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

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.

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.



TY. I'm not paying but you can send your e-mail in a PM or just send a note and I'll try to reply via e-mail or via a post (whatever is appropriate to what you're asking in the moment).

Bye 4 now, cool dude with a Tricey!

{>:-)

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

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.

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

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.

2. Up and down in a straight arc, while we turn.


Meaningless gobbldygook.

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).

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


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.

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

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.

She can receive PMs, but she can't send them unless she's
a paying member.

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

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

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

Page 674 top, this Thread . . . you had these rights shown . . .?

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

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






Meanow, I have clarified what I meant: that the ecliptic (technical ecliptic of the sky) would shift relative to the Earth (the line shown when the positions of where the Sun rises ARE DRAWN ON THE EARTH'S SURFACE AS A LINE ON THE EARTH).

This is common in drawing it. They draw the Tropics, the Equator and the ECLIPTIC as lines on the Earth.

This is a common expression of the ecliptic. Not limited to me.

And, as you AND I pointed out, all things in the sky would shift if we were stopped and merely tilted.

My whole point was to distinguish the particulars of each type of change (planetary motions: what they'd look like; the Sun, the stars AND all their relationships). All these things determine what specific actions Zetas could take.

They could correct for the ecliptic's current progression relatiive to the Sun, stopped in one constellation, but rising and falling for summer-winter. But then the constellations wouldn't progress on the horizon at each sunrise.

Or they could correct for the slow circular change in the tilt, to mimic the constellations on the horizon at the right time for sunrise. BUT THE SUN WOULDN'T BE IN THAT CONSTELLATION.

I in fact am presenting a far more detailed specific analysis of what would happen, under each situation.

You merely are stuck on picking apart meanings, so they seem silly; you don't even try to understand and translate the general meaning of what someone's getting at, so the conversation can move on and cover all meaningful points.

BORING.

I know your type. You assume that things have to be dumb if they're not the way you'd express them; that people who know things without the specific forms you know them, have nothing to say.

You are even worse than that, too (since that's possible, sadly): when someone uses a general perception accurately (as I have, with the ecliptic) and shows she knows BOTH the general point AND the specific definition, you insist she's "refusing to be corrected"!

HA. ("Heh.")

Small mind.
Not worth my time anymore. Sorry, but it's true, even if you don't see it.

PLEASE CLUNK TAKE A HINT - YOUR A STUPID DELUDED PX BUNKER WHOS ALMOST AS GOOD AS MAKING UP BULLSHIT TO COVER YOUR ASS AS NANCY IS SO PLEASE F**K OFF AND GET A LIFE THAT DOESN'T ENVOLVE A FAILED CULT.

The tilt normally puts each new constellation over the horizon ...

... because the plane of the ecliptic relative to the equator is normally different for each part of our solar orbit DUE TO OUR TILT!!

So if we're stopped, the only thing that would mimic constellation progression along the ecliptic, would be a rolling (precession-like) tilt. But the Sun would be off except once in that cycle.

Heh. Think about it.

Get now why I mentioned the ecliptic when we talked of the tilt?



Hmmmm. Maybe you're capable -- or ...

?

2. Up and down in a straight arc, while we turn.

Let's get back to the big picture.

THE EARTH IS NOT STOPPED IN ORBIT.

Trying to defend any of Nancy's ridiculous rationalizations on the subject is idiotic.

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






Meanow, I have clarified what I meant:

that the ecliptic (technical ecliptic of the sky)

would shift relative to the Earth (the line shown when the positions of where the Sun rises ARE DRAWN ON THE EARTH'S SURFACE AS A LINE ON THE EARTH).

This is common in drawing it. They draw the Tropics, the Equator and the ECLIPTIC as lines on the Earth.

This is a common expression of the ecliptic. Not limited to me.

And, as you AND I pointed out, all things in the sky would shift if we were stopped and merely tilted.

My whole point was to distinguish the particulars of each type of change (planetary motions: what they'd look like; the Sun, the stars AND all their relationships). All these things determine what specific actions Zetas could take.

They could correct for the ecliptic's current progression relatiive to the Sun,

stopped in one constellation, but rising and falling for summer-winter. But then the constellations wouldn't progress on the horizon at each sunrise.

Or they could correct for the slow circular change in the tilt, to mimic the constellations on the horizon at the right time for sunrise. BUT THE SUN WOULDN'T BE IN THAT CONSTELLATION.

I in fact am presenting a far more detailed specific analysis of what would happen, under each situation.

You merely are stuck on picking apart meanings, so they seem silly; you don't even try to understand and translate the general meaning of what someone's getting at, so the conversation can move on and cover all meaningful points.

BORING.

I know your type. You assume that things have to be dumb if they're not the way you'd express them; that people who know things without the specific forms you know them, have nothing to say.

You are even worse than that, too (since that's possible, sadly): when someone uses a general perception accurately (as I have, with the ecliptic) and shows she knows BOTH the general point AND the specific definition, you insist she's "refusing to be corrected"!

HA. ("Heh.")

Small mind.
Not worth my time anymore. Sorry, but it's true, even if you don't see it.

To repeat, Meanow, since you miss things of meaningful content, in your will to "win":


As you AND I pointed out, all things in the sky would still shift if we were stopped and merely tilted.

My whole point was to distinguish the particulars of each type of change (planetary motions: what they'd look like; the Sun, the stars AND all their relationships). All these things determine what specific actions Zetas could take.

1.
They could correct for the ecliptic's current progression relative to the Sun,

stopped in one constellation, by tilting in a rising and falling motion (a straight direction arc, north towards and away from the Sun) to create a summer-winter. But then the constellations wouldn't progress on the horizon at each sunrise.

One could say in this instance that a stopped Sun watch is right all the year but the stars are always wrong but once. Heh.

2.
Or, they could tilt us to correct for the slow circular change of the constellations which we normally have at Sunrise.

Why would tilt achieve this?

Oh you have such a hard time with this one.

A tiny violin playing for you:



The tilt normally puts each new constellation over the horizon ...

... because the plane of the ecliptic relative to the equator is normally different for each part of the orbit DUE TO OUR TILT!!

Heh.

So the Zetas could tilt us for the right constellations to still appear in the morning, BUT IF WE WERE STOPPED,

THE SUN WOULDN'T BE IN THE MORNING CONSTELLATION EXCEPT AT ONE POINT OF THE YEAR. In this scenario, a stopped Sun watch is right once an orbit -- "heh".


So if we're stopped, the only thing that would mimic constellation progression along the ecliptic, would be a rolling (precession-like) tilt. But the Sun would be off except once in that cycle.

Heh. Think about it.




I in fact am presenting a far more detailed specific analysis of what would happen, under each situation of the Zeta claim's postulate of stoppage and false tilt.


Heh.


THINK.

So, Meanow ... you get it now ...?

So, Meanow ... you get it now ...?


You can stop repeating your flawed explanation now.

So, she's not alone on this. If she is having visions of real Zetas, they may be protecting her in this issue about Obama.

`THE LONE RANGERS Debunker Talk LIVE - Zetas 100% Wrong Yet Again!!'


That I like....


Me too. I missed whatever happened, but I miss him.

The tilt normally puts each new constellation over the horizon ...

But it doesn't. No amount of tilt of planet earth will reveal constellations behind the sun. You can turn earth upside down, yet constellations behind the sun remain behind the sun and not visible.

So, she's not alone on this. If she is having visions of real Zetas, they may be protecting her in this issue about Obama.



What a wonderfully scientific hypothesis you’ve formulated there!

This is what science does.

Nancy jumped the shark when she came up with the Great White
Lie. But she's manage to do the near impossible, jump the
shark multiple times. No one with any common sense and the
ability to reason can believe that the Earth is halted in it's
orbit. Just the halting alone would see inertial energy
destroy the planet. Zetatlk science requires high degrees of
passionate credulity or trolling to support.

I am being a scientist about the situation