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

"Tu dicis."

Look it up. Hint: Bible (Vulgate) -- oh, look that up, too! :P

By the way, you have not handled the MATERIAL I have set forth. Show me anything important which has been debunked.

:)

It explains nothing. Read my posts (end of page 666-667 top).

Don't fall for ad hominem presentations of people -- even real flaws, dear "scientist" or you are not one.

The work is what counts.

There are others who are less neurotic. Be patient with the people -- Newton was a kook. So was Einstein. Galileo was a pugnacious idiot.

ETC.

Idiotic.

I have explained it better than Menow.

And you can't give that credit where it's due.

Do YOU understand what the ecliptic IS? It is only a band created by our Sun's passes over the year. If the Sun were in any other relation to the Earth, we would have a different "ecliptic" and different passes through different stars. It is WHY we name those stars as such important constellations and mark that line through them, to boot.

You are an IDIOT, Menow. This is what the ecliptic IS. It is the band of stars we care about because it is the line from the Sun's yearly rising points and due to tilt.

You didn't think it had to do with tilt, you dumb--.



I gave you the stupider version finally, the one which you want: the constellation band. But your stupid version is mere superficiality of definition: at root, the 12 constellations are defined by IT, not the other way around.

You lose. Forever. Finito.

Well, Menow doesn't get it. Or didn't, a day ago!

:) "Nothing to do with tilt." Ha ha ha

I stated it in explication of my shortened statement and he still didn't get it and called me worthless, in effect.

HA HA HA

So I gave it again WITH his expected response and all he can go back to is the shorthand comment to try to malign me ---

meanwhile he indicated it had nothing to do with tilt!

STOOOOOPID. Shows HIS knowledge lacking.

:)

So you don't believe NASA is telling the ... <gasp> ... TRUTH?

You mean they could ... LIE?

Hey George,

does your Tricey ever get tired?

ROTFL

Sometimes it tires me out just scrolling by it and reading ...

it just keeps galumping along!

:)

No... I really have no idea how Clare was connecting the 'tilt' with the ecliptic. It made no sense at all.

Nancy's claim is that we are still having normal seasons, even though Earth is halted in orbit, because "zetas" are tilting Earth, and some other crazy stuff, to 'simulate' the seasons, as insane as that sounds. And her followers believe it.

It sure was nice to get back on topic today. I think there is still a troll in the room, but we can keep the discussion on track if we just ignore the pathetic attempts to get our attention. Scrolled past a bunch of trollspam. If I don't read it I can't take the bait.

It was in the 'national forest'. I had met some of those people. I was no longer in contact with them when they got found out, so I don't know much about that part. I DO know that they lost thousands of dollars worth of equipment and supplies over the deal.

I wonder what ever became of 'Queenvee'? Victoria Rideout, I think, was her real name.

Since I never even GAVE an explanation or description of the ecliptic, it is rather telling that you are claiming my 'version' is stupid.

Heh. Wot a maroon!

I don't expect any rational responses from you, Clare, so don't bother thinking that you have baited my into playing your little game again. You have not.

This sentence didn't unquote properly. It was from me in the above.

So YOU refered to TILT when talking about the ecliptic because????

You're simply baiting. In fact, the ecliptic is not affected, in the least, but Earth's axial tilt. Apparently you think it is, or are trolling with that inanity. I have no further use for any discussion of it with you. You are either an idiot or a troll, or both.

I suspect that Clare finally figured out that she was wrong in applying 'tilt' when talking about the ecliptic and is now attempting to scramble the discussion and pretend she was only 'fooling' when she said that, more than once. It's the "I MEANT to do that!" ploy.

Heh.

Gawd Clare is fun to toy with! I still won't contribute to having her derail the thread anymore, tho.

You still don't get it and have no memory for the content of our talk?

"????"

HA HA HA

Massive fail for you. Look, you are such an ... well, a jerk to me, you stepped right into this one and ... HA HA HA

You set up my meanness. :)

Okay,
Here's a recap of your dragging all this out (as usual) to imply I'm stupid and illogical, so that in the confusion which you entangle us in, it's a long and pointless discussion.

You were all hung up on the issue of the Zetas and stoppage; you failed to link that to their tilting us, in the claim; when you did mention each (tiltage and stoppage), you didn't see that the two were composites in the claim; so you didn't get why I suggested the only thing left you haven't testd for in your rigour to debunk it is parallax missing because you didn't see how that has to do with tilt (it doesn't -- it has to do with stoppage); then you forgot again that re-tilting and stoppage are linked in the claim; and you were confused about why I mentioned the claim is half-untestable anyway, as if I believe the "fairies are here" hypothesis; but all I was pointing out all along was that even if you succeeded in ALL tests (including parallax loss for stoppage) you are left only with the tautology in the claim, i.e., that the Zetas are doing a "good job" at hiding their handiwork.

Then the ecliptic came up (in relation to the tilt aspect) and you didn't get that; oh no, I was supposedly stupid to mention it and do't know what the ecliptic is. HA HA HA

And supposedly I should "Google" -- by the way, I use Scroogle, 'cause Google's a creepy company -- "ecliptic".

HA HA HA

You should: but don't stop at the stars along it.

Menow, honestly: the reason the RE-TILTING is mentioned in the Zeta claim AT ALL is because of summer-winter AND ecliptic constellation advancements. (But it fails in getting the latter right, if we're stopped. I'll cover that at the end of this post.)

So ... do YOU know what the ecliptic IS -- not what it can be defined as, in the superficial constellation sense"????"

By your questions and comments, not. :P

All the ecliptic IS is the progression of the Sun DUE TO OUR TILT and how it's ORIENTED at different times of the year.

The Sun rises at a different point each day, CREATING the demarcation "line" of the ecliptic. Its top is the Tropic o' Can., the bottom the Tropic o' Cap.

Why"????"

The ecliptic is merely the POINTS on a line of what we see per day through the year at Sunrise. And it's due to ... THE TILT and its re-orientation at each point in the year's orbit of the Sun.

If the Zetas DID such a thing while we were stopped, however, they could mimic correctly (minus parallax shift) the CONSTELLATION shift along the ecliptic (the ecliptic rise) OR mimic the Sun's position, but not both at the same time.

Why"????"

Well, if they did it correct the tilt for the constellations along the ecliptic, the Sun's position everyday would be ALWAYS IN THE SAME CONSTELLATION. So they'd have to fudge the light (bending the Sun) or whatever, a LOT.

Get it now, "dear""????"

Gosh. I wish you were nicer. This could be a much more interesting and kind discussion.

Suspicions wrong, as usual.

Heh.

No, the CONSTELLATIONS ALONG the arbitrary line of the former ecliptic would remain the same. But we would have a new ecliptic.

The ecliptic is defined as the points our tilt requires the Sun to rise in, over the year; and would be different if our tilt were different.

Those constellations would still be there ("heh", and the line through them ("heh"), which we currently call the ecliptic ... along with all other lines through all other points in the celesial "sphere" of our view. ("Heh.")

But we'd have a new ECLIPTIC>

It means, literally that the Sun progressively ECLIPSES that set of points (line) in the star-view. That is, that line through those stars (the constellations which WE define as important for that natural reason), over the year, get ECLIPSED at Sunrise.

Heh.

Indeed.

If you can take it -- that I have been right all along and made excellent points which you failed to grasp --

then ...

"Jolly Good" and



Let's see you have some decency and humility for once. It won't kill you. Because I don't go for jugulars as you do.

Actually, I was having a lovely discussion, about your ignorance and hubris, which is the only reason it's mentionable. -- Ignorance is not a moral crime, which you forget. Fortunately for YOU, I remember it and don't really hold it against you.

It's only a moral crime if it's willful ignorance -- as some people here have.

And I was discussing some fascinating things I was reading -- about the Biefield-Brown effect, imperfect as the research was, in being a pioneering effort. -- A lovely conversation with a friend.



Not stewing in fear of being wrong. For I was not. (But also, being wrong should never make a person afraid to admit, anyway -- unless people gang up on them for correcting themself, as you do. Otherwise, how would people learn and grow?)

"Heh."

Hubris.

You can "Google" that.

You've been talking to yourself, Clare.

What you've written here has been you talking to you. You've mostly ignored what others have written and you've ignored the links given as proof of your claims having been debunked by others who've actually researched those claims.

You talk to yourself a lot, Clare. But you don't listen and you don't see others. You're not only deaf but you're blind as well.

I get the impression you think the tilt creates only summer and winter; you're close -- but it seems, after all, that you don't understand the tilt ALSO has to do with the ecliptic.

The ecliptic is only demarcated as a line, and those constellations noticed as important, and so named (ecliptic) ...

because the Sun rises at a new point each sunrise, along that particular line in the celestial sphere of view. It ECLIPSES the points along that line, day by day.

It is due to our tilt: that line, instead of another one through the stars, has significance and is called "ecliptic" because the Sun goes through it.

If we have a different tilt, we have a different ecliptic.

The Sun goes through that like because our tilt re-orients our north and south, from summer and winter.

Scrolling past the trollspam...........

Trolls don't care about respect, just getting attention to fill the hole in their pathetic lonely lives.

Anyways, to keep the thread on topic, I am in my 60th year. The end of the world has come and gone countless times since I can remember. My grandfather used to tell me that doom dates had been around all his life too. Some things never change.

No, dear. YOU ignored the full, experienced and effortful responses I made to both your ad hominem link (latest video) and incomplete and misleading link (first anti-TV Fakery video).

I have replied with full information; if you do not do due diligence YOU are wilfully ignorant.

And that is really sad. Really!

God. Really. Be real and LOOK. You are currently willfully blind for I have given you more and excellent information. I know you've been misled and you don't know how willful you're being, but for God's sake, look.

Meanwhile, a simpler task:
Read about the ecliptic, too; for you to say I'm talking to myself means you don't know WHAT the ecliptic is.

Do you know what the ecliptic is?

Do you realize Menow, not I, was the "troll" of ignorance?

You a--.

If ...

If we have a different tilt, we have a different ecliptic.

It's really sad when people talk to themselves. It's sign of mental illness. Good thing GLP doesn't discriminate against crazy people.

This troll is just like so many others we have encountered. Like Volar for example. Whatever happened to that kook? Did he ever receive his telescope? LOL.

Ignorant bully. You are protecting another: Menow.

If we have a different tilt, we have a different ecliptic.

I watched the vids you suggested.

And showed to you that they didn't have such experience with the material as you thought, te one being mere ad hominem with no content anyway. -- I wish they HAD debunked it all.

So, here: you might like a professor of philosophy of science talking in a quick and masterful summary of some of the Pentagon fakery -- with testimony of his own, and from a friend --

Right-click Pastore's name (he's the interviewee, but not the speaker I'm referring to) -- then download and save, so you get the timer (it's not on the on-line Quicktime player). Go to: 36 minutes in.

Friday, May 28, 2010
Albert D Pastore
[link to radiofetzer.blogspot.com]