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

Andrew, look up Nancy's 'science' of "Moon facts" that she touts in saying that the Moon shouldn't appear to rotate as we watch it move across the sky. What she says there is nothing but a pack of lies, Andrew. She misdefines terms and twists them so that people who read and believe her will think that the have been able to see confirmation for themsleves that the Moon is doing something 'wrong'.

The truth is, the Moon HAS to appear to rotate as it crossed the sky. It is utterly NORMAL for it to do that, but it has become Nancy's pet 'proof' that PX is affecting things. It's all a DAMNABLE LIE, Andrew! I'll take you through it sentence by sentence if you want, but you don't WANT that, do you? No... you don't WANT to see the lies in Zetatalk no matter how obvious they are!


Menow, if you think about it, and not just accept everything that science preaches, you see that what Nancy/Zetas say about the rotation of the Moon is very much possible, probable.


If *I* think about it?? How about if *YOU* think about it, hmm? Try real hard, Andrew... Show me. Take Nancy's "Moon facts" page and go through it line by line while you explain it. I DARE you!

Here it is:

[link to www.zetatalk.com]

Now... YOU explain how the Moon isn't supposed to rotate 360 degrees over our heads every 24 hours with all the rest of the sky. You DO know that Earth rotates once every day while the sky holds still, right?

Go right ahead. You have the floor.


per Z's Moon doesnt rotate around its axis, it orbits around the Earth, with its one side constantly 'glued' to Earth


And that is utter nonsense, of course. Why do you accept and parrot such 'scientific' dogma as that without question? I thought you said that was not right to do?


its totally possible, its in fact better explanation than two regular rhythms (rotation around Earth and Moon around its own axis) synched so perfectly that we see one side all the time!


"Totally possible"?? What does that even mean? No, in fact, that "Zeta" explanation is totally bullshit. What would happen if Earth suddenly went missing? Would the Moon be rotating? There is your answer.


but you all well know this, as you have been debating this to death with mcclareck and Max and ...
awile ago.


Yes, I am aware of the "Zeta party line" on it, and it's pure bullshit. See my thought experiment above and answer the question. Of course you won't, as that would prove "Zetas" wrong once again.


NOW... YOU DIDN'T EVEN LOOK AT THAT PAGE BECAUSE IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE THINGS IN YOUR RESPONSE.

Care to try again?

MOON FACTS: [link to www.zetatalk.com]

i thought about it and tried to visualize it many times and i conclude for myself that what Nancy/Zetas claim about the Moon IS POSSIBLE and probably it is the way it really is.

wait, wait, wait, hold on - Nancy doesnt do personal counseling. Neither she nor Zetas direct people's personal lives and personal decisions. They give info, predictions, signs, and advice, at most.

what will people do with it, will they even listen and believe it at all, is up to them!

NOW... YOU DIDN'T EVEN LOOK AT THAT PAGE BECAUSE IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE THINGS IN YOUR RESPONSE.

Care to try again?

MOON FACTS: [link to www.zetatalk.com]




i thought about it and tried to visualize it many times and i conclude for myself that what Nancy/Zetas claim about the Moon IS POSSIBLE and probably it is the way it really is.

that link tells about the Wobble! (i did look into it when you first posted it!)

Here you go Andrew:

"Moon FACTS are that the Moon will appear to be upside down if viewed from the S. Pole vs the N. Pole, and every change in latitude skews this view. But the view for any given latitude should vary only by 7° 7 minutes, a movement called Lunar Libration, equivalent to the hour hand of a clock moving a mere 1/2 hour. The rotation of the Moon's face during a lunar night moved from a reported 45° on Mar 7, 2004 to 60° by July 31, 2004 to 95° by Sep 26, 2004 and for real drama, see that animation of the 95° turn. This Netherlands Feb 27, 2005 photo covering a mere 3 hours shows an almost 30° turn."


How about explaining why Nancy LIES about the definition of 'libration' in order mislead people into thinking that the Moon shouldn't APPEAR to rotate as we watch it cross the sky.

That page: [link to www.zetatalk.com] is a really good example of the intentional distortions of fact in which Nancy engages on a regular basis. In fact, this 'Moon rotation' thing is Nancy's PET method of convincing people that something is wrong with Lunar motions, and it is nothing but a steaming pile of bullshit.

i thought about it and tried to visualize it many times and i conclude for myself that what Nancy/Zetas claim about the Moon IS POSSIBLE and probably it is the way it really is.
Wow, your idea of proof is that you visualized it? You did no emperical testing whatsoever. Had you done the simple test I provided above you would see that you and the zetas are wrong. I see you're avoiding addressing anything I've posted here today, I wonder why that is?

Andrew, look up Nancy's 'science' of "Moon facts" that she touts in saying that the Moon shouldn't appear to rotate as we watch it move across the sky. What she says there is nothing but a pack of lies, Andrew. She misdefines terms and twists them so that people who read and believe her will think that the have been able to see confirmation for themsleves that the Moon is doing something 'wrong'.

The truth is, the Moon HAS to appear to rotate as it crossed the sky. It is utterly NORMAL for it to do that, but it has become Nancy's pet 'proof' that PX is affecting things. It's all a DAMNABLE LIE, Andrew! I'll take you through it sentence by sentence if you want, but you don't WANT that, do you? No... you don't WANT to see the lies in Zetatalk no matter how obvious they are!


Menow, if you think about it, and not just accept everything that science preaches, you see that what Nancy/Zetas say about the rotation of the Moon is very much possible, probable.

Are all them lying, too?

[link to beforeitsnews.com]

zetas DID foresaw - increase in natural disasters, erratic weather and severe weather conditions, globally. its not a question is it happening or not - its the question of measuring its scale and impact.

Certainly it's a question of if what she claims is actually happening. Show me any evidence you have of the "increases" she has claimed over the last decade and how things are any different than they have been at times in the past.


Natural Disasters on Increase – Insurers confirm
"There has been a dramatic increase in frequency and severity of natural disasters, now killing and injuring many millions of people every year and causing mounting economic losses".
- UN Environment Programme (UNEP) director,
former German environment minister
Klaus Topfer, 1999.

Insurance companies, globally, are already feeling the effects of this.

Increasing Storms
A rise in the world's ocean temperatures is putting more water vapor into the atmosphere. This provides additional fuel for storms as they travel overland.

Since the 1970s the average number of intense Category 4 and 5 hurricanes that draw their force from the ocean, occurring globally, has nearly doubled, averaging about 18 per year.

In 2005 the hurricane and typhoon season not only broke records, it doubled in ferocity and count.

its better to vizualize the actual orbit - how could it not rotate around its axis and do rotate around Earth,

Apollo simulation? im sceptical about such things.

its like science for kids, who do not question, and are "served" everything in without controversy and avoiding mentioning where it is still a debate.

Here you go Andrew:

"Moon FACTS are that the Moon will appear to be upside down if viewed from the S. Pole vs the N. Pole, and every change in latitude skews this view. But the view for any given latitude should vary only by 7° 7 minutes, a movement called Lunar Libration, equivalent to the hour hand of a clock moving a mere 1/2 hour. The rotation of the Moon's face during a lunar night moved from a reported 45° on Mar 7, 2004 to 60° by July 31, 2004 to 95° by Sep 26, 2004 and for real drama, see that animation of the 95° turn. This Netherlands Feb 27, 2005 photo covering a mere 3 hours shows an almost 30° turn."


How about explaining why Nancy LIES about the definition of 'libration' in order mislead people into thinking that the Moon shouldn't APPEAR to rotate as we watch it cross the sky.

That page: [link to www.zetatalk.com] is a really good example of the intentional distortions of fact in which Nancy engages on a regular basis. In fact, this 'Moon rotation' thing is Nancy's PET method of convincing people that something is wrong with Lunar motions, and it is nothing but a steaming pile of bullshit.


well, that's only elderly, "illiterate" Nancy, not Zetas, hehe.. :P

well, even with a 'glued' one face of the Moon, it would have its side parts lightened slightly from time to time.

Are all them lying, too?

[link to beforeitsnews.com]

its better to vizualize the actual orbit - how could it not rotate around its axis and do rotate around Earth, and how its possible and explains one visible side.

Apollo simulation? im sceptical about such things. its like science for kids, who do not question, and are "served" everything in without controversy and avoiding mentioning where it is still a debate.

its better to vizualize the actual orbit - how could it not rotate around its axis and do rotate around Earth, and how its possible and explains one visible side.

Apollo simulation? im sceptical about such things. its like science for kids, who do not question, and are "served" everything in without controversy and avoiding mentioning where it is still a debate.

you are a fool assuming i am the fool you assume me to be.

its good that people at least have a feeling of guilt over what have they done to our planet. that doesnt mean it caused warming, or "climate change".

zetas DID foresaw - increase in natural disasters, erratic weather and severe weather conditions, globally. its not a question is it happening or not - its the question of measuring its scale and impact. and some also delude themselves that they can DO something about it, so also what to do about it.
if you want to be rigid fool you are now attempting to be - fine, its your choice. but rest of the world is not that well off - they are counting economic and crop losses, their food prices are soaring because of this and soon enough they can have nothing to eat in some places!

re Sun and Moon - ask Inuit, IS it normal [not should or shouldnt].

re Sun and Moon - ask Inuit, IS it normal [not should or shouldnt].

why are you so convinced that ancient megaliths were indeed astronomical devices? it is only a guess!
they are not so precisely lined with compass, and you can make probably anything to align if look at it at certain angles.

Oh look. Andrew is back. I *knew* I smelled something; the odor of unwashed socialists with a chronic masturbating habit is hard to miss.

If he sticks around, can we open a window? Maybe light a couple of candles?

Phew. That's better. Now I'll sit here quietly and chuckle to myself as Andrew of the Sticky Hand espouses his dim-witted observations on Lunar rotation.

Popcorn, anyone?

oh really? why?
who can forbid them?

umm.., nope! for anyone with a brain ZT works.

Menow, if you think about it, and not just accept everything that science preaches, you see that what Nancy/Zetas say about the rotation of the Moon is very much possible, probable.

Damn, who put The_Returner back on his DEFAULT setting???

umm.., nope! for anyone with a brain ZT works.


Really? Then why are you always proven wrong?

umm.., nope! for anyone with a brain ZT works.


Really? Then why are you always proven wrong?

That's got to be one of the more laughable things that Andrew has posted.

If Andrew and his fellow ningnuts had half a brain, they would realize the following:

1. That the LISS heliplots have a 3000 magnification factor applied to them
2. That the LISS heliplots are not the only source of earthquake heliplots (they went nuts with cover up claims when LISS went down)
2. That the SOHO and STEREO images are processed from FTS files and are essentially a stack of images - any lost data on one image is filled in by the previous image
3. Earthquakes are usually reported in the media as Richter (ML) but are recorded on NEIC/USGS in anything but Richter

I got banned from the ning for posting something about the 3000 magnification factor

I've seen them going wild over LISS and saying it shows an Earth 'wobble'. Why they think that connection is valid is anybody's guess.

Isn't it remarkable how Andrew can come in here and say whatever he wants and he is not threatened with banning, but no on can express the slightest doubt about anything Nancy says on the ning without being immediately banned.