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

When it was near the sun in 2003 and 2006 and is it still today, it must be a kind of illuminated inversed black hole.
While we think it,s August 2012, outside the solarsystem it's only January 15, 2003.


Hey Nancy, can you make up this idea for your next fail in December 2012?

For instance:
SOZT
The white lie was not a lie - time is just an illusion.
Outside the influence of Planet X it is now January 17, 2003.
Planet X will pass Earth in June 2003, but remember: Time is just an illusion.
Thus you can expect, in your time scale, the poleshift induced by the approaching Planet X at February 29, 2124.
EOZT


.

So why do you repeatedly keep helping the wolves out?

Got a lisp?

Just for clarification - Nancy is the BOY (all gender aside).

Hey melfy, the proctologist called, they found your head!

I think I see what he is saying. You keep promoting the people who are helping those psyops out. Clif, Nancy, others. If they are psyops, you are helping the wolves.

At least that's what I think he's saying.

I've definitely got to try to reproduce the lens flares that flareberto is getting. Between the two Olympus EPL's and my two older cameras (Olympus C-150 and D-4000), I should be able to reproduce those lens flares and then show that they move as the camera moves in relation to the Sun.

The problem is finding 5.25" floppies or some old exposed B&W film. I do, however, have some of the black mylar solar filter material.

Yes, pretty much.

I also can't help but notice ZM being obtuse about the answer. Replace the Boy in the story with ZM, and it works pretty well.

If it be true, that I am inadvertantly "helping" the "wolves" - then it's even MORE true that you are card-carrying member of their fraternity!

How do you figure? Please explain.

This ought to be entertaining.

The year is 1983. IRAS it is announced, in the Detroit News along with the Washington Post and other publications, has located a "tenth planet".

1987 - New Science and Invention Encyclopedia published by H.S. Stuttman, Westport, Connecticut, USA:

The article was discussing the purpose of the Pioneer 10 and 11 space probes. Clearly shown is “Nemesis” a popular name for our sun’s binary companion, a dead star. (Binary solar systems are apparently the rule in our galaxy, not the exception.). Why does this diagram clearly shows the approximate location of Planet X (a.k.a. the 10th or 12th Planet)? Planet X is presented as a matter of fact in this respected encyclopedia. Some have suggested the paths of Pioneers 10 and 11 were chosen as to get a triangulated fix on Planet X, a suggestion this chart would support.

[link to www.zetatalk.com]

1991 - Dr. Harrington sits for an interview with Zecharia Sitchen:

[link to www.bibliotecapleyades.net]



From the comment section of that video:

In 1991, Harrington, at his own expense, had a telescope lens ground for an observation he made in New Zealand. Before he could publish present his findings, he suddenly died from esophageal cancer in 1993. After which, his Planet X theory was trashed with an obituary designed to achieve that aim, even though his widow still believes that her husband was murdered.

From [link to yowusa.com]

Weigh together the following numerous facts:

Publicity of Harrington's discovery would pose a great threat to the social, political, and economic stability of the World;

It is extremely unlikely that a man would contract cancer and die within a matter of days, suffering the sudden impact of pain and debilitation characteristic of rapid onset cancer, while miraculously traveling on a physically demanding expedition and performing intensive astronomical operations.

Now - you can type "debunked Debunked DEBUNKED!!!" all you want, until your fingers fall off, and it won't change ANY of these FACTS.

*****IF***** Planet X is real, and the above FACTS - while not proving the actual existence of Planet X, provide VERY persuasive evidence for it's actuality.

Again "IF" such a beast exists, then so do it's DANGERS. Dangers the power elite of the globe would have a HUGE incentive to keep out of the public eye.

Harrington died in 1993.

1995 - ZetaTalk BEGINS.

"Co-incidence?" - I think NOT. In this case, the "Bunker" is heads, and the "Debunker" is tails to the SAME COIN. A coin designed to purchase the ignorance of the general public, and keep it intact as long as possible.

I am simply a third party observer to this ongoing "tag team" or "good cop", "bad cop" routine. Where in fact, both the "bunker Nancy" the debunkers that rail against her are in fact after the exact same goal:

Keeping the public IGNORANT.

Unfortunately, the game is brilliantly conceived, and the only way for a third party to not contribute to the goal of the game is to simply not participate in it.

I get it - I do.

But "not participating" is in fact just another form of CONTRIBUTION to the goal of maintaining public ignorance.

So it's lose, Lose, LOSE for anyone who actually opposes this charade - no matter what angle they try to attack it with.

I just do it out of frustration - with no expectation of making ANY difference at all. In fact, I am fully aware that my participation only furthers the agenda of public ignorance - because of how silly my legacy appears.

I get it - I do.

But at the end of the day - I can't ignore the above FACTS, and so I rail pathetically at their disparagement.

But if my contribution to the cover-up is inadvertent - YOURS is CONSCIOUS and INTENTIONAL.

Hence, why I call you "card carrying".

That is not what it said. The 1983 article claims it "could" be a jupiter-like planet OR extra-galactic, they had no idea when it was first observed. IRAS did not find a planet though, it did find a number of infrared-luminous galaxies and intragalactic dust. In fact, it initially found 9 unidentified point-like sources of infrared light, listed here:
0358+223 3h 58m 2.8s 22d 18’ 0”
0404+101 4h 4m 44.7s 10d 11’ 52”
0412+085 4h 12m 32.3s 8d 31’ 13”
0413+122 4h 13m 47.3s 12d 17’ 16”
0422+009 4h 22m 54.0s 0d 56’ 6”
0425-012 4h 25m 12.1s -1d 14’ 50”
1703+049 17h 3m 1.4s 4d 57’ 50”
1712+100 17h 12m 57.8s 10d 4’ 8”
1732+239 17h 32m 51.4s 23d 56’ 36”

Here are the papers that identified these objects:
Unidentified point sources in the IRAS minisurvey, Houck et al. Astrophysical Journal, vol. 278, March 1, 1984, p. L63-L66

Unidentified IRAS sources - Ultrahigh-luminosity galaxies, Houck et al., Astrophysical Journal, vol. 290, March 1, 1985, p. L5-L8.

Optical counterparts of unidentified IRAS point sources Infrared luminous galaxies, Aaronson and Olszewski, Nature, vol. 309, May 31, 1984, p. 414-417.

It IS debunked and it does NOT exist. That is a proven fact max.
Thread: Robert Harrington's Planet X Does Not Exist

Oh - so it's a GALAXY? And this was determined in 1984 and 1985?

Question: WHY DID HARRINGTON BELIEVE OTHERWISE?

And since his enthusiasm for "Planet X" persisted at least up to 1991 when the Sitchen interview took place - WHY DID HE REMAIN HEAD OF THE NAVAL OBSERVATORY???

Why didn't his colleagues take decisive steps to remove such a "FOOL" from such an important post?

Care to answer that DOCTOR????

WTF!?
Harrington did not believe that the IRAS object was his Planet X.
Confused much?


Nothing wrong with hunting for Planet X.

The astronomical Planet X, not Nancy's Magical Mystery Planet of Dooooom.

I'm sure he wanted to believe his theory was confirmed, but why did he keep searching for it if he thought IRAS found it, eh dumbass?

It was a valid theory until the Voyager telemetry data was analyzed and published shortly after his death. It also bore no resemblance to Nancy's bullshit.

Just because his theory ended up being wrong does not make him a fool you idiot. It wasn't even proven wrong until after he died.

Last Edited by Astromut on 08/10/2012 09:42 AM

>> Nothing wrong with hunting for Planet X.

Please explain this quote from the Sitchen video:

"Astronomers are so sure of the 10th Planet, they think there is nothing left but to name it".

Ray T. Reynolds, NASA

It's true that as of the 1991 video (the actual interview took place in August of 1990), that Harrington and his colleagues (he kept saying "WE") were still "looking" for it - but from his enthusiasm clearly evident throughout the interview, he was definitely of the opinion - circa 1990 - that Planet X was real enough to continue searching for in earnest.

Then two years later, the man is dead, having made no public statements of detraction, no papers countering his "earlier" position, and only a very suspicious insertion in his obituary as the ONLY evidence that he had "changed his mind". His colleagues all fall SILENT without even offering rationale for it.

"There's something rotten in the state of Denmark..."

Hamlet

Last Edited by **ZetaMax** on 08/10/2012 10:04 AM

>> It was a valid theory until the Voyager telemetry data was analyzed and published shortly after his death.

Wow - very convenient!

>> It also bore no resemblance to Nancy's bullshit.

Nice attempt to vector. We're not discussing "Nancy's" - but apparently "Sitchen's" ... RIGHT???

>> It wasn't even proven wrong until after he died.
PROVEN? Huh. You're funny!

Last Edited by **ZetaMax** on 08/10/2012 10:02 AM

Remember Chicken Little ?

Please note the dog is dead also, must have been eaten first...

More flares than a country vehicle accident scene..

Some time ago Flareberto had posted three photos at the ning - including time stamp.

I mentioned here in a post, that his "Second Sun" jumped around within minutes like a ferret on MDMA.

One of Nancys watchdogs must have read this - short time after he started posting only one photo at a time.


.

Fine, it doesn't resemble Sitchen's bullshit either.

Yes, proven.
[link to adsabs.harvard.edu]
Thread: Robert Harrington's Planet X Does Not Exist

From Dr. Astro's thread (when he was "merely" ASTROMUT):

>> In 1989, Voyager 2 flew by Neptune, the final planetary visit of its journey through our solar system. In 1992 (published in 1993), Myles Standish more accurately calculated the masses of Uranus and Neptune using the telemetry from the Voyager flyby's. The result was that Neptune's previously accepted mass was off by about 0.5%, and the newly computed masses eliminated the apparent perturbations of the planets; the gravitational interactions of the planets with each other were the cause but were not being properly accounted for with the old mass figures.

Dr. Mut's assertions rely ENTIRELY on the accuracy and validity of this alleged Voyager data. How incredibly convenient that this data - which was available since 1989, only revealed it's significance in 1993 following the VERY timely demise of Dr. Harrington. Of course, I do not have access to this data beyond what NASA publishes, nor do I have my own "Voyager" with which to test the accuracy of such "data".

NASA - "Never A Straight Answer"

So let's review:

IRAS was looking at a GALAXY.

The diagram in the 1987 New Science and Invention Encyclopedia was a HOAX

And Voyager "miraculously" returns data that CONFIRMS what mainstream astronomers knew all along ... that there was no Planet X and nothing "significant" beyond Pluto.

Harrington is a posthumous FOOL for ever doubting the CONSENSUS opinion.

And Ray T. Reynolds - an even BIGGER fool!

tsk tsk

And the beauty of it all - IT'S ALL PROVEN!!!!

(If we can "trust" NASA that is! - And why would anybody ever DOUBT NASA??? [ask Richard Hoagland])

Last Edited by **ZetaMax** on 08/10/2012 12:14 PM

ZM, your entire ideas starts with a false premise.

"IF Planet X is real."

It's not.

The rest just falls down after that.

You should actually read the post and look at the vids.
Astro DEMONSTRATED that IF NASA is lying about that data and Harrington's PX actually exists the current positions of Neptune would be DIFFERENT then what is actually observed.
That constitutes what is generally called conclusive evidence.
Harrington's Planet X does not exist.


Sloganism is no substitute for an argument.


IRAS looked at a lot of things.
It did not discover any planets.
Neugebauer, Houck et al. never said it did, in fact they said it didn't.
Go look at the data yourself, it's not secret or anything.


No, it was an illustration of some of the hypotheses offered to explain the Pioneer anomaly.


WTF!?
Nobody ever claimed that there was no Planet X, people had been hunting for it for over a century, and they still are.
What does not exist is Lowell's PX and Harrington's PX.
Those have been specifically disproven.


What consensus opinion?
Harrington was an excellent scientist, he proposed an hypothesis based on the current findings and tested it.
His hypothesis turned out to be wrong, like most of them do.


"But according to Dr. Ray T. Reynolds of the Ames Research Center in Mountain View, CA, other astronomers “are so sure of the 10th planet, they think there’s nothing left but to name it.” -MM

He definitely doesn't agree with your strawman.


Yep.


Even if we NOT trust NASA.

And using Hoaxland as a character witness is a very stupid move.


Last Edited by Halcyon Dayz, FCD on 08/10/2012 12:57 PM

>> It's not.

Oh, it's not?

So let me examine the reason it's "not":

All of Sitchen's Sumerian studies were

Because:

A. Sitchen was a FOOL
B. Sitchen was a LIAR
C. The Sumerian's were LIARS

Also because:

A. Velikovsky was a FOOL
B. Velikovsky was a LIAR
C. The Indigenous People Velikovsky referenced were LIARS

Really???

^This! Thank you!

WHOA there! Wait just a cotton-picken minute!

So what you're saying, is that the Voyager data is IRRELEVANT!!!

REALLY?????

Than why waste your time referencing it????

Why not just go straight to the final act of the play where "amateur" astronomer ASTROMUT outperforms Dr. Robert Harrington (and his colleagues) and demonstrates CONCLUSIVELY (mind you) that Harrington was WRONG without the benefit of ANY new data at all????

If all that is true, why didn't Harrington and his colleagues figure all that out back in the 80s - or even the 70s for cris sakes????

ASTROMUT IS A GENIOUS!!!!!!




And to think, such a prodigy chooses to spend COPIUS chunks of his time debunking on GLP!

Oh the WONDER of it all!!!

Last Edited by **ZetaMax** on 08/10/2012 01:26 PM

Well we do know the guy is pretty smart, you on the other hand fall short just tying your shoe laces.

And you are a lying troll.


A. A. btw.

Last Edited by Halcyon Dayz, FCD on 08/10/2012 01:44 PM

You're not too bright are you? The Voyager data showed us the answer, that it was the mass of neptune that was wrong, not another planet out there! We can independently verify whether that model of the solar system is still consistent with reality or not, and whether or not the planet X model of the solar system is still consistent with reality. That's the whole point of my thread, which you clearly failed to understand.

Wrong again, I have new data; astrometric readings that were taken late last year, almost 20 years after Harrington's death. That additional time allows us to distinguish the planet X model of the solar system from reality.

They didn't know the true answer, nor were they able to compare to see if their planet X model of the solar system correctly predicted planetary motion two decades later.

Thanks.

Yes, you should be thanking me for explaining it all to you. You clearly needed the help, even though I thought the thread was straightforward and self-explanatory.

Last Edited by Astromut on 08/10/2012 01:50 PM