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

You started out with this language... Quoting Clare:

"As to tilting..."

And:

"...Zetas really are changing our tilt!"


THEN, you blithely change to talking about The halted Earth claim. Those are two COMPLETELY different claims! You applied 'parallax' to the TILTING issue, but now CHANGE it to apply to the halted Earth issue. Apparently, you don't even KNOW when you do such things in discussion.

WTF?

I know we are all waiting with baited breath for you to expound on the 'longer point'. Heh.



Absurd! There are WAAAAAAYYYYYY easier method of confirming a normal Earth orbit than parallax of distant stars. Why must you find the most difficult, obscure and anal way of looking at things?



Bullshit.



That's ALL???????


BWAAAAAHAHAHHAHAHAAAA.A.A.A.A.A....A.A........!!!

That's the entire sky, you boob! ALL sky objects would be radically out of place by the SAME AMOUNT!

SHEESH!



You cited parallax as related to an allegedly tilted Earth. That is so miopic as to be laughable!



People are fooled because they believe what Nancy says without question. Period.



I have no idea what...

Oh, so Stoopid is still out there.

What correction? Of course, Mr. Picture-Stoopid missed it. (Sorry: picture perfect, of course! blue, muscley and ripply!)

You emphasized math only and kept saying I had to prove to you in equations that there should be shifts in the forward layer(s). Astronut's first moments in the issue emphasized CHANGES in the first layers, which is why he DID the stereo photobucket attempt, and then went on to test how much he found with an (unsicentifically distanced) fridge and vase.


Your pigheaded name-calling, etc., of me, was useless. You simply showed you were ignorant AND a lover of unecessary obfuscation: equations.

The latter can help in complex or untestable situations, but this is neither.

To: Commentator:

Not that you're likely to care right now, but I am only responding with nastiness because you do it so often.

Yup, you are still out there stinking the place up with your idiocy and lies.

I see you are unable to point to the message where you claim to have made this "correction," but since it smells of clunker bullshit we know you pulled it out of your ass.

Do you have some sort of sick anal fixation? You seem to pull a lot of your bull from your ass.

First off, you should remember the exchange -- oh that's right, you don't get it when you're corrected first without anyone ponting it out, b/c you don't have "being wrong" on your radar until it bats you over the head.

Second, I made several references to it in messages to Astronut, jokingly. I don't know if I wrote to you directly.

Maybe in the middle of something else you were on about.

Anyway, it's pages back. You wanna see what it all meant and what happened to your idiocy, you find it. Why should I bother with you except in passing ...

LOL!

You probably STILL don't know why you're wrong. (Which is not a crime, but it does show a thud on any effort and a huge ego not to wonder if you got something wrong.)

Commentator, if you get this concept without an equation to help you, I give you a kissy. MMMUH! :))

Okay: here's a post from way back in this exchange.

First note:

I had misspoken -- you will be happy about that -- referring to the tower in back being on the right and getting eclipsed, instead of on the left and being revealed (which it was, in this image set); Astronut was correct in pointing out the movement should be the opposite of what I said ... not because I saw the motion wrong, for we both knew it was motion to the left. ----- Rather, I misremembered/misspoke: I had forgotten which side the tower behind was on.


Anyway, the main point is a) Both of us were talking of (and I was the first to talk of) THE MOVEMENT OF FRONT LAYERS. I just got a dyslexia of which tower was in front and which behind.

b) Astronut (in correcting me on which tower would go where, because of which was in front), was confirming my main point and the point you missed. It is that FRONT LAYERS MOVE when you move.

More than that, I'll leave you to figure out on your own.

Such as: why the front buildings can give te viewpoint on their movement; and why you need to test for movement viewpoints; and why the bridge seems to move when really it's the front layers moving away from it; and why any tests need to be done in PROPORIONAL dstances.

Do you know what proportional distances are? I hope so.

Okay -- enough aggression back. Have fun ...

You just reminded me of an old friend, who always types "Heh" instead of laughs. How quaint.

Second, when I said "longer" I meant "longer lasting" and therefore the bigger point you have been making. The one you wanted here to deflect to without acknowledging the side point of your insult and my reply. :P



Yes, Menow. And I said so. I am merely pointing out that most of the stars would stay the same and some people would picture that and not realize how much else would change.

Get that? Moving on ...



Crikey. You should take a pill, man.

Okay so anyway, yes, all would be off. But you know, we would also see different lengths of movements of retrograde and prograde in the planets.

When I said, "That's all," I was speaking in context -- emotional context, and had already said what I meant. So when I said, "That's all," I obviously didn't and NEVER meant only the fixed stars would be off! I said they would be off by a bit, the other things would be off total distances the same amount but show much more radical movement changes in difference.

And the "That's all" was to indicate -- before you poop your pants, man -- I meant ONLY the background stars would show LESS OBVIOUS motion changes.



The word is "myopic" and no, it isn't. People THINK of the blanked ot stars, or have that impression that they wouldn't shift, and that a tilt would do. It wouldn't.





And new sentence AFTER the period: they also do it because most stars seem stationary ... and this gives a false impression.

As fakery does to some on this forum.

I should add, hon, that because most stars seem stationary but AREN'T (and most people don't know of that parallax issue, which is why I brought it up) ...

and because they DO know about the tilt-shift relative to the Sun for seasonal changes -- though they probably mostly don't know of the finer details for the sky -- ...

some would be fooled into thinking that a seasonal tilt adjustment and a few light-bends for planets would fix everything if we were stopped.

In fact, all stars would also slightly have to be adjusted. That was my whole point.

Are you done with this now? I hope so.

Good night.

WTF? Is this the Clunk Show or a Debunk Zetas thread? At this rate, any mention of the Zetas will be buried by hundreds of pages of Clare Spam. So what happened to your own thread, Clare? Throw a party and nobody showed up? Looked like you had some real believers there. But you abandoned ship. I guess you post for the sport of baiting your intellectual superiors. Pathetic troll.

Christ! Setheory:

a) some photos are definite fakes (Wainio, etc., plus at least 1 out of 2 of some of the wilder FDNY black-white shots)
b) some seem very strongly to be fakes to the point of high likelihood because of the context of a).
c) some seem maybe to be
d) some have subtler connection visually to fakery -- and could be constructed morphs or could be not faked at all

So ...

All but a) (and some of b), maybe) could turn out to be wrong.

And even with a) real people could be being framed to cover for the others which are the bloating of numbers.

Because we ALSO have many bloated and even missing names with no photos, many horrible crappy photos (probably covering for laziness by the perps).

So ...

the overall operation would seem thus to be basically:

1. Create as many names as you can reasonably do.
2. Create as many false memorial mentions as you can for THOSE names.
3. Provide a lot of faraway and bad photos for many but not all names. Just throw them together.
4. Do a bit better for some: memorials, maybe 1 photo that's better, or two that are near duplicates.
5. a) Provide a few which are duplicates but in more poses and provide a family for them --- real people --- b) AND MAYBE frame a few real surviving families in the process too, to cover for points 1-5 a).

This is what fakery leads us to hypothesize. We won't know which of each is true about MOST SPECIFIC names/photos until someone tells or we have a true inquiry.

But this is the broad outlines; and it fits other intelligence ops; and since we're in that context for 9/11 anyway ... AND have fakes ... it makes sense this is what they did to us to give us a bigger impression.

And "so many" wouldn't believe it because it's so "horrible, awful or big or weird". But it's just ID fakery. Not TOO HARD to DO or to PULL OVER YOU, especially if the audience is so willing not to notice the more obvious bloopers like Wainio's photos.

My own 2 threads are fine: one is older news but gets the odd post still, and re. the other, I am in touch with someone about it and it got a lot of hits.

Anyway, you will see -- if you LOOK -- that I am replying to people.

:P

Why do you insist on posting here? Don't you take the hint that most of us here don't want to read your drivel? Why do you insist on spamming the thread with crap most of us just scroll past looking for on topic posts? Don't you get that anyone who does reply is either toying with you or laughing AT you? If you have a receptive audience elsewhere, why do you hijack this thread? You are so disrespectful and ignorant to boot.

In fairness to the "This is an Orange" people you linked to ... AC 1001905 ...

They did an excellent job on Building 7.

Here is a very nice remix of their work on that, which you might enjoy: [link to www.youtube.com]

But as to fakery, they did not do such a good job. There are times when your eyes lie and times when the stories told are the lies. On the latter, they are doing fine.

Note: some people fall for all of 9/11, thinking it is not a lie on any level because "they saw" and "they know" it is fine.

So, though the This is an Orange people do a good job of trying to wake people up in general about the lies the This is and Orange people see, they do an awful and unthorough and misleading job about the lies they don't yet see: TV Fakery.

Enjoy the funny remix though.
:)

Sure, sure.

Most -- you -- others -- not all. You are not "the world". Consider that I don't want to read YOUR drivel --- and it is!

But I come here for the rest. Same as you.

You might learn something from my comments though: they're not just how Nancy is stupid or some similar repeated phrase.

Up to you. <shrug>

Good night, though.

To:

HEY 74444:

Did you see I replied to your posts when I saw them (1? 2? days after you posted them?).

I answered your questions at length and would love to hear what you think about electromagnetism and planets, too.

:)

Not that planets would normally have special perturbations, but it may be we've misidentified some of their mass in the already-counted perturbations.

And it's interesting, isn't it, that it was by Velikovsky, that a major prediction was made and push was done to Einstein to recognize e-m in the solar system at all, before it was thought to be there by astronomers and astrophysicicsts? And that he did it from historical myths and geology suggestions ... of a Planet X-like catastrophism (though he attributed these catastrophes to a possible late arrival for Venus)?

... Another who was interested in the idea of e-m in dynamics of planets was T. Townsend Brown, the electricity scientist, and Nicola Tesla, though he only hinted at that, by positing -- and possibly proving -- the Earth is resonating with electromagnetic-gravitic pulses.

Fascinating.

Lots of good ideas out there, even if the original thinkers were wrong in some part of what they said about it. Heck! They're pioneers.

Anonymous Coward 1001905 ...

In case you missed this post to you above ...


In fairness to the "This is an Orange" people you linked to ...

They did an excellent job on Building 7.

Here is a very nice remix of their work on that, which you might enjoy: [link to www.youtube.com]

But as to fakery, they did not do such a good job. There are times when your eyes lie and times when the stories told are the lies. On the latter, they are doing fine.

Note: some people fall for all of 9/11, thinking it is not a lie on any level because "they saw" and "they know" it is fine.

So, though the This is an Orange people do a good job of trying to wake people up in general about the lies the This is and Orange people see, they do an awful and unthorough and misleading job about the lies they don't yet see: TV Fakery.

Enjoy the funny remix though.
:)

Maybe we should have a poll to see how many thread regulars are tired of Clare and how many want her to keep taking the thread off topic.

I guess my vote is obvious. We started this thread almost a year ago in protest for not being able to speak our minds on matters related to Zetatalk without being censored and banned. If I wanted to "learn" anything from you Clare, I would post on your thread.

+1 from me

clunk has spammed this thread long enough with off topic crap about 911 and fake photos and all the rest of the crap she spews page upon page about
the only thing it has done is bump our page count up by close to a hundred (seems impossible in only a few weeks, but go back and pick random pages over the last 100 pages- and on any given page probably 3/4 of the page is clunk's bullshit)

+1E10^6

There, that will confuse the liar clunker.

And to get back to zetacrap, I see nancy still has no understanding of how tilting the earth makes absolutely no difference whatsoever of making the seasonal skys appear correctly (as does our other troll)

[link to www.windows2universe.org]

Now if the Earth was actually stopped in a November position as she claims, then there is a slight problem.We would be seeing the Spring constellations, however I just walked outside and I am definately seeing the Autumn ones...
Now no amount of tilting could make that happen, as the Spring constellations are currently in the daytime sky and cant be seen because of the Sun's glare. Tilting the Earth still wont get them out from behind the Sun, the only way to get them back in the night sky is to move the Earth to where they are in the night sky.... um isn't that what we were saying???
and I might glance at my user details

You are of course, quite correct.

But remember that ninny LIEDer, they have no idea what they should be seeing, so they would not know if anything is amiss.

Hello Flat Earth Society folks. How do?

It's back:

[link to www.zetasquawk.com]

I see that on the ning site they have posted a story about a landslide in BC, I guess they think it's because of planet x, like everything else from dandruff to earthquakes on known faults.

Well, for any ningtards that want to know the inside poop on this one, I can enlighten you, since I know the area extremely well and a buddy of mine lives just down the road from where this happened.

First, the soil is clay. Second, the climate was unusually rainy last month, making the clay hills unstable. The creek got clogged with debris and when the jam unlodged the torrent took out a water main. No planet x, just natural conditions and a water main.

There was another much worse slide last year that buried the main highway for more than a month, cutting off the only paved route between the north and south ends of Okanagan Lake. That one was caused by by blasting in an area of unstable clay soil to widen the highway. Shit, I remember when I was a kid whole houses built on the clay sliding down onto the road. This kind of thing has been going on since my grandparents were kids. Sheesh. These pxers will latch onto anything that they can use to justify their imaginary pole shift.

Yes, everything that's happened on Earth the past 8 years has been caused by "Planet X."

With respect to the Earth halted in its orbit, I am surprised that nobody has pointed out to clunk that the sun amazingly still progresses through the constellations as normal.

No amount of "zeta" wobbling can achieve that.

Yes, you started to write the name correctly but then on page 647 you again write:



And what's an emotional point with Menow got to do with it?

My point was not to correct your typo but to point to the fact that you Clare don't see your own mistakes and typos while at the same time you think you can mock others of their tiny mistakes and typos. That is called hypocricy. Jesus pointed that out when he said ”Why do you see the speck in your neighbor's eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye?”

But you missed my point – again.



Yes, people make mistakes no matter where they work. Yet in official and scientific context mistakes are to be corrected in the first instance they are pointed out or detected.

You haven't done that, as pointed out again and again. This fact raises the question whether you're just stupid or whether you're on a mission for promoting bullshitting hoaxers like September Clues.

Yeah.