence of her being in on the putative deception.

Thus, it is your narrator who is being disingenuous to pick at Sept Clues for pulling out (in titles) the fact tht Renaud is not mentioning a plane and said she didn't see what caused it. Sept Clues may be wrong in ONLY the way I suggest above (that Renaud just didn't happen to mention a plane in the air, and said she didn't see what hit, but had been told off air that it was a plane and didn't mention it at first). But being wrong or not thinking of that stretched idea I presented, does not make them deceptive NOR does it make their titles gratuitous, since the titles reflect first impressions -- if you reflect on what you're hearing her say: she does seem to present a lack of planes ("explosion or an impact") and then seems to have sudden "knowing" about a definite first plane ("another") in her testimony.

The surety with which your narrator sugests "she had heard what happened and seen the aftermath" on the first tower misrepresents the specific facts of her testimony: she said "another" plane. This is quite definite, but at first she had not mentioned it and suggested she didn't know what caused it.

Your narrator is being inaccurate with the evidence, whatever his motives. The only way Renaud could have an innocent explanation would be if she had been told (which your narrator states as a fact!), but then her SWITCH from "I don't know" to "ANOTHER" plane is rather odd.

DEBUNKED.

Seventh claim of your video:

- that Sept Clues' suggestion of incredible vision for Renaud is silly, because 2.8 miles is nothing.

But to see what actually went in, a tiny blob, would be rather odd unless she could see very well.

It is, however, more inconclusive than other parts of the Sept Clues material. And is not key to the hypothesis. It could go either way.

This happens quite often in an hypothesis: some facts can be argued to fit either hypothesis. However, when the totality is looked at, the claim of fakery is stronger, and this becomes more likely to be a plant. She also sounds to me, personally, as having a kind of happy lying glitch in her voice seems to betray a lie.

Anyway, the seventh claim is:

INCONCLUSIVE TO BOTH SIDES.

Now: [Interrupted with negative innuendo -- as though all things in the video are silly ...]

Eighth claim of your video:

- that the immediate insertion of the words "a terrorist act of grave proportions" by the in-house presenter of the news was not suspicious.

However, numerous students of the case have noted the sudden use of suspicion on Osama Bin Laden out of all possibilities, and even one anchor who went on with an almost full story like the gov't right away. Plus, one interviewee on the street ("Harley Guy") had a near-complete explanation of how the towers came down. Many people have suspected these as being "immediate suggestions in the media" the way Lee Harvey Oswald was immediately described on police radio within minutes of the shooting, no other persons were suspected, and even though the officer who called in the description didn't mention the man's height it was mentioned in the dispatch. And so on.

This then is a fine supposition on the part of Sept Clues, but ... that's all; technically speaking it's

INCONCLUSIVE FOR BOTH SIDES.

Ninth claim in your video:

- that the fade to black in this shot is fine, and due to hitting the tower.

This is absolutely disproven in other Sept Clues videos. The fade to black in this image is without a glitch (unlike the first example above) and takes several frames to come off.

SUPPORTIVE TO SEPT CLUES AND, FURTHERMORE, DAMNING FOR YOUR VIDEO.

Tenth claim of your video:

- that the plane nose going through doesn't look like the nose of a plane.

First, when your narrator does show the full frames without anti-aliasing (rather than the one comp he starts with), some of the frames do look like a plane nose, though the image goes through changes overall, without the anti-aliasing done to it. Second, he does not show a FULL COMP of all frames on the other side without anti-aliasing: to see if the plane on the other side shows as much change without the anti-aliasing as it does on the blow-out side.

He is thus arguing from incomplete evidence.

Second, not only that, he starts from the 2-frame non-anti-aliased comp, which is particularly unrepresentative: on the right side the plane is yet to go through the building; on the left of the comp, it is emerging with distortion from the smoke.

This would not be the key test; nor would the claims the nose has to match within a pixel (given the quality of a faraway TV camera blurry; nor does he show a true comp of all frames (he only shows the "nose-out" side with its smokey effect -- and does not draw your attention to the distortions such an effect would have and why it is important to take early "nose-out" frames for comps, which he did not).

In other words, he is being disingenuous or deceptive, or simply not doing the critical presentations we need.


Finally, the noses do line up with the anti-alasing, within reason; the idea they would have to do so within a pixel, is inaccurate.

DEBUNKED CLAIM (and INCONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE IN TOTAL, ON BOTH SIDES, without further presentations of frames from the right). Plus possible deceptiveness on the part of YOUR video maker.

Eleventh claim of your video:

- that we can't understand what a delayed live feed is -- to which Sept Clues will return later, so even if your video presenter is doing this video in good faith, he would know, if he's listened to all of the video segments.

DEBUNKED INNUENDO.

Twelfth claim of your video:

- that we can't use a general term of "in the short time available" and understand it.

As will become clear in a moment, the short time refers to seeing a plane coming in and zeroing in. There were many planes in the air: why the sudden zoom in perfect centering?

If the start of zoom frame with the grey puff was the motivation for the zoom-in, why did that object not show in the near zoom-pause (where its timing would require it?). We will cover that next.

Anyway, for the "short time available" (which really means the improbable need to zoom in for any plane coming into NYC at that point), this may or may not indicate the camera operator knew to zoom in just then ... therefore,

INCONCLUSIVE ON BOTH SIDES but LEANING TO SEPT CLUES.

Thirteenth claim in the video:

- (innuendo on your video's part) that Sept Clues stopped the video zoom-out before the full zoom out, to hide a frame which shows a fuzzy ball way out on the smoke edge.

First, this is inconclusively a plane at all in the farthest zoom-out. It could be smoke, from so far away.

But more important, since we may be dealing here with a set-frame for the animation, or a missile, thus showing the cameraman to zoom in (for a plane would not have motivated a person to zoom in necessarily at that hour, when no-one supposedly was worried about a second hit) ...

Therefore, second, there is no plane in the zoom pause on the way out. THAT was the point of the segment. And your video misses it deliberately or not.

Now, I cannot remember if it was later in Sept Clues or another video (though I think it's later in Sept Clues), the timing of the plane is shown pretty accurately as NEEDING to be in the first zoom-pause. And it's not.

It is stated here but not elaborated. Thus, perhaps your video is innocent in missing the point or considering it irrelevant without testing (bias). But it SHOULD be in the first zoom-out.


DEBUNKED AND DEBUNKED (2 aspects bearing upon this claim) ... plus SUGGESTS YOUR VIDEO IS NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE WHOLE OF SEPT CLUES (or the other videos on the subject, though I think it was in Sept Clues later that the proof is given) or your video IS DELIBERATELY MISLEADING PEOPLE AWAY FROM THE SECTION WHICH SHOWS THE APPROPRIATE TIMING FOR THE PLANE FOR EACH ZOOM LEVEL.

Fourteenth claim in the video:

- the seizmic data is muddled and "it's not worth it" to try to see what Simon Shack was getting at.

Oh but it is. It may go by quickly, but it is not "muddled" and "not worth it" as your video commentator suggests.

First of all, a study of the seizmic data was done by others and they found they could reduce the timing between the seizmic rumbles, but could never get the putative plane impact to come BEFORE the other rumbles. Thus, there were likely pre-explosions.

Not only that, but later Sept Clues presents very real audio beeps and clicks are 17 seconds apart (with some variation also explained), and these are a common feature of TV when there is audiovisual synching --- and the seizmic data are likely real but the TV is under question, and the seizmic data are the real timing, then this may very well support the audio beeps and clicks on different stations 17 seconds before "impact" as a synch cue, happening when the plane image was about to run live, 17 seconds later.

Fifteenth claim in the video:

- that the antenna of the South Tower was the reason for the putative fade-to-black on so many stations.

A) He disputes it WAS a fade to black, or rather acts as if his previous discussion was enough to show it wasn't -- that it was a glitch. But ...

Your video does not compare these images with the CNN glitch and cut at the start of Sept Clues. These shots here do NOT have a glitch or cut.


In fact, your video would have to go to a subsequent Sept Clues section (or do his own analysis of these shots the way he so obligingly did for the CNN one at the beginning of Sept Clues, with the glitch and cut), in order to see that these ones do NOT have a glitch. They take ONLY pure fade to black effects. It would seem, therefore, that the CUT on CNN determined the glitch, not that the putative fade to black WAS a glitch.

But your video only handled the CNN clip, not these others! Now, the putative fade to black may be one or may not, though in full -- not CNN's version from the beginning of Sept Clues -- it does have characteristics of a fade to black and semingly not a regular glitch.

So is your video merely carelessly smug, slightly dishonest about anything even suggestive of fakery, or outright disinfo?


B) The antenna suggestion:
The antenna didn't affect the shots in other ways. And was completely undamaged as far as can be known. In fact, all non-affiliate local stations were off air (one major station suggested they were knocked off by the antenna), yet all the major stations and one affiliate -- of Fox, I think -- were on the air. Possibly some other affiliates, too. But no purely unaffiliated ones. How selective an antenna!


Thus ...


DEBUNKED CLAIM OF GLITCHES IN THE PUTATIVE FADES TO BLACK (1) -- but the issue of if it was a fade to black itself is STILL TECHNICALLY INCONCLUSIVE FOR BOTH SIDES ANYWAY. The characteristics (without the Cut and glitch in the earlier CNN clip), do leave open the idea of a fade to black, not a glitch.


PROBABLY DEBUNKED (2) -- not only that, but the first point shows again likely disingenuousness again on YOUR video maker's part. Why? Because these shots have no clear glitch and ONLY have the putative fade to black problem, but he does not POINT THAT OUT for honesty's sake.


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

The rest of the video I will do another time.

Suffice to say, your video handles items which are inconclusive for BOTH it and Sept Clues -- making as strong statements as Sept Clues, so neither side is immune from false surety on some inconclusive issues, either, unlike what it suggests by innuendo: that Sept Clues is weird for doing so and it is not.

And finally, suffice to say, for the record, all other non-inconclusive points for both sides find YOUR VIDEO DEBUNKED, and Sept Clues at least potentially and in some cases strongly supported.

Please Lord, make it stop.


R.

Yes. But I know the parallax difference from winter to summer n the fixed stars is slight, so if the earth's seasonal tilt were adjusted by putative Zetas, only the finest differences (away from normally parallax-induced changes) for the fixed stars would be noticeable.

Yes, they would be different, but such parallax differentials' being missing would only be noticeable with good instruments, though.

Not that easily.

So, yes it would ALL be different. But very slightly for the fixed stars IF seasonal adjustment in place continued.

It took several hundred years to actually have instruments fine enough to test the summer/winter differences in parallax for the fixed stars. The differences in them would not be very big. Most people would be fooled.

But not you guys, of course. ;)

Reality doesn't stop, "Reality420".

And though people may not know the WHOLE truth about things, or make mistakes in the MIDDLE of a truth that is known overall, there is obviously far more reality than you'd like to know. That is mere preference.

Boy, that is wrong on so many levels I don't even know where to start.

When are you going to figure it out?

clunker is a troll, idiot and a liar.

The best thing to do is let her rattle on and do NOT reply. The only way to beat a troll is not to give them what they seek, attention.

Yes I am lucky. Good evening Clare welcome to the Thread Wars!

Parallax is the difference in apparent position due to the Earth's revolution about the Sun. Yes, this is very slight, but it can be used to show whether or not the Earth is still orbiting. However, there is a MUCH more obvious method of determining if the Zetas are tilting the Earth to simulate the seasons (if the Earth is halted): the Pole Star. Polaris would no longer be near the celestial North Pole, and everything in the sky would appear to be cirlcing a different location on the celestial sphere.

If you go through the past 20 or so pages, you'll see I don't engage them.

It's like one of those cheap DVDs stuck on a scratch. First it was stuck on the moon, now it's stuck on 911.

I think another quiz is in order. Hell, if mclarek can clutter up the thread with nonsense, so can I. And mine makes more sense. And it's not even testable, there's no right answer!







a) Obama when told he has to make a speech with no teleprompter
b) Reality420 upon seeing another post by mclarek
c) Nancy pleading with Planet X not to strike the earth and annihilate us - oh look! it worked!







a) guys at my ex husband's family reunion in GA
b) clare flying off on another tangent
c) zeta








+ =


a) average college student
b) what Astronut is doing to get over his latest bout with clare
c) what clare did too much of and now she suffers from paranoid delusions






a) clare
b) clare
c) clare






a) James Bond Faberge egg
b) Planet X goes to the senior prom
c) Neo after eating at McDonald's a couple of times




:rap:

a) Obama without a teleprompter
b) jive talker mystified by clare's in depth knowledge of facts and mysteries surrounding Planet X and 911
c) someone struggling to begin a sentence in Spanish




:beaten:

a) Obama getting heckled tomorrow night at his GOM speech
b) 911 WTC victim popping an aneurism from reading this thread
c) clare nails above 911 troofer for faking his own death and manufacturing web memorials

Here's my take on September Clueless.

Re: the Colaio brothers they claim:

[september clueless]No one else has apparently bothered to comment on their very dramatic deaths - in over 8 years! They also share the same official tribute on LEGACY.COM which goes like this:


Which means the "researcher(s)" stopped one mouse click short of discovering that in fact there were 26 pages of comments on legacy.com from 2001 to the present and his/her allegation was completely wrong. Similar info was also available on the first page of results in a Google search.

This is either complete and utter incompetence or deliberate omission.

Take your pick.

You find conspiracy under every pebble and distrust so many sources yet have swallowed this material hook line and sinker.

If I had to guess I'd say they're Sorcha Faal type hoaxers.

Hi.

Yes, yes, and the planets and other stars.

I know that. And never believed we are stopped!

I was only talking of how difficult for some people it would be to tell -- about the fixed stars.

And then added, for fun and honesty, if something supernatural OR unknown but natural, like Zetas bending light and stuff were POSSIBLE, then we would not know.

But it wouldn't be difficult at all. You don't need to do parallax determinations (which would be hard for most people). You just need to look a couple of times at a clear night sky to get an estimate of where the axis of rotation is on the celestial sphere.

Wrong. Unscientific in your inquiry. Keep going: details AND relevant contexts, no stone unturned ... you'll get it ...


Why 1 on CNN? Why commenter names same but commenting right after SAME NAME in database of victims? Why Wainio fakes? Why irregularities in name (generation?) codes? Why many fake photos? Why weird FDNY sims?

Too many irregularities and some impossibilities (outright fakes).

Keep going; contexts ARE okay to figure out with ...

It's just an intelligence op; it's quite common; they just fooled you this time.

I know, hon. (familiarity for fun; not insult or anything)

I merely remarked that the fixed stars would fool us (most of us); not the rest. People (or those who know the sky even a little more than just Moon and Sun, anyway) would notice a lot was off.

:)

Yup. Nice to "see you". :) Hi to your sweetie, too.

{>:-)

Dino guy. I love dinos! Good choice -- har har har.

Totally beside the point. It's about their position in the sky when looking from Earth.



But that has ZERO to do with an allegedly tilted Earth.



Utterly missing the point.



Meaningless.

It is unscientific not to look absolutely rigourously at things you tend to want to agree with (such as the debunking video), and also look extremely openly to things you wouldn't (because ANY kindness we put toward subjects we don't like feels so hard that we may think we're really being open and still not being so).

We have to be very careful to be patient with new ideas -- especially ones we don't like.

Intelligence op. That's "all" -- just an unpleasant set of fakery, so you feel like there's so much stuff to the event; and there's far less ... I mean, that's real. There's a lot of nonsense hanging together IN YOUR MIND and making a tapestry. They DO that: they play with you.

Your idea in laughing is just emotional extreme prejudice.

That's all.

Be a Sherlock, "Sherlock". You will learn something -- even if there are mistakes along the way.

NO ONE but YOU has mentioned parallax in relation to Nancy's claims about the stars. This is another example of you absorbing technical jargon you don't really understand and regurgitating it in inappropriate ways.

Really! I would turn that around on you: Wainio's a fraud set. Simple.

The lips were adjusted a tad; the actual top lip and the rest are the same. You can see the bottom was smudged. The heads vary a tad. The rest is exact.

You have the confirmation bias. I didn't -- I looked hard and some of the photos are duplicates with minor smears or a shadow added (which gives an optical illusion of narrowness and "turns the features" in your mind, but which when measured are the same) ... but some are iffy and may not be problems.

So the pictures are all the same, except where they are not.

Idiotic. I have used parallax correctly all throughout; I corrected Stoopid (a.k.a. Commentator) and was backed up (unofficially) by Astronut on the fact all layers move -- but then he spun off onto an inconclusive test.

I have known of parallax and stars since studying Kepler in university; well, actually, since reading, "The Sleepwalkers", by Arthur Koestler.

AMAZING book; try it sometime if you haven't.

xo! ;)

The POINT is that it has NO PLACE in a discussion of whether Earth has been artifically TILTED, you insufferable loon!

Very funny. Technically true. :)

This would be the case in fact.

But of course in terms of IDENTIFYING problems, we have some definites, some highly likelys, and some maybes or probably nots.

Nevertheless, one could be wrong about some of them either way: one might be a fake and yet you thought it was maybe not -- or vice versa.

But the "good" thing in all this is we have some definites (for those willing a) to look really, and b) to learn a few things about optical illusions).

Wainio is one which can't really fool you, unless you really don't care to know, or you don't know ANYTHING about smudging a mouth and creating thereby the impression of a wider mouth than really the jaw can quite handle (one of them). But it's subtle. And the rest are pretty basic cut-paste jobs, with a bit of tint shift.

No, your POINT there was that I know nothing about parallax.

And the longer point was if there was anything which might fool people or stay the same. Well, the fixed stars ALMOST would.

So why not just get it and be happy someone thought out what the hypothesis entails and why people might be fooled; instead of insisting that because you never took the time, and no-one else did, that it's not an important point!

There would be a lot that would NOT be too noticeably different (even for most amateur astronomers): the fixed stars. That's all. It was a TOSS OFF truth comment and you've dragged it on and on.

Why do you get so angry when someone points out HOW a person could be fooled by a certain Nancy claim? You just want her to be "wrong and a liar leading stupids" -- how uncharitable. People usually have REASONS for not getting something.

Including some fakery (... not even the least obvious type which could really fool most) just because it is found in unhappy situations ... :)

Care to point out exactly where this "correction" happened?

Oh, right, it didn't. You just LIED and made it up.

That is because, clunker, you are a fucking LIAR.