| Users Online Now: 1,528 (Who's On?) | Visitors Today: 463,565 | |
| Pageviews Today: 747,053 | Threads Today: 209 | Posts Today: 3,855 |
| 07:53 AM | ||
| Users Online Now: 1,528 (Who's On?) | Visitors Today: 463,565 | |
| Pageviews Today: 747,053 | Threads Today: 209 | Posts Today: 3,855 |
| 07:53 AM | ||
Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!! | |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 705842  United States08/04/2009 08:19 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | BTW, did you know that she recently admitted that she didn't know how to use the astronomical coordinate system at the time, and that she always thought that RA and Dec were the same as azimuth and elevation? |
J.William Dell  User ID: 639476  Canada08/04/2009 08:24 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | One never sums images when stacking astronomical data. That only enhances noise and makes hot pixels brighter. The proper procedure is a min/max excluded algorithm, or a sigma-clipped average algorithm that deletes data that is not correlated from frame to frame. Quoting: 88145 705842Would that be a type of interpolation? |
| Menow User ID: 405501 United States08/04/2009 08:30 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | One never sums images when stacking astronomical data. That only enhances noise and makes hot pixels brighter. The proper procedure is a min/max excluded algorithm, or a sigma-clipped average algorithm that deletes data that is not correlated from frame to frame. Quoting: 88145 705842Yeah. What he said. Pretty good for a "fake astronomer". Heh. |
| Menow User ID: 405501 United States08/04/2009 08:31 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I have wondered what had become of you and what your current opinion would be. I'm sure it will be of positive benefit for those who will accept what it means. Thanks for giving it. Quoting: J.William DellThe "saving face" point I raised was about your statement that something was found right at Nancy's coords. Such was NOT the case and played an important role in her ability to perpetuate her hoax. "objects" were found NEAR to her coordinates. However, they were, for the most part NOT OBJECTS AT ALL. There was one known asteroid, but the specks of fluff she pointed out were mainly things like hot pixels, etc, preserved in the final stack by summing the images instead of using a method which would eliminate such flaws in the individual images. Any chance you will agree with this at this time? Yes JWD Thank you. I supposed Nancy would say that you have been threatened to get you to change your story. Heh. |
| J.William Dell User ID: 639476 Canada08/04/2009 08:38 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | So, what would be your response to Nancy when she repeatedly states, even today, that her planet x was imaged at the coordinates given by the zetas? As I stated, the premise of ZT was the arrival of PX on or about May 15 2003. If the planet didn't follow the trajectory of the supplied coordinates and show up on May 15 2003, logic dictates that any images taken of the supplied coordinates at the given times would not include PX. If it did not exist at the end date, how could it exist before? BTW, did you know that she recently admitted that she didn't know how to use the astronomical coordinate system at the time, and that she always thought that RA and Dec were the same as azimuth and elevation? Yes Kindest Regards J.William Dell[ Last Edited by J.William on 08/07/2009 10:16 PM |
| 88145 User ID: 705842 United States08/04/2009 08:48 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | One never sums images when stacking astronomical data. That only enhances noise and makes hot pixels brighter. The proper procedure is a min/max excluded algorithm, or a sigma-clipped average algorithm that deletes data that is not correlated from frame to frame. Quoting: J.William DellWould that be a type of interpolation? No. It's simply a mathematical averaging (or median combine) of the luminance and chrominance values of each corresponding pixel in the aligned images to be stacked...except that the outlyers are ignored that are present in one frame, but not all. True data will be present in all frames. That gets rid of the occasional cosmic ray hit or readout noise that affects one frame but not all. To get rid of hot pixels, a master dark frame taken at the same temperature and exposure time is subtracted from each RAW frame. This rids the image of hot pixels that are visible even with the scope's lens cap on. You can see some examples of my processing here... www.machunter.org/hapspics.html |
| 88145 User ID: 705842 United States08/04/2009 08:49 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | So, what would be your response to Nancy when she repeatedly states, even today, that her planet x was imaged at the coordinates given by the zetas? Quoting: J.William DellAs I stated, the premise of ZT was the arrival of PX on or about May 15 2003. If the planet didn't follow the trajectory of the supplied coordinates and show up on May 15 2003, logic dictates that any images taken of the supplied coordinates at the given times would not include PX. If it did not exist at the end date, how could it exist before? BTW, did you know that she recently admitted that she didn't know how to use the astronomical coordinate system at the time, and that she always thought that RA and Dec were the same as azimuth and elevation? Yes Kindest Regards J.William Dell You know, if you were to say that in her chat, you would be quickly banned. I have been for saying exactly that. |
| J.William Dell User ID: 639476 Canada08/04/2009 09:12 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | One never sums images when stacking astronomical data. That only enhances noise and makes hot pixels brighter. The proper procedure is a min/max excluded algorithm, or a sigma-clipped average algorithm that deletes data that is not correlated from frame to frame. Quoting: 88145 705842Would that be a type of interpolation? No. It's simply a mathematical averaging (or median combine) of the luminance and chrominance values of each corresponding pixel in the aligned images to be stacked...except that the outlyers are ignored that are present in one frame, but not all. True data will be present in all frames. That gets rid of the occasional cosmic ray hit or readout noise that affects one frame but not all. To get rid of hot pixels, a master dark frame taken at the same temperature and exposure time is subtracted from each RAW frame. This rids the image of hot pixels that are visible even with the scope's lens cap on. You can see some examples of my processing here... www.machunter.org/hapspics.html Appreciate the explanation. And the web site - exceptional images. Regards JWD |
| ***ZetaMax*** User ID: 742463 United States08/04/2009 09:26 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I have wondered what had become of you and what your current opinion would be. I'm sure it will be of positive benefit for those who will accept what it means. Thanks for giving it. Quoting: Menow 405501The "saving face" point I raised was about your statement that something was found right at Nancy's coords. Such was NOT the case and played an important role in her ability to perpetuate her hoax. "objects" were found NEAR to her coordinates. However, they were, for the most part NOT OBJECTS AT ALL. There was one known asteroid, but the specks of fluff she pointed out were mainly things like hot pixels, etc, preserved in the final stack by summing the images instead of using a method which would eliminate such flaws in the individual images. Any chance you will agree with this at this time? Yes JWD Thank you. I supposed Nancy would say that you have been threatened to get you to change your story. Heh. No need. The best advice we can give on this matter is to read with your heart as well as your mind. Follow the flow, let the nuances lie unanswered and unchallenged in your mind. Treat this as a garden you are walking through for the first time, and experience it fully without trying to categorize it! Much of what you will learn will be processed in your subconscious, and influence your conscious mind later. If you must dissect each phrase, and correlate it with each piece of information taken from another source, you will trash much of what you could otherwise gain. Live in the gray, not always insisting on black and white and strict compartmentalizations. ZetaTalk: Oahspe Note: written Apr 15, 1997. [link to www.zetatalk.com] ZetaMax |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 705842 United States08/04/2009 09:27 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | One never sums images when stacking astronomical data. That only enhances noise and makes hot pixels brighter. The proper procedure is a min/max excluded algorithm, or a sigma-clipped average algorithm that deletes data that is not correlated from frame to frame. Quoting: J.William DellWould that be a type of interpolation? No. It's simply a mathematical averaging (or median combine) of the luminance and chrominance values of each corresponding pixel in the aligned images to be stacked...except that the outlyers are ignored that are present in one frame, but not all. True data will be present in all frames. That gets rid of the occasional cosmic ray hit or readout noise that affects one frame but not all. To get rid of hot pixels, a master dark frame taken at the same temperature and exposure time is subtracted from each RAW frame. This rids the image of hot pixels that are visible even with the scope's lens cap on. You can see some examples of my processing here... www.machunter.org/hapspics.html Appreciate the explanation. And the web site - exceptional images. Regards JWD Thanks for the kind comment. Real science is truly magical and wonderous. No imaginary planet x needed! |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 705842 United States08/04/2009 09:29 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I have wondered what had become of you and what your current opinion would be. I'm sure it will be of positive benefit for those who will accept what it means. Thanks for giving it. Quoting: ***ZetaMax***The "saving face" point I raised was about your statement that something was found right at Nancy's coords. Such was NOT the case and played an important role in her ability to perpetuate her hoax. "objects" were found NEAR to her coordinates. However, they were, for the most part NOT OBJECTS AT ALL. There was one known asteroid, but the specks of fluff she pointed out were mainly things like hot pixels, etc, preserved in the final stack by summing the images instead of using a method which would eliminate such flaws in the individual images. Any chance you will agree with this at this time? Yes JWD Thank you. I supposed Nancy would say that you have been threatened to get you to change your story. Heh. No need. So, Max. What are your thoughts on the statements by Nancy's own "imaging team" member? He has shown tremendous character, I'd say. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 742465  United Kingdom08/04/2009 09:34 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I have wondered what had become of you and what your current opinion would be. I'm sure it will be of positive benefit for those who will accept what it means. Thanks for giving it. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 705842The "saving face" point I raised was about your statement that something was found right at Nancy's coords. Such was NOT the case and played an important role in her ability to perpetuate her hoax. "objects" were found NEAR to her coordinates. However, they were, for the most part NOT OBJECTS AT ALL. There was one known asteroid, but the specks of fluff she pointed out were mainly things like hot pixels, etc, preserved in the final stack by summing the images instead of using a method which would eliminate such flaws in the individual images. Any chance you will agree with this at this time? Yes JWD Thank you. I supposed Nancy would say that you have been threatened to get you to change your story. Heh. No need. So, Max. What are your thoughts on the statements by Nancy's own "imaging team" member? He has shown tremendous character, I'd say. And a lot more intelligence than any one of the sock-puppet/ass-licking crew that now make up the entirety of the Zeta cult. |
| ***ZetaMax*** User ID: 733231 United States08/05/2009 07:42 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I have wondered what had become of you and what your current opinion would be. I'm sure it will be of positive benefit for those who will accept what it means. Thanks for giving it. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 705842The "saving face" point I raised was about your statement that something was found right at Nancy's coords. Such was NOT the case and played an important role in her ability to perpetuate her hoax. "objects" were found NEAR to her coordinates. However, they were, for the most part NOT OBJECTS AT ALL. There was one known asteroid, but the specks of fluff she pointed out were mainly things like hot pixels, etc, preserved in the final stack by summing the images instead of using a method which would eliminate such flaws in the individual images. Any chance you will agree with this at this time? Yes JWD Thank you. I supposed Nancy would say that you have been threatened to get you to change your story. Heh. No need. So, Max. What are your thoughts on the statements by Nancy's own "imaging team" member? He has shown tremendous character, I'd say. Is that how you "character"-ize BETRAYAL??? (That's just a "rhetorical" question - actual betrayal is not possible because Zetatalk is not a cult.) The best advice we can give on this matter is to read with your heart as well as your mind. Follow the flow, let the nuances lie unanswered and unchallenged in your mind. Treat this as a garden you are walking through for the first time, and experience it fully without trying to categorize it! Much of what you will learn will be processed in your subconscious, and influence your conscious mind later. If you must dissect each phrase, and correlate it with each piece of information taken from another source, you will trash much of what you could otherwise gain. Live in the gray, not always insisting on black and white and strict compartmentalizations. ZetaTalk: Oahspe Note: written Apr 15, 1997. [link to www.zetatalk.com] ZetaMax |
| KeepingItReal User ID: 553451 Canada08/05/2009 09:34 AM  Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Max will never accept that Nancy is just full of shit. He isn't interested in the facts, he is willing to ignore that the supposed planet x was not imaged at the coordinates that Nancy gave, not even when the person that would know tells us how it went down. Even though Nancy admitted that she didn't know azimuth from RA, which she still calls "right angle", Max won't acknowledge that any coordinates she gave way back when were based on her ignorance, and are therefore not reliable. Max is just here to stir up shit and drag the discussion off topic and into inanities and graphics. Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak. |
| Circuit Breaker User ID: 612979 United States08/05/2009 09:46 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Is that how you "character"-ize BETRAYAL??? Quoting: ***ZetaMax***ZetaMax supports ZetaTalk so much that when a former believer comes forward and tells the truth by admitting "Planet X" wasn't imaged in 2003 as Nancy continues to claim, Max has to claim that person betrayed Nancy. It's all the proof anyone needs to see that Max is not a fence sitter. A voice of reason in a world of woo-woos. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 719433 United States08/05/2009 10:41 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I have wondered what had become of you and what your current opinion would be. I'm sure it will be of positive benefit for those who will accept what it means. Thanks for giving it. Quoting: ***ZetaMax***The "saving face" point I raised was about your statement that something was found right at Nancy's coords. Such was NOT the case and played an important role in her ability to perpetuate her hoax. "objects" were found NEAR to her coordinates. However, they were, for the most part NOT OBJECTS AT ALL. There was one known asteroid, but the specks of fluff she pointed out were mainly things like hot pixels, etc, preserved in the final stack by summing the images instead of using a method which would eliminate such flaws in the individual images. Any chance you will agree with this at this time? Yes JWD Thank you. I supposed Nancy would say that you have been threatened to get you to change your story. Heh. No need. So, Max. What are your thoughts on the statements by Nancy's own "imaging team" member? He has shown tremendous character, I'd say. Is that how you "character"-ize BETRAYAL??? (That's just a "rhetorical" question - actual betrayal is not possible because Zetatalk is not a cult.) Are you saying that because Dell admits that they were wrong back in 2003 about imaging something at the "zetas" coordinates (which Nancy still claims happened)...in other words TELLING THE TRUTH...that he is a "betrayer"? Is TAHT what you're saying? That pretty much demolishes your "on the fence" bullshit...as well as exposing the cult for what it is...when someone who was part of the faithful comes clean with the truth, that he is a "betrayer". Max, with this one simple statement, you have exposed yourself and your motives completely. |
| Circuit Breaker User ID: 612979 United States08/05/2009 10:55 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Yes, I believe that's what he's saying. Sounds like it anyway. Here's an example of what Nancy's supporters will do to keep from admitting she's wrong: Just remember, it's not the destination, but the journey that is most important! Quoting: Star Dust 332451Yes, agreed! Quoting: User # 78/68Come on! What good is the journey if the final destination doesn't exist? Last Edited by Circuit Breaker on 08/05/2009 11:00 AM A voice of reason in a world of woo-woos. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 658394 United States08/05/2009 06:41 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Is that how you "character"-ize BETRAYAL??? Quoting: ***ZetaMax***Hm. How is it betrayal to simply state that no PX was identified at the coordinates Nancy gave? What has Dell betrayed? Zetamax, can you find fault with Dell's simple statement of fact? Or with Dell's movement from curious to believer to skeptic to disbeliever (In Nancy's version of PX, anyway), and his reasons for said movement? How do YOU believe Dell should have acted? |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 705842 United States08/05/2009 07:32 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Is that how you "character"-ize BETRAYAL??? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 658394Hm. How is it betrayal to simply state that no PX was identified at the coordinates Nancy gave? What has Dell betrayed? Zetamax, can you find fault with Dell's simple statement of fact? Or with Dell's movement from curious to believer to skeptic to disbeliever (In Nancy's version of PX, anyway), and his reasons for said movement? How do YOU believe Dell should have acted? I'm guessing just like Max does...even though Max knows that Nancy is wrong, he remains loyal since he's a lapdog. I'm sorry Max, but most people have more character than that. |
| Menow User ID: 405501 United States08/05/2009 08:04 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I just had a thought. If Mr. Dell wanted to, he could appologise to John Oliver(IM Openminded) DIRECTLY. He is still available at his University, in Florida, I believe. I emailed him in the last year and he responded. I'm sure he would be greatly surprised and appreciative. Dell could also consider doing the same for Sarah Macintyre(silk), from the old IRC chat days. Her website is no longer up on geocities and I don't know where she might be found. |
| ***ZetaMax*** User ID: 742463 United States08/05/2009 11:26 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Is that how you "character"-ize BETRAYAL??? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 658394Hm. How is it betrayal to simply state that no PX was identified at the coordinates Nancy gave? What has Dell betrayed? Zetamax, can you find fault with Dell's simple statement of fact? Or with Dell's movement from curious to believer to skeptic to disbeliever (In Nancy's version of PX, anyway), and his reasons for said movement? How do YOU believe Dell should have acted? I just find the timing of his re-appearance, HIGHLY suspect!! The best advice we can give on this matter is to read with your heart as well as your mind. Follow the flow, let the nuances lie unanswered and unchallenged in your mind. Treat this as a garden you are walking through for the first time, and experience it fully without trying to categorize it! Much of what you will learn will be processed in your subconscious, and influence your conscious mind later. If you must dissect each phrase, and correlate it with each piece of information taken from another source, you will trash much of what you could otherwise gain. Live in the gray, not always insisting on black and white and strict compartmentalizations. ZetaTalk: Oahspe Note: written Apr 15, 1997. [link to www.zetatalk.com] ZetaMax |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 743457  Ukraine08/06/2009 02:53 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Thanks, Dell. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 6330If I might ask: I have wondered what is it about the Zetatalk idea that makes it 'catchy.' It isn't a matter of intelligence whether one tends to believe ZT or not: lots of very intelligent people will have beliefs that are outlandish to the mainstream. What do you think was the quality of the ZT ideas that led you to believe it, rather than other similar ideas out there? Likewise, how did you maintain the self control necessary to break free of the ZT idea once PX didn't show up? I think that takes a very rare quality in a person, a very rare strength, and you should be quite pleased with yourself for possessing it. I am glad you are well. Please answer if you have the time. how did you get to break free of your brain, may i ask?  |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 743470 Ukraine08/06/2009 02:56 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| KeepingItReal User ID: 553451 Canada08/06/2009 06:38 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I just find the timing of his re-appearance, HIGHLY suspect!! Quoting: ***ZetaMax***Just as I found the timing of your re-appearance, when Nancy's threads were dying out at page 7 HIGHLY suspect. Fence sitter indeed! Last Edited by KeepingItReal on 08/06/2009 06:38 AM Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak. |
| The Lone Ranger (OP) User ID: 743617  New Zealand08/06/2009 08:43 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Is that how you "character"-ize BETRAYAL??? Quoting: ***ZetaMax***Hm. How is it betrayal to simply state that no PX was identified at the coordinates Nancy gave? What has Dell betrayed? Zetamax, can you find fault with Dell's simple statement of fact? Or with Dell's movement from curious to believer to skeptic to disbeliever (In Nancy's version of PX, anyway), and his reasons for said movement? How do YOU believe Dell should have acted? I just find the timing of his re-appearance, HIGHLY suspect!!  Only a few morons left on GLP that really believe Nancy's Failed crap.As for you Melfy I find the timing of your re-appearance as HIGHLY suspect!!  Life Is But A Dream!! Therefore, "'Tis better to have dreamed and lost than never to have dreamed at all." ------------------------------------ Disclaimer: DON'T BELIEVE A DAMN WORD YOU READ ON THIS THREAD!....USE DISCERNMENT!! |
| The Lone Ranger (OP) User ID: 743617 New Zealand08/06/2009 08:54 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | You Nancy sheep ought to go over to the debunkers' thread and see J.W. Dell, one of Nancy's own "imaging team" back in 2003, admiting how she is wrong and px doesn't exist. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 719433The remaining bunker followers of zitatalk, here at GLP, are incapable of accepting the truth even after all these six years.  I just know that Ms LIEDer is feeling pretty pissed at the moment. Freaken  !!!!!!!!!!!Life Is But A Dream!! Therefore, "'Tis better to have dreamed and lost than never to have dreamed at all." ------------------------------------ Disclaimer: DON'T BELIEVE A DAMN WORD YOU READ ON THIS THREAD!....USE DISCERNMENT!! |
| ***ZetaMax*** User ID: 659599 United States08/06/2009 09:12 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Is that how you "character"-ize BETRAYAL??? Quoting: The Lone RangerHm. How is it betrayal to simply state that no PX was identified at the coordinates Nancy gave? What has Dell betrayed? Zetamax, can you find fault with Dell's simple statement of fact? Or with Dell's movement from curious to believer to skeptic to disbeliever (In Nancy's version of PX, anyway), and his reasons for said movement? How do YOU believe Dell should have acted? I just find the timing of his re-appearance, HIGHLY suspect!! Only a few morons left on GLP that really believe Nancy's Failed crap.As for you Melfy I find the timing of your re-appearance as HIGHLY suspect!! Dang! Trinity's war on shills has missed you! The best advice we can give on this matter is to read with your heart as well as your mind. Follow the flow, let the nuances lie unanswered and unchallenged in your mind. Treat this as a garden you are walking through for the first time, and experience it fully without trying to categorize it! Much of what you will learn will be processed in your subconscious, and influence your conscious mind later. If you must dissect each phrase, and correlate it with each piece of information taken from another source, you will trash much of what you could otherwise gain. Live in the gray, not always insisting on black and white and strict compartmentalizations. ZetaTalk: Oahspe Note: written Apr 15, 1997. [link to www.zetatalk.com] ZetaMax |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 719433 United States08/06/2009 09:15 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Is that how you "character"-ize BETRAYAL??? Quoting: ***ZetaMax***Hm. How is it betrayal to simply state that no PX was identified at the coordinates Nancy gave? What has Dell betrayed? Zetamax, can you find fault with Dell's simple statement of fact? Or with Dell's movement from curious to believer to skeptic to disbeliever (In Nancy's version of PX, anyway), and his reasons for said movement? How do YOU believe Dell should have acted? I just find the timing of his re-appearance, HIGHLY suspect!! You didn't answer the question. How do YOU think that Dell, once he realized that Nancy was wrong, should have acted? Should he have maintained his loyalty to Nancy and kept up the bunker act, even though he knew it to be erroneous, or come clean with his newfound realization? You seem to be insinuating with your "betrayal" comment that he should have kept quiet even though he knew she was wrong. Is that how you define "character"? |
| Circuit Breaker User ID: 612979 United States08/06/2009 10:43 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Circuit Breaker User ID: 612979 United States08/06/2009 10:45 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
