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

You guys really ARE such egos! Wow. You can't figure what I'm saying from what I'm not, so you attack me?


I didn't say you didn't think through ASTRONOMY -- I said you didn't think through the implications OF IT for THIS ASPECT of the ZETA CLAIM!

Anyone who could say the ecliptic isn't related to our tilt, when we were talking of stoppage, so the context was clear it was the ecliptic's position relative to earth which was at issue ... and STILL not get that stoppage with tilt could affect the constellations of the ecliptic OR the Sun to give the right seasonal warmth ...

WHO? I know who! Meanow! And others ...

Is a real DUM-DUM in not THINKING IT THROUGH.

So ...
HA HA HA HA HA HA

Tell that to Liz Wainio's family.

Seems like with your vast expertise on just about everything you should be the Prime Minister of Canada by now.

Guess the Illuminati have you on the blackball list, eh?

since you are so worried about a Wainio reaction

Clunk is the one with an ego. We can't figure out what she's saying because to anyone with a minimum of knowledge of astronomy, it doesn't make sense. We attack you because you insist on spamming the thread with your inane arrogance. Instead of learning from people like Hap, The Commentator, Astronut, to name a few, people who have infinitely more experience than her, she has made it her mission to "educate" them. If that isn't an out of control ego, I don't know what is.

Clunk is the one with an ego. We can't figure out what she's saying because to anyone with a minimum of knowledge of astronomy, it doesn't make sense. We attack you because you insist on spamming the thread with your inane arrogance. Instead of learning from people like Hap, The Commentator, Astronut, to name a few, people who have infinitely more experience than her, she has made it her mission to "educate" them. If that isn't an out of control ego, I don't know what is.



Healthy ego -- yes.

Staning up to your idiocy, yes.

Encouraging you to think fully through all pieces, yes.

Making mistakes on small things or side issues while you miss big ones yes -- and no I'm not just trying to be fancy: you really step in cowpies substituting for the big ideas quite often and act like I do.

So ...

Console yourselves with your posts.
Continue with your nonsense to bury the moments of truth you couldn't face.

I have real interesting people to deal with. And a sun to soak up rays from.

:)

Bye.

Good luck anyway.

You guys really ARE such egos! Wow. You can't figure what I'm saying from what I'm not, so you attack me?

Actually, I don't think he agreed with your premise at all. Ask him. He simply said "except" and you RAN with it.
Quoting: Menow 1003573


Of course you don't.

Surely you now see it and just can't admit it.

Or you are a dum-dum.

Take your pick.

Bye, Meanow.

Rant to yourself from now on.


Nice day. I'm outta here while the Sun still shines, the constellations progress over the year, both are in the right order, and so on.

If we were stopped, the fact is that our tilt (equator relationship to the ecliptic plane) would be consistently wrong, so:

Equator relationship to the ecliptic plane? Good lord, take an astronomy course before spouting off. The celestial equator (which is the earth's equator projected onto the sky, the correct term and way of understanding what you were trying to poorly describe) is always at the same angular separation from a point on the ecliptic plane at the same right ascension at all points along the equator at all times.

a) the Sun would be in one constellation

Has nothing to do with the gobblygook bullshit about horizon constellations you spouted earlier.

b) whenever day we stopped would determine the day we STAYED AT

Has nothing to do with the gobblygook bullshit about horizon constellations you spouted earlier.

c) if the Zetas tipped us up and down toward the Sun, they could simulate the seasons (because the Sun rises higher relative to our equator, with the ecliptic rising also), DUE TO OUR TILT ANGLE RELATIVE TO THE SUN over the orbital period. The tilt would be like this:

Has nothing to do with the gobblygook bullshit about horizon constellations you spouted earlier.

d) but since the Sun would be in one spot still, i.e., one constellation, the Zetas could choose to fix all constelaltions INSTEAD of the Sun's timing ... and do a precession on our tilt, a very quick (yearly) precession like the little robot below:

You couldn't fix ANY constellation by shifting the tilt! That's not how the constellations move! Forget the sun's timing, it doesn't matter, if you change the earth's tilt, every single constellation will look wrong in the sky. The north star will cease to be at the right offset from the north celestial pole and with it every other star will be shifted out of its proper location. You would not be fixing any constellation by tilting the earth like the stupid robot.
This would correct the constellations for the year

Wrong.

Now, think before you spout that something's gobbledygook.

It IS gobblygook, and you should learn astronomy before you spout more of the same garbage.

So ...

to you who are so stupid to think I am actually arrogant or stupid ...

Here's one done with a dark and light top and bottom for the ecliptic plane represented on earth -- thus a line demarcation of where the plane is. NOTE TILT IMPORTANCE. [link to www.physicalgeography.net] I had another with just the lines represented but it was in a book I was reading -- I don't keep track of such things. It's just the simple way to show the cross-section of the plane with the tropics and equator.

snips rest of clunks trash



I KNOW I said that I wouldn't get dragged into it again, but AGAIN clunk shows she has either has serious reading problems (not impossible obviously to her often incorrect and usually inappropriate word usage)
OR is deliberately trying to mislead people.

She obviously didn't even bother to read the text that accompanied that diagram, and certainly did not actually answer the question actually asked but her own (as usual) misinterpretation of it.

so here it is again clunk- see if you can figure out by yourself what is wrong with what you gave as an answer ( [link to www.physicalgeography.net] to Menow's question "Show me a drawing where the ecliptic is a static line on Earth's surface as those other three are."

now is your chance to excel and show us all that you CAN indeed both think and be taught, and learn from your mistakes...

Puts in correct address
[link to www.physicalgeography.net]

Here is where you can really excell even...

What other NOTICABLE effect would we have IF the ecliptic plane was actually a static line drawn on the Earths surface such as you described?

ie
how can we falsify this hypothesis?

(hint my electric light bill would become much larger than it is at the moment as it is 5a.m. here...)

If we were stopped, the fact is that our tilt (equator relationship to the ecliptic plane) would be consistently wrong, so:

Equator relationship to the ecliptic plane? Good lord, take an astronomy course before spouting off. The celestial equator (which is the earth's equator projected onto the sky, the correct term and way of understanding what you were trying to poorly describe) is always at the same angular separation from a point on the ecliptic plane at the same right ascension at all points along the equator at all times.

a) the Sun would be in one constellation

Has nothing to do with the gobblygook bullshit about horizon constellations you spouted earlier.

b) whenever day we stopped would determine the day we STAYED AT

Has nothing to do with the gobblygook bullshit about horizon constellations you spouted earlier.

c) if the Zetas tipped us up and down toward the Sun, they could simulate the seasons (because the Sun rises higher relative to our equator, with the ecliptic rising also), DUE TO OUR TILT ANGLE RELATIVE TO THE SUN over the orbital period. The tilt would be like this:

Has nothing to do with the gobblygook bullshit about horizon constellations you spouted earlier.

d) but since the Sun would be in one spot still, i.e., one constellation, the Zetas could choose to fix all constelaltions INSTEAD of the Sun's timing ... and do a precession on our tilt, a very quick (yearly) precession like the little robot below:

You couldn't fix ANY constellation by shifting the tilt! That's not how the constellations move! Forget the sun's timing, it doesn't matter, if you change the earth's tilt, every single constellation will look wrong in the sky. The north star will cease to be at the right offset from the north celestial pole and with it every other star will be shifted out of its proper location. You would not be fixing any constellation by tilting the earth like the stupid robot.
This would correct the constellations for the year

Wrong.

Now, think before you spout that something's gobbledygook.

It IS gobblygook, and you should learn astronomy before you spout more of the same garbage.


Hey clare, you didn't even try to address this post. Have you started ignoring my posts again? Why do I even bother?

This would correct the constellations for the year but the Sun and seasons would be screwed up. Because the Sun would always stay in the original constellation, we'd have summer and winter, but not at the right absolute times.



Now, think before you spout that something's gobbledygook.

As I suspected, the solstice was marked at Stonehenge once again, as it has been for thousands of years. This would not be possible if the earth was stalled or even slightly off where it should be.

[link to news.bbc.co.uk]

I suspect the events also happened in Xochicalco and Dzibilchaltun in Mexico and other places that mark the solstice.

Every year Nancy has claimed that the weather was too bad
and that everyone was too drunk to notice anything amiss.

Looks like the weather made a perfect fool out of her finally.

I KNOW I said that I wouldn't get dragged into it again, but AGAIN clunk shows she has either has serious reading problems (not impossible obviously to her often incorrect and usually inappropriate word usage)
OR is deliberately trying to mislead people.

She obviously didn't even bother to read the text that accompanied that diagram, and certainly did not actually answer the question actually asked but her own (as usual) misinterpretation of it.

Y H B T...HTH

Wow. Is she really gone?

Wow. Is she really gone?


Damn, I sure hope so! What an idiot!

If we were stopped TILT would allow progression of horizon constellations.




Except, of course, that the North Star wouldn't be the North Star any longer.

Sorry, sorry. Feel free to carry on.



Yes.

NOTHING would be right really, but one thing or another could be corrected for -- either the Sun (but not the constellations or pole star), or the contstellations (but not the Sun and pole star), etc.

And the planets would be all messed up.


But hey ... SOMEBODY GETS THE IDEA!

WHOAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!




You get a flower:


Now I'm outta here.


Somebody got something! (Besides Astronut HALF
getting the point about parallax on some 9/11 vids -- where he got it but did an unscientific experiment: not the correct proportions to measure the effects necessary ------ and didn't understand you CAN derive viewpoint from moving images. But you need to check each layer's movement, independently and then combinatively, or you will never find the viewpoints, if it's a wrongly composite image.)

I'm no dummy. So many here have just been so ... oh never mind. Waste of time.


All you people who've talked as such and been picayune and idiotic can now go to the dogs or wake up.


So, except for later coming back maybe to bring up SOHO again, I'm outta here. It's been vivid but wasteful. At least someone got something. Now let's work on more people ...

As I suspected, the solstice was marked at Stonehenge once again, as it has been for thousands of years. This would not be possible if the earth was stalled or even slightly off where it should be.

[link to news.bbc.co.uk]

I suspect the events also happened in Xochicalco and Dzibilchaltun in Mexico and other places that mark the solstice.

George, did you really expect any other result when that
question is asked on a conspiracy web board?

George, did you really expect any other result when that
question is asked on a conspiracy web board?

Well . . . yes . . . I did. I thought there was a healthy number of debunkers out there as well. However, I think there are more reasons for this than the fact this is a conspiracy web.

George, did you really expect any other result when that
question is asked on a conspiracy web board?

Well . . . yes . . . I did. I thought there was a healthy number of debunkers out there as well. However, I think there are more reasons for this than the fact this is a conspiracy web.


I didn't bother to vote, fwiw.

George, did you really expect any other result when that
question is asked on a conspiracy web board?

Well . . . yes . . . I did. I thought there was a healthy number of debunkers out there as well. However, I think there are more reasons for this than the fact this is a conspiracy web.


I didn't bother to vote, fwiw.

fwiw? . . . I don't know what this means, sorry!