How was all of this encoded into the front page of the Sonnets?

Who else knows what we know, Jerry?
Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 24177
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: How was all of this encoded into the front page of the Sonnets?

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sat Mar 11, 2017 1:35 am

Salomed Explains how John Dee used Shakespeare.
salomed wrote: In this video, Alan Green says, exactly at the 1:03:52
"Yes there was a rumour his code name was 007. Yes we have never found any actual evidence of it."

John Dee signiture.jpg
Who is "we"? :lol:
Salomed, tell us what Alan Green, the musician, claims about John Dee, spying and Shakespeare? You have read his full books about Shakespeare and Dee haven't you? What do your magical geometric shapes you identified in Shakespeare's Sonnet page tell us?



Cipher VS Coding
salomed wrote: Not once in this thread have I used the word "cipher"
Oh......that's right. :D
You said the geometric shapes were encoded into the Sonnets title page. Therefore there is no "cipher key" and the message is clear and simply swapping one letter for another. Can you show us the code that says drop two dots, draw a right angled triangle, draw a circle and so on? Oddly that would have to be cipher wouldn't it?


The Zodiac Signs in the Stars
As Poodle already asked you, do you think the Zodiac signs are encoded into the stars? No? Do you think humans simply imposed existing known shapes on to some stars and not others? Yes? So haven't you done exactly the same by imposing know geometric shapes onto some dots but not others, some line ends and not other line ends etc etc in a completely arbitrary way? Where is the fixed "code" or "Cipher key" you claim exists? Set it out for us. :lol:
Horoscope.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 24177
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: How was all of this encoded into the front page of the Sonnets?

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sat Mar 11, 2017 1:43 am

salomed wrote:Oh this is amazing. Truely, I think. Ignoring fractions of full stops and, instead, looking at the big and obvious picture, how could this be?
There is no code Salomed. Write out the code you think Alan Green discovered.
Tom Mix Code Wheel.jpg


Here is another example of a code.
Learn-morse-code-alphabet.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7393
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: How was all of this encoded into the front page of the Sonnets?

Postby Poodle » Sat Mar 11, 2017 7:39 am

salomed wrote:Oh this is amazing. Truely, I think ...
... Ignoring fractions of full stops and, instead, looking at the big and obvious picture, how could this be?


Ignoring (clearly present real things) and instead looking at the (stuff I really want to see) ...
That's how it could be.

User avatar
salomed
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1046
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2011 4:18 pm
Custom Title: Cartesian Skeptic

Re: How was all of this encoded into the front page of the Sonnets?

Postby salomed » Sat Mar 11, 2017 8:10 am

You guys have become flat earthers. #ironic
Last edited by salomed on Sat Mar 11, 2017 8:13 am, edited 1 time in total.
Comment savez-vous que vous ne parlez pas bollox?
Sur internet: http://bit.ly/14A0n9H

User avatar
salomed
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1046
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2011 4:18 pm
Custom Title: Cartesian Skeptic

Re: How was all of this encoded into the front page of the Sonnets?

Postby salomed » Sat Mar 11, 2017 8:12 am

Ellard the level of misdirected nitpicking you have sunk to is almost as amazing as the amazing maths indubitably encoded in the sonnets.
Comment savez-vous que vous ne parlez pas bollox?
Sur internet: http://bit.ly/14A0n9H

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7393
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: How was all of this encoded into the front page of the Sonnets?

Postby Poodle » Sat Mar 11, 2017 8:35 am

salomed wrote:Ellard the level of misdirected nitpicking you have sunk to is almost as amazing as the amazing maths indubitably encoded in the sonnets.


Nitpicking? To extract numbers accurate to three decimal places? I'm sorry but :lol: And double :lol: considering how much easier it would have been to simply print the values of the constants on that page. But no - oh no. Instead, they have to be hidden in an arcane and inaccurate and invisible geometrical construction.

In the age of Galileo, Copernicus and Kepler, this is simply risible. But please - do have a go at explaining why the information you claim is so artfully hidden should have been hidden at all.

User avatar
salomed
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1046
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2011 4:18 pm
Custom Title: Cartesian Skeptic

Re: How was all of this encoded into the front page of the Sonnets?

Postby salomed » Sat Mar 11, 2017 1:14 pm

Poodle wrote:
salomed wrote:Ellard the level of misdirected nitpicking you have sunk to is almost as amazing as the amazing maths indubitably encoded in the sonnets.


Nitpicking? To extract numbers accurate to three decimal places? I'm sorry but :lol: And double :lol: considering how much easier it would have been to simply print the values of the constants on that page. But no - oh no. Instead, they have to be hidden in an arcane and inaccurate and invisible geometrical construction.
.


Three decimal places? That is nigh on nanometers when talking about fractions of a full stop. And you must know that.

The circle is there, as is the rest. You are wrong if you think otherwise.

You cannot even establish falseifiability conditions, so extant is the information.

It matters not either regarding your attempt at distraction. I do not know why they are there, or currently care, what is certain to me now is that they are there.


I doubt you will find another post in my near decade of posting here in which I have claimed certainty.
Comment savez-vous que vous ne parlez pas bollox?
Sur internet: http://bit.ly/14A0n9H

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7393
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: How was all of this encoded into the front page of the Sonnets?

Postby Poodle » Sat Mar 11, 2017 7:24 pm

I don't think I'll find another of your posts in which you've been so dogmatically mistaken. You are refusing to recognise how tolerances work and you are pulling accuracy claims from thin air. And to top it all, you have completely failed (and will continue to fail to provide ANY realistic reason) to explain why the information was not simply published openly.

User avatar
salomed
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1046
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2011 4:18 pm
Custom Title: Cartesian Skeptic

Re: How was all of this encoded into the front page of the Sonnets?

Postby salomed » Sat Mar 11, 2017 8:04 pm

Poodle wrote:I don't think I'll find another of your posts in which you've been so dogmatically mistaken. You are refusing to recognise how tolerances work and you are pulling accuracy claims from thin air. And to top it all, you have completely failed (and will continue to fail to provide ANY realistic reason) to explain why the information was not simply published openly.



Download the image and see for yourself.

In the time you have spent replying to me you could have seen the circle and constants without any doubt.

Why would you not try?
Comment savez-vous que vous ne parlez pas bollox?
Sur internet: http://bit.ly/14A0n9H

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 24177
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Salomed is lying again

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sat Mar 11, 2017 11:28 pm

salomed wrote:Ellard the level of misdirected nitpicking you have sunk to is almost as amazing as the amazing maths indubitably encoded in the sonnets.
Nothing is encoded anywhere. Five times I have asked you to set out "the code" which allows the user to arbitrarily ignore some dots but not other, arbitrarily ignore some lines but not others and you have run away five times.

Alan Green, under three different names, has copied Dan Brown's "The Da Vinci Code" and put out self published books. The "give away" is that Alan Green uses a different arbitrary method with each new application of "woo coincidence".


Salomed doesn't know what an anachronism is.
In his second video Alan Green shows how the google map coordinates for the Giza pyramid (29.9792458, 31.134658) partially matches the speed of light in metres per second (299,792,458 m/s) and John Dee, in 1607AD incorporated this in Shakespeare's Sonnets. John Dee had no idea what a modern metre is, nor did he use Google maps in 1607AD.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmdebTnrUaM&list=PLoSJzdgiZ_XIZQDm5DAaaCavgkdV8xb5e

Alan Green's Cable TV Show didn't get up.
Alan Green, AKA Barcode, already put out the same claims in 2012 in his first book "Dee-constructing Shakespeare" . He simply tried to get up a cable TV show in 2016 making all the same claims with new videos and reedited his 2012 book into three new books.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DeY83vn03Lc

Salomed? What is Alan Green's Ultimate claim?
You have been avoiding this like the plague. What is Alan Green's ultimate claim about John Dee, Shakespeare and the Giza pyramid? I know what it is........so do you. Say it openly.
:lol:

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 24177
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

A sucker is born every minute

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sat Mar 11, 2017 11:38 pm

Poodle wrote:But please - do have a go at explaining why the information you claim is so artfully hidden should have been hidden at all.
Even more fun, I am next going to get Salomed to replicate some of Alan Green's mathematics, Especially the formulas John Dee, in 1607AD, supposedly incorporated, using modern metres and unknown Egyptian cubits. :lol:

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27093
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Wild animal
Location: Transcona

Re: How was all of this encoded into the front page of the Sonnets?

Postby Gord » Sun Mar 12, 2017 2:08 am

salomed wrote:
Poodle wrote:I don't think I'll find another of your posts in which you've been so dogmatically mistaken. You are refusing to recognise how tolerances work and you are pulling accuracy claims from thin air. And to top it all, you have completely failed (and will continue to fail to provide ANY realistic reason) to explain why the information was not simply published openly.



Download the image and see for yourself.

In the time you have spent replying to me you could have seen the circle and constants without any doubt.

Why would you not try?

Go back to page 2:

Gord wrote:See? Look at how I ruined by priceless book with a ballpoint pen!

