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

No, PURELY scientific treatment of this handles the FULL claim. The FULL claim by Nancy is that there are near-perfect Zetas FOOLING us.

Therefore, finding all normal does not in fact disprove her main claim.

It is UNDISPROVABLE. It is like a God-hypothesis in that sense. A tautology.

But ... if real Zetas are leaving clues, it is PROVABLE. (Highly unlikely, to say the least.) So it's not a purely God-hypothesis untestable PROVABLE thing if "they" leave us clues.

That's how the reasoning works. But it's likely pointless to bother with anyway, because a priori, likely the Zetas are not real OR are real but not messing with a stopped Earth and all other testable aspects of one.

So I suggest you not bother with the claim at all!
Me, I don't. But if I were going to, it's true I'd have to test everything to see if there were "any clue" of the Zeta manipulation. If not, they still hypothetically could be doing it! If so, we're doomed but we proved Zeta manipulation. HA HA HA HA HA

You are a waste of my time, and I have a CNC machine to work on.

Note: No response to this REAL point while Clare wallows in arguments she claims NOT to care about. How droll.

Well, I don't believe it.
But hypothetically reasoned out, a tautology leaves you with an unprovable variable.

In that sense, absolute rigour must acknowledge that you don't know yet, but reason has done its best, and prima facie, the claim is unlikely to be true.

So, it's not a wishy-washy version of "anything IS possible" but rather, we can't test for an untestable postulate.

We can test for a testable postulate: which is that Zetas (in the claim) might leave a clue. If "they do", we'll know. If not then:

a) all is normal in fact.
b) we were unable to test find (test) the existence of perfect fakery by Zetas.

Get it?

This is why I never thought it was true in the first place.
But ... this is where it comes down to: do all tests (if you want) and all you've proved is things SEEM normal.

HA HA HA! I find these logical conundra rather funny. I mean, the claim sounds silly to start, but working out with absolute constrained logic, what situation we're in with a given postulate, is good brain candy, n'est-ce pas? :)

Talk to Astronut. HE is the one who didn't get that light bending wasn't my postulate!



As to the postulate that I don't exist at all: yes, it's the same thing and it's why I said I don't DEAL with this issue from Nancy.

However, you could do your best to prove that ALL "seems" normal (by looking at parallax as the last place the Zetas might hide clues). But then, a) you'd likely find all looks fine and b) Nancy/Zetas could still say the Zetas didn't leave you any clues.

To WHOM do you think you are 'explaining' that, exactly?

You don't really know the "Zeta" claims at all. The original 'light-bending' claim was nothing like what you are citing.

What on EARTH makes you think nobody GETS that but you?

Hey, I never wanted to discuss this. It was you guys who wanted to -- and didn't understand that just proving all's normal doesn't disprove their root postulate: you are dealing with an unprovable postulate (at root), unless "they leave clues" and the only clue area left would be parallax.

I have no real interest in this side of the matter and have only been obliging you (and defending the rigour of reason here, as to what you can and can't do in the face of the tautological claim of Nancy/Zetas).

You have been dragging this out. It is the postulate by Nancy that's the problem, not me.

And it is HER postulates you are fighting. So, you are fighting what is, logically, only PROVABLE if the "Zetas let you see it" and not DISPROVABLE, because all of your tests are of PHENOMENA not ZETAS. So don't blame me here. It's Nancy's claim that's weird.

Now you are CHANGING THE TOPIC.

Which is fine by me, but that's what you're doing.

THE OTHER ONE ISN'T EVER PROVEN OR DISPROVEN, because of the putative Zeta manipulation -- unless the putative "they" want you to know.


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

So far as I know, this other claim you mention (above) is some efect of:

a) electromagnetics (mostly unaccounted for a separate effect on -- charge in -- our solar system).
b) un-as-yet testable dynamics from other dimensions, creating the gravity and electromagnetic effects here.

#1 could maybe be worked out.
#2 is another AS-YET un-provable postulate.

In toto, however, I wouldn't presume to answer that myself. Would you?

I assume it may not be here and all this is bunk -- but it is, again, technically an unknown possible -- meaning, we don't know if it's actually possible, but it's an hypothetical maybe, and untestable at the present time.

(However, it is probably more testable in the long run, than Zeta manipulation of all light reaching a stopped but manipulated-tilt Earth).

You are the one that keeps discussing it! Fuck. Let's ask and see how many people here want to discuss it with you - raise your hands. Now everyone that wishes clunkspam would just fuck off to her own thread and leave this one alone, raise your hand. You said you wouldn't reply if we called you clunk. Another lie. Trolling twat that you are!

First, you and others keep saying, "there's no proof of it" as though the claim involved a mere stopped Earth, with no magical element -- deception.

Second, you dragged out the issue.

Third, you didn't want to hear that your claims can only PROVE Zeta clues, and not even that if "they" don't leave any; and you cannot DISPROVE the statement no matter what you do.

You can disprove the Moon and Sun stuff -- but only that they SEEM out of place. Her main claim cannot be disproven: that things are off and the Zetas hide it. Heck, the Zetas could be lying to her and the Moon isn't the clue; the stars are!

At least I thought of some testable phenomenon (parallax) which you haven't tested yet. That's all I was saying.

But it's a silly pursuit, I hazard to guess -- and as you think, too! :)

Enough.

Any time I raised it it was as a brain teaser. I raised it for fun and in total constrained scientific logic: of what you can and can't know -- but how useless it would likely be.

These others have been so fascinated with it and with saying "we know" what's out there that they never admit the tautological aspect of the proposition in detailed terms: what is and what is not knowable, and under what conditions.

I have done so and it confused them as to why. They even thought I bought the fairy-land aspect of it. I clearly don't. But with total rigour I laid out what the situation entails.

And in their miffed ego way (which I'm getting used to -- sigh) they kept saying there was:

a) no reason to bring up parallax (though it's the only phenomenon they haven't tested yet)
b) magic can't exist (when in truth, it's merely untestable unless the magician lets you in on the secret in this case, so to speak)
c) some wish of mine to discuss it (when I am merely laying it out and wanted to be done with it, which is why I kept saying, "It's not likely to be worth it, so I wouldn't bother")

What you seem to think is that I discuss such silly side-lines as because they're true. NO. I discuss them AS THOUGH they're true, so that we can find out what we CAN AND CANNOT DO to find out if they're true.

It was others who wouldn't understand that who went off onto tangents about what is parallax, or my character, or other people who believe anything "IS" possible.

Instead, not anything IS possible, but anything can be considered HYPOTHETICALLY possible until it's testably not so or not likely. That's all.

I am merely intellectually curious about it all. I do not have an axe to grind about some of Nancy's claims, such as this one. So many of you assume that to have something to say on an issue, one's whole belief system must be wrapped up in it. No. I am merely laying out the reasoning around a near-tautology.

However ...

I DO wonder about our magnetosphere's holes of repulsion while the Sun was attracting us, though! Mighty odd. PX or not!

Finito.

You are quite simply out of your mind.

Do you see where I'm quoting YOU, and responding to YOU? I put it in italics now, just for you.

Did you read what I said, at ALL? Hint: It's in bold.

You mean that Nancy inserted 'magic' into her claims so that no on could be *sure* she was wrong. Cute! Problem is, I KNOW Nancy has told obvious falsehoods to numerous to count, over the years. Now you want me/us to take THIS wild claim of hers seriously? Just because she has the temerity to SAY it????

Surely you jest. NO... I suspect you're serious.

You, on your own, by your widdle self, have just decided that no astronomers on the planet have done experiments involving the parallax of distant stars in the last 7 years?

Really??

Yes. I read it. Hint: My reply is in bracketed alphanumeric order and subsequent statements. That's all I have to say on it.

Do you have anything to contribute to the issue? Do regale us with your thoughts on the "matter." (Pun intended.)

By the way, I never heard it was at near light speed on its putative way in. Where did you hear that?

And I have a question for YOU, Menow, on a change of subject (or rather a meta-subject): are you ever NICE when you discuss issues of PX? LOL!

And I have a question for Clunk. Do you ever shut the fuck up?

No, you brought up parallax as a proof for Earth-tilt when it has no bearing.



Lie.



Bullshit. You simply wouldn't accept that no one gives a fuck about it but you.



Needless condescending crapola.



And you have the insufferably huge ego to believe that nobody but YOU understands that concept.



Would that it were so...

I see. So you think I was raising it for discussion. I wasn't at the time.


I was bringing it up as a side-thought to the interminable issue of the un-provable stoppage of the Earth -- given that that was not merely postulated but that Zeta manipulation was part of the claim to start with.

But anyway, I know there must be more to electromagnetism than is mentioned/ directly accounted for in the solar system. That's why I mentioned it might have some effect on a putative PX's movements around the Sun.

But maybe there are other aspects of planetary action which are obscured in our ordinar experience, that is, our equations hide them, and the implications are not clear until a special circumstance brings them to our attention, or someone fills in the full ramifications from e-m ... for e-m on metal always induces CHARGE.

Given that, and the changing face of research into gravity and e-m connections in some quarters of the scientific community, who am I to say the Zetas might not be right about this one? I simply don't know.

I do know, though, that e-m might very well be part of a repulsive effect if there were a PX with a metallic core composition, like the Earth.

I just pointed out the contradiction in the claim. Did you miss it?



Really? Where do you think?




YOU said I hadn't noticed other aspects of the "Zeta" claims and I asked you to describe one. You did, and I posted some details about the claim. NOW, you refuse to say anything more about it? It was YOU who went on and on about unknown forces controling planetary movements.

You said it, you unrepentant twat.




The mind is all out of boggle.

Of course it does, but not on Earth-tilt, on STOPPAGE.

If we're stopped, there would be no parallax shift on the fixed stars -- duh. And it's the ONE thing you haven't tested.

I wouldn't bother, though, but then again just because I don't believe putative Zetas are doing physical light-bending "magic" on us doesn't mean they may not in fact be -- for it's untestable.



That's stupid. Literally.

It's the tautological nature of magical claims, is all. Surely you know that, having said yourself that one can't prove a tautology (such as "prove I don't exist", or a "fairies did it" claim).



No. I have NO INTEREST IN THIS ASPECT and shied away from it to start; only I mention it in passing when I point out that technically you haven't tested everything you can in this near-tautology of a claim by Nancy/Zetas.

I am presenting you with the flaws in your own work and the natural silliness of Nancy's claim, at the same time.

My energy isn't in this. I kept replying once you got so uppity about it and confused as to the extent of what you can and can't know about a "magic" claim.

You have one last thing to test for if you want to prove things truly do seem normal: parallax for stopped motion. All the rest is tested and the Zeta believers are wrong or the Zetas are covering up well ...

But still, parallax final test or not, all you can know at all in a putative tautology is:

a) all's fine
b) the Zetas are covering it up well

This is the silliest waste of time, Menow. I wish you wouldn't keep going on and on about what I've already laid out and is de facto logically true: it's a near tautology. But you have one area you haven't tested for consistency of appearances: parallax.




No. Truth.

This is what you keep MISSING.

You MUST consider a thing true temporarily to work out the full hypothesis. This is science. Then you compare.

And it's clear you don't sometimes: because you make lots of a priori assumptions about what data will be found and what will not, and then when someone points out that it's still not PROVEN because it's a tautology, you either say, yes it is because the claim "has to be" bunk; or you say, "of course it's unprovable".

:-/



No. You still mis-apply the concept.

As you said: no-one before me applied it to the concept of the stopped Earth before (as you said).

The reason they didn't recognize its place (small as it is) is likely that they considered only that only looking at major effects would disprove the claim of Nancy/Zetas. But LOGICALLY that's not true.

Logically -- though likely pointlessly -- you have one more test to do.

And logically -- though likely fruitlessly -- all you're disproving is PHENOMENA and not putative magic cause (Zetas) anyway.




It is, if you'd stop saying what I'm saying isn't relevant (when LOGICALLY it is, though it's a fine point).

Anyway, as I said,
I DO wonder about our magnetosphere's holes of repulsion while the Sun was attracting us, though! Mighty odd. PX or not!

What do YOU have to say on THAT one? It is far more likely to indicate a PX or some other weirdness in the solar system!

I suppose you mean "repulsion force": well that WOULD slow down an object (say, electromagnetically) as it approached.

And once slowed it might still be pushed or pulled in curents and in changes of the Sun, or as its poles faced different directions.

So ...

?



Well, I don't listen only to Nancy on the PX issues. I've heard other people talk of it and say many different things, some contradicting each other. So I was curious.



Huh?

Oh! Back there!

Okay.

Well, that is an interesting claim: I mean, it might be electromagnetic effects and/or stuff happening we don't know yet. I didn't go on and on about unknown forces; I went on about electromagnetics in the solar system giving CHARGE and going largely undetected as a separate phenomenon. I did say, though, that we might not know all forces or HOW they interact -- and that is similar to the Nancy/Zeta claim.

I do think maybe theirs is to cover for a lie possibly; but I am merely trying to present other scientists' interest in as-yet-unfinished knowledge. And there is quite a bit, in the e-m and gravity field areas of science.

What do you think about the issues?

:)
Hope you enjoy Koestler's book. Are you going to get it out of the library/ buy it?

Doing that to anyone's prose, Menow, will make them look silly.

It's called an ad hominem attack -- but using deception along the way, too (not a mere innuendoed factoid).

There were 2 dozen eqs around San Diego a day or two ago,

plus India's massive quake, plus a whole bunch around the world yesterday: 5.4 in Taiwan, 4.9 in Japan, 4.5 Costa Rica, 4.7 Indonesia, 5.7 in Baja, and 5.0 off Alaska.

Plus a whole bunch of people around the world wrote in to GLP that their magnetic compasses were pointing wildly.

Thread: huh !!! my compass ain't pointing north - is it broken ???

If this is all natural, then great. But could it be PX effects?

Hm.

Maybe since Alaska gets a lot of eqs anyway, it's normal, and the others were due to the large India one. But the magnetic compasses might be a register of the seizmic activity.

You think?

I was bringing all this up because it's two things the ZT is always going on about: quakes, magnetism.

And a mag 7 in Indonesia just now.

Now ... if PX effects were getting going and plates are rumbling for a roll and crunch and drop and so on, as Nancy claims ...

!!

On the other hand: where is PX?!

Does anyone here have one of those fancy amateur Solar telescopes?

Related to all the eqs and the magnetic oddities (if they were real) maybe is this:

"the babelfish translation is very bad, but basically says gas capsuled underground case a huge explosion on Chimalhuacacn a neighborhood in suburban area of Mexico city cause a crack of more than a kilometer affecting 400 homes.

look at the picture"

[link to babelfish.yahoo.com] for this original [link to www.eluniversal.com.mx]

They say it's a gas explosion in a weak area of Mexico City -- which means the ground shifted and the explosion was secondary.

A kilometre-long gash of ground shifting. Whatever these events are from -- linked, not, or partly linked -- even if it's not PX, is very striking lately.


Anybody have one of those amateur telescopes that can see through the corona?