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

The ecliptic to progress?? WTF does that mean?

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.




Gobbldygook.

Why are you explaining something we all knew 7 years ago?




See above.

Ahem... What else could "a new ecliptic" mean, than that?

The point is, tilt has to do with the ecliptic AS EXPERIENCED. Thus it is related to Nancy's whole issue of tilt and stoppage, which we were discssing.

Hence the need to understand (define) what Nancy got wrong in her implying the constellations (ecliptic) position would be fine if tilt corrected for summer-winter.

It was in this context that we may define/cover/talk about the aspect of the ecliptic's position -- to see what her claim would envelop.

The ecliptic AS IT IS is both its nature relative to the Sun and constellations, and its position.

Her claim, thus exposed, wouldn't fix the ecliptic to its correct position for all the constellations; or if Zetas chose to correct for constellation position progression, the seasons would shift abruptly. EITHER way the Sun would be in only one constellation throughout.

Nancy is the issue. Not me.

Btw:
Note, Catseye, you have a piece of greenstuff between your teeth. I guess that makes you a braying donkey as so many suggest instead that I am.

:-/

I just did.

Inane.

I have not been wrong about the major points in the context. AND the important stuff I've chosen to cover has not been covered by others at least not recently -- as Menow said, no-one had brought up the issue of the parallax for testing, before, etc.

What idiots you are.

And who questioned that? No one.



I said NOTHING about about constellations. A different ecliptic LINE in our sky is NOT the same thing as a "new ecliptic".

Who said anything about experiencing the ecliptic???

That is EXACTLY like saying the Moon doesn't rotate because we don't EXPERIENCE it rotating!

GAWD, Clare.

We experience the ecliptic careening all over the sky on a daily basis! What does that have to do with any REAL definition of it?

We experience the Sun orbiting Earth, too, you know!

Kindly don't say what I have allegedly 'said' without providing a direct quote.

Yes.

She is not entirely new. Cayce started it -- or mayb e Oahspe in modern times. But many myths speak of something like this.

She is also not the only one talking of Planet X or some equivalent item in the skies among less-prophecy-centred types. (Sitchen, for what he's worth or not, of course, wrote in the 1970s, at least claiming no prophetic powers; Velikovsky posited passes of planets in the 1950s, to account for the geological, electromagnetic, and mythic-historical records as well as historical records of ancient astronomers and chroniclers; Cuvier suggested in the 1790s-1820s that something overturned our polar orientation in some way, to leave massive destruction in the fossil beds around the world, etc.)

Seeing as this thread is now re-titled to suggest I am wrong, have been wrong, and contribute nothing -- despite the fact I have presented excellent suggestions and (despite mistakes on side-issues) have also contributed a lot of good material ...

I am leaving. It has been abusive to be here AND now it is taken on as some kind of purpose by the moderator.

Bye, George -- here anyway. Might join the chemtrail issue you posted. Why not stop by "for coffee" there, ha ha? They're doing the lines of chemming again today and one has been up there "dissipating slowly" for 40 min's so far. :(

So, George, post any questions to me about Nancy and the gravity stuff or catasprophism on that thread. We may start our own, for conversing on, at some point. Like that?

Too bad the potential of the minds here is wasted -- wanking in a group, when they're wrong anyway. Cold comfort, sadly, for them.


And good luck Finnsh person, in finding out about the truth behind your 9/11 Fakery debunker-attempters.

Following your lead.

Misleading; falsifying; stating out of context (thus not "what I said") and claiming meanings from what I said that I did not say ... or picking on small mistakes when they were not the important main point you missed ...

etc.

Bye, M.

With the majority of her "predictions" made in the mid 1990's, time is on her side...wait long enough and something remotely close to what she "predicted" will happen.

It has to do with NANCY and what her CLAIM can be said to FAIL or SUCCEED at explaining.

It is what you didn't understand about my comments that the stop and tilt would AFFECT the ecliptic. Not the ecliptic in absolute terms, but the ecliptic as a current totality,


dumba--.

Nastiness and stupidity will no longer be things I put up with; I'm gone.

Ciao.

Clare, how many times did you repeat this, in red and CAPS and bold?????:

"IF YOU CHANGE THE TILT YOU GET A DIFFERENT ECLIPTIC"




Now you claim that's not what you really meant???????


Fuck me running. I'm talking to a lunatic and expecting rationality!

Beware of door/ass interface.

Which is NOT AT ALL, as I have been stating.



So in what, vague imaginary terms? How about if we stand on our heads and roll our eyes around in circles? Let's define the ecliptic in terms of THAT POV from now on, OK?



What in holy fucking meaningless hell does THAT mean????






Let's see... this is fake flounce number what?

Put "PX" in there in front of 'bunkers'.

I don't flounce.

In final fairness to your confusion

I will reply:




A total definition of the ecliptic -- for the purposes of our discussion on Nancy's stoppage/tilt claims, which is the POINT here -- would include all phenomena which a stoppage/tilt would change: it would change POSITION. The ecliptic includes its position. When people mention it, in many situations, they are talking partly of its location.

The ecliptic has a position. Its line on the Earth IS a position. This is able to be referred to as "THE ECLIPTIC" as much as the ECLIPTIC IN THE SKY IS.


This plane of ecliptic on Earth would be affected.


So ... if you follow and your brain doesn't blow apart from having to get it out of your picayune a--




A tilt by Zetas could be of two types. One could correct for a) the ecliptic constellation position along the current ecliptic line on the Earth. This would create a sudden change in our seasons, for one thing. -- (This type of tilt would be a wobble tilt by Zetas).

Or the Zetas could correct for b) Sun constancy position along the current ecliptic line to maintain seasonal constancy from before stoppage to after. (This type of tilt would be a directional arc tilt by Zetas, up and down, so the Sun was high enough at proper times).

Either way, the Zetas would be facing the problem of the Sun's position's remaining always in ONE constellation, no matter what they did with tilt, during stoppage.



I am more interested in laying out all the ramifications and what is impossible vs. maybe possible in her claims than just saying it's all stupid when we have not fully isolated each part of the claim's ramifications.



Bye, "Meanow".

I have YET to be able to determing whether you actually even know what the ecliptic *IS*!



Utter bullshit! The ecliptic 'line' sweeps across Earth's surface constantly as Earth rotates. It is NOT in any static position!

You are simply trying to 'define away' your error. AGAIN!



There is NO such 'plane' on Earth. See above.



There is NO such 'line' on Earth. See above.



A 'wobble tilt', hmm? I suppose you just invented that term? WTF does it even mean?



BZZT! A WHAT?!?



So now Earth's axis can be tilted "up and down"???

BWWWWAAAAAHAHAHHHAHAAAA.A.A..A.AAAA.A...!!!!




Are you imagining that we don't know this stuff, far better than do you??




You're explaining, to *US*, that tilting Earth would change the position of things in the sky?!

BWWWWAAAAAAAHAAAHAHAHAHHAHAAAA..A..A.A..A.A..A.A!!!!!!

1. Like the precession, only faster: to keep the constellations on the right "line" of ecliptic, the correct angle for Earth.

2. Up and down in a straight arc, while we turn. This would slowly raise the Sun only in the right place and give winter-summer, but the constellations would be off all year (except for the one constellation the Sun was in, once a year).

3. I MENTIONED it and you were shocked it had anything to do with the tilt discussion.

Of course it does (as you NOW say) and I was merely -- as usual -- deliniating the changes one would see and what would be wrong still.

You are the one -- as usual -- who got off onto saying I knew nothing, toying and being stupid and finally acting like it's all true anyway (of course it is: because I know so too).

So, a discussion is impossible with you, because it's always about thinking how someone has to be wrong or adding confusion to their point so it takes a lot more to cover than would have been necessary.

I am only interested in elucidating all the fine points of the claims and laying them out for analysis, as well as the concomitant interesting side issues that come up in the process of asking about such things as rogue planets.

Moving on.

Bye, Meanow.

Now that the title has changed again, it's no longer about clunk, so we can keep it on topic hopefully. I'm glad Clunk signed up. It's easier that way to scroll past her drivel without reading it.

I already answered this.

It is the set of positions in the sky which the Sun ECLIPSES due to the line of sight we have as we revolve around the Sun. Those positions are among stars we have named as 12 constellations.



As usual, in my favour in the end, but claimed by your department of propaganda as in your favour.

So stupid you think I'm the driveller!

Regardless of your previous silly statements, tilting Earth would do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to change constellations relationships to the ecliptic.



On the other hand NO constellations could remain at 'the correct angle to Earth' if Earth were abnormally tilted.



Meaningless gobbldygook.



What in holy hell are you talking about? You now claim that I was 'shocked' at something you've said? You're a lying sack of shit.



Here's an example of your explaining the 'fine points' to us:


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


Why don't you explain THAT statement, Clare?!

Now YOU'RE describing it in the terms you [falsely] complained that *I* had used!




You are an egotistical, ignorant fool. You simply redefine previous events so that YOU can be 'right'. AGAIN!

Truly pathetic.

Clare ignores ALL corrections to her silly 'ecliptic line on Earth's surface' drivel.

Check you email . . . . you can: "send private msg" when you are logged on, left margin . . . as a member you can send and recieve messages in your Mailbox . . . .see top left welcome box.

Last Edited by George B on 06/20/2010 10:53 PM

Well, Menow, I guess we just add it to the ever growing list of things clare doesn't understand.

Right. Repeat yourself. Only change would be to the eliptic POSITION RELATIVE TO THE EARTH, which is also spoken of as the ecliptic, meaning the current position of it in our view.



Exactly. But the key ones for the Sun and winter-summer and what would be part of the tilting for keeping the seasons going would be the ecliptic constellations. But, as usual, I have elucidated the types of tilt the Zetas could do and what that would entail for our view, given the claim we're stopped. You have not.



Dum-dum.

An arc. Stopped Earth but still rotating. North down towards the Sun for northern summer, and back up for northern winter.

You're so hubristic you get stupid. You don't even work things out before you spout. Hey! That rhymes! --- The only interesting thing about talking with you, because you're so full of yourself. :)


This would slowly raise the Sun only in the right place and give winter-summer, but the constellations would be off all year (except for the one constellation the Sun was in, once a year).



Well, you called it silly again and again. And used strong language. I gave it another piece of strong language, "shock".

Whatever, dum-dum.


Here's an example of your explaining the 'fine points' to us:


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


Why don't you explain THAT statement, Clare?!


I did -- again and again, dum-dum. I meant the ecliptic plane itself IN COMBINATION WITH its current position for us. Te ecliptic as it currently IS, IN REALITY, is at a position: the current ecliptic view. People do use the term "ecliptic" to mean the whole phenomenon as we now have it, which includes the position the stellar ecliptic currently has.

Anyway, dum-dum, you are, as usual, drawing out something which was a mere ELUCIDATION of the Zeta position and what its full ramifications would be IN DETAIL. It is important to know what we'd see EXACTLY if we were going into a Zetaworld, if we are going to discuss their claim.

But you don't like to actually DISCUSS the claims, and work them through. For you, "all the stars would be out of order" is enough. This superficial level is fine for suggesting the whole Zeta stoppage/tilting thing should be dropped, but it does not show what the various options would be: the two kinds of adjustments a tilting could correct for (mere Sun -- season shift -- or keeping the current ecliptic position -- the constellations relative to earth view).

You are so boring and full of

Why deal with your misrepresentations and crap any longer?



So ... my "dear" Meanow sheepy



Who can't be nice so he drives good people like me away ... though he doesn't know what he's done ...

Your dum-dum friends will thank you. Enjoy their company! You are like them enough that you just might find a way to!

... :P

Buh-bye

I answered you in a clear way. What idiocy are you spouting now as if I didn't?