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

BS you liar. You said before that adjusments could be made by tilting us that would cause some of the stars to appear correctly, the only exception you explicitly stated was parallax, which is a red herring to the issue since there are far easier ways of testing the claim.




Last Edited by Astromut on 06/15/2010 04:26 PM

Sorry.

Thanks.

I thought you'd joined in.

I think I'm gonna go have some juice. It will clear my head.

Thank you for pointing this out -- or should I say, "Putining" this out! LOL!

At least the others will be able to see my rationale -- for I typed it out to "poor Menow".

By the wya, thanks for the vote of confidence from you, too.

Bye,

and (for fun) ;)
xo

So do you now agree that there is no "zeta" wobble and the earth is not halted in its orbit?



Please explain stellar parallax and its meaning in your own words. No bogus links, just your understanding of it.



Your continuing abuse of the scientific method, and mangling of facts has earned you that moniker deservedly. You have a lot of work to do to convince anyone that you have the foggiest clue what you are talking about, and let me tell you now, you have a mountain to climb. You have hijacked a zetatalk thread and spouted your 911 goonery ad nauseum.
This is a PX thread. Why is this so difficult for you to comprehend?


I did. You keep flip flopping. It is next to impossible to know what position you will assume on anything from one moment to the next, and you disguise your position du jour in opaque language, so that nobody really knows what you are rambling on about.


You expend all that energy on a non-existant pink fairy planet? Why?

Crikey: I meant would seem okay to most.

CRIKEY CRIKEY.

I have mentioned parallax and did so several times -- so obviously I know they would not be actually okay. But it would be subtle.

Oh, and by the way, why is it that everyone else can find Astronuts software link, except for you?>

:brkwall: yourself!

That I mentioned parallax problems EVEN in fixed stars means I know that ALL THINGS, even those which would seem okay would NOT BE.

It IS THE PROOF of my knowing that all stars would be off -- but some more than others.

Thus NOT BS and NOT LIAR. The context in which I said, some stars would be okay was clearly in another context yet: that of saying even those would only SEEM okay because of how difficult it is to measure parallax.

Once again sssllloooooooowwwwlllyyyyyyy....

PARALLAX - OF - DISTANT - STARS - HAS - NO - APPLICATION - IN - DETERMINING - ANY - POSSIBLE - CHANGE - IN - EARTH'S - TILT.

Repeat:

PARALLAX - OF - DISTANT - STARS - HAS - NO - APPLICATION - IN - DETERMINING - ANY - POSSIBLE - CHANGE - IN - EARTH'S - TILT.

Repeat:

PARALLAX - OF - DISTANT - STARS - HAS - NO - APPLICATION - IN - DETERMINING - ANY - POSSIBLE - CHANGE - IN - EARTH'S - TILT.

Repeat:

PARALLAX - OF - DISTANT - STARS - HAS - NO - APPLICATION - IN - DETERMINING - ANY - POSSIBLE - CHANGE - IN - EARTH'S - TILT.

Repeat:

PARALLAX - OF - DISTANT - STARS - HAS - NO - APPLICATION - IN - DETERMINING - ANY - POSSIBLE - CHANGE - IN - EARTH'S - TILT.

Repeat:

PARALLAX - OF - DISTANT - STARS - HAS - NO - APPLICATION - IN - DETERMINING - ANY - POSSIBLE - CHANGE - IN - EARTH'S - TILT.

Repeat:

PARALLAX - OF - DISTANT - STARS - HAS - NO - APPLICATION - IN - DETERMINING - ANY - POSSIBLE - CHANGE - IN - EARTH'S - TILT.

Repeat:

PARALLAX - OF - DISTANT - STARS - HAS - NO - APPLICATION - IN - DETERMINING - ANY - POSSIBLE - CHANGE - IN - EARTH'S - TILT.

Repeat:

PARALLAX - OF - DISTANT - STARS - HAS - NO - APPLICATION - IN - DETERMINING - ANY - POSSIBLE - CHANGE - IN - EARTH'S - TILT.

Repeat:

PARALLAX - OF - DISTANT - STARS - HAS - NO - APPLICATION - IN - DETERMINING - ANY - POSSIBLE - CHANGE - IN - EARTH'S - TILT.

Repeat:

PARALLAX - OF - DISTANT - STARS - HAS - NO - APPLICATION - IN - DETERMINING - ANY - POSSIBLE - CHANGE - IN - EARTH'S - TILT.

Repeat:

PARALLAX - OF - DISTANT - STARS - HAS - NO - APPLICATION - IN - DETERMINING - ANY - POSSIBLE - CHANGE - IN - EARTH'S - TILT.

Repeat:

PARALLAX - OF - DISTANT - STARS - HAS - NO - APPLICATION - IN - DETERMINING - ANY - POSSIBLE - CHANGE - IN - EARTH'S - TILT.

Repeat:

PARALLAX - OF - DISTANT - STARS - HAS - NO - APPLICATION - IN - DETERMINING - ANY - POSSIBLE - CHANGE - IN - EARTH'S - TILT.

Repeat:

PARALLAX - OF - DISTANT - STARS - HAS - NO - APPLICATION - IN - DETERMINING - ANY - POSSIBLE - CHANGE - IN - EARTH'S - TILT.

Repeat:

PARALLAX - OF - DISTANT - STARS - HAS - NO - APPLICATION - IN - DETERMINING - ANY - POSSIBLE - CHANGE - IN - EARTH'S - TILT.

Repeat:

PARALLAX - OF - DISTANT - STARS - HAS - NO - APPLICATION - IN - DETERMINING - ANY - POSSIBLE - CHANGE - IN - EARTH'S - TILT.

Repeat:

PARALLAX - OF - DISTANT - STARS - HAS - NO - APPLICATION - IN - DETERMINING - ANY - POSSIBLE - CHANGE - IN - EARTH'S - TILT.

Repeat:

PARALLAX - OF - DISTANT - STARS - HAS - NO - APPLICATION - IN - DETERMINING - ANY - POSSIBLE - CHANGE - IN - EARTH'S - TILT.

Repeat:

PARALLAX - OF - DISTANT - STARS - HAS - NO - APPLICATION - IN - DETERMINING - ANY - POSSIBLE - CHANGE - IN - EARTH'S - TILT.

Repeat:

PARALLAX - OF - DISTANT - STARS - HAS - NO - APPLICATION - IN - DETERMINING - ANY - POSSIBLE - CHANGE - IN - EARTH'S - TILT.

Repeat:

PARALLAX - OF - DISTANT - STARS - HAS - NO - APPLICATION - IN - DETERMINING - ANY - POSSIBLE - CHANGE - IN - EARTH'S - TILT.

GET IT?

Well, where is it in those posts? Or is it in some other?

Help -- instead of be a laugher-at others' inadequacies.

Jerk.

That expresses it perfectly.

UTTERLY FALSE.

Repeat:

UTTERLY FALSE.

Repeat:

UTTERLY FALSE.


Repeat:

UTTERLY FALSE.


Repeat:

UTTERLY FALSE.


Repeat:

UTTERLY FALSE.


Repeat:

UTTERLY FALSE.


Repeat:

UTTERLY FALSE.


Repeat:

UTTERLY FALSE.


Repeat:

UTTERLY FALSE.


Repeat:

UTTERLY FALSE.


Repeat:

UTTERLY FALSE.


Repeat:

UTTERLY FALSE.


Repeat:

UTTERLY FALSE.


Repeat:

UTTERLY FALSE.


Repeat:

UTTERLY FALSE.


Repeat:

UTTERLY FALSE.


Repeat:

UTTERLY FALSE.


Get it?

Do you really think that will sink in?

Doubt it.

I can read.

Apparently you cannot.

BS. That is not what you said before.

The only issue you raised was parallax, it's complete BS to say that covers "ALL THINGS." You intentionally chose a red herring to how such a claim could be easily tested.

It is no such thing, it is proof that you go after red herrings and lie about the things you say. If our tilt were to change, it would not fix the position of ANY star in an earth-halted scenario, it would only introduce additional error and make things even more obvious.

And again you just fell back on the red herring. They would NOT seem to be ok even if you couldn't measure parallax! It's that simple! Their positions in the sky would be completely wrong, the rotational axis of the celestial sphere would be completely wrong causing an obvious problem in the offset of polaris from the north celestial pole (NCP), every telescope that depends on being able to accurately predict the offset of polaris from the NCP would stop working, and every permanently polar aligned telescope in the world would need realignment.

You claim to be a researcher, so go do some research.

Find Astronuts software link, it has been posted no less than 4 times in this very thread.

Or is it that you are too lazy and want others to do your research for you?

Or perhaps you are afraid of something which will challenge your cherished fantasies?

Or perhaps you are really poor at actual research?

Find the link in this thread. Bet you either won't, or are incapable of it.

There are fakes. Wainio's photos are duplicate faces, with slight adjustments.

As I've always said: the people in the photos are fake OR they've been framed after death. This has a CONTEXT -- I repeat CONTEXT -- of the whole intelligence op of 9/11, which makes all anomalies make sense into an hypothesis of further wrongdoing about the victim identities.

It is a fine hypothesis, fits all facts and accounts for any errors along the way. YOURS DOES NOT.

This has nothing to do with blind faith or fanaticism.

Thx, I try to be succinct.

Firstly, this is a PX thread.

Secondly, take your 911 fantasies to a 911 thread.

The other thing about PXers is their absolute inability to absorb anything which runs counter to their beliefs. They simply cannot SEE it! It's like they have large blind spots in their vision and thinking. I know Nancy is that way, and Freestore and Andrew, etc, etc, etc,.... Show them something which would disprove any part of the PX story and they simply CANNOT take it in. They 'avert their eyes' from the offending information so quickly so they don't even grasp that it exists.

Hallelujah! This might be the key to getting Clunk to STFU. If we all call her Clunk maybe she will stop baiting and replying. I bet she is just bluffing though. I don't think she can stop herself from inserting herself into this thread and making a fool of herself.

We all know clunker is a liar so when she says she won't reply to any post that calls her "clunk" she will. Why, see "liar."

It's buried in page upon page of Clunk spam that you yourself have posted. Now maybe you understand how frustrating it is to those of us that don't give a shit about your off topic ravings and try to find topic related posts on this thread. Gawd you are a moron, Clunk.

Plainly, Clare does not read replies to her rambling posts

No, you refuse to see. That's ALL.

If you refuse to call the sky blue when it is, even if there's a cloud in it and you want to focus on that, you are misrepresenting, not me.



There are too many. And the photos have no reason to be faked by others. And the names are in odd code morph groupings, and this is in the context of an intelligence op of the whole day (and before and after, to set it up and cover it up).

There is even a ridiculous photo of a woman on her OWN SITE with an impossible arm -- but it looks ALMOST like a shadow could do it. When you really look, though, it's an impossible arm and was photoshopped.

This is the level of anomaly you see here with Wainio and others -- only Wainio and some others are even more glaringly obvious.

They are from OFFICIAL MEMORIAL SITES and are suspicious photos. Real families should complain and question, wouldn't you think?



You have shown nothing accurate to say they are hoaxers.



The way you go about it, of course you would be banned. To bring up inanities again and again does not further research.

There ARE flaws and over-statements in their work, but that is all; and most of it hangs together very well.

The fact is, many people don't have a legal-type, or philosophy of science language, where they can explain where a piece fits and how it does not have to be conclusive on its own to be PART of a general hypothesis.

Also, most people who present original research do not have the legal-type or philosophy of science language to explain how muc of their work will be able to fit BOTH hypotheses, and so all pieces do NOT have to be exclusive to their argument.

Much of your video -- besides the actually inaccurate coments or baiting language -- siply ends up pointing out how there could be another explanation for some of the stuff. People at Sept Clues are not likely (any more than your video did) to take the "meta-position" and see that BOTH are right on some of the points, and this does not "debunk" Sept Clues (or your video) on these points.

Rather, the issue is inconclusively part of either hypothesis; thus it is perfectly fine for Sept Clues to show their interpretive placement for it.

DO YOU GET THAT?

This is why some people (on either side) will ban people for raising some points. They don't explain what I have just explained to you. But it's true: a pink sweater in a law case "could" fit either interpretation, but it is fine for BOTH sides to mention it with their interpretation.

Some aspects of Sept Clues' work, however, fit the connected full facts -- and some details -- better than their opponents' work. In fact, your video does not handle some of the thornier issues (the 17-second delay, the non-glitch in the Fox putative fade-to-black) even in that Volume 1 of Sept Clues which they took on.

They can't.



No, they ARE. That there would be ONE mention each on CNN's memorial page for them IS odd. It may be okay, but it may not be. Thus, it is weird enough to warrant putting them in with the other possible fakery mess.

Because we have some definite fakery messes, we are doubly obliged to look at all possible fakeries.

And still, SOME OF THE MESS IS/COULD BE FAKE AND THE PEOPLE NOT FAKE, but then, why?



No, you have not.

Work through the items I put to you about the video. And we could work through the rest of the videos by Sept Clues and you would see some startling tidbits mixed in with these first (mostly) suggestive but inconclusive aspects.



Inane.

Why should they NOT if they're fake and they are?

Don't you think if memorial sites got doppel-headed photos up of your loved one, you'd make a comment?

Also, even if they did not, it is up to the DA to defend the victims of a crime: and if the family is a victim of fakery in photos, then Sept Clues is acting as the only DA they have on that issue.



Again, you have no evidence for conning.

And if you do come to recognize it's well intentioned research, even if they get it wrong completely, and still call them cons, then you are merely numbskulled.



No, you sound like a dupe. They are smart: they know how people do't think clearly when they want to believe in sad tales and real people. But they're sloppy and stupid in other ways: this was an intelligence op. All aspects must be investigated. The hijackers and the victims are the least investigated of the whole case. Sept Clues has made a brave salvo and has pointed out several clear fakes and some likely ones; the rest is impossible to know without a real inquiry.

But if you got INTO REALLY UNDERSTANDING their videos before you said they're conning, you might not fall for the innuendoed posturing of the video you sent me ... even if it was well intentioned in its creation ... and the outright blank spots in its argument, i.e., it argued incomplete evidence (only the first video of Sept Clues, which is a) not their whole case anyway, and b) RELIES on some of the other videos to nail down some of the issues) ... and your video left one issue (the fae to black) as if it was settled (the CNN glitch-cut) but by the end this issue came back with a vengeance (Fox's fade to black, with NO glitch) and was not handled.

Anyway ... you are the fanatic closed person with insufficient types of evidence. You do realize, don't you, that "insufficient evidence" doesn't always mean "how much" evidence there is, but can mean what key "types" of evidence there are to disprove something or prove it.

Wake up.

I seriously doubt that the clunker CAN read, except on the most basic level. It is quite apparent she has never read an elementary school science book.....

It fits ALL facts and accounts? How does your “NO PLANES” theory FIT with the scores of “accounts” that claim they saw “planes” fly into the pentagon and WTC? How can you say something like this? I haven’t agreed with this whole “Clare is a troll” thing, but you are starting to make me rethink my position.

One positive effect for me from reading these conspiracy sites and following the PX debate is observing what you've described above, recognizing it in myself (to a lesser extent I hope) and attempting to correct it.

908953 and 1003867

You guys are being simply jerks.

Astronut said I had just quoted it. I took the one I'd quoted and found the other, and neither had it.

So: jerks you be.

As to the "rambling" posts: they ARE replies, dimwits.

Off topic, that's what they are. Idiot clunker. Take it to a 911 thread and stop spamming this one with your clunkspam.