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

You are actually saying you can't find where Astronut posted the link to the software to open FITS files?

Hello???

Earth to Clare....

He even requoted those sentences to you after you denied it had been given.

Geebus, Clare, how do you feed yourself?

I never said there was. And it was handled in the beginning when people mentioned pendulums. And I said, yes, they would show we are moving -- unless we have some supernatural/Zeta thing going on, but I don't know that (nor do you).

I repeated and repeated I don't believe we're stopped.

Do YOUR homework.




You are such a jerk that your "simple little questions" for me are clearly baiting: as if I don't know what parallax is!

I am the one who BROUGHT IT UP: about video fakery on 9/11 (spawning Astronut's ill-fated inconclusive experiments to see what parallax shifts there were), AND about stars.

Seeing as you are simply STILL assuming I am stupid and ignorant, and thus ending up wasting my time, no. FUCK OFF.



I am the one challenging YOU to use the scientific method to its fullest: not to fall for simple debunker threads or videos on topics they do not properly assess.

So F off.




Again, the Latin is ad nauseam -- which I point out because if you KNOW you don't likely know something and it's not a genuine slip-up, so you KNOW you don't know Latin, then check it out.


And what I have said is not goonery. That is YOUR flaw coming in. Do the FULL analysis of both sides, and you'll find the side you PREFER EMOTIONALLY doesn't work; the one you don't does work, but has some errors, too, as an on-going investigation would.




Someone tried to insult topics I know quite a bit about and I dared to reply. Since then, people who are willfully blind (trust only the discounters of the theory, but not working through the theory itself, and therefore are UNSCIENTIFIC), have insisted on being dumb about it, and I keep replying to help them see they didn't represent the facts in their FULL implications and position.



This is called NEUTRALITY: neutrality (read Aristotle) is to take on fully the weight of any position, so as to know its full nature, and do so for other positions.

In the end, the middle point is knowable (the "golden mean"): and is NOT a set middle point, but will vary from condition to condition.

So, I take on one bit here -- another side there -- and play around with the concepts figuring them out, while KEEPING IN MIND the ultimate purpose, which is to know what we can know about PX hypothesis, and to know what we CAN'T know about it, and see if it's definable either way.

Plus, in the PROCESS (which you call flip-flopping, because you can't see the higher dimension on which the centre is found) I have found some interesting questions along the way: such as, what the heck are the REPULSION holes in the magnetosphere from? And what is electromagnetism doing in our system WITHOUT OUR COUNTING IT as a charge on the objects of the system? ... and so on.

You can't see the overview so you think it's rambling.



That's your assumption, isn't it.

First: one learns things BY the inquiry.
Second: it would be life-death if it were here, so it's worth getting all information to show it's not.
Third: if it's not here, that's good but we have learned things along the way. (Which is like point the first, but point the first doesn't assume we have or have not a PX. So point the third is more about what we gain from our inquiry specifically if PX is not real.)

Setheory,

the witness accounts are NOT as smooth as you think. There should also be THOUSANDS of people saying they saw a plane right then.

a) there were a lot of things in the air that day
b) many said they thought they saw a missile
c) some said they saw flashes coming from WTC7 during the destruction of the WTC 1 & 2, when they turned to dust
d) many said they saw explosions but didn't see anything else

And many witnesses would later also have confirmed their accounts to seeing TV, which would have told them their seeing "something going fast" was a plane.

The accounts do not in fact hold together coherently.

Plus, there are parallax problems in several videos. We got 'em. Oh, and there are the 2 helicopters in mutually exclusive positions ... and the 17-second delay beeps for synchro (which match the problem of the seizmic data) ... and so on.

And the unmanoevrability to hit a vey fast-approaching narrow target, which John Lear pointed out, due to loss of engine air pressure capacity. Among other things ...

And so on. And on. And on.

Earth to Menow, I quoted his quotes.

Did I miss one?

Fine.

Point it out please. Stop picking on oversights. They are oversights and I went to the trouble to try to find his linked posts.

All the rest is mere nastiness.

I re-post for people and answer as best I can.

(Well, the idiot who called me the parrotted name from Commentator and then asked if I kenw waht parallax was, because supposedly I know nothing in all my comments -- him I didn't answer on that.)