Ruined Book.gif

And I didn't even need to do that! Woe is me!

If you draw a circle and bisect it with a straight line through its centre point, like this:

Not the Death Star.png

Then any triangle you draw like this:

Not the Death Star with a triangle in it.png

Will be a right triangle. It's called Thales' Theorem.

But! I was unable to draw a true circle in my copy of Shakespeare's sonnets. To match up the dots, I had to draw an oval. And that means my triangles were not right triangles.

Also, any time you have a circle, the number Pi is going to crop up -- especially if you're already working with the diameter (the straight line that I mentioned bisects the circle through its centre point).

It's just basic bamboozlement to impress people who don't know much about geometry.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4GLAKEjU4w

It's not a circle. Someone could make it a circle by fudging it a little one way or another, but you could do that with just about anything.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 24177
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: How was all of this encoded into the front page of the Sonnets?

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sun Mar 12, 2017 2:45 am

As con-artist go, Alan Green isn't very good at it. Alan Green claims John Dee hid measurements in cubits and metres in Shakespeare's Sonnets in 1607.

The Egyptian Cubit was first measured by Carl Richard Lepsius is 1865 and it varies by 523.5 to 529.2 mm.

The metre was originally defined in 1793.
:D

Fun Story
In first year Anthropology, we were given written scenarios with drawings. One described a Roman coin featuring imagery of Caesar and Venus. The coin's engraved date of 44BC was correct for the imagery and events, and the word "DICT PERPET" ("dictator for life") was in correct abridged Latin for the time. The silver alloy was right and the aging of the coin was all good. The coin being stuck to commemorate Caesar's appointment was mentioned in other contemporary histories. It was obviously a fake.
:D

User avatar
salomed
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1046
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2011 4:18 pm
Custom Title: Cartesian Skeptic

Re: How was all of this encoded into the front page of the Sonnets?

Postby salomed » Sun Mar 12, 2017 8:40 am

Gord wrote:It's not a circle. Someone could make it a circle by fudging it a little one way or another, but you could do that with just about anything.


Not true. It is a circle. You are wrong. I am unsure if, like Ellard, you know you are wrong but cannot admit it it.

And the constants are there.

It's all there.

All you can say, is it isn't. Which is a lowly, lowly, retort given the blindingly obvious evidence.
Comment savez-vous que vous ne parlez pas bollox?
Sur internet: http://bit.ly/14A0n9H

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27093
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Wild animal
Location: Transcona

Re: How was all of this encoded into the front page of the Sonnets?

Postby Gord » Sun Mar 12, 2017 9:11 am

salomed wrote:
Gord wrote:It's not a circle. Someone could make it a circle by fudging it a little one way or another, but you could do that with just about anything.

Not true. It is a circle. You are wrong. I am unsure if, like Ellard, you know you are wrong but cannot admit it it.

No, it's not a circle. Someone could make it a circle by fudging it a little one way or another, but you could do that with just about anything.

I'm sure you, like most wooists I've encountered, don't even understand why you're wrong. I can't really care anymore, it's too much like work.

And the constants are there.

To paraphrase what Yoda said to Luke, the things you find within it are only the things you take into it with you.

It's all there.

All you can say, is it isn't.

Well of course. What is should I be able to say? You present an obvious case where what you want to see isn't actually there, and all I can do is point out that you are wrong. I can't show you what's not there, all I can do is show you what is there and tell you why you're seeing what you want to see rather than what is actually there to be seen.

It's not a circle. Someone could make it a circle by fudging it a little one way or another, but you could do that with just about anything.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

User avatar
salomed
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1046
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2011 4:18 pm
Custom Title: Cartesian Skeptic

Re: How was all of this encoded into the front page of the Sonnets?

Postby salomed » Sun Mar 12, 2017 10:11 am

Gord wrote:
salomed wrote:
Gord wrote:It's not a circle. Someone could make it a circle by fudging it a little one way or another, but you could do that with just about anything.

Not true. It is a circle. You are wrong. I am unsure if, like Ellard, you know you are wrong but cannot admit it it.

No, it's not a circle. Someone could make it a circle by fudging it a little one way or another, but you could do that with just about anything.

I'm sure you, like most wooists I've encountered, don't even understand why you're wrong. I can't really care anymore, it's too much like work.

And the constants are there.

To paraphrase what Yoda said to Luke, the things you find within it are only the things you take into it with you.

It's all there.

All you can say, is it isn't.

Well of course. What is should I be able to say? You present an obvious case where what you want to see isn't actually there, and all I can do is point out that you are wrong. I can't show you what's not there, all I can do is show you what is there and tell you why you're seeing what you want to see rather than what is actually there to be seen.

It's not a circle. Someone could make it a circle by fudging it a little one way or another, but you could do that with just about anything.


It is a circle. You are trapped by the truth. A wise man would have admitted this long ago.
Comment savez-vous que vous ne parlez pas bollox?
Sur internet: http://bit.ly/14A0n9H

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7393
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: How was all of this encoded into the front page of the Sonnets?

Postby Poodle » Sun Mar 12, 2017 1:38 pm

There is a circle drawn in the video, not on the page. It does not, even in the video, pass through the centres of the rather crudely printed dots. A figure passing through the centres of the dots in question (the only sensible foundation for any claim) would not be a circle. There is absolutely no doubt about this. As it's not a circle, you are not able to draw right angled triangles as you wish them to be drawn. What's difficult?

And, salomed, you have still not made the slightest attempt to explain why all of this is hidden on a printed page which has no circle and no triangles on it at all. Please don't resort to "I don't know". Openly publishing what you claim is there would have elicited no adverse comment at the time. You have consistently ignored this point - why? This time, make an attempt to explain, please, rather than accusing everyone and his mother of refusing to see the 'obvious'. Near enough is NOT good enough, otherwise the Galileo probe(despite its mechanical failures), for instance, would not have returned the results it did. Please stop trivialising tolerances - they are well-understood, an understanding which is crucial to non-trivial engineering and science.

EDIT: Did you know that NONE of the Beatles was a real person? It's out there too.
EDIT2: I wonder how easy it would be to do exactly what you're doing with ANY page of the Bible which has text on it. Quite easy, I suspect. Or the Encyclopedia Britannica. Even other pages of the Sonnets. Or King Lear, Macbeth, etc. etc. Have you tried that?

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 24177
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Complete "woo" crap from Salomed

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sun Mar 12, 2017 10:52 pm

Let us list the crap Salomed is posting here as "the truth".
1) The circle and geometric shapes do not exactly fit some of the dots on the title page and Salomed has to ignore two dots, totally, anyway, to get the circle to roughly fit.

2) Elizabethan type face blocks are fixed in height and width and fit into a fixed frame. It is simply impossible for exact geometric shapes to be formed and the unknown printer engaged by Aspley wouldn't have a clue how to do this without using woodblock illustrations.

3) There is no coded message of any sort. A code has a fixed codification. Salomed has arbitrarily ignored some dots, some line ends and some spaces to pretend geometric shapes fit and cannot explain any inherent existing code that says he can do this. There is no code.

4) Alan Green and Salomed then pretend that further mathematics are encoded in this 1607AD English document in cubits and metres, yet cubits were not known until 1896AD and metres not know until 1791AD.

5) Alan Green and Salomed then think that the Google Maps co-ordinates for the Giza pyramid is also incorporated in the printed 1609AD Sonnets (to calculate the speed of light in metres) although it isn't the Google maps co-ordinates at all, but rather a selected number from the large range of co-ordinates that are covered by Giza's land coverage.

6) Alan Green then does some crap mathematics dividing metres by cubits and a whole mixed bag of varying measurements to obtain specific numbers, that are already tainted by Green incorporating the bogus Google maps co-ordinate number in the first place. René Descartes would weep if he saw such bogus mathematics.

7) Magically this somehow proves John Dee, Elizabeth's alchemist was a time traveller who magically predicted the speed of light in metres, before metres existed and decided to incorporate this as a hidden message in Shakespeare's Sonnets. This implies John Dee wrote and arranged for the printing of Shakespeare's Sonnets. However John Dee died in poverty in Mortlake before the Sonnets were printed in 1609AD in London.

Descartes.jpeg


The reality
Alan Green is re-editing and releasing his 2012, self published book "Dee-Constructing Shakespeare" in 2016 and 2017 as three books to accompany a cable TV show that never got up, under the name Barcode. It is just another rip off of Dan Brown's "The Da Vinci Code" and not meant to be taken seriously. Alan Green is also writing a musical about Shakespeare called "The Bard".
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 24177
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Complete "woo" crap from Salomed

Postby Matthew Ellard » Mon Mar 13, 2017 1:15 am

Here is the original 2012 version of Alan Green's magical geometry on the Sonnets title page. This one retains the labels "metres" "cubits" and "feet". Click on it to make the picture bigger.
The earlier version.jpg

https://medium.com/@BardCode/heist-2-25 ... .v6iqct1y1
Again, I directly ask.......
Descartes.jpeg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27093
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Wild animal
Location: Transcona

Re: How was all of this encoded into the front page of the Sonnets?

Postby Gord » Mon Mar 13, 2017 1:25 am

salomed wrote:
Gord wrote:
salomed wrote:
Gord wrote:It's not a circle. Someone could make it a circle by fudging it a little one way or another, but you could do that with just about anything.

Not true. It is a circle. You are wrong. I am unsure if, like Ellard, you know you are wrong but cannot admit it it.

No, it's not a circle. Someone could make it a circle by fudging it a little one way or another, but you could do that with just about anything.

I'm sure you, like most wooists I've encountered, don't even understand why you're wrong. I can't really care anymore, it's too much like work.

And the constants are there.

To paraphrase what Yoda said to Luke, the things you find within it are only the things you take into it with you.

It's all there.

All you can say, is it isn't.

Well of course. What is should I be able to say? You present an obvious case where what you want to see isn't actually there, and all I can do is point out that you are wrong. I can't show you what's not there, all I can do is show you what is there and tell you why you're seeing what you want to see rather than what is actually there to be seen.

It's not a circle. Someone could make it a circle by fudging it a little one way or another, but you could do that with just about anything.

It is a circle. You are trapped by the truth. A wise man would have admitted this long ago.

It's not a circle. Someone could make it a circle by fudging it a little one way or another, but you could do that with just about anything.

There no way around this. Not even with a circle, I'm afraid. :(
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27093
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Wild animal
Location: Transcona

Re: Complete "woo" crap from Salomed

Postby Gord » Mon Mar 13, 2017 1:28 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:Click on it to make the picture bigger.

It doesn't look much bigger. ("That's what she said!")
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 24177
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Complete "woo" crap from Salomed

Postby Matthew Ellard » Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:04 am

Gord wrote: It doesn't look much bigger. ("That's what she said!")

Thank you Gord.

I wonder if Salomed has worked out that the 1609AD Sonnet's Title page is only one eighth of the same printed sheet. The printing was done on Quatro. What about all the magic shapes hidden in the other seven pages that are all on the same print block? :D

A quarto (from Latin quartō, ablative form of quartus, fourth [2]) is a book or pamphlet made up of one or more full sheets of paper on which 8 pages of text were printed, which were then folded two times to produce four leaves.

However, Salomed has another little problem. We are looking at a collection of Shakespeare's Sonnets printed in 1609AD. Individual Sonnets were already published and printed in earlier mixed compilations in 1599AD and had no secret messages at all. Alan Green has simply picked the Title page that he could forge shapes onto, with the most ease.
The_Passionate_Pilgrim.jpg


I demand Salomed apply his magic code on this earlier published compilation of Shakespeare's works. :lol:
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 24177
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: How was all of this encoded into the front page of the Sonnets?

Postby Matthew Ellard » Mon Mar 13, 2017 5:14 am

salomed wrote:[You are trapped by the truth. A wise man would have admitted this long ago.

"It is only prudent never to place complete confidence in that by which we have even once been deceived".
Rene Descartes

So..... "Mr five inch alien" How do you incorporate 18th century metres, 19th Century Egyptian cubits and feet measurements, into the same calculation, in a 17th century document? :lol:

User avatar
salomed
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1046
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2011 4:18 pm
Custom Title: Cartesian Skeptic

Re: How was all of this encoded into the front page of the Sonnets?

Postby salomed » Mon Mar 13, 2017 7:34 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
salomed wrote:[You are trapped by the truth. A wise man would have admitted this long ago.

"It is only prudent never to place complete confidence in that by which we have even once been deceived".
Rene Descartes

So..... "Mr five inch alien" How do you incorporate 18th century metres, 19th Century Egyptian cubits and feet measurements, into the same calculation, in a 17th century document? :lol:

I

I do know how it is done. Or why. But I am certain it is there. It is just there. The circle. The constants.

See for yourself. Do it yourself. Ask peope, they will all agree.

It is there. None if your petty, desperate bullying and nitpicking will change that.
Comment savez-vous que vous ne parlez pas bollox?
Sur internet: http://bit.ly/14A0n9H

User avatar
salomed
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1046
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2011 4:18 pm
Custom Title: Cartesian Skeptic

Re: How was all of this encoded into the front page of the Sonnets?

Postby salomed » Mon Mar 13, 2017 7:37 am

salomed wrote:
Matthew Ellard wrote:
salomed wrote:[You are trapped by the truth. A wise man would have admitted this long ago.

"It is only prudent never to place complete confidence in that by which we have even once been deceived".
Rene Descartes

So..... "Mr five inch alien" How do you incorporate 18th century metres, 19th Century Egyptian cubits and feet measurements, into the same calculation, in a 17th century document? :lol:


I do nit know how it is done. Or why. But I am certain it is there. It is just there. The circle. The constants.

See for yourself. Do it yourself. Ask peope, they will all agree.

It is there. None of your petty, desperate bullying and nitpicking will change that.
Comment savez-vous que vous ne parlez pas bollox?
Sur internet: http://bit.ly/14A0n9H

User avatar
salomed
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1046
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2011 4:18 pm
Custom Title: Cartesian Skeptic

Re: How was all of this encoded into the front page of the Sonnets?

Postby salomed » Mon Mar 13, 2017 7:37 am

salomed wrote:
salomed wrote:
Matthew Ellard wrote:
salomed wrote:[You are trapped by the truth. A wise man would have admitted this long ago.

"It is only prudent never to place complete confidence in that by which we have even once been deceived".
Rene Descartes

So..... "Mr five inch alien" How do you incorporate 18th century metres, 19th Century Egyptian cubits and feet measurements, into the same calculation, in a 17th century document? :lol:


I do not know how it is done. Or why. But I am certain it is there. It is just there. The circle. The constants.

See for yourself. Do it yourself. Ask peope, they will all agree.

It is there. None of your petty, desperate bullying and nitpicking will change that.
Comment savez-vous que vous ne parlez pas bollox?
Sur internet: http://bit.ly/14A0n9H

User avatar
salomed
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1046
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2011 4:18 pm
Custom Title: Cartesian Skeptic

Re: How was all of this encoded into the front page of the Sonnets?

Postby salomed » Mon Mar 13, 2017 7:38 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
salomed wrote:[You are trapped by the truth. A wise man would have admitted this long ago.

"It is only prudent never to place complete confidence in that by which we have even once been deceived".
Rene Descartes

So..... "Mr five inch alien" How do you incorporate 18th century metres, 19th Century Egyptian cubits and feet measurements, into the same calculation, in a 17th century document? :lol:


I do not know how it is done. Or why. But I am certain it is there. It is just there. The circle. The constants.

See for yourself. Do it yourself. Ask peope, they will all agree.

It is there. None of your petty, desperate bullying and nitpicking will change that.
Comment savez-vous que vous ne parlez pas bollox?
Sur internet: http://bit.ly/14A0n9H

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7393
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: How was all of this encoded into the front page of the Sonnets?

Postby Poodle » Mon Mar 13, 2017 8:48 am

Bad day, salomed?

User avatar
salomed
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1046
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2011 4:18 pm
Custom Title: Cartesian Skeptic

Re: How was all of this encoded into the front page of the Sonnets?

Postby salomed » Mon Mar 13, 2017 8:54 am

Poodle wrote:Bad day, salomed?


Far from it.
Comment savez-vous que vous ne parlez pas bollox?
Sur internet: http://bit.ly/14A0n9H

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7393
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: How was all of this encoded into the front page of the Sonnets?

Postby Poodle » Mon Mar 13, 2017 10:56 am

You say things four times for the fun of it? But then this ...

"I do not know how it is done. Or why. But I am certain it is there. It is just there. The circle. The constants. See for yourself. Do it yourself. Ask peope, they will all agree. "

"It is just there..." is somewhat desperate. "See for yourself. Do it yourself..." - people have done just that. Ask Gord. Finally ... "Ask people - they will all agree" ... errrmmm - no. No, they don't.

Now - are you prepared to answer the questions asked of you or are you going to simply continue in your quasi-religious declarations?
Last edited by Poodle on Mon Mar 13, 2017 11:02 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
salomed
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1046
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2011 4:18 pm
Custom Title: Cartesian Skeptic

Re: How was all of this encoded into the front page of the Sonnets?

Postby salomed » Mon Mar 13, 2017 11:01 am

Poodle wrote:You say things four times for the fun of it?


That was an accident. Not even sure how that happened. Wow, even I am engaging in distraction from the obvious facts in this thread.
Comment savez-vous que vous ne parlez pas bollox?
Sur internet: http://bit.ly/14A0n9H

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7393
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: How was all of this encoded into the front page of the Sonnets?

Postby Poodle » Mon Mar 13, 2017 11:03 am

Crossed posts - please read my last appeal.

User avatar
salomed
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1046
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2011 4:18 pm
Custom Title: Cartesian Skeptic

Re: How was all of this encoded into the front page of the Sonnets?

Postby salomed » Mon Mar 13, 2017 11:17 am

Poodle wrote:Crossed posts - please read my last appeal.


We have a fundamental discontinuity. I have done the maths and the claims of the video are true.

You and the nitpickers cannot deny that. You cannot deny that it is so very close to a circle, as that is obvious. One doesn't even need a protractor.

So what are you left with?

All you can do is quibble about the accuracy of the circle. And for that at most you can say is that it only touches all of the dots it does not bisect them perfectly IN MY SCREEN GRAB from a small macbook screen.

All you can do is quibble, but that becomes a nonsense when one just looks at the tiny proportions of a full stop. It's absurd.

The Circle is There. The Constants are There.

screenshot23322.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Comment savez-vous que vous ne parlez pas bollox?
Sur internet: http://bit.ly/14A0n9H

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7393
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: How was all of this encoded into the front page of the Sonnets?

Postby Poodle » Mon Mar 13, 2017 11:48 am

salomed wrote:... I have done the maths ...


The whole point in a nutshell. You most certainly have NOT done the maths. Your claim is that close enough (in your opinion) is good enough which, I'm afraid, falls far short of mathematical rigour. Neither have you even attempted to explain why this 'wondrous mathematical puzzle' should have been constructed in such an unnecessarily devious manner. You are assuming that most Elizabethans were as thick as two short planks whilst claiming that some were so amazingly clever as to be able to discern as-yet undiscovered constants within an image whose accuracy necessarily suffers from the appreciable limitations of the technology of the time.
What you have really discovered is your own propensity for wishful thinking and an obstinate insistence on the rectitude of BS. Hook, line and sinker is, I believe, the appropriate phrase.

User avatar
salomed
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1046
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2011 4:18 pm
Custom Title: Cartesian Skeptic

Re: How was all of this encoded into the front page of the Sonnets?

Postby salomed » Mon Mar 13, 2017 12:44 pm

Poodle wrote:
salomed wrote:... I have done the maths ...


The whole point in a nutshell. You most certainly have NOT done the maths.


No, I have done them. Skpye me and I'll do then for you in front of you. Or do the maths yourself. Its easy and obvious if you are honest with ourself.

Poodle wrote:Your claim is that close enough (in your opinion) is good enough which, I'm afraid, falls far short of mathematical rigour.


The OP in another video says they are accurate to within 3 decimal places. I am not sure that is true. But certainly to within a fraction of a fullstop.

Do you see how all you can say is its not accurate when it is blindingly obvious accurate enough for the human eye.

You are clutching at straws and using a straw man! It's a double fail.


Neither have you even attempted to explain why this 'wondrous mathematical puzzle' should have been constructed in such an unnecessarily devious manner. You are assuming that most Elizabethans were as thick as two short planks whilst claiming that some were so amazingly clever as to be able to discern as-yet undiscovered constants within an image whose accuracy necessarily suffers from the appreciable limitations of the technology of the time.


I don't care about the motives yet. That is an absolute non sequitur.

Though one could argue that " the appreciable limitations of the technology of the time" adds even more amazement to the facts encoded in the page.


Code: Select all

What you have really discovered is your own propensity for wishful thinking and an obstinate insistence on the rectitude of BS. Hook, line and sinker is, I believe, the appropriate phrase.


A poor poor argument. Really poor. I am enjoying seeing you cynics bounce, as you know you can't now admit you were wrong (Though I don't suspect you get the money like ykw) and so your petty little jibes and insults just make you look more compromised. And sure sure you can insult me, but the only way you can prove me wrong is to show that there is no circle or constants.

Try that?

How about make the assumption the circle is there (Assuming is a key reasoning skill) and then show me that the constants are not there. That would shut me up. Easy. Five mins work either way.

Is Pi, Phi, Euler, Brune, the square roots of 2 five and 6 encoded in the "circle".

Go on, quit your attempts at belittling with words and show me up with maths. If I am wrong it will be very easy to prove me wrong. A kid with a ruler and a calculator could do it.

Go on...

Prove me wrong.
Comment savez-vous que vous ne parlez pas bollox?
Sur internet: http://bit.ly/14A0n9H

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7393
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: How was all of this encoded into the front page of the Sonnets?

Postby Poodle » Mon Mar 13, 2017 1:36 pm

Jesus H Christ, this is like wading through porridge!!!

You have already been shown to be wrong, salomed. In every respect. The circle is NOT where you claim it is, yet you insist it is. There is no way of choosing 'correct' centres within the shapes you insist are the basis for your circle, yet you insist there is. You blithely glide over the fact that at least one of the 'constants' for which a claim is made would have been completely meaningless at the time of publication - you make no comment at all upon that little gem. You completely refuse to admit that the 'maths' you claim to be present are approximations - approximations, to boot, proposed not by any Elizabethan scholar but by an author of woo who is alive right now. In fact, you deny that any such approximation is in evidence in any case. Then you dismiss a fantasy of completely unnecessary distraction as a non sequitur. You have conveniently chosen to ignore related claims which are obviously not correct (that bit about the slant of a letter providing a guide is sheer, unadulterated crap). In other words, you have taken upon yourself the mantle of BS - the very thing which the maker of the video intended to happen.

It is blatantly obvious that you WANT this to be true. I have no idea why and, I think, nor do you. If that was untrue, you would have made some attempt to explain WHY this method of publication should have been used. But you haven't - you have steadfastly refused to do so. I find this telling.

User avatar
salomed
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1046
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2011 4:18 pm
Custom Title: Cartesian Skeptic

Re: How was all of this encoded into the front page of the Sonnets?

Postby salomed » Mon Mar 13, 2017 2:01 pm

Poodle wrote:You have already been shown to be wrong, salomed. In every respect. The circle is NOT where you claim it is, yet you insist it is.


Wait are you saying:

There is no circle there at all.

Or

There is an almost circle there.


There is no way of choosing 'correct' centres within the shapes you insist are the basis for your circle, yet you insist there is.


The method is very simple: Find any dots or end of lines on any given page and see if those points lie on the circumference of a circle.

On those cover page of the 1609 Sonnets, they clearly do.


You blithely glide over the fact that at least one of the 'constants' for which a claim is made would have been completely meaningless at the time of publication - you make no comment at all upon that little gem.


I have mentioned this little gem lots in this thread, including my OP. And the video mentions it also. It is a key point:

How on earth could those undiscovered constants be encoded in that page?


You completely refuse to admit that the 'maths' you claim to be present are approximations - approximations, to boot, proposed not by any Elizabethan scholar but by an author of woo who is alive right now.


No, they are there. They just are. They are approximate to with a small fraction of a full stop.

In other words, you have taken upon yourself the mantle of BS - the very thing which the maker of the video intended to happen.



So call me out like i keep asking you to and you keep IGNORING. Show me the constants are not there, even to within an integer. You wont because you know you cannot. Because they are there.

It is blatantly obvious that you WANT this to be true. I have no idea why and, I think, nor do you.


I want the truth to be out. Yes. The truth is for some mysterious reason 9 constants were encoded into the cover page.

If that was untrue, you would have made some attempt to explain WHY this method of publication should have been used. But you haven't - you have steadfastly refused to do so. I find this telling.


You are asking me to speculate. I could speculate on this sure. Perhaps Bacon or Dee encoded it as a message to future generations. Perhaps Time Travellers did it. Or aliens. Who knows. I know I do not know. Such speculations are pointless. What I do know is that some agency encoded the maths in that page.
Comment savez-vous que vous ne parlez pas bollox?
Sur internet: http://bit.ly/14A0n9H

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7393
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: How was all of this encoded into the front page of the Sonnets?

Postby Poodle » Mon Mar 13, 2017 2:24 pm

The whole thing is speculation, for goodness sake! Take another look at the frontispiece to Shakespeare's Sonnets. There is NO CIRCLE. There are NO TRIANGLES. Astounding, isn't it?

User avatar
salomed
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1046
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2011 4:18 pm
Custom Title: Cartesian Skeptic

Re: How was all of this encoded into the front page of the Sonnets?

Postby salomed » Mon Mar 13, 2017 2:29 pm

Poodle wrote:The whole thing is speculation, for goodness sake! Take another look at the frontispiece to Shakespeare's Sonnets. There is NO CIRCLE. There are NO TRIANGLES. Astounding, isn't it?


But.... but there is.


Are you saying, for example, that I have miscalculated or mismeasured to get this:


Euler's Constant2.jpg



It is there. See with your eyes not your expectations.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Comment savez-vous que vous ne parlez pas bollox?
Sur internet: http://bit.ly/14A0n9H

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7393
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: How was all of this encoded into the front page of the Sonnets?

Postby Poodle » Mon Mar 13, 2017 2:36 pm

Salomed, I despair for you. Those things really aren't there. Someone has directed you to draw certain figures - and you duly have done so. I realise that this may come as a complete shock to you, but they're not actually there. You know this, of course, and you are being deliberately obtuse.


Return to “Conspiracies”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest