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

Who else knows what we know, Jerry?
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 04, 2017 2:58 pm

gorgeous wrote:Many people consider the great Pyramid of Giza to be one of the oldest, greatest and most perfect, and scientific ‘monuments’ on te face of the Earth, created thousands of years ago. However, many people are unaware that the Great Pyramid isnt only an architectural and engineering marvel, it is a geographical one too: It is located at the exact intersection of the LONGEST LINE OF LATITUDE and the LONGEST LINE OF LONGITUDE.....more stable there


Many people are, therefore, in error. Giza is 2076 miles from the Equator. Apart from that, why would anyone think that the intersection of those two lines would confer stability? (Clue: It doesn't).
Last edited by Poodle on Sat Mar 04, 2017 3:17 pm, edited 3 times in total.

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 04, 2017 3:09 pm

Salomed, you're clutching at straws. Only one of those dots (A) is anything like bisected (and I'm not convinced even of that one). The others may touch the circle but the centres are NOT on the circumference. So it's an approximate fit. Claiming the discovery of universal constants based on THREE approximations is an absolute no-no.
I admire the ingenuity of the proposition, but it's based upon data points which simply are not where they're claimed to be.

But let me put it another way - if there IS a circle which can pass through the centres of those four dots, it isn't the one drawn on that page.

User avatar
Nobrot
Poster
Posts: 148
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2016 10:59 pm

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

Postby Nobrot » Sat Mar 04, 2017 3:31 pm

gorgeous wrote:Many people consider the great Pyramid of Giza to be one of the oldest, greatest and most perfect, and scientific ‘monuments’ on te face of the Earth, created thousands of years ago. However, many people are unaware that the Great Pyramid isnt only an architectural and engineering marvel, it is a geographical one too: It is located at the exact intersection of the LONGEST LINE OF LATITUDE and the LONGEST LINE OF LONGITUDE.....more stable there

All lines of latitude are the same length and Giza is not on the equator.

Edit: Ninja'd

eta, #2 Oops. Lines of longitude are the same, not latitude.

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 04, 2017 7:33 pm

I thought I'd play too ...

Shakespeare wrote 154 sonnets in all. So I looked up the number 154. Here's what I found (lifted almost directly from Wikipedia) ...


1. 154 is a nonagonal number. Its factorization makes 154 a sphenic number

2. There is no integer with exactly 154 coprimes below it, making 154 a noncototient, nor is there, in base 10, any integer that added up to its own digits yields 154, making 154 a self number

3. 154 is the sum of the first six factorials, if one starts with 0! and assume that 0!=1.

4. With just 17 cuts, a pancake can be cut up into 154 pieces (Lazy caterer's sequence).

5. The distinct prime factors of 154 add up to 20, and so do the ones of 153, hence the two form a Ruth-Aaron pair. 154! + 1 is a factorial prime.

I'm completely gobsmacked. To think that old Will was a mathematical genius is staggering, especially when you consider that both Ruth and Aaron played a game not mentioned before 1744, and then to find he was also a famous cook (on Shrove Tuesday, at least) ... well - it's simply astounding!

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 » Sat Mar 04, 2017 7:53 pm

Poodle wrote:4. With just 17 cuts, a pancake can be cut up into 154 pieces (Lazy caterer's sequence).

Holy {!#%@}, Shakespeare invented the pancake AND the caterer?!?
"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
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 04, 2017 7:56 pm

Fingers in all kinds of pies. What a man!

User avatar
OlegTheBatty
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9894
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:35 pm
Custom Title: Uppity Atheist

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

Postby OlegTheBatty » Sat Mar 04, 2017 8:05 pm

Gord wrote:
Poodle wrote:4. With just 17 cuts, a pancake can be cut up into 154 pieces (Lazy caterer's sequence).

Holy {!#%@}, Shakespeare invented the pancake AND the caterer?!?

Apparently, only lazy caterers.
. . . with the satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own because he has commented on the idea of another . . . - Alexandre Dumas 'The Count of Monte Cristo"

There is no statement so absurd that it has not been uttered by some philosopher. - Cicero

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 04, 2017 8:10 pm

See how they dance!;)
Comment savez-vous que vous ne parlez pas bollox?
Sur internet: http://bit.ly/14A0n9H

User avatar
gorgeous
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3332
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 2:25 pm

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

Postby gorgeous » Sat Mar 04, 2017 8:56 pm

says Dr. John Dee was the one who encrypted the sonnets...---- wiki------John Dee (13 July 1527 – 1608 or 1609) was an English mathematician, astronomer, astrologer, occult philosopher,[5] and advisor to Queen Elizabeth I. He devoted much of his life to the study of alchemy, divination, and Hermetic philosophy. He was also an advocate of England's imperial expansion.

Dee straddled the worlds of science and magic just as they were becoming distinguishable. One of the most learned men of his age, he had been invited to lecture on the geometry of Euclid at the University of Paris while still in his early twenties. Dee was an ardent promoter of mathematics and a respected astronomer, as well as a leading expert in navigation, having trained many of those who would conduct England's voyages of discovery.
--------- In the late 1540s and early 1550s, he travelled in Europe, studying at Louvain (1548) and Brussels and lecturing in Paris on Euclid. He studied with Gemma Frisius and became a close friend of the cartographer Gerardus Mercator and cartographer Abraham Ortelius, returning to England with an important collection of mathematical and astronomical instruments. -------Instead, he expanded his personal library at his house in Mortlake, tirelessly acquiring books and manuscripts in England and on the European Continent. Dee's library, a centre of learning outside the universities, became the greatest in England and attracted many scholars. https://youtu.be/ql-u7FKhlvY
Science Fundamentalism...is exactly what happens when there’s a significant, perceived ideological threat to one’s traditions and identity.

User avatar
gorgeous
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3332
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 2:25 pm

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

Postby gorgeous » Sat Mar 04, 2017 9:00 pm

he^^^ had the knowledge and background with maps, too, may have had non-human help......and he was the original 007 as a royal spy....
Science Fundamentalism...is exactly what happens when there’s a significant, perceived ideological threat to one’s traditions and identity.

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 04, 2017 9:13 pm

The ones you need to find out about are 001 to 006 - the're the REAL goodies. Walsingham was a powerful man with powerful alliances and powerful enemies - I've heard it said that he was tutored by Venusians in a top secret base on the dark side of the Moon.

Jesus H Christ, gorgeous - is this the kind of crap you accept with no questions? Find a better biography of John Dee. He really was a remarkable man - but not at all in the way you think.

OK - back to the grind - encrypted the sonnets how and with what to mean what?

User avatar
gorgeous
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3332
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 2:25 pm

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

Postby gorgeous » Sat Mar 04, 2017 9:22 pm

with his knowledge...the words , geometry and symbols...to point to the pyramids and show great knowledge was available centuries earlier than thought...
Science Fundamentalism...is exactly what happens when there’s a significant, perceived ideological threat to one’s traditions and identity.

User avatar
gorgeous
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3332
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 2:25 pm

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

Postby gorgeous » Sat Mar 04, 2017 9:27 pm

dee-----. Put a hex on the Spanish Armada which is why there was bad weather and England won.-----haa haaa

9. Commissioned by Elizabeth to establish the legal foundation for colonizing North America; went back to Madoc, a Welsh Prince who took a group over to New England in the middle ages and established the first colony, and intermarried with the Indians, but with little or no historical trace but for the legend.

10. Instrumental in theatre arts and architecture.

11. Shakespeare depicted him as Prospero, and King Lear.

12. Sold the Voynich Manuscript, the most mysterious, a cipher as yet to be deciphered--"the Everest of cipher studies"--to the Holy Roman Emperor--Rudolph II--for a lot of gold. Resides at Yale in the Beineke Library. Probably an herbal and an almanac by Anthony Askham.
Science Fundamentalism...is exactly what happens when there’s a significant, perceived ideological threat to one’s traditions and identity.

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 04, 2017 9:37 pm

Oh this is hard going.

Why would he want to 'point to the pyramids', considering that everyone knew where they were? Please don't guess - what do you KNOW?

User avatar
gorgeous
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3332
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 2:25 pm

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

Postby gorgeous » Sat Mar 04, 2017 9:42 pm

to wake people up to the hidden secrets in/under the pyramids giving truth to the world...
Science Fundamentalism...is exactly what happens when there’s a significant, perceived ideological threat to one’s traditions and identity.

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 04, 2017 9:45 pm

I see. And why do you think that these secrets have still not been found to this day? Also, why do you think John Dee died in abject poverty?

User avatar
gorgeous
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3332
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 2:25 pm

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

Postby gorgeous » Sat Mar 04, 2017 9:53 pm

who has decoded Shakespeare or the pyramids? money didn't matter to him, knowledge did...
Science Fundamentalism...is exactly what happens when there’s a significant, perceived ideological threat to one’s traditions and identity.

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 04, 2017 10:04 pm

Rubbish. He wanted money like he wanted air, so that he could buy such things as the Voynich manuscript. However, am I correct in thinking that you just admitted that no one has 'decoded' the pyramids or, indeed, Shakespeare? If so, that's a great step forward. There may be hope for you yet.

User avatar
gorgeous
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3332
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 2:25 pm

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

Postby gorgeous » Sat Mar 04, 2017 10:06 pm

now they have ...Shakespeare (part)
Science Fundamentalism...is exactly what happens when there’s a significant, perceived ideological threat to one’s traditions and identity.

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 04, 2017 10:09 pm

Ah - so we're back to the frontispiece and you are claiming that it has been decoded. But that isn't Shakespeare, you know? He wrote the sonnets - he didn't design that page. That was the printer.

User avatar
gorgeous
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3332
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 2:25 pm

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

Postby gorgeous » Sat Mar 04, 2017 11:35 pm

nope and nope
Science Fundamentalism...is exactly what happens when there’s a significant, perceived ideological threat to one’s traditions and identity.

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 05, 2017 12:05 am

Yep and yep, indeedy. That T.T. on the frontispiece stands for Thomas Thorpe, the publisher. Not, you'll notice, W.S. the author. Old Bill had nothing to do with it - he'd either sold the rights to Thomas or Thomas did it without telling Will. In either case, it was out of Shakespeare's hands.
What troubles me, gorgeous, is why people who think they know the inner workings of Shakespeare's mind either do not know basic things like that or choose to ignore them as they don't fit the woo theory.
Shakespeare had no say in that frontispiece. So - why would a book publisher (well-off, certainly, but not filthy rich) wish to pass arcane knowledge only to the cognoscenti by printing it in the form of a piece of paper which not only does not contain the triangles in question but has supposed clues to their existence which are not in the right places?
Here's your challenge, then. How would anyone know how to deal with those misplacements by fudging them? Unless he told them all, but then there would have been no point in the exercise. So, I'm going to make you a bet. I do not believe that it is possible to draw a circle which goes through the centres of all four of those dots. There's a challenge for you - or anyone else who insists that near enough is good enough. How would anyone know how to do the fudging unless they had been given instructions and if they'd been given instructions then the whole exercise becomes silly. Puerile, even. There was no law against anything supposedly hidden in there - no one would have been hunted down for knowing how to construct a right-angled triangle or for knowing how to derive the ratios of their sides. And the knowledge would have been worth absolutely nothing except, I suppose, the kind of pride involved in solving a difficult crossword. Go on, then - construct a circle going through the precise centres of those dots and then show it to us. Without that circle, all of those ratios exist only in the heads of wishful thinkers.

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 05, 2017 12:22 am

gorgeous wrote:dee-----. Put a hex on the Spanish Armada which is why there was bad weather and England won.-----haa haaa


Oh dear! You know where the Armada was and where it went? No? Well here you go. They sailed into the English Channel (not the safest bit of water in the world unless you know it well), got shot up a bit by smaller, faster ships crewed by people who DID know it well, ran away up the Channel and turned left into the North Sea. The North Sea - I ask you! It's worse than the Channel for storms, especially at the time the Armada sailed into it. They sailed up the east Coast being buffeted by storms and losing ships, sailed around the north of Scotland (it's very cold there) and straight into an Atlantic storm which put paid to a lot more ships.

No one needed a bloody hex - the commanders of the Armada didn't know the conditions but carried on regardless. Most of them were wrecked by the normal weather. Hex my arse.

SALOMED!!!! Someone here needs your help :D

User avatar
gorgeous
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3332
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 2:25 pm

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

Postby gorgeous » Sun Mar 05, 2017 12:42 am

the dee website said he gave the hex
Science Fundamentalism...is exactly what happens when there’s a significant, perceived ideological threat to one’s traditions and identity.

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 05, 2017 12:45 am

Oh did it? Must be right, then.

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 05, 2017 1:21 am

salomed wrote:See how they dance!;)
Let us laugh at you some more.

You are claiming there is a magical code hidden in some of the dots on Aspley's printed title page. So you arbitrarily chose some dots, ignore other dots and add geometrical shapes that don't exactly fit.

However, I connected all the dots and discovered a magical arrow pointing at the end possession "S" in Shake-speares which is obviously Aspley claiming that Shakespeare didn't write the sonnets.

As my ridiculous claim uses all the dots and, additionally, could be created by the printing technology of the time your ridiculous claim is now blown out of the water. Don't you agree?
:lol:
Sonnets 2.jpg


Ciphers and Keys
An encoded document is meant to contain the hidden text in full on its own. The Key, whether a book code, one-time-pad or remembered nursery-rhyme key, simply exposes that existing text. What Salomed is doing is adding coincidental shapes that only match some of the dots and which don't expose or decipher anything.

It's an IQ thing. At no point did Salomed think "What message does this decipher".

The Bletchley Park Bombes (valve computers) were basically spell checkers. They put through millions of Enigma combinations to the original enigma messages. If a combination resulted in complete normal German words popping up, the Brits then had the Enigma machine setting for that day for all messages. Thankfully the stupid Germans signed off messages with the words Heil Hitler" making it easier.

Salomed is simply finding random matching patterns that mean nothing and don't actually fit. Salomed is as dumb as Gorgeous and Genaro.
: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 » Sun Mar 05, 2017 1:24 am

Poodle wrote:Oh this is hard going.
Gorgeous and Salomed have an IQ of 140. ( That is, if you add their individual IQs of 70 together). There is no way they are going to understand basic logic. :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 05, 2017 1:50 am

Ellard, you are the apex of bot assisted gatekeeper, but today, you failed.
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

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

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sun Mar 05, 2017 2:09 am

salomed wrote:Ellard, you are the apex of bot assisted gatekeeper, but today, you failed.

Nope. If you had any form of rebuttal to my points, you would have posted them.

1) You arbitrarily used some dots and not others.
2) Your "cipher key" of loose fitting geometrical shapes, doesn't actually decipher anything.
3) The printing technology didn't exist then for accurate geometric shapes anyway,
4) You haven't got any reason to think William Aspley had included a cipher anyway.
5) In two minutes I could come up with an alternative and equally ridiculous solution that used all the dots and exposed an arrow pointing at the possessive "S" at the end of Shakespeare's name.

I demand you open a thread on the JREF forum and post my arrow picture and tell people what a genius I am.
:lol:
Sonnets 2.jpg
spear head.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

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 05, 2017 8:18 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:Nope. If you had any form of rebuttal to my points, you would have posted them.


But I have! Twice! You just cannot compute an admission of being wrong.

Again, Is this a circle:

CircleProof2.jpg


And zoomed in:


zoomedin.jpg


1) You arbitrarily used some dots and not others.


I used the dots in the vide. The ones that clearly make a circle:

2) Your "cipher key" of loose fitting geometrical shapes, doesn't actually decipher anything.


They fit very well and they encode 9 mathematical constants.

3) The printing technology didn't exist then for accurate geometric shapes anyway,


Begging the question. But even so, it clearly did exist because its product is extant - this cover.

4) You haven't got any reason to think William Aspley had included a cipher anyway.


Non sequitur. That is just your desperate attempt to derail (You do that so much, as you are programed to do, its a classic (literally) strategy).

Is the data there? Yes it is.

In two minutes I could come up with an alternative and equally ridiculous solution that used all the dots and exposed an arrow pointing at the possessive "S" at the end of Shakespeare's name.


Of course you can. That is unremarkable, childsplay. BUT I challenge you and all of your helpers/subroutines to find any other representation of:

Euler's Number,
Phi
Bruns Constant
Pi
Square root 2
Square root 3

In any book cover, frontice piece, page together, at all.

I demand you open a thread on the JREF forum and post my arrow picture and tell people what a genius I am.

You are not a genuius, you are just amazing at information processing.

I demand you answer my question about if this is or is not a circle:

CircleProof2.jpg


We can't move on until we do. Of course, you don't want to move on because you know where it goes.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Last edited by salomed on Sun Mar 05, 2017 8:53 am, edited 3 times in total.
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 05, 2017 10:39 am

Salomed, you are holding tight to something which is obviously untrue. It does no good insisting that the dots make a circle when they obviously don't. Someone has drawn a circle which ALMOST passes through the centre of four dots and has then proceeded to spin a fantasy dependent upon the circle passing PRECISELY through the centres of the four dots. That means that some of the vertices of the 'right triangles' are not where they should be. Either they're NOT right triangles or the circle is redundant.
I know that you can see the problem there.

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 05, 2017 10:47 am

Poodle wrote:Salomed, you are holding tight to something which is obviously untrue. It does no good insisting that the dots make a circle when they obviously don't.


Which dot, A,B,C or D does not fall onto the circle?

CircleProof2.jpg



Someone has drawn a circle which ALMOST passes through the centre of four dots and has then proceeded to spin a fantasy dependent upon the circle passing PRECISELY through the centres of the four dots.


Considering we are talking less than a millimeter on the original you are just denying a FACT.

That means that some of the vertices of the 'right triangles' are not where they should be. Either they're NOT right triangles or the circle is redundant.
I know that you can see the problem there.


They are absolutly right angles. You can do it yourself. I have, its easy and unmistakable. But let's not go there yet, let's focus on the circle because if we cant get past that.

The circle is there. The dots are there. What are you denying?

If you are saying its not there then explain what is wrong with:

CircleProof2.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 » Sun Mar 05, 2017 11:04 am

I've said before that the only important parts of those dots are points - the centres - not the fudgy 'anywhere'll do' entirety of dots of differing sizes. Those points do not, object as much as you like, all lie on the circle. You are proposing a 'near-enough' construction and then claiming results accurate to three decimal places.
At the risk of sounding blatantly obvious, the circle is NOT there until someone constructs it by just missing three of the four datum points. Engineering excellence in a fuzzy nutshell. Get out your magnifying glass and take a look. Then draw all possible circles whose circumference touches any part of those dots. Suddenly, your circle will be fuzzy, too, and the apparent circumference will possess width. Now choose a point - any point - on that circumference and attempt to convince yourself that the point you have selected really is the one intended by our Elizabethan mathematical genius. And you have to do that three times to make one of your triangles. Then you pick a side and construct another fuzzy triangle onto the first one, choosing yet another fuzzy circumferential point to draw it, and your fuzziness is beginning to take on a life of its own.
It's not rocket science.
Then imagine the scenario ...
Sid and Jack have just done the fuzzy construction and come up with a lot of numbers. "What's that, then?" says Jack. "Elementary, my dear Sid", says Jack in his precognitive Elizabethan way, "It's a range of numbers which may contain one which will enable someone to calculate the optimum period for assessing compound interest." "Ah", says Jack. "Is the pub open yet?"

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 05, 2017 11:36 am

Poodle wrote:Those points do not, object as much as you like, all lie on the circle.


Yes they do. Clearly. And if you say no then which one of these doesnt:

zoomedin.jpg


Get out your magnifying glass and take a look.


Oh I have... see above. Now answer me please.
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 » Sun Mar 05, 2017 1:08 pm

Dot D - the circumference lies above the centre of the dot.
Dot C - the circumference lies below the centre of the dot.
Dot B - the circle is well above the 'centre' of the dot.
I put that last one within inverted commas because the dot is actually nothing like a circle and you would be hard put to say where the centre is anyway.

I suspect your magnifying glass was made from the bottom of an old bottle, salomed. Use your computer to blow the image up and then take a closer look. The entire claim stands or falls upon accuracy. The accuracy is terrible. You can, if you so wish, do a gorgeous and continue to say "La la la yes it is" but everyone else here can clearly see the discrepancies. You cannot assume that tolerances cancel out - they tend to misbehave and the more operations you perform based upon them, the greater your error is likely to be. Any mechanical engineer would fall about laughing at a claim that accuracy to three decimal places could be achieved for anything on that frontispiece.
In a nutshell - if the construction is done properly, and allowing for all the vagaries of Elizabethan printing, and if wishful thinking is guarded against, then you may be able to extract RANGES of numbers which MAY contain the constants in question. Jumping then to the conclusion that the constants were INTENDED to be there is not a good idea. As I said to gorgeous, why would anyone at that time want to disguise those constants in such a higgledy-piggledy manner? Had you been the possessor of the knowledge of those constants, then a few drinks in the local tavern with your best mates would have sufficed to pass on the information and, as the possession of such information was not illegal in any way, would have involved no risk. Adding complexity where none is needed is a waste of everyone's time and energy (I'm sure there's a name for that).
Remember the Bible Codes?

Actually, here's a challenge for you. Take a modern edition of any Charles Dickens novel. Select a page at random - one with a decent density of text. Start joining dots. There's plenty to choose from - i, j, punctuation marks. How long do you think it would take to find the standard Pythagoras diagram? Take it further - how long do you think it would take to reproduce the diagram produced on the Shakespeare frontispiece?

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 05, 2017 4:40 pm

Poodle wrote:Dot D - the circumference lies above the centre of the dot.
Dot C - the circumference lies below the centre of the dot.
Dot B - the circle is well above the 'centre' of the dot.
I put that last one within inverted commas because the dot is actually nothing like a circle and you would be hard put to say where the centre is anyway.

I suspect your magnifying glass was made from the bottom of an old bottle, salomed. Use your computer to blow the image up and then take a closer look. The entire claim stands or falls upon accuracy. The accuracy is terrible. You can, if you so wish, do a gorgeous and continue to say "La la la yes it is" but everyone else here can clearly see the discrepancies. You cannot assume that tolerances cancel out - they tend to misbehave and the more operations you perform based upon them, the greater your error is likely to be. Any mechanical engineer would fall about laughing at a claim that accuracy to three decimal places could be achieved for anything on that frontispiece.
In a nutshell - if the construction is done properly, and allowing for all the vagaries of Elizabethan printing, and if wishful thinking is guarded against, then you may be able to extract RANGES of numbers which MAY contain the constants in question. Jumping then to the conclusion that the constants were INTENDED to be there is not a good idea. As I said to gorgeous, why would anyone at that time want to disguise those constants in such a higgledy-piggledy manner? Had you been the possessor of the knowledge of those constants, then a few drinks in the local tavern with your best mates would have sufficed to pass on the information and, as the possession of such information was not illegal in any way, would have involved no risk. Adding complexity where none is needed is a waste of everyone's time and energy (I'm sure there's a name for that).
Remember the Bible Codes?

Actually, here's a challenge for you. Take a modern edition of any Charles Dickens novel. Select a page at random - one with a decent density of text. Start joining dots. There's plenty to choose from - i, j, punctuation marks. How long do you think it would take to find the standard Pythagoras diagram? Take it further - how long do you think it would take to reproduce the diagram produced on the Shakespeare frontispiece?



Your reply is absurd. Clearly that fine line touches those tiny dots.
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 05, 2017 5:50 pm

Salomed, I've explained this already - twice, I think. If the criterion is merely touching the dots then there are several ways of drawing the circle but each one would produce different results, Hardly the way to specify the requirements for a precision drawing. The only points of importance (indeed, the only ones with meaning) are the points at the precise centre of each dot. The circle DOES NOT TOUCH each of those. Allowing any old part of the dots as 'touching' means that several possible circles could be drawn, resulting in the fuzziness I described earlier. Far from being absurd, demanding that the centres of the dots must be used is the only way to make the claimed message transmissible.

Clearly the fine line does NOT satisfy that criterion. Demanding precision results from poorly-defined conditions is barking up a very amorphous tree. You're asserting that 'near enough' is OK to prove the existence of an invisible drawing from which very tightly defined numbers can be derived. Please read that carefully. Then ponder e=mc2ish, current equals voltage times a number somewhere near the resistance value, and nine times nine is a little bit over eighty.

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 05, 2017 11:35 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:Nope. If you had any form of rebuttal to my points, you would have posted them.
salomed wrote:But I have! Twice! You just cannot compute an admission of being wrong.
Again, Is this a circle
It is not a circle. The dots do not align perfectly.

Matthew Ellard wrote:1) You arbitrarily used some dots and not others.
salomed wrote:I used the dots in the video
Soooo....because he made a mistake and ignored some dots you claim you can copy the same mistake? That's clearly ridiculous. :lol:

Matthew Ellard wrote:2) Your "cipher key" of loose fitting geometrical shapes, doesn't actually decipher anything.
salomed wrote: They fit very well and they encode 9 mathematical constants.
No, you fool. If the original text contains a message what you have done is contaminated that message by adding coincidental information Geometrical shapes). Additionally and obviously, your subsequent contamination does not reveal any message does it? :lol:

salomed wrote:Is the data there? Yes it is.
No it isn't. The geometric shapes do not reveal any message at all. What do you think the hidden message from the typesetter who hammered the type blocks in is?
Typeface blocks.jpg


Matthew Ellard wrote:In two minutes I could come up with an alternative and equally ridiculous solution that used all the dots and exposed an arrow pointing at the possessive "S" at the end of Shakespeare's name.
salomed wrote:Of course you can. That is unremarkable, childsplay.
You fail again. I used all the dots and you didn't so as to artificially "force" your mere coincidence. I obtained a clear message. You didn't even get that far. :lol:

Now explain to me why there are different sized computer images of the title page on the internet and how how that would effect this? What was the exact size of the image you used in your calculation, in inches?
Sonnets1609titlepage.jpg
sonnets.jpg


What a load of crap......
You are trying to claim that an unknown type setter in 1609, hid geometrical shapes, using dots on the title page of Shakespeare's Sonnets, that magically can only be seen if you ignore some of the dots in 2017..


salomed wrote:BUT I challenge you and all of your helpers/subroutines to find any other representation of: Euler's Number, Phi Bruns Constant, Pi, Square root 2, Square root 3, In any book cover, frontice piece, page together, at all.
You really are an idiot and should have looked first.
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 » Sun Mar 05, 2017 11:40 pm

Elizabethan Mathematics.jpg
Elizabethan Mathematics 3.jpg
Elizabethan Mathematics 2.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 » Sun Mar 05, 2017 11:46 pm

Poodle wrote:Salomed, you are holding tight to something which is obviously untrue.
Salomed fought vigorously that the Starchild Skull and 6" alien were also true. It's called believing in "woo".
starchild.jpg
5 inch alien.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.


Return to “Conspiracies”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest