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

You should get a patent on your probing "questionator" - that slices, dices and makes julian fries out of the same potato!

>> You're just playing games, after all.

Of course - like everyone else.

Classic projection. I'm not playing games. Thanks for your admission though.

>> Thanks for your admission though.

I guess your scope doesn't pick up the rogue planet SARCASM.

ARE you Astrogal 50?

But won't there just be new predictions you latch on to after 2012? That's been your pattern before.

So even if we get past all the "Astral" Doom, you will still be latching onto and touting other Doom on this thread, no matter that it fails to materialize. Is that correct?

Nice video of Jupiter, Venus, and the moon you troll.

You should get a patent on your probing "questionator" - that slices, dices and makes julian fries out of the same potato!

Yup, she indirectly just confirmed by setting her profile as private:

[link to poleshift.ning.com]

Nice move gal! Got to hide something?

Hey...he could just do that. Didn't you know? There are clones out there. Nancy claimed Bush had several...eight I think.

And because you found it on the Internet, it must be true.

It's widely known that Obama is the clone of the Pharoah Akhenaten:

It's widely known that Obama is the clone of the Pharoah Akhenaten:

And because you found it on the Internet, it must be true.



LMAO. When I saw his posting earlier I was looking for this exact image...


"Widely"... not even 1%...

"Widely"... not even 1%...

No, it IS widely known...but only amongst the moron community.

You must have skipped class that day.

>> The oribt Harrington shows in his model could perhaps bring it close to the orbit of Neptun or Pluto, which are definitely no part of the inner solar system.



Harrington clearly was onboard with PX sending Uranus on it's side. SO - either Uranus drifted OUT or PX INTRUDES farther in than you are allowing for. Also, Harrginton drew his "orbit" with his FINGER - in "invisible" ink. Hardly a "precise" depiction.

The "fudge factor" is highly relative. Tolerances are far less important for cutting firewood, than for grinding optical lenses. Because of the great distances, and significant mass sizes of the outer planets we're dealing with, and given your point about "the limited length of time we've had to observe pluto", it's pretty clear the "tolerances" currently accepted, are still - even with modern technology - pretty FORGIVING. In other words, you adjust the mass of Neptune, and suddenly the math "works". Well you could just as easily adjust the orbital period (for example) by a few hours and it wouldn't surprise me if the "math works". Now of course I am choosing orbital period as a random variable - and I am not saying that adjusting that one variable "will" make the math work, so don't come back and crow about how adjusting the oribital period won't make the math work ... I GET IT.

BUT - there are numerous variables, and tweaking one or more can result in whatever "result" you'd be looking for.

Bottom line - when it comes to the outer planets, it's clear we're still NOOBS to a very large (and for proud scientists) "uncomfortable" extent, and given our dependance on NASA for data, and relative limited ability to verify this data independantly, I cannot rule out the possibility - even likelihood - that the data is being "sampled" (given the range of tolerances) to create the desired result; which of course is not very scientific. (There are numerous examples of "scientists" outright FAKING data for political or monetary motives - why should NASA scientists be "above suspicion"?) And because the change is so relatively SMALL (0.5 percent for Neptune) - I have no problem accepting that the numbers you say you've run gave you the result YOU find "satisfactory".

I don't find it CONCLUSIVE.

>> It's your sad attempt at deflection from the fact that the perturbations thought to be seen in neptune and uranus were indeed accounted for by an inaccurate mass figure for neptune and ultimately not by "planet x."

Explain this brainiac: Harrington not only postulated Planet X in an attempt to account for the perturbations of Uranus and Neptune, but found it necessary to place the orbit of PX at a 32 degree inclination from the ecliptic. [link to articles.adsabs.harvard.edu] How in the world does a mere 0.5 adjustment in the mass of neptune "forgive" the need for a gravitational force at a 32 degree inclination from the ecliptic??? The observed perturbation is real, it's the explanation for it that we're debating. Are you suggesting that the mere planetoid pluto ALONE accounts for this???? I can see Harrington LAUGHING at the mere suggestion!!!

>> It was a forced solution

Indeed, and we can be CERTAIN that Standish's solution (Harrington had access to the same Voyager data) as VERIFIED by no less an astronomical giant than :mutlogo: with his 8 inch scope and laptop, was "not" forced.

We KNOW this because :mutlogo: says so!

>> The calculations involved are not trivial things you can just make assumptions about

Since they are "not trivial", they can't be easily verified ... CAN THEY?

>> even after independent validation has taken place

YOUR INDEPENDANT VALIDATION!!! After you just got done saying they weren't "trivial"!



>> a logical fallacy of an argument from ignorance.

TRUST ME, I'M A "SCIENTIST!!!"

... a tale told by an idiot (no, SHILL), full of sound and fury, signifying nothing

SOOO I guess Tombaugh's discovery of Pluto which he spent a year searching for, was nothing more than an AMAZING occurrence of PURE DUMB LUCK, because, given Pluto's size and Harrington saying that because of it's tiny size, could have NO discernable effect on the orbits of Uranus and Neptune meant Tombaugh, searching BECAUSE of "phantom pertubances" (due to incorrect mass figures) - and then actually finding "pluto" is an amazingly FANTASTIC co-incidence!!!