By the way, did you check out Koestler's "The Sleepwalkers"?

I hope you love it, as I did -- if you haven't read it yet.

It started off as a bio of Kepler and then the author expanded it into a general history of cosmologists (astronomer-philosopher-mathematicians-etc.), with a view to their philosophical insights and the shifts in those insights.

:)

Hope you enjoy.

p.642

And you make NOTHING out of the fact that Nancy and "Zetas" are lying about that?



(The one almost-exception would be the toughness most people would have in figuring out the fixed stars' lack of parallax difference, as that's slight -- so they would look okay to many people, even most amateur astronomers).


That detail is equally absurd, each time you repeat it. Almost anyone could see that the major seasonal constellations were missing when they should be obvious in the sky.



No one said you don't know what parallax is, you blooming idiot. It is that you are, as usual, wallowing in uneeded minutia. See above.



And, as I pointed out, you applied parallax where it is not really helpfull. It's just you, pretending to know how to determine if something is wrong in the sky in the MOST difficult way, rather than the simplest. See above.

(snip)

Clare:

I was commenting on your claim that your “fine hypothesis, fits all facts and accounts” and this is simply not true. And yes, there were probably many hundreds or thousands of people that saw the planes. Do you actually think every account is going to be documented? For God’s sake, my friend watched the second plane hit and he has never given an official story and I’m sure the majority of the witnesses are like him. This is what one would expect. I am sure MANY people saw only an explosion and again this is exactly what you would expect, as people who heard an explosion and turned to see what it was would not see the source! None of this fits your theory; it is WHAT ONE WOULD EXPECT. I have not seen many(any?) people who said they saw a missile, but it would not surprise me if a few existed as the planes were traveling at 500 mph!

Yet you claim your “NO PLANES” theory fits ALL FACTS AND ACCOUNTS!

AMAZING!

THAAAANK you.

:)

Just because some people said they saw one does not mean they did. Their evidence has other explanations: they saw other items in the air; they assumed after seeing it on TV; they saw a missile; and so on.

Thus, the hypothesis FITS all facts; it has accounting for all facts.

The other does NOT fit the anomalous fakery and the air pressure issues and the lack of appropriate debris (but that is a separate kettle of fish: what debris was found/not found, and what debris was photographed AND under what circumstances).

Well, now that is interesting.

I find it interesting the Zetas are (not necessarily Nancy: her visions are -- if she's having visions).

I think Nancy herself believes it and is not willing to think through the whole science of it ... because she tends to think (I adjudge) that she is merely being set upon instead of CHALLENGED.

And unfortunately, a lot of her challengers -- du auch (German: "you, too") -- are debunkers, not disprovers. There is a difference. A theory may be debunked, but a person who IS a "debunker" is living a posture, not necessarily spouting total truth.


[quoting:Menow]
(The one almost-exception would be the toughness most people would have in figuring out the fixed stars' lack of parallax difference, as that's slight -- so they would look okay to many people, even most amateur astronomers).


That detail is equally absurd, each time you repeat it. Almost anyone could see that the major seasonal constellations were missing when they should be obvious in the sky.

Not if the tilt were being fixed. If we were being tilted, the constellations would show. Yes?

But other things would be wildly off over time (the planets, particularly).

The parallax difference in the relative positions would also be changed in the far stars, but hard to detect. It was all I meant.


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

You are such a jerk that your "simple little questions" for me are clearly baiting: as if I don't know what parallax is!


No one said you don't know what parallax is, you blooming idiot. It is that you are, as usual, wallowing in uneeded minutia. See above.


I am the one who BROUGHT IT UP: about video fakery on 9/11 (spawning Astronut's ill-fated inconclusive experiments to see what parallax shifts there were), AND about stars.


And, as I pointed out, you applied parallax where it is not really helpfull. It's just you, pretending to know how to determine if something is wrong in the sky in the MOST difficult way, rather than the simplest. See above.

(snip)

Note: NO response.

Note: NO response.

It would not be the determinant of tilt. It would show we are stopped -- but so would other things. Unless the OTHER things are being changed by Zetas to fool us (light bending or whatever). Then maybe they missed the fixed stars' parallax problem.

So, now, if Zetas bothered to adjust the planets, they might not quite bother with all the fixed stars. In that case, if there are Zetas, maybe they slipped up and we can test whether we're stopped, using parallax.

I mean, it's probably silly, but still, one could test that, since all else seems to be fine.

It was merely an hypothetical thought experiment, Menow.

a) If there are Zetas
b) If they are tilting us and adjusting the planets
c) If they missed the farthest stars' parallax light adjustments
d) Then we could test the parallax and know if we're stopped.

It's a lot of IFs, some of them a priori, seemingly highly unlikely.

But ... it's an interesting, probably useless, but interesting question.

Your problem here is your previously stated premise that pieces of evidence that are not conclusively proven can nevertheless be incorporated into a hypothesis.

You're rejecting the overwhelming majority of the eyewitness reports due to confirmation bias and you're supporting your theory with falsehoods.

No, you're completely out to lunch on this one and making yourself look like even more of an idiot.

But Menow -- the SUN wouldn't rise in the constellations appropriately, unless it too is bent in light.

Anyway, I consider this one of the stupidest or most possibly lying elements of the Zeta/vision/Nancy claims.

The tilt would put the constellations in the right place, but not the Sun.

'Interesting'? Not an indictment of veracity?

Quoting: mclarek 1004307
I think Nancy herself believes it and is not willing to think through the whole science of it ... because she tends to think (I adjudge) that she is merely being set upon instead of CHALLENGED.


As if the 'whole science' of it is complicated? It simply is not... and Nancy bends over backward to CONTRIVE false evidence that "Zetas" are right about it. It is a blatant system of self-supporting lies. Period.

'Challenged'? Challenged by whom? What are you talking about?

Quoting: mclarek 1004307
And unfortunately, a lot of her challengers -- du auch (German: "you, too") -- are debunkers, not disprovers. There is a difference. A theory may be debunked, but a person who IS a "debunker" is living a posture, not necessarily spouting total truth.


You seem to be indicting someone, perhaps me, for something... but your are being vague and cryptic. Why?


[quoting:Menow]
(The one almost-exception would be the toughness most people would have in figuring out the fixed stars' lack of parallax difference, as that's slight -- so they would look okay to many people, even most amateur astronomers).


That detail is equally absurd, each time you repeat it. Almost anyone could see that the major seasonal constellations were missing when they should be obvious in the sky.

Not if the tilt were being fixed. If we were being tilted, the constellations would show. Yes?


What? I mean huh? I mean, wtf does that even mean?

Quoting: mclarek 1004307
But other things would be wildly off over time (the planets, particularly).


Wrong. Every single thing in the sky would be 'off' by the exact same amount. Do I need to repeat that 25 times more for you?

Quoting: mclarek 1004307
The parallax difference in the relative positions would also be changed in the far stars, but hard to detect. It was all I meant.


And you APPLIED that to detecting changes in TILT, you fucking lunatic!

Quoting: mclarek 1004307
Please explain stellar parallax and its meaning in your own words. No bogus links, just your understanding of it.

You are such a jerk that your "simple little questions" for me are clearly baiting: as if I don't know what parallax is!


No one said you don't know what parallax is, you blooming idiot. It is that you are, as usual, wallowing in uneeded minutia. See above.


I am the one who BROUGHT IT UP: about video fakery on 9/11 (spawning Astronut's ill-fated inconclusive experiments to see what parallax shifts there were), AND about stars.


And, as I pointed out, you applied parallax where it is not really helpfull. It's just you, pretending to know how to determine if something is wrong in the sky in the MOST difficult way, rather than the simplest. See above.

(snip)



I wondered how Clare would claim to be 'differently right' about this. And now we see it in action!

Quotes didn't work right. I don't care to fix it, since Clare ignores most of what is posted to her anyway.

No, there is no "overwhelming majority" in that many people were not given a chance to give uninfluenced impressions.

And if they saw a bunch of interrelated smoke-and-mirrors effects, they would put them together as if the totality held together ...

But it seems instead that the few reports we have ON THE GROUND in the first few minutes after the 2nd hit suggest only a missile or nothing.

So, we have to look at the pieces, not what we're told even by witnesses as a "sum" total. We have other elements of fakery, so why fake if there were planes?

Thus, it is worth asking how witnesses actually do contradict each other and maybe it's the contradictions that work, not the assumptive "plane" seeers.

YOU applied it to 'tilt'.



Gawd, Clare... You constantly wallow in what 'might be' rather than face obvious facts.



Gawd, Clare... You constantly wallow in what 'might be' rather than face obvious facts.



Gawd, Clare... You constantly wallow in what 'might be' rather than face obvious facts.



Gawd, Clare... You constantly wallow in what 'might be' rather than face obvious facts.



Gawd, Clare... You constantly wallow in what 'might be' rather than face obvious facts.



Gawd, Clare... You constantly wallow in what 'might be' rather than face obvious facts.

THAT IS AGAIN UNFAIR!

So I should ignore it. :P

Or rather -- AGAIN, the reason for all my posts is REPLIES. And eventually I try to get to everybody I can, who is not baiting or nasty -- and even many of those I reply to.

:P

Look, there are a number of people here who know a hell of a lot more about astronomy than you do and who have thoroughly investigated Nancy's claims for years.

Do you really want to learn? Why aren't you listening?

And that means NOTHING to the veracity of that source of 'information'??????????

Idiotic.

Clare, why don't you just imagine that "Zetas" are Gods or fully Magical and can manipulate everything around us at will, and be done with it?

That's okay, Menow. Quotes sometimes mess up.



I do think it's interesting. If we have Zetas, then why did they put it in? Disinfo to make sure people like you don't notice any other aspects of the claims? Or are they visions from human agencies who want to run a Project Bluebeam? Or what?

Or is Nancy just a shit? I know you think this; I don't get that sense from her manner overall -- I get the impression she believes it.

[quoting:Menow re. an exchange of mclarek to an AC baiter]
Please explain stellar parallax and its meaning in your own words. No bogus links, just your understanding of it.

You are such a jerk that your "simple little questions" for me are clearly baiting: as if I don't know what parallax is!


No one said you don't know what parallax is, you blooming idiot. It is that you are, as usual, wallowing in uneeded minutia. See above.

Wrong. This other guy went on to say he needed me to prove I know it -- because supposedly I am a (parrotted term) "clunk".



Well, if ALL other items were recreated by Zetas with light bending or whatever, then the only thing which SEEMS okay which is left not OBVIOUSLY off would be the parallax on the fixed stars.

If you tested that, then you'd either a) find it's fine (and then maybe Zetas are fixing it, too -- God hypotheses are like that), or b) you would finally find proof it's off, and the Zetas missed it. (The Zetas are supposedly leaving a few "clues" so if you take that seriously, then they wouldn't leave it in simple ways -- they could be lying about the Moon, etc. being off when really a problem with stellar parallax could be the clue they left.)

:)

Learn what, in this case?

The stellar parallax is not so noticeable; IF there are Zetas they could have left a clue there and lied about leaving clues with the Moon and planets (they say those are off and those are the clues, but they may not be). That's all I meant.

And I am right that the constellations would be okay with merely a tilt (except for parallax lack on them, not so noticeable), but the SUN would not be okay, or the planets -- without another shift: in their light or something.

I think it's moot and we're not stopped; but one could test stellar parallax and then hope it's fine ... but as I said, hypothetically speaking, since there is a posit of a God-like hypothesis, if the parallax is fine, it doesn't DISPROVE the Zetas and manipulation (since that's a perfectly untestable claim if they do their job perfectly), but if there IS parallax problem it would prove they exist and are not doing their job properly.

It's kind of silly, but true that this is what you COULD do to figure out if the Zetas made any mistake -- since the rest is fine, or seems fine (if the Zetas are fooling us). So all that's left is the parallax on the far stars. If the Zetas messed up, it would be the only place left to test.

You must mean idiotic to CONTEMPLATE -- but as to the fact ... it's fact.

Our tilt is what changes the constellations in our sky (except the parallax issue) -- well, add to that precession over long periods.

But the Sun's position IN the constellations also shifts as we revolve. So the putative Zetas would have to change that, too.