Do these four coloured lines represent four key constants?

 Real Skeptic
 Posts: 27746
 Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Re: Defining Salomed's claim
Matthew Ellard wrote: Brun's Constant is 1.902160583104
Phi is 1.6180339887498948482
Why? these are the correct constants aren't they? It's not my problem that these constants need to be represented in nanometres on the Sonnets page? I already told you the printing type blocks are a fixed size.salomed wrote:We will need to agree on a level of precision/decimal places.
These two constants were deliberately encoded in this particular title page by an unknown person in George Eld's printshop in 1609AD.
How can a coincidence "encode" mathematical formulas as you have claimed? Are you dropping the claim these constants are encoded?salomed wrote:I am not happy with the above line as: 1) I do not know it is deliberate, it could be a coincidence.
There are 89 text signs including lines ends on the page. I could draw 4005 lines between them all. Have you measured all the 16 million or so combinations to find numbers close to other constants? Statistically and by coincidence there should be hundreds of close approximations. It's called statistics.
You may not drop your original deliberately encoded claim
 Poodle
 Has More Than 9K Posts
 Posts: 9002
 Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
 Custom Title: Regular sleeper
 Location: NE corner of my living room
Re: Do these four coloured lines represent four key constants?
I was wrong. It hasn't taken even a single statement. let alone a single response, for salomed's argument to fall apart.
 salomed
 Frequent Poster
 Posts: 1247
 Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2011 4:18 pm
 Custom Title: Cartesian Skeptic
Re: Defining Salomed's claim
Matthew Ellard wrote:Matthew Ellard wrote: Brun's Constant is 1.902160583104
Phi is 1.6180339887498948482Why? these are the correct constants aren't they? It's not my problem that these constants need to be represented in nanometres on the Sonnets page? I already told you the printing type blocks are a fixed size.salomed wrote:We will need to agree on a level of precision/decimal places.
OK, So Alan Green says three decimal places. I think on some of the constants I measured I could only get to 2. But I was using a scanned image. Are you are happy to go with three decimal places:
Brun's Constant is 1.902
Phi is 1.618
If we can only agree on 2 decimal places I think there remains something significant.
These two constants were deliberately encoded in this particular title page by an unknown person in George Eld's printshop in 1609AD.
How can a coincidence "encode" mathematical formulas as you have claimed? Are you dropping the claim these constants are encoded?[/quote]salomed wrote:I am not happy with the above line as: 1) I do not know it is deliberate, it could be a coincidence.
That seems a tad out of sequence to me, but for breiveity, yes: If they are there they are deliberately there.
This does not entail and assumed corollary such as: Mr X was the originator of this encoding.
If they are there they are encoded in the OED sense of the term.
There are 89 text signs including lines ends on the page. I could draw 4005 lines between them all. Have you measured all the 16 million or so combinations to find numbers close to other constants? Statistically and by coincidence there should be hundreds of close approximations. It's called statistics.
I would rather discuss this in the debate. Right now we are just establishing terms and principles. For what its worth, the entire point of this debate is that if they are there then it's a statistical anomalous supernova of information. There simply wont be, by chance, another 9 constants in those 16 million.
 You may not drop your original deliberately encoded claim[/quote]
I havent dropped it, but right now we debate the details, I can drop what I wish until we reach agreement. I would rather start the debate.
Comment savezvous que vous ne parlez pas bollox?
Sur internet: http://bit.ly/14A0n9H
Sur internet: http://bit.ly/14A0n9H

 Real Skeptic
 Posts: 27746
 Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Re: Defining Salomed's claim
Define Value of Constants
Forget Alan Green / He was lying
Basic Mathematics / Probability
There are over 16,000,000 different combinations of the 4005 lines between text signs, that can be divided between each other, on the Sonnets Title page. Therefore to only look for any number to three decimal places will on average result in 16,000 hits for any number we randomly choose.. Therefore the constant must be exact. This is really basic mathematics and allows for a falsifiable experiment.
I realise you have no mathematical skills. Let me explain what is going on using words. Scientists can't take a photo of an electron because an electron is 10,000 smaller than the visible light range. You simply can't discern an electron with a filter that only discerns things 10,000 larger that an electron.
The Sonnets JPEG you looked at is only 1,065 × 1,536 pixels. (In reality the Sonnet's page is 286 by 222 mm). Therefore you cannot discern a constant to three or four decimal places at all, let alone the actual value of the constant which is a minimum of ten decimal places. That's why mathematicians don't draw thick lines to represent constants.
Additional Logic
It is you and Alan Green who claim APPROXIMATIONS of constants appear on the Sonnets page. However, If you simply reduce your constants to a rough approximation and statistically any number with two decimal places will arise 16,000 times, then these aren't encoded mathematical constants. It's random.
Additionally, if you claim "3.14" means Pi, yet Pi is really 3.1415926535 then the 3.14 could mean anything, It could be when the time the compositor at George Eld's print shop goes to lunch.
Therefore the exact Constant values are locked in
Brun's Constant is 1.902160583104
Phi is 1.6180339887498948482
Matthew Ellard wrote: Brun's Constant is 1.902160583104
Phi is 1.6180339887498948482
salomed wrote:We will need to agree on a level of precision/decimal places.
Matthew Ellard wrote:Why? these are the correct constants aren't they? It's not my problem that these constants need to be represented in nanometres on the Sonnets page? I already told you the printing type blocks are a fixed size.
Forget Alan Green / He was lying
Alan Green is an unemployed musician who mixes up metres, inches and cubits without conversion into the one calculation and has no understanding about basic mathematics.salomed wrote: OK, So Alan Green says three decimal places.
No and basic mathematics explains why.salomed wrote:I think on some of the constants I measured I could only get to 2. But I was using a scanned image. Are you are happy to go with three decimal places:
Basic Mathematics / Probability
There are over 16,000,000 different combinations of the 4005 lines between text signs, that can be divided between each other, on the Sonnets Title page. Therefore to only look for any number to three decimal places will on average result in 16,000 hits for any number we randomly choose.. Therefore the constant must be exact. This is really basic mathematics and allows for a falsifiable experiment.
I realise you have no mathematical skills. Let me explain what is going on using words. Scientists can't take a photo of an electron because an electron is 10,000 smaller than the visible light range. You simply can't discern an electron with a filter that only discerns things 10,000 larger that an electron.
The Sonnets JPEG you looked at is only 1,065 × 1,536 pixels. (In reality the Sonnet's page is 286 by 222 mm). Therefore you cannot discern a constant to three or four decimal places at all, let alone the actual value of the constant which is a minimum of ten decimal places. That's why mathematicians don't draw thick lines to represent constants.
Additional Logic
It is you and Alan Green who claim APPROXIMATIONS of constants appear on the Sonnets page. However, If you simply reduce your constants to a rough approximation and statistically any number with two decimal places will arise 16,000 times, then these aren't encoded mathematical constants. It's random.
Additionally, if you claim "3.14" means Pi, yet Pi is really 3.1415926535 then the 3.14 could mean anything, It could be when the time the compositor at George Eld's print shop goes to lunch.
Therefore the exact Constant values are locked in
Brun's Constant is 1.902160583104
Phi is 1.6180339887498948482

 Real Skeptic
 Posts: 27746
 Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Decipherable Number chains
I really don't think Salomed has any mathematical skills at all or he would have worked out the probability of any number to two decimal places occuring in the over 16,000,000 divisions represented on the Sonnets page. In reality, Salomed told us to watch Alan Green's fraudulent video where Alan Green directly states his measurements are only 94% accurate.....but Salomed seems to have forgotten that on purpose.Poodle wrote:I was wrong. It hasn't taken even a single statement. let alone a single response, for salomed's argument to fall apart.
Off Topic
The chaining of one number (line length) to another, for roughly all 100 text characters and the subsequent decryption of any hidden cipher was tackled successfully by Alan Turing breaking the German Enigma machine encryptions. Turing was able to apply his programming to the world's first computers at Bletchley Park in the Great Patriotic War. However the German radio operators, sending the encrypted messages, made errors called "sillies" where they finished each message with "Heil Hitler" or included local weather information, known to the GCHQ codebreakers. This reduced dramatically reduced the number of variables the Bombe computers had to assess.
There are a lot of similarities concerning probability,between the Enigma decipher mathematics and the Sonnets claim.
.
 salomed
 Frequent Poster
 Posts: 1247
 Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2011 4:18 pm
 Custom Title: Cartesian Skeptic
Re: Defining Salomed's claim
Matthew Ellard wrote:Define Value of ConstantsMatthew Ellard wrote: Brun's Constant is 1.902160583104
Phi is 1.6180339887498948482salomed wrote:We will need to agree on a level of precision/decimal places.Matthew Ellard wrote:Why? these are the correct constants aren't they? It's not my problem that these constants need to be represented in nanometres on the Sonnets page? I already told you the printing type blocks are a fixed size.
Forget Alan Green / He was lyingAlan Green is an unemployed musician who mixes up metres, inches and cubits without conversion into the one calculation and has no understanding about basic mathematics.salomed wrote: OK, So Alan Green says three decimal places.No and basic mathematics explains why.salomed wrote:I think on some of the constants I measured I could only get to 2. But I was using a scanned image. Are you are happy to go with three decimal places:
Basic Mathematics / Probability
There are over 16,000,000 different combinations of the 4005 lines between text signs, that can be divided between each other, on the Sonnets Title page. Therefore to only look for any number to three decimal places will on average result in 16,000 hits for any number we randomly choose.. Therefore the constant must be exact. This is really basic mathematics and allows for a falsifiable experiment.
I realise you have no mathematical skills. Let me explain what is going on using words. Scientists can't take a photo of an electron because an electron is 10,000 smaller than the visible light range. You simply can't discern an electron with a filter that only discerns things 10,000 larger that an electron.
The Sonnets JPEG you looked at is only 1,065 × 1,536 pixels. (In reality the Sonnet's page is 286 by 222 mm). Therefore you cannot discern a constant to three or four decimal places at all, let alone the actual value of the constant which is a minimum of ten decimal places. That's why mathematicians don't draw thick lines to represent constants.
Additional Logic
It is you and Alan Green who claim APPROXIMATIONS of constants appear on the Sonnets page. However, If you simply reduce your constants to a rough approximation and statistically any number with two decimal places will arise 16,000 times, then these aren't encoded mathematical constants. It's random.
Additionally, if you claim "3.14" means Pi, yet Pi is really 3.1415926535 then the 3.14 could mean anything, It could be when the time the compositor at George Eld's print shop goes to lunch.
Therefore the exact Constant values are locked in
Brun's Constant is 1.902160583104
Phi is 1.6180339887498948482
We are dealing with 400 year old ink and paper. If you want to derail the debate by insisting on an impossible degree of precision, well, that is predictable.
3 decimal places.
Comment savezvous que vous ne parlez pas bollox?
Sur internet: http://bit.ly/14A0n9H
Sur internet: http://bit.ly/14A0n9H
 Poodle
 Has More Than 9K Posts
 Posts: 9002
 Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
 Custom Title: Regular sleeper
 Location: NE corner of my living room
Re: Defining Salomed's claim
Well, here's the fully expected backing off. Sad. So here's the new proposition ... Approximately, it may be approximately true that the approximate layout of an Elizabethan publication may approximately contain approximations of numbers which approximately approach approximations of constants.
This is a waste of time. Amusing, but sad to see someone make such a complete fool of him/herself.
 OutOfBreath
 Veteran Poster
 Posts: 2133
 Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 1:38 pm
 Custom Title: Persistent ponderer
 Location: Norway
Re: Defining Salomed's claim
salomed wrote:We are dealing with 400 year old ink and paper...
insisting on an impossible degree of precision,
Well that has been the point all along hasn't it? Think you just checkmated yourself although you were aiming for the stalemate. ..
Peace
Dan
What is perceived as real becomes real in its consequences.
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty."  Frank Herbert
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty."  Frank Herbert
 salomed
 Frequent Poster
 Posts: 1247
 Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2011 4:18 pm
 Custom Title: Cartesian Skeptic
Re: Defining Salomed's claim
OutOfBreath wrote:salomed wrote:We are dealing with 400 year old ink and paper...
insisting on an impossible degree of precision,
Well that has been the point all along hasn't it? Think you just checkmated yourself although you were aiming for the stalemate. ..
Peace
Dan
I don't think so. If there is an insistence on 8 decimal places, it becomes absurd. But 2 or 3, I know they are there and my posts on this and the other thread have demonstrated this.
What I think has happened is that Ellard, after insults, threats of violence and begging Phyrro to ban me, has come unstuck. His only recourse is this pantomime of a debate which I am sure he wont get started. But I hope it does.
You have always seemed like a reasonable chap who is not owned by his ego, and clearly you are still reading this thread, so I ask you, have you seen the video yet?
Could you have a go at doing the measuring? It doesnt take long.
Comment savezvous que vous ne parlez pas bollox?
Sur internet: http://bit.ly/14A0n9H
Sur internet: http://bit.ly/14A0n9H

 Real Skeptic
 Posts: 27746
 Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Re: Defining Salomed's claim
salomed wrote: We are dealing with 400 year old ink and paper. If you want to derail the debate by insisting on an impossible degree of precision.
It was you who made the ridiculous claim that complex mathematical constants of greater than ten decimal points, were magically encoded in an Elizabethan page of text, printed using fixed sized type blocks that a typesetter, using a "slug" handed to a compositor who fitted them into preexisting rows on a printer's frame block.
I explained this to you in my very first response and you still don't get it.
The joke we have been playing with you, was that these constants could never be represented by simply dividing two numbers together because that's not how the constants were derived by mathematicians in the first place....were they? Therefore, simply dividing one number by another was not representing these mathematical constants as you claimed.
As there were 16 million results from dividing lengths between text icons, you were simply looking for matches between numbers to two decimal points and ignoring the 15,999,998 other numbers and artificially calling them mathematical constants for absolutely no reason.

 Real Skeptic
 Posts: 27746
 Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Fun information for real skeptics
This is not for Salomed as it is way beyond his mathematical skills. There is a hidden code, but it's not what you think.
Inches not Millimeters
Did I forget to mention this? Elizabethan metal smiths poured the lead type blocks into casts that were measured in fractions of inches, not millimeters, as metres were not created for another 190 years. A small font "." may be 1/16th of an inch, a capital "S" in the same font may be 3/16ths of an inch wide, a lead (or spacer) between words may be 1/4 inch wide and so on.
Therefore combinations of the same three letters have the same width.
If you look through the whole of the Sonnets, you will note that the same three letters,in the same font, anywhere in the Sonnets, if placed together, have the same width. That's why Salomed /Alan Green deceptively did not apply their magic code to the whole Sonnets as this would become obviously apparent.
Mathematically, we already know that the entire Sonnets has to already comply to this spacing "rule" and therefore the words being printed and the fixed spacing, due to type block size, denies the existence of any other secret hidden spacing to create constants to 10 decimal places. It's just mathematics.
Inches not Millimeters
Did I forget to mention this? Elizabethan metal smiths poured the lead type blocks into casts that were measured in fractions of inches, not millimeters, as metres were not created for another 190 years. A small font "." may be 1/16th of an inch, a capital "S" in the same font may be 3/16ths of an inch wide, a lead (or spacer) between words may be 1/4 inch wide and so on.
Therefore combinations of the same three letters have the same width.
If you look through the whole of the Sonnets, you will note that the same three letters,in the same font, anywhere in the Sonnets, if placed together, have the same width. That's why Salomed /Alan Green deceptively did not apply their magic code to the whole Sonnets as this would become obviously apparent.
Mathematically, we already know that the entire Sonnets has to already comply to this spacing "rule" and therefore the words being printed and the fixed spacing, due to type block size, denies the existence of any other secret hidden spacing to create constants to 10 decimal places. It's just mathematics.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

 Real Skeptic
 Posts: 27746
 Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Re: Defining Salomed's claim
There are more than 16 million results, of dividing the length between one text mark and another, with another such length, on the Sonnet's Title page alone.salomed wrote:Could you have a go at doing the measuring? It doesnt take long.
How many have you measured yourself to ensure the results are not simply random?
Do you know what the word random means?
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

 Real Skeptic
 Posts: 27746
 Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
More notes
I thought that Salomed and Alan Green were the same person, but I'm not so sure as Alan Green tours counter culture events promoting other types of woo that Salomed hasn't mentioned. Additionally Alan is old and knows about Elizabethan's using inches, 1/2 inches, 1/4 inches, and so on and Salomed went straight for millimeters, without once measuring the Sonnet's page text with an inch ruler to see the conformity. The original Sonnets pages were five by seven Elizabethan inches printed on Quatro sheets of paper.Poodle wrote:Salomed, I have to ask  what is your native language? Genuine question.
Alan Green / The Holy Trinity Solution / (2012)
This second book in this breakthrough series presents an astonishing sacred geometry code embedded in the title page of Shakespeare's Sonnets. The perfection of the hidden pattern reveals twelve of the most significant mathematical constants, all to at least three decimal places of accuracy! But Shakespeare (and Dee) don't stop there. They give us one more scientific conundrum to ponder. They've embedded the precise geographic coordinates of the Great Pyramid of Giza!
(The hidden geographic coordinates are in modern Google Map format and still wrong. Alan Green is both a con artist and an idiot. Thank the stars, we never let Salomed go the next step to copy this claim on our forum. )
 salomed
 Frequent Poster
 Posts: 1247
 Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2011 4:18 pm
 Custom Title: Cartesian Skeptic
Re: Defining Salomed's claim
Matthew Ellard wrote:There are more than 16 million results, of dividing the length between one text mark and another, with another such length, on the Sonnet's Title page alone.salomed wrote:Could you have a go at doing the measuring? It doesnt take long.
How many have you measured yourself to ensure the results are not simply random?
Do you know what the word random means? Data science for dummies.jpg
I care not how stupid you think I am. Anyhoooos... to your point on these being random:
For your argument to seem reasonable you would need to find similar correlations in any given set of points. The whole point of this is that we know if they are there then they could be coincidence. That was said in my first post. The question is, how astronomical would such a coincidence be? Where is your evidence that it mundane?
How is the progress going on arranging a debate? You seem to have gone quiet on that front.
Can we establish one thing please, because if we cant establish this all the rest fails:
Do you agree that the two lines divided yield, to one decimal place, Pi and Brun's constant?
3.1
1.9
Can we establish that as a point of agreement? (A ten year old with a ruler and a calculator could check that)
Comment savezvous que vous ne parlez pas bollox?
Sur internet: http://bit.ly/14A0n9H
Sur internet: http://bit.ly/14A0n9H
 Poodle
 Has More Than 9K Posts
 Posts: 9002
 Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
 Custom Title: Regular sleeper
 Location: NE corner of my living room
Re: Do these four coloured lines represent four key constants?
I don't think you're getting this, salomed. Your sole target now is to formulate your definitive statement for the debate you have now insisted upon. You have already been told that if you wish to claim that any constants are encoded in the page then they must be accurate yet you are now attempting to reduce them even further than before to an accuracy of a single decimal place. Matthew, far from being quiet, is waiting for your statement.
A couple of guidelines ... A constant is what it is, in its entirety, and not an approximation. If this is not acceptable, then the debate is pointless. Secondly, you are now asking for evidence to counter your claim when you have not even begun to present a debatable statement. If you cannot formulate such a statement, then the debate is, again, pointless.
A couple of guidelines ... A constant is what it is, in its entirety, and not an approximation. If this is not acceptable, then the debate is pointless. Secondly, you are now asking for evidence to counter your claim when you have not even begun to present a debatable statement. If you cannot formulate such a statement, then the debate is, again, pointless.
 salomed
 Frequent Poster
 Posts: 1247
 Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2011 4:18 pm
 Custom Title: Cartesian Skeptic
Re: Do these four coloured lines represent four key constants?
Poodle wrote:I don't think you're getting this, salomed. Your sole target now is to formulate your definitive statement for the debate you have now insisted upon. You have already been told that if you wish to claim that any constants are encoded in the page then they must be accurate yet you are now attempting to reduce them even further than before to an accuracy of a single decimal place. Matthew, far from being quiet, is waiting for your statement.
A couple of guidelines ... A constant is what it is, in its entirety, and not an approximation. If this is not acceptable, then the debate is pointless. Secondly, you are now asking for evidence to counter your claim when you have not even begun to present a debatable statement. If you cannot formulate such a statement, then the debate is, again, pointless.
Poodle, your point is mistaken: these sequences are infinite. All statements of them, by definition, will be approximations.
3.1415926535897932384626433832795028841971693993751058209
This is an approximation of Pi.
So is:
3.1415926535
So is:
3.141
So is:
3.1
Do you agree with the above?
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Comment savezvous que vous ne parlez pas bollox?
Sur internet: http://bit.ly/14A0n9H
Sur internet: http://bit.ly/14A0n9H
 Poodle
 Has More Than 9K Posts
 Posts: 9002
 Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
 Custom Title: Regular sleeper
 Location: NE corner of my living room
Re: Do these four coloured lines represent four key constants?
It doesn't matter if I agree or not  it's Matthew who you will be debating and he's already told you what he would find acceptable. What you appear to be doing, though, is backing off your original claim.
 salomed
 Frequent Poster
 Posts: 1247
 Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2011 4:18 pm
 Custom Title: Cartesian Skeptic
Re: Do these four coloured lines represent four key constants?
Poodle wrote:It doesn't matter if I agree or not  it's Matthew who you will be debating and he's already told you what he would find acceptable. What you appear to be doing, though, is backing off your original claim.
Excuse me? How on earth have I backed off my original claim?
Will you not answer my question? You clearly measured it all out before, so will you simply tell me if they exist to one decimal place. Show me they dont and there is no debate. Game over, you and your hero win.
So? Do they?
Comment savezvous que vous ne parlez pas bollox?
Sur internet: http://bit.ly/14A0n9H
Sur internet: http://bit.ly/14A0n9H
 Poodle
 Has More Than 9K Posts
 Posts: 9002
 Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
 Custom Title: Regular sleeper
 Location: NE corner of my living room
Re: Do these four coloured lines represent four key constants?
Salomed  lissen vary ceerfully. I shall say zis ernly wernce (more).
Using your own "any part of a dot will do" technique, I can draw triangles which don't have any right angles. There endeth the argument as far as I'm concerned.
Using your own "any part of a dot will do" technique, I can draw triangles which don't have any right angles. There endeth the argument as far as I'm concerned.
 salomed
 Frequent Poster
 Posts: 1247
 Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2011 4:18 pm
 Custom Title: Cartesian Skeptic
Re: Defining Salomed's claim
Matthew Ellard wrote:There are more than 16 million results, of dividing the length between one text mark and another, with another such length, on the Sonnet's Title page alone.
You are mistaken. We are not interested in arbitrary points but distinct points, specifically those that are the vertices of right angled triangles. There are a handful of those.
You really are an expert at derailing and distracting.
When you are right, you are great to read. Debunking nazis. I commend you. Golly, it is nearly a decade since I PMd you to congratulate you on your dealings with those haters. But now you are cornered by in our face obvious facts you descend into a petty, threatening, insulting, horribly bad arguer. It really is a shame.
Anyways, this idiotic turd/wooster still wants a debate.
I have stated my terms, you have not been happy with them. State your terms, define the debate, in terms of what it would take to convince you that you are mistaken.
Comment savezvous que vous ne parlez pas bollox?
Sur internet: http://bit.ly/14A0n9H
Sur internet: http://bit.ly/14A0n9H

 Real Skeptic
 Posts: 27746
 Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Re: Defining Salomed's claim
Trust me. You're really stupid, can't do basic mathematics and you are a bad liar.salomed wrote:I care not how stupid you think I am.
I already did. You simply couldn't follow the basic mathematics. There are over 16 million random results on that same Sonnets page, with 89 text letters, full stops or line ends. You and Alan Green simply picked two out of 16 million. Do you wan't me to walk you through the mathematics again...more slowly?salomed wrote:For your argument to seem reasonable you would need to find similar correlations in any given set of points.
Secondly, I had to point out to you that you were only looking at one Sonnet print run. The dot you used, for your "calculation" was moved for that print run. However the other dots and lines remained constant. Do you understand the significance of that? (Probably not)
Thirdly, it is your lack of knowledge of mathematics that destroyed your own argument. Not one of the mathematical constants you claimed existed could be derived by simply dividing one "length" by another "length". Your "method" immediately gave incorrect values for the supposed constants. That's not how mathematics works, is it?
Do the mathematics. If your "method" is applied to all text 89 signs and calculated to two decimal points we will obtain 16,000 times of all numbers, in a range, to two decimal places. That you were able to find that same number once is hardly exciting, is it?salomed wrote:how astronomical would such a coincidence be?
Do you understand basic statistics? ( I studied statistics at university)
Your claim fell apart when you said you could not find the constants, but only approximations that deviated from the actual constants past two decimal places. Did you forget?salomed wrote:How is the progress going on arranging a debate? You seem to have gone quiet on that front.

 Real Skeptic
 Posts: 27746
 Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Re: Defining Salomed's claim
Matthew Ellard wrote:There are more than 16 million results, of dividing the length between one text mark and another, with another such length, on the Sonnet's Title page alone.
There are 89 distinct text points on the Sonnets title page. Are your saying you never counted them?salomed wrote:You are mistaken. We are not interested in arbitrary points but distinct points,
And don't lie again and pretend there is a secret code that tells you to ignore some dots, but not others and include some line ends but not others, and then only draw lines between some dots and lines but not others.
Where is this magic code that says you should do this?
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

 Real Skeptic
 Posts: 27746
 Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Re: Do these four coloured lines represent four key constants?
salomed wrote: Excuse me? How on earth have I backed off my original claim?
1) You were unable to find any exact mathematical constants.
2) You pretended the results of dividing specifically chosen lengths by other lengths produced numbers to two decimal places were "approximations" but the real constants cannot be replicated by division and your division method gave incorrect values after two or three decimal places.
Brun's Constant is 1.902160583104
Phi is 1.6180339887498948482

 Real Skeptic
 Posts: 27746
 Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Alan Greens claim......
Considering Salomed is now simply copying off Alan Green's website, let us not forget Alan Green's complete claim.
Alan Green claims that John Dee was a time and astral traveller, who through Shakespeare's Sonnets, identifies the modern Google Map reference location number for The Giza Pyramid and travelled there and was able to discover the speed of light in metres before metres were invented. If we pay Alan Green enough money he will show us the evidence by digging up a Shakespeare monument in Holy Trinity, the Parish Church for StratforduponAvon.
Here is a one minute video by Alan Green explaining his Sonnets mathematics. This is what Salomed actually believes, or is promoting to help Alan sell his new book.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmdebTnrUaM&list=PLoSJzdgiZ_XIZQDm5DAaaCavgkdV8xb5e
One odd coincidence
Both Alan Green and Salomed think the Sonnets is held in the British Museum. This is incorrect. It's the British Library. Hmmmmmmmmm.....
Hark, the tune of the lark of alan,
has't anon ent'r'd mine own owneth house,
but two birds from manchest'r,
so closeth in feath'r and song?
is this but one monst'r puff'd up into two,
yond shareth the same sleep chamber, w'rd, tone and
maketh m'rriment f'r the sceptic,
whom writes these w'rds?
p'rhap yond lark f'rgot,
a sceptic hast the mem'ry of eons,
and hast hath heard the w'rds of the bard,
in mine own owneth house bef're,
the beasts which cannot bid sooth,
appears to shareth the same backeth and steals
the chinks from his owneth pe'rs
Alan Green claims that John Dee was a time and astral traveller, who through Shakespeare's Sonnets, identifies the modern Google Map reference location number for The Giza Pyramid and travelled there and was able to discover the speed of light in metres before metres were invented. If we pay Alan Green enough money he will show us the evidence by digging up a Shakespeare monument in Holy Trinity, the Parish Church for StratforduponAvon.
Here is a one minute video by Alan Green explaining his Sonnets mathematics. This is what Salomed actually believes, or is promoting to help Alan sell his new book.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmdebTnrUaM&list=PLoSJzdgiZ_XIZQDm5DAaaCavgkdV8xb5e
One odd coincidence
Both Alan Green and Salomed think the Sonnets is held in the British Museum. This is incorrect. It's the British Library. Hmmmmmmmmm.....
Hark, the tune of the lark of alan,
has't anon ent'r'd mine own owneth house,
but two birds from manchest'r,
so closeth in feath'r and song?
is this but one monst'r puff'd up into two,
yond shareth the same sleep chamber, w'rd, tone and
maketh m'rriment f'r the sceptic,
whom writes these w'rds?
p'rhap yond lark f'rgot,
a sceptic hast the mem'ry of eons,
and hast hath heard the w'rds of the bard,
in mine own owneth house bef're,
the beasts which cannot bid sooth,
appears to shareth the same backeth and steals
the chinks from his owneth pe'rs
 salomed
 Frequent Poster
 Posts: 1247
 Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2011 4:18 pm
 Custom Title: Cartesian Skeptic
Re: Do these four coloured lines represent four key constants?
What a wonderful attempt at diffusion! You have spent just under a thousand words replying to my last post, tens of thousands in this thread alone, and still avoid the debate. You skirt around, bragging and insulting, and now you are outright denying the possibility of a debate because you say I have lost the debate before it has begin.
You cannot give me a level of precision for the debate because the only one you have cornered yourself into accepting is infinity. Trapped.
You are cornered into saying that this value of Pi:
3.1415926535897932384626433832795028841971693993751058209
Is too approximate for any debate on Pi.
We are discussing whether or not A/B yields a constant. We need a degree of precision for this to be discussed.
How many, finite, decimal places will you accept?
You cannot give me a level of precision for the debate because the only one you have cornered yourself into accepting is infinity. Trapped.
You are cornered into saying that this value of Pi:
3.1415926535897932384626433832795028841971693993751058209
Is too approximate for any debate on Pi.
We are discussing whether or not A/B yields a constant. We need a degree of precision for this to be discussed.
How many, finite, decimal places will you accept?
Comment savezvous que vous ne parlez pas bollox?
Sur internet: http://bit.ly/14A0n9H
Sur internet: http://bit.ly/14A0n9H
 Poodle
 Has More Than 9K Posts
 Posts: 9002
 Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
 Custom Title: Regular sleeper
 Location: NE corner of my living room
Re: Do these four coloured lines represent four key constants?
Well, as salomed has emerged from the closet in another thread, I assume that the debate's off.

 Real Skeptic
 Posts: 27746
 Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Re: Do these four coloured lines represent four key constants?
That's right. You claimed the mathematical constants were there. They are not. End of story.salomed wrote:.... you say I have lost the debate before it has begin.
Yes Salomed, but that's not what is happening is it?salomed wrote: You are cornered into saying that this value of Pi: 3.1415926535897932384626433832795028841971693993751058209
The value you have claimed is Pi differs from the real value of Pi after 2 decimal places. That's because your approximations are bogus.
You simply have a low IQ and no mathematical skills. You cannot replicate complex mathematical constants, derived by complex formulas, by simply dividing one number by another. They are always going to differ from the real constant. That's because they are just random numbers and nothing to do with the constants.

 Real Skeptic
 Posts: 27746
 Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Re: Do these four coloured lines represent four key constants?
I will accept any number of decimal points up until your "division of lengths calculation" differs from the real constant. ( Which by their inherent nature, will be always)salomed wrote: How many, finite, decimal places will you accept?
If you can get that working for Brun's Constant, for four decimal places you will win a Nobel Peace prize or own a ruler that measures nanometres.
(I realise you don't have a clue about mathematics and are encountering these simple mathematical problems, now, for the first time)

 Real Skeptic
 Posts: 27746
 Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Re: Do these four coloured lines represent four key constants?
Poodle wrote:Well, as salomed has emerged from the closet in another thread, I assume that the debate's off.
Austin Harper and seven other forum members put Salomed on ignore in 2012, when Salomed was claiming the Starchild skull was alien despite the DNA being identified as human. Therefore Austin probably can't be moderator.
It also explains why so few skeptics are posting in this thread. They already have Salomed on ignore.
However, on a more cheerful note, a websearch for "Alan Green", "Sonnets", "skeptic", "debunk", "Shakespeare" and "mathematics" is leading members of the public here.
Good luck selling your book Alan!
 salomed
 Frequent Poster
 Posts: 1247
 Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2011 4:18 pm
 Custom Title: Cartesian Skeptic
Re: Do these four coloured lines represent four key constants?
Matthew, you have prelost the debate by refusing to have it for utterly sophistic reasons. Still, I will play along.
Let's see if we can find the reasons for you to avoid this very watered down conclusion. But one that, if we can agree on, would be a first step in the investigation. Although it is watered down from the grand claims of 9 constants etc, it is still utterly amazing to my ignorant mind.
So...
Let us, for the moment, forget the constants and look at another rather special quality of the Sonnets page. We dont need to know dimensions as we can see with a set square that the presence of right angled triangles is exceptional. Consider this old image:
Those are four right angle triangles, a child would agree.
I propose we debate this:
The Sonnet's title page has a proportion of right angled triangles (between the full stops and the end of the page dividing lines) that could not reasonably be there by chance and must have been placed there on purpose.
I did think, I am going to have to go through books and seeing how many right angled triangles can be found between the punctuation. As you can imagine, this is a laborious task and one that soon shows how rare RATs are between punctuation. You can try this yourself. You just won't find any.
Then this morning I thought, "Ahhh, we don't need to check book, we can just Monte Carlo a simulated page and run that billions of times to find out the probability of RATS"
That is what I did. I just wrote a simple program (I am far from a good programmer but this is the source: http://freetexthost.com/2eqjil0utb) that generates three random points within a grid the size of the page in pixels and calculates if they form a RAT. Then I let it run for a billion iterations and counted the RATs it found and got a result of 1784. That is about 0.002%
Of course, this is not exactly analogous to the page with areas for the full stops rather than perfect points, but it highlights what any book checking with a set square will suggest, RATS are astoundingly rare between book punctuations.
To find one on a page is rare. To find four (I believe there are in fact 7) as in the image above, that cannot reasonably be chance.
So are you up for this debate?:
The Sonnet's title page has a proportion of right angled triangles (between the full stops and the end of the page dividing lines) that could not reasonably be there by chance and must have been placed there on purpose.
Let's see if we can find the reasons for you to avoid this very watered down conclusion. But one that, if we can agree on, would be a first step in the investigation. Although it is watered down from the grand claims of 9 constants etc, it is still utterly amazing to my ignorant mind.
So...
Let us, for the moment, forget the constants and look at another rather special quality of the Sonnets page. We dont need to know dimensions as we can see with a set square that the presence of right angled triangles is exceptional. Consider this old image:
Those are four right angle triangles, a child would agree.
I propose we debate this:
The Sonnet's title page has a proportion of right angled triangles (between the full stops and the end of the page dividing lines) that could not reasonably be there by chance and must have been placed there on purpose.
I did think, I am going to have to go through books and seeing how many right angled triangles can be found between the punctuation. As you can imagine, this is a laborious task and one that soon shows how rare RATs are between punctuation. You can try this yourself. You just won't find any.
Then this morning I thought, "Ahhh, we don't need to check book, we can just Monte Carlo a simulated page and run that billions of times to find out the probability of RATS"
That is what I did. I just wrote a simple program (I am far from a good programmer but this is the source: http://freetexthost.com/2eqjil0utb) that generates three random points within a grid the size of the page in pixels and calculates if they form a RAT. Then I let it run for a billion iterations and counted the RATs it found and got a result of 1784. That is about 0.002%
Of course, this is not exactly analogous to the page with areas for the full stops rather than perfect points, but it highlights what any book checking with a set square will suggest, RATS are astoundingly rare between book punctuations.
To find one on a page is rare. To find four (I believe there are in fact 7) as in the image above, that cannot reasonably be chance.
So are you up for this debate?:
The Sonnet's title page has a proportion of right angled triangles (between the full stops and the end of the page dividing lines) that could not reasonably be there by chance and must have been placed there on purpose.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Comment savezvous que vous ne parlez pas bollox?
Sur internet: http://bit.ly/14A0n9H
Sur internet: http://bit.ly/14A0n9H
 OutOfBreath
 Veteran Poster
 Posts: 2133
 Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 1:38 pm
 Custom Title: Persistent ponderer
 Location: Norway
Re: Do these four coloured lines represent four key constants?
salomed wrote:Matthew, you have prelost the debate by refusing to have it for utterly sophistic reasons. Still, I will play along.
Let's see if we can find the reasons for you to avoid this very watered down conclusion. But one that, if we can agree on, would be a first step in the investigation. Although it is watered down from the grand claims of 9 constants etc, it is still utterly amazing to my ignorant mind.
So...
Let us, for the moment, forget the constants and look at another rather special quality of the Sonnets page. We dont need to know dimensions as we can see with a set square that the presence of right angled triangles is exceptional. Consider this old image:
Do_these_4_lines_represent_4_constants_sml.jpg
Those are four right angle triangles, a child would agree.
I propose we debate this:
The Sonnet's title page has a proportion of right angled triangles (between the full stops and the end of the page dividing lines) that could not reasonably be there by chance and must have been placed there on purpose.
I did think, I am going to have to go through books and seeing how many right angled triangles can be found between the punctuation. As you can imagine, this is a laborious task and one that soon shows how rare RATs are between punctuation. You can try this yourself. You just won't find any.
Then this morning I thought, "Ahhh, we don't need to check book, we can just Monte Carlo a simulated page and run that billions of times to find out the probability of RATS"
That is what I did. I just wrote a simple program (I am far from a good programmer but this is the source: http://freetexthost.com/2eqjil0utb) that generates three random points within a grid the size of the page in pixels and calculates if they form a RAT. Then I let it run for a billion iterations and counted the RATs it found and got a result of 1784. That is about 0.002%
Of course, this is not exactly analogous to the page with areas for the full stops rather than perfect points, but it highlights what any book checking with a set square will suggest, RATS are astoundingly rare between book punctuations.
To find one on a page is rare. To find four (I believe there are in fact 7) as in the image above, that cannot reasonably be chance.
So are you up for this debate?:
The Sonnet's title page has a proportion of right angled triangles (between the full stops and the end of the page dividing lines) that could not reasonably be there by chance and must have been placed there on purpose.
You are aware you just asked a program to use the level of detail you yourself do not use for the line drawing? Had you put this page of yours through the same process, you would have wound up with no hits on the Sonnets either. Conversely, if you allow for "big dots" and lines only touching the enlarged dots, the probabilities would be much different in your example. If you now let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, you can wrap this up yourself. (But I know you, and you will never abandon the "It WOULD be kinda cool if true" angle)
Peace
Dan
What is perceived as real becomes real in its consequences.
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty."  Frank Herbert
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty."  Frank Herbert
 salomed
 Frequent Poster
 Posts: 1247
 Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2011 4:18 pm
 Custom Title: Cartesian Skeptic
Re: Do these four coloured lines represent four key constants?
OutOfBreath wrote:You are aware you just asked a program to use the level of detail you yourself do not use for the line drawing?
Absolutly. Don't forget this has nothing to do with the previous discussion's issues. This is about the plausibility of the four+ Right Angled triangles in the Sonnet's page being intended.
Had you put this page of yours through the same process, you would have wound up with no hits on the Sonnets either.
Absolutely Not. The opposite is true. For any of the pixel RATs which fall in the full stops you can shift that RAT pixels in all direction until one of those pixels is no longer on the punctuation. Note, you cannot do this with the constants because it changes the values.
Do you understand my point?
If you do understand it will you acknowledge your mistake or show me my mistake please:)_
Conversely, if you allow for "big dots" and lines only touching the enlarged dots, the probabilities would be much different in your example.
Yes, this is analogous to shrinking the size of the grid in my program. Of course the number of RAT hits goes up when the possibility space shrinks. I did allude to this in my post (Not another skim reader I hope Dan! I say either ignore or read properly:) ).
(But I know you, and you will never abandon the "It WOULD be kinda cool if true" angle)
Of course it would. As would telepathy and starchilds. But you can show me no evidence in any of my posts where I have diverted from at least trying to be scientific and reasonable.
Can you give me your thoughts on the below:
Either single RATs on book punctuation are extremely rare or they are not.
If they are then finding 4+ on a book page is mysteriously rare.
If they are not extremely rare then there is no mystery.
Do you agree?
Peace:)
Comment savezvous que vous ne parlez pas bollox?
Sur internet: http://bit.ly/14A0n9H
Sur internet: http://bit.ly/14A0n9H
 OutOfBreath
 Veteran Poster
 Posts: 2133
 Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 1:38 pm
 Custom Title: Persistent ponderer
 Location: Norway
Re: Do these four coloured lines represent four key constants?
salomed wrote:Can you give me your thoughts on the below:
I'll humour you this once.
Either single RATs on book punctuation are extremely rare or they are not
If they are then finding 4+ on a book page is mysteriously rare.
If they are not extremely rare then there is no mystery.
Lot of books in the world dude. Which in any case would yield some hits given the astronomical number of possible pages out there. Pick the right book, and you'll be good. (aka random chance will yield some hits)
But your claim of RATs is in trouble fundamentally, as Matthew showed the original manuscript have a different ratio than the webone you use. You dont seem to understand how big of a blow that is to your claims, since they rest on meticulous precision of distances on the page.
For instance, if the original was 15x10 cm, and the web one is 15x15cm, and dot that was placed 5 cm from the left edge on the original, it would be 7,5 cm from the left edge in the copy, giving completely different values to measured lines. That means that what fits in a circle on the webone, is NOT a circle on the original. And what is 3,14 cm in the web one may be, I dunno, 2,8 in the original. If you have ever copied an image into an presentation and stretched it to fit, you'll see what I mean there.
So basically, what you describe can be superrare. Your problem is that it is not proven that what you describe is actually there on the original. The slghtest difference in image ratios will throw off any linelengths.
If you're still not getting it, you really aren't trying.
Peace
Dan
What is perceived as real becomes real in its consequences.
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty."  Frank Herbert
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty."  Frank Herbert
 salomed
 Frequent Poster
 Posts: 1247
 Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2011 4:18 pm
 Custom Title: Cartesian Skeptic
Re: Do these four coloured lines represent four key constants?
OutOfBreath wrote:Lot of books in the world dude. Which in any case would yield some hits given the astronomical number of possible pages out there. Pick the right book, and you'll be good. (aka random chance will yield some hits)
Sure, so find one. I am arguing that the chances of one are astronomically small. Moreover, I have demonstrated with my program that mathematically they are astronomically small. There might be an error in my programming or reasoning, but I do not see it. Do you see it?
But your claim of RATs is in trouble fundamentally, as Matthew showed the original manuscript have a different ratio than the webone you use
No, he really hasn't shown that. At least two of the versions out there are proportion identical. And why would they not be? The technology to accurately digitise the analogue has been around for decades. Same with printing. I would wager a zillion that if you printed out the wikipedia cover image at the right size it would lay perfectly over the one in the London zoo or British museum/Library.
Also, there is no evidence for Ellards claim here. Sure, it might be the wrong ratio to preserve the RATS, but is it? There is evidence to suggest it is not, and no evidence to suggest it is that i am aware of.
You dont seem to understand how big of a blow that is to your claims, since they rest on meticulous precision of distances on the page.
It would utterly destroy them.
Your problem is that it is not proven that what you describe is actually there on the original.
Does that mean you agree that if they were true facsimiles you would agree with the rest?
I do not see any problem with the accuracy of the wikipedia image nor can I see any reason for there to be
Comment savezvous que vous ne parlez pas bollox?
Sur internet: http://bit.ly/14A0n9H
Sur internet: http://bit.ly/14A0n9H
 Poodle
 Has More Than 9K Posts
 Posts: 9002
 Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
 Custom Title: Regular sleeper
 Location: NE corner of my living room
Re: Do these four coloured lines represent four key constants?
LIBRARY! BRITISH LIBRARY!!!!
I begin to sense your problem.
I begin to sense your problem.

 Real Skeptic
 Posts: 27746
 Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Re: Do these four coloured lines represent four key constants?
No. You simply failed to find any of the encoded constants and thus had no claim.salomed wrote:Matthew, you have prelost the debate by refusing to have it for utterly sophistic reasons.
Basic Mathematics for Salomed
There are over 16 million numerical values that can be found on the Sonnet's title page using the "Salomed / Alan Green method". (Measure a line between any of the 89 text letters or full stops, obtain a numerical value and divide this by another similar constructed numerical value)
You claim that by finding one value that shares two or three decimal points means you discovered "mathematical constants" simply by you renaming these "mathematical constants" and ignoring that they don't match in detail. However statistically we already have 16,000 similar values for all numbers up to three digits already. This is called mathematics.
Real Mathematical Constants cannot be represented by simple division
You don't have any understanding about basic mathematics and are simply copying and pasting from Alan Green's website. In reality the mathematical constants you claim you found, cannot be represented or calculated by mere division.
Brun's Constant is 1.902160583104. There is no simple division that can achieve this value. In fact, the values you used diverge from the true constant, after only one or two decimal places.
This means the your magical divided values never represented any mathematical constants at all and are in fact totally wrong. It also means that the person who you claimed "hid" the constants had no idea how to mathematically produce the real constants.
Salomed's new scam / Right angled Triangles
Alan? What is your accuracy range, considering a full stop is 180th, the width of a page? How many decimal places can you detail this accuracy considering each triangle will need three dots? Show me your mathematics.salomed wrote:I am going to have to go through books and seeing how many right angled triangles can be found between the punctuation. As you can imagine, this is a laborious task and one that soon shows how rare RATs are between punctuation.
This is a variation of your previous error. How many pixels are in each full stop? Show me your mathematics.salomed wrote:That is what I did. I just wrote a simple program that generates three random points within a grid the size of the page in pixels and calculates if they form a RAT (Right angled Triangle).
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

 Real Skeptic
 Posts: 27746
 Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Re: Do these four coloured lines represent four key constants?
Show me your mathematics using a particular JPEG image, with printed text and I will then show you the actual statistics.salomed wrote:. I am arguing that the chances of one are astronomically small.

 Real Skeptic
 Posts: 27746
 Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Re: Do these four coloured lines represent four key constants?
Poodle wrote:LIBRARY! BRITISH LIBRARY!!!!
I begin to sense your problem.
Both Alan and Salomed think the original Sonnets print run is in the British Museum, when in fact, it is indeed the British Library. Even more amazing, in 2012, when Salomed was promoting the Starchild skull, on our forum, Salomed would post "methinks" from Shakespeare, which was when Alan Green was promoting his Shakespeare books.
I wonder what the coincidence of that is?
Salomed? Do you live in or near Manchester? Do you play piano and can identify quavers (1/8) semiquavers (1/16), demisemiquavers (1/32) and so on, in sheet music?
 salomed
 Frequent Poster
 Posts: 1247
 Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2011 4:18 pm
 Custom Title: Cartesian Skeptic
Re: Do these four coloured lines represent four key constants?
Matthew Ellard wrote:Poodle wrote:LIBRARY! BRITISH LIBRARY!!!!
I begin to sense your problem.
Both Alan and Salomed think the original Sonnets print run is in the British Museum, when in fact, it is indeed the British Library. Even more amazing, in 2012, when Salomed was promoting the Starchild skull, on our forum, Salomed would post "methinks" from Shakespeare, which was when Alan Green was promoting his Shakespeare books.
I wonder what the coincidence of that is?
Salomed? Do you live in or near Manchester? Do you play piano and can identify quavers (1/8) semiquavers (1/16), demisemiquavers (1/32) and so on, in sheet music?
Is this really the depths of patheticness you have sunken to? Because you cannot dispute the facts you have tried all manner of unscrupulous tactics, now you are accusing me of being the man about whom I started this thread with a wish to discuss his theories.
You are pathetic.
Comment savezvous que vous ne parlez pas bollox?
Sur internet: http://bit.ly/14A0n9H
Sur internet: http://bit.ly/14A0n9H
Return to “General Discussion”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest