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

Who else knows what we know, Jerry?
User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28972
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

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

Postby Gord » Wed Mar 15, 2017 11:53 pm

salomed wrote:
Gord wrote:
salomed wrote:Not one of you has done the simple test yourselves on the same inage.

Gord wrote:
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.

This is not the image used by myself or in the video. It is clearly different.

It's my copy of the book you're using.

Why won't you do it with the image from the wikipedia page or the british library?

Why are you using a digitised copy of an original manuscript? That's a very odd thing to do. It's not going to be accurate, there's going to be stretching and shrinking and the normal unintended manipulation of the dimensions in the image. That's what happens when you take a photograph of a flat surface, and when you change the photograph into another format to place online.

Just get the image.

Ohhhh, now I get it! You're saying the things you see aren't in the original manuscripts, they only show up in the manipulated version you personally prefer! I get it now. You're wondering why someone took the original version in which none of these things occurred, and manipulated it in modern times to include them.

...yeah, I don't know why anyone would do that. It must be a scam of some sort. You're absolutely right.
"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: 26100
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 » Thu Mar 16, 2017 5:25 am

Gord wrote: Ohhhh, now I get it! You're saying the things you see aren't in the original manuscripts, they only show up in the manipulated version you personally prefer! It must be a scam of some sort. You're absolutely right.

It's a scam for money alright. Alan Green has all the elements, including secret codes that only Alan can decode, penetrating radar scans of the church's altar where Shakespeare is buried, that need paying for, and so on and so on.

"I wanted to shout it to the world but felt a heavy obligation to protect the discovery until its authenticity could be proven beyond doubt. I was well aware that the establishment would likely not want this made public until they could investigate it themselves, in secret. But the coded message is very specific."

http://www.tobeornottobe.org/

User avatar
salomed
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1241
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 » Thu Mar 16, 2017 7:07 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
salomed wrote:This is not the image used by myself or in the video. It is clearly different.

I directly accuse you of cheating.

What is the exact measurement in inches of the Sonnets title page you used. ( It's the height/width ratio I'm looking for) I have asked you this three times.


You do not need to accuse me of cheating. You can prove I cheated. Simply download the image I used from Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakespeare's_sonnets

And show that the corrections I have shown many times but you have refused to discuss are not in that image.

You can do that with a ruler laid across your monitor screen or you could layer any of my images upon that.

If there is no alignment I have cheated.
Comment savez-vous que vous ne parlez pas bollox?
Sur internet: http://bit.ly/14A0n9H

User avatar
salomed
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1241
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 » Thu Mar 16, 2017 7:18 am

Gord wrote:
Why won't you do it with the image from the wikipedia page or the british library?

Why are you using a digitised copy of an original manuscript?


It is all I have. Nonetheless, the constants are there.

That's a very odd thing to do. It's not going to be accurate, there's going to be stretching and shrinking and the normal unintended manipulation of the dimensions in the image.


I told you this in my very first reply to your post. And since then I have suggested that that that could explain the half a full stop lack of precision you have clung to.

Just get the image.

Ohhhh, now I get it! You're saying the things you see aren't in the original manuscripts, they only show up in the manipulated version you personally prefer! I get it now. You're wondering why someone took the original version in which none of these things occurred, and manipulated it in modern times to include them.


Absolutely. This is a real possibility. It would be possible to take an image, hoax it, and upload it as the cover of the Wikipedia page. I introduced this possibility above. Alan Green says he used the image from the British Library so he could have done that and then put it onto the internet.

Let us see if that is possible?

Could you, for example, check your book that you ruined for Brun's Constant:


Bruns_Constant_Proof2.jpg



Is it there?

Could you upload a scan of your cover so others can check?
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 8K Posts
Posts: 8008
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 » Thu Mar 16, 2017 7:23 am

None of it matters. Here is absolute, incontrovertible proof that pi isn't the real pi anyway, thus doing away with any hidden meaning in the video. It also does away with centuries of mathematics designed intentionally to mislead the entire human race and calls into question every constant ever discovered foisted upon an unsuspecting human race. I'm fairly sure it also shows that we never went to the Moon (maybe the Moon isn't where we think it is, eh?). Shakespeare schmakespeare - this is REALLY important stuff. And think - if it hadn't been for the invention of the CD, we'd never have known this!!!

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/02/05/pi/

User avatar
salomed
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1241
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 » Thu Mar 16, 2017 8:31 am

Poodle wrote:None of it matters. Here is absolute, incontrovertible proof that pi isn't the real pi anyway, thus doing away with any hidden meaning in the video. It also does away with centuries of mathematics designed intentionally to mislead the entire human race and calls into question every constant ever discovered foisted upon an unsuspecting human race. I'm fairly sure it also shows that we never went to the Moon (maybe the Moon isn't where we think it is, eh?). Shakespeare schmakespeare - this is REALLY important stuff. And think - if it hadn't been for the invention of the CD, we'd never have known this!!!

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/02/05/pi/


Pi is only one of the 9 constants encoded in the cover.
Comment savez-vous que vous ne parlez pas bollox?
Sur internet: http://bit.ly/14A0n9H

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8008
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 » Thu Mar 16, 2017 9:16 am

idée fixe
ˌiːdeɪ ˈfiːks/
noun
an idea or desire that dominates the mind; an obsession.
synonyms: obsession, fixation, ruling/consuming passion, passion, mania, compulsion, preoccupation, enthusiasm, infatuation, addiction, fetish, craze, hobby horse;

User avatar
salomed
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1241
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 » Thu Mar 16, 2017 9:54 am

Poodle wrote:idée fixe
ˌiːdeɪ ˈfiːks/
noun
an idea or desire that dominates the mind; an obsession.
synonyms: obsession, fixation, ruling/consuming passion, passion, mania, compulsion, preoccupation, enthusiasm, infatuation, addiction, fetish, craze, hobby horse;


End my obsession please!
Can you show that Bruns Constant is not in those three dots?
Comment savez-vous que vous ne parlez pas bollox?
Sur internet: http://bit.ly/14A0n9H

User avatar
salomed
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1241
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 » Thu Mar 16, 2017 4:39 pm

Poodle wrote:The question obviously avoided by our more gullible population ...

To what end? Why encode this in such a devious and opaque manner on the frontispiece of a book of poems? I can find no record of anyone in Elizabethan England being executed for constructing triangles, so no one involved was in fear of a painful death. The general population would not have risen up against the monarch because an unknown person had drawn an invisible circle. In fact, it would all have been a dreadful waste of time and effort not to have just come straight out in the open with this world-shattering bit of geometric fiddle-faddle. It's a nonsense.



Poodle, I just hope I am being trolled here.

There is no point discussing the WHY until we have established the IF and then the HOW.

If those constants are encoded, then there is something to be investigated further.
If they are not, there is not.

    EDIT: Salomed, if you could find an accurate map of Staffordshire from that period, would you be claiming that the positioning of villages and towns displayed the same constants. Without looking, I'd bet they do.

I will bet you, chose what, that you will not be able to make the correlations that show:

Brun's Constant
Euler's Constant (And e-1)
Phi (And Phi-1)
Pi
Pythagoras
Square Roots of 5, 3 and 6.

And yet, there they are, in the cover of the 1609 Sonnets.
Comment savez-vous que vous ne parlez pas bollox?
Sur internet: http://bit.ly/14A0n9H

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26100
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 » Fri Mar 17, 2017 12:29 am

salomed wrote:You can prove I cheated.
I already have several times.

1) You are computer manipulating a JPEG image to get some of the dots to almost fit and despite being asked four times, you refuse to say what the height and width measurements of the original document are so I can show the real height width ratio.

2) You specifically asked the skeptics here, to watch Alan Green's video that incorporates metres, Egyptian cubits and feet in the same mathematical formulas and then pretended you never claimed this video was "the truth".
viewtopic.php?f=72&t=27871&start=120#p565198

3) You refuse to explain how an Elizabethan type setter could create shapes using fixed height & with type blocks. You say it is irrelevant, which is like saying "How did Elizabeth I drive her Mustang V8 car at such speed as to break the sound barrier, in 1609AD?"

4) Encoding means there is a "code". Five times I have asked you what this magic code is that says ignore some dots but not others and five times you have run away. There is no code and nothing is encoded.

Bad luck Salomed. Try fooling your fellow idiots back on the David Icke forum and take Gorgeous with you. :lol:

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28972
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

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

Postby Gord » Fri Mar 17, 2017 4:17 am

salomed wrote:
That's a very odd thing to do. It's not going to be accurate, there's going to be stretching and shrinking and the normal unintended manipulation of the dimensions in the image.

I told you this in my very first reply to your post. And since then I have suggested that that that could explain the half a full stop lack of precision you have clung to.

That's fallacious reasoning. You're suggesting that NOT finding something is evidence that it's actually there. I think that's called an argument of ignorance. Let me go check...: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_ ... _ignorance

Yeah, that sounds like a similar thing. Check it out:

"I take the view that this lack (of enemy subversive activity in the west coast) is the most ominous sign in our whole situation. It convinces me more than perhaps any other factor that the sabotage we are to get, the Fifth Column activities are to get, are timed just like Pearl Harbor ... I believe we are just being lulled into a false sense of security." – Earl Warren, then California's Attorney General (before a congressional hearing in San Francisco on 21 February 1942).



Could you, for example, check your book that you ruined for Brun's Constant

Sure, I'll check to see if a mathematical value first determined in 1919 can be derived by cherry-picking measurements from a 17th century booklet.

Let's see, the 1st line measures roughly 3 centimetres, the second line measures roughly 6.4 centimetres. That's 6.4 / 3, which comes to 2.13.

Is it there?

Sure, if you think 2.13 is close enough to 1.9 to count. Otherwise, no, it's not.

Wait, I'll do the value for what he calls π as well. I measure roughly 6.4 centimetres for the long line (oh, haha, it's the same line as in the first equation! :sweatdrop: derp, I'm dumb) and just under 2 centimetres for the short line (between 1.95 and 2.00 -- I'll call it 1.98). That's 6.4 / 1.98, which comes to 3.23.

Is 3.23 equal close enough to π to count?

Could you upload a scan of your cover so others can check?

As I've explained before, an uploaded scan would contain too many inaccuracies, so it would be pointless. I would tell you the exact measurements I took from my physical copy, and you would argue your measurements of the uploaded scan are different, and we'd both be correct. You'd still have to rely on my measurements.

Edit: Also I don't have a scanner. I'm not sure which is the better argument for not uploading a scan.
"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 8K Posts
Posts: 8008
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 » Fri Mar 17, 2017 8:32 am

Gord wrote:Edit: Also I don't have a scanner. I'm not sure which is the better argument for not uploading a scan.


Waste of bandwidth used to be a good one. Not so good nowadays when bandwidths are ten a penny, admittedly, but any port in a storm, I say.

User avatar
salomed
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1241
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 » Fri Mar 17, 2017 4:30 pm

Gord wrote:As I've explained before, an uploaded scan would contain too many inaccuracies, so it would be pointless.


Not true. Within the bounds we are looking for (3 decimal places for the constants) scanning and printing will be fine.

Please will you just do it? I will just take a moment.

Also I don't have a scanner. I'm not sure which is the better argument for not uploading a scan.


A high res camera phone photo from the vertical would suffice. Could we try that please?
Comment savez-vous que vous ne parlez pas bollox?
Sur internet: http://bit.ly/14A0n9H

User avatar
salomed
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1241
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 » Fri Mar 17, 2017 4:34 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:[color=#000080]4) Encoding means there is a "code". Five times I have asked you what this magic code is that says ignore some dots but not others and five times you have run away.


I am only interested in answering your relevant points. Shamefully most of your words this thread have fallen into bullying, belittling, distraction and strawmanning the gate you are so desperate to keep.

For the record, you are wrong on the "code" definition. For example the OED definition of "code" is simply:

noun
1.
a system of words, letters, figures, or symbols used to represent others, especially for the purposes of secrecy.


If these constants are represented in the below figure then it is most certainly a code.

Do_these_4_lines_represent_4_constants_sml.jpg


BTW, they are:)
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

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26100
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 » Fri Mar 17, 2017 8:12 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:4) Encoding means there is a "code". Five times I have asked you what this magic code is that says ignore some dots but not others and five times you have run away.
salomed wrote: I am only interested in answering your relevant points.
You mean you won't answer questions that debunk your ridiculous "woo". :lol:

What is and where is, the "secret code" that tells you to draw lines over some full stops but ignore others?

User avatar
salomed
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1241
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 » Fri Mar 17, 2017 9:51 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Matthew Ellard wrote:4) Encoding means there is a "code". Five times I have asked you what this magic code is that says ignore some dots but not others and five times you have run away.
salomed wrote: I am only interested in answering your relevant points.
You mean you won't answer questions that debunk your ridiculous "woo". :lol:


You do not know what "code" means and yet you accuse me of not knowing it. Look above.

What is and where is, the "secret code" that tells you to draw lines over some full stops but ignore others?


The secret code is encoding the four constants in the image below into the punctuation of this page.

It was a secret until it was discovered.

Can you show that the constants are not there?

It would be so very easy to show this because the scope of possibility is astoundingly narrow.

Why would you not just do that. You must have spent hours trying to show I am wrong. A Fifth Grader could say yes or no if those contants are there.

Why will you not even try?

Look at the images you have edited and annotated. You have the skills and software, why will you not just show that I am wrong?

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

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28972
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

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

Postby Gord » Sat Mar 18, 2017 12:41 am

salomed wrote:
Gord wrote:As I've explained before, an uploaded scan would contain too many inaccuracies, so it would be pointless.

Not true. Within the bounds we are looking for (3 decimal places for the constants) scanning and printing will be fine.

No, it won't.

Also I don't have a scanner. I'm not sure which is the better argument for not uploading a scan.

A high res camera phone photo from the vertical would suffice. Could we try that please?

I don't have a camera phone. I have a webcam, but it is a cheap low-res version (cost me $4!).

To get the accuracy you're looking for, you'll need to go to the original copy, not a picture of it.
"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: 1241
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 18, 2017 7:09 am

Gord wrote:
To get the accuracy you're looking for, you'll need to go to the original copy, not a picture of it.


That is demonstrably not true. The constants are in the copy.

You seem forced by facts acknowledge this.
Comment savez-vous que vous ne parlez pas bollox?
Sur internet: http://bit.ly/14A0n9H

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28972
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

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

Postby Gord » Sat Mar 18, 2017 1:08 pm

salomed wrote:
Gord wrote:To get the accuracy you're looking for, you'll need to go to the original copy, not a picture of it.

That is demonstrably not true.

Go ahead then, demonstrate it.
"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: 1241
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 18, 2017 1:30 pm

Gord wrote:
salomed wrote:
Gord wrote:To get the accuracy you're looking for, you'll need to go to the original copy, not a picture of it.

That is demonstrably not true.

Go ahead then, demonstrate it.


I have done. The fact that Pi and the other constants can be found even in a screen grab is remarkable. I said this in my very first reply to you.

You can find them easily.
Comment savez-vous que vous ne parlez pas bollox?
Sur internet: http://bit.ly/14A0n9H

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26100
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 19, 2017 3:33 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:4) Encoding means there is a "code". Five times I have asked you what this magic code is that says ignore some dots but not others and five times you have run away.
salomed wrote:You do not know what "code" means and yet you accuse me of not knowing it.
You do not know what a "code" is. You are making up new secret messages as you go, by ignoring some full stops and not others at your arbitrary choice, in 2017 to get your message to "fit" and not a systematic code you are pretending was "encoded by the 1609AD type-setter.


Salomed's Low IQ
salomed wrote:The secret code is encoding the four constants in the image below into the punctuation of this page.
Are you really that stupid? You are now claiming the secret message code "you invented in 2017" does not need all of the punctuation on the page, printed in 1609AD, therefore you can ignore that punctuation, despite that exact punctuation appearing on the page in 1609AD. You are making up your own secret code that doesn't even fit!

Can you see how stupid that is? ( Probably not)


salomed wrote:why will you not just show that I am wrong?
I have no done so seven times. As you have a low IQ and no mathematics skills. At best, you are not following my clear evidence. More likely you are lying to support a "woo story".

Evidence Salomed consciously cheated
viewtopic.php?f=72&t=27871&start=240#p566205

Evidence Salomed is simply cherry picking some dots but not others.
viewtopic.php?f=72&t=27871&start=200#p565618

Evidence Salomed knows Alan Green is lying and using crap mathematics.
viewtopic.php?f=72&t=27871&start=200#p565660

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26100
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Salomed : Lying for "Woo"

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sun Mar 19, 2017 3:37 am

Here is the Rosetta Stone:
rosetta Stone.jpg

Salomed : " I have decoded the language. It says "Here is a big triangle".
Skeptic : "But why are you ignoring most of the words?"
Salomed : "Those other words don't fit into my 2017AD encoding solution ,so I just ignored them.
Skeptic : "But how do you know the original language said "ignore all those words" 3000 year ago, when they actually appear on the text?
Salomed : "I don't, but if I used all the words than my 2017AD solution must be wrong"
Skeptic : "But that means your 2017AD decoding solution is simply wrong"
Salomed : "I don't understand"


Here are the two full stops Salomed ignores on the 1609AD Sonnets page
Sonnets missed dots.jpg

Salomed : " I have decoded a secret message in the punctuation. It says "Here is a big circle".
Skeptic : "But why are you ignoring most of the other same punctuation?"
Salomed : "That other punctuation doesn't fit into my 2017 AD encoding solution ,so I just ignored them.
Skeptic : "But how do you know a hidden code said "ignore all those other punctuation marks " 400 years ago, when they actually appear on the text?
Salomed : "I don't, but if I used all the words than my 2017AD solution must be wrong"
Skeptic : "But that means your decoding solution is simply wrong"
Salomed : "I don't understand"

Here is a great book for Salomed to read which details how ancient and medieval texts are actually deciphered. (...and yes I know this book backwards)
History of decipherment.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
salomed
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1241
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 19, 2017 6:33 am

[quote="Matthew Ellard"]
1) You are computer manipulating a JPEG image to get some of the dots to almost fit


But you can use the same image that has been on the internet for years and see that there has been no manipulation.

Why would you not do that and just show me wrong?
Comment savez-vous que vous ne parlez pas bollox?
Sur internet: http://bit.ly/14A0n9H

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26100
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 20, 2017 1:02 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:1) You are computer manipulating a JPEG image to get some of the dots to almost fit and ignoring other punctuation arbitrarily.
salomed wrote: But you can use the same image.......
Salomed? You are full of bull-shit. You clearly ignore other punctuation marks to get your geometric shapes to almost fit to some punctuation marks and lines ends.

This is called "Cherry picking by a wooster".
:lol:

You simply don't have the IQ to follow my discussion on deciphering historical texts. You can't decipher or decode anything by ignoring some text and cherry picking bits that fit into a shape you preconceived. that is called contamination.

salomed wrote: image that has been on the internet for years and see that.....
You are lying again. I have already shown you that three different internet images have different aspect ratios. Indeed, six times you have run away after I asked you to measurements of the image you are using so I can check the height/width ratio.

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28972
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

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

Postby Gord » Mon Mar 20, 2017 5:50 am

salomed wrote:
Gord wrote:
salomed wrote:
Gord wrote:To get the accuracy you're looking for, you'll need to go to the original copy, not a picture of it.

That is demonstrably not true.

Go ahead then, demonstrate it.

I have done.

No you haven't. You've demonstrated a poor understanding of what you're talking about. I used your picture and printed it out and took the measurements and got different numbers from what you were expecting me to get, after I told you that would happen, and you still don't understand that (1) it actually happened for the reasons I said and not for the reasons you keep insisting on, and (2) it will always happen whenever you modify an image by changing it from one format to another, including printing it out.

It doesn't matter what the resolution is on the image, when I print it out on the same printer it will fill the page in effectively the same size.
"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: 1241
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 20, 2017 9:30 am

Gord wrote: I used your picture and printed it out and took the measurements and got different numbers from what you were expecting me to get



You used the small image I apologized for uploading.


It doesn't matter what the resolution is on the image


It absolutely does. It is mathematically impossible to get Pi from a 600 by 600 integer space.

Please use this original one:

http://imgur.com/a/Xx97Y

Pi is there:

1470/468=3.141

Note how close this was to your approximation from the low res image. That is significant.

You can measure with a ruler or pixels
Comment savez-vous que vous ne parlez pas bollox?
Sur internet: http://bit.ly/14A0n9H

User avatar
salomed
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1241
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 20, 2017 9:34 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:Indeed, six times you have run away after I asked you to measurements of the image you are using so I can check the height/width ratio.


As said, just download the image of the Wikipedia page for the Sonnets and you can find that out for yourself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakespeare's_sonnets
Comment savez-vous que vous ne parlez pas bollox?
Sur internet: http://bit.ly/14A0n9H

User avatar
Cadmusteeth
Regular Poster
Posts: 894
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 7:43 pm
Location: Colorado Springs, CO

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

Postby Cadmusteeth » Mon Mar 20, 2017 4:34 pm

They have done it themselves; you don't consider that testing it will actually falsify your claim.
Whenever anybody here says you are wrong about this claim of yours, you just push it aside. You act like they didn't do anything.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26100
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 » Tue Mar 21, 2017 12:28 am

Cadmusteeth wrote:Whenever anybody here says you are wrong about this claim of yours, you just push it aside. You act like they didn't do anything.
Salomed does that all the time. Salomed is the wooist who pushed a 6 inch Alien (A fake) and the Starchild Alien ( a hydrocephalic fetus) onto the forum and ignores all counter evidence. He simply follows other internet nutcases and posts their rubbish on our science forum. He is exactly like Gorgeous and Genaro. He's only putting up a fight in this matter as he uses Rene Descartes, a mathematician, as his avatar but has no basic knowledge about mathematics, himself. He's trying to save face as Descartes wrote about coincidence versus evidence. :D

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=20054&p=328646&hilit=alien#p328486
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=18833&hilit=starchild#p300568

Starchild skull.jpg
Six inch alien.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
salomed
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1241
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 » Tue Mar 21, 2017 4:16 pm

Cadmusteeth wrote:They have done it themselves; you don't consider that testing it will actually falsify your claim.
Whenever anybody here says you are wrong about this claim of yours, you just push it aside. You act like they didn't do anything.


But they haven't. Gatekeeper Ellard has spent hours abusing, but not a moment measuring. He tried to distract but the reality is simply that in this image are encoded four constants:

Do_these_4_lines_represent_4_constants_sml.jpg


(Use the higher res image http://imgur.com/a/Xx97Y)

If they are not there, I don't need to be called a liar, I can just be shown to be wrong.

A ten year old could do that with a calculator.
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 8K Posts
Posts: 8008
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 » Tue Mar 21, 2017 5:49 pm

Double post.
Last edited by Poodle on Tue Mar 21, 2017 5:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8008
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 » Tue Mar 21, 2017 5:52 pm

Neatly sidestepping the fact that Gord DID do it. Of course, Gord's head's a bit on the level side so he doesn't count. I, on the other hand, didn't do it. The moment I saw that your dots were, in reality, of the wibbly-wobbly variety I knew what a waste of everyone's time it would be. We are, however, discovering a lot about YOU.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26100
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Salomed has been lying through his teeth

Postby Matthew Ellard » Tue Mar 21, 2017 10:45 pm

salomed wrote: You will now say "you cannot find the ratios."
Matthew Ellard wrote:I already have the height/width ratio of the title page's print run.

What is it Salomed?
:D
salomed wrote:What we are testing for is ratios ......
No Salomed. We are testing for you cheating and now can prove it using one fundamental ratio

You don't know the height/width ratio of the original title page and thus don't know the accuracy of your JPEG download and thus don't know the lengths of your magic hidden circles and lines......which didn't fit exactly in your manipulated image, anyway and totally missed other marks .. It is that simple. You have been lying through your teeth. :lol:

The Shroud of Turin./ Salomed's cheating
Everyone knows the image of Jesus on the Shroud of Turin is bogus and just a medieval painting. If you covered the body of Jesus with a shroud the image, when the shroud is flattened out, would look like a very fat Michelen Tyre man and not a human. Salomed has continuously avoided stating the height/width ratio of the Sonnets title page because, firstly, he never checked this first basic step, but secondly to hide computer manipulation of Sonnets images downloaded from the internet, which have already been shown to have different aspects.



salomed wrote:If the ratios are not there then there is nothing to investigate.
You have my permission to resign from the forum, now, for cheating and lying. :lol:

PS. Tell me about George Eld's four printing presses at the White Sheep sign, on Fleet Lane. (Fleet Street) :D

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26100
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 » Tue Mar 21, 2017 10:53 pm

salomed wrote:Gatekeeper Ellard has spent hours abusing, but not a moment measuring.
Gatekeeper Ellard obtained the height/width ratio over a two weeks ago. Gatekeeper Ellard asked you what the ratio was six times and you ran away six times.

User avatar
salomed
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1241
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2011 4:18 pm
Custom Title: Cartesian Skeptic

Re: Salomed has been lying through his teeth

Postby salomed » Wed Mar 22, 2017 7:19 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:[color=#000080]You don't know the height/width ratio of the original title page and thus don't know the accuracy of your JPEG download


You are absolutly right. I don't even know how big the book is!

But... I do know that if you measure the lengths of between the full stops you get values.

Those values could be miles or meters or inches or pixels.

It matters not. What matters is, when you divide those values between themselves you get mathematical constants.

If the page is inaccurate, that matters not if the constants are there so long as the relative distances remain constant.

Now... suppose that the page has actually been distorted in scanning such that those proportions have changed. In that case a mystery still remains because an absurdly improbably set of coincidences has come out of that distortion, one that magically results in these mathematical constants. I don't think that is the case. There might be, as I mentioned in one of my first posts, a distortion of a tiny degree from scanning and resizing, but nothing that significant. I would wager my image here:

Do_these_4_lines_represent_4_constants_sml.jpg


Would overlay perfectly on the one in the British Museum.

Let's take the yellow line. That represents Brun's Constant. Divide the long line by the short line you get 1.902

Are you saying if you divide the long yellow line by the short yellow line you dont get Brun's constant or are you saying I have cheated and somehow rearranged the dots and uploaded to wikipedia?
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 8K Posts
Posts: 8008
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Salomed has been lying through his teeth

Postby Poodle » Wed Mar 22, 2017 8:05 am

salomed wrote:You are absolutly right. I don't even know how big the book is! ...


Errmm - OK.

salomed wrote:If the page is inaccurate, that matters not if the constants are there so long as the relative distances remain constant....


Errmmm - that's a huge hypothesis from someone who can't be bothered to find out how big the book is. Two big ifs which are about to turn into religious certainty

salomed wrote:Now... suppose that the page has actually been distorted in scanning such that those proportions have changed. In that case a mystery still remains because an absurdly improbably set of coincidences has come out of that distortion, one that magically results in these mathematical constants. I don't think that is the case. There might be, as I mentioned in one of my first posts, a distortion of a tiny degree from scanning and resizing, but nothing that significant. I would wager my image here:

Do_these_4_lines_represent_4_constants_sml.jpg

Would overlay perfectly on the one in the British Museum.


Errmmm - "Suppose ... absurdly improbable ... I don't think ... there might be ...I would wager ... overlay perfectly". This is hardly the textbook illustration of reasoned and analytical thinking. In fact, it's the meandering thought process of someone suffering from sleep deprivation. If you cannot see from this chain of your own thoughts in your own words where you have gone seriously wrong then you have no business being here at all, salomed, unless it's to join the ranks of our other resident screwballs.
So tell me, salomed - are you also one of those people who think it miraculous that the conditions on Earth which gave rise to life are just about perfect for the production of life?

User avatar
salomed
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1241
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2011 4:18 pm
Custom Title: Cartesian Skeptic

Re: Salomed has been lying through his teeth

Postby salomed » Wed Mar 22, 2017 8:52 am

Poodle wrote:Errmmm - that's a huge hypothesis from someone who can't be bothered to find out how big the book is. Two big ifs which are about to turn into religious certainty


No it isn't. We are interested just in ratio not metric. As said, it could be miles wide, if the proportions are there they are there?

Is Brun's constant represented by the yellow line?
Comment savez-vous que vous ne parlez pas bollox?
Sur internet: http://bit.ly/14A0n9H

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26100
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Salomed has been lying through his teeth

Postby Matthew Ellard » Thu Mar 23, 2017 2:20 am

salomed wrote:Would overlay perfectly on the one in the British Museum.

The original is in The British Library, where I worked in the early 80's, training to run archaeology teams.

You don't even know where the original Sonnets is held and have done no basic research. That's how pathetic and amateur your attempted deception was.
:lol:

User avatar
salomed
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1241
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2011 4:18 pm
Custom Title: Cartesian Skeptic

Re: Salomed has been lying through his teeth

Postby salomed » Thu Mar 23, 2017 4:46 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
salomed wrote:Would overlay perfectly on the one in the British Museum.

The original is in The British Library, where I worked in the early 80's, training to run archaeology teams.

You don't even know where the original Sonnets is held and have done no basic research. That's how pathetic and amateur your attempted deception was.
:lol:


As said, and I know you know, so I speak to others rather than you:

It matters not where the constants were found. What matters is that they were found, nine of them together, in an artifact that is centuries old.


That, is mysterious and amazing to me.
Comment savez-vous que vous ne parlez pas bollox?
Sur internet: http://bit.ly/14A0n9H

User avatar
Cadmusteeth
Regular Poster
Posts: 894
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 7:43 pm
Location: Colorado Springs, CO

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

Postby Cadmusteeth » Thu Mar 23, 2017 4:51 pm

So basicly you only care about how you feel avout it rather than what oposing opinions; asking what others thought was more or less pointless.


Return to “Conspiracies”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest