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

Yes, as I said, the ecliptic changes position if we have the wrong tiltand the Sun (if we were stopped) would rise only in the same constellation every day.

My signature makes more sense than the creator of the idea to malign me with a senseless signature. So it stays until I tire of it.

By the way, it's crossed my mind that she's a victim of human manipultion, in toto, or in parte.

Hope not, though. That's particularly cruel and probably for no good; whereas, at least if it's positive ETs, maybe it's for good in the end, whatever occurs.

By the way, of course the whole stellarium would move with the ecliptic. The fact you thought it hadn't been said means you didn't read what I said.

However, Menow kept insisting that bringing up the ecliptic and tilt in one breath was silly; but he was being silly, since getting the ecliptic to progress it's one of the reasons the putative Zetas would have to tilt us.

But Nancy doesn't seem to realize that, from stoppage, the Sun would still always rise in the same constellation, but at the wrong time of day :) In other words, timing would be off. It would be in Aries, say, all year. Which means there would be no Sun in the wrong times.

In a stopped Earth, one could adjust the tilt into a wobble, for the correct constellations to rise along the current ecliptic, OR to tilt it in the same directional arc, for the correct durations of seasons of a stopped Sun-Earth relationship, but you could not get BOTH, because the Sun would be in the same constellation.

:)

Sorry. That sentence was unclear.

What I meant to say was:


"But Nancy doesn't seem to realize that, from stoppage, but with tilt for the seasons corrected, the Sun would always rise in the same constellation. :) In other words, timing would be off. It would be in Aries, say, all year.

If, however, you adjusted for the constellation progression, the Sun would be below the horizon in the opposite time of day for part of the year. In other words, our seasonal clock would suddenly be pushed off kilter."

How?

The Sun would rise, say, in Aries but then stay there and the Zetas would make Pisces rise (with no Sun in it, and so on), so Spring would lead to winter (as if it were autumn). AND we'd notice the Sun hadn't advanced.

Nancy's point on this is all so bonkers and unscientific that it's silly.

But, it could happen NEAR A POLE SHIFT, to which we have not approached yet. If her statements are disinfo from the Zetas, then they may be saying it's happened already but it hasn't yet. That's the only way to salvage her position on this one, if one wanted to.

Sorry, but are you actually stating the plain of the ecliptic will change if the tilt of the earth changes?

The plane through the constellations? No. The place it "cuts" the earth, yes.

It's part of winter-summer.

Somehow all my signatures are gone.

So: to make sure the a-- from Oz sees:

***************************************
To debunker AC 763624:

Your signature makes you sound stupid and bullying over nothing.


So, note that I'm right:

If you change our tilt, the ecliptic's position moves with it.

And ...

Hani Hanjour couldn't fly, said his flight instructor. Start there.
**************************************

Oh. They're back.

:)

I guess when you undo your signature it goes off all your posts.

I've taken them off again now.

Cool. Now I know about that feature!

So what you are saying is the intersection of the ecliptic with the earth will be different if the axial tilt of the earth were to be changed for any reason?

Welcome back KIR ... how's it going ?

Clare, I think the key here is most if not all the predicted maps predate her predictions . . .

Finally got around to filling out a profile, but I can't subscribe yet, it's not that easy being outside the US.



What's with all the bragging about predictions? It says on zetatalk:

" . . . we point to our predictions, so very on target, made years before they manifested."

But the predictions listed after this brag are vague, like weather irregularities, sickness will slightly increase, new illnesses, tornadoes in areas that do not experience such tornadoes, weather confusing crops, panic will take over stock market, oceans will continue to become more erratic and finally, the visibility of Planet X exactly when and where they said.

They're all fuzzy, imprecise predictions! So what exactly is "on target"? And there are all kinds of Planet X sightings listed on the site. I could probably send one in about this country and get it listed.

If anything, the GLP guy's thread who said " in 9 days we will experience something so catastrophic . . . " (or something to that effect) - now this would be closer to being "on target" than just saying "things are going to get worse". Maybe things weren't so rosy a couple hundred years ago because communication was slow and nobody put it all together. Do things get worse or do they just get documented better? Guess it doesn't matter if it's a "vague" prediction.

And how is it that the "passage" (with pole shift and rotation stoppage) has not occurred even though Planet X, the supposed cause, is here? And why does she think governments are waiting for her dated predictions with bated breath? I thought the White Lie was supposed to mess them up, but she also says they have everything all figured out and just aren't telling us.

Oh wow, I almost didn't notice the title change!

Yep, I think the battle against ZetaTalk can be considered well and truly won!

Doing ok, thanks. Went to Mexico thinking I would retire there, but things happen and I'm back north. At least I missed the Olympics and got to spend some time on the pristine beaches of the gulf coast of the Yucatan. I didn't know at the time that the coast might not look the same next time.

I noticed the thread name change. It is kind of fitting, since clunk has completely hijacked the thread. That should tweak her self importance. She said she wouldn't respond to clunk, so we can hope she will abandon this thread. I wouldn't hold my breath though. She started some threads and they aren't going very well. Nobody is paying much attention, and the votes say it all. At least here she gets negative attention. She will apparently take whatever attention she can get.

I don't like the new thread title.

Why give her any satisfaction?

"Bulgaria? How the hell would the Zetas know about Bulgaria? Here, check out what we said about Turkey. Close enough for government work."

[link to poleshift.ning.com]

Another absurd word-salad from Clare.

Earth's axial tilt and any allgeded change in that tilt has absolutely NO effect on the ecliptic.

I don't know. I tried to follow up on that. I couldn't find out what happened in the end. I left a message on the only contact I could find with the people I knew and got no response. It wasn't an email addy. I tried to follow up with the newspaper which had the article about it, but didn't get anywhere with that either.

I just hit a dead-end on it.

No, we don't. It would be in a different altitude, etc, in our sky, of course, but duh... I never said otherwise.

Where you might have to look to FIND the ecliptic in our sky under a different axial tilt does not mean it's a different ecliptic. It's exactly the same celestial plane as it would have been before.

The ecliptic is NOT defined by the angle at which we FIND it when looking from Earth's surface.

But you said THIS, Clare:

The reason the constelations appear above or below the ecliptic is only due to the tilt.
Quoting: mclarek 1004307

It is according to our new astronomer. mclarek is to astronomy what Inspector Clouseau was to the French Surete.

WHOOPS! Now Clare is altering her statement! NOW, it's a different ecliptic position! Well GEE, Clare... that's not the same thing AT ALL, as what you were saying before! A different ECLIPTIC is what you were braying before, hmm?

The point I always try to make about that is that for it to be true it means that NASA and its astronomers had to have been unable to locate and track the alleged PX for themsleves and were reading Zetatalk to get that information. Ridiculous!

I don't know who used to do 'coffee pot Nancy', but it sure was fun!

Yes.

No. You're just flat LYING. You claimed that a new tilt would mean a NEW ECLIPTIC. Your NEW, ALTERED statement is that the ecliptic would occupy a new POSITION. Of COURSE it would, but that IS NOT WHAT YOU PREVIOUSLY CLAIMED and what I challeged.

Menow, bray away. I always said the Sun would be in the same constellation if stopped.

Yes, it is a different ecliptic line. Not different constellations.

You said the ecliptic has NOTHING TO DO WITH TILT.

It does.

We experience the ecliptic as it is because of tilt.

That was my point.

Perhaps you were caught up in semantics. Whatever. Boring.