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

Who else knows what we know, Jerry?
User avatar
salomed
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1134
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2011 4:18 pm
Custom Title: Cartesian Skeptic

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

Postby salomed » Mon Mar 13, 2017 2:45 pm

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


Forget the circle, we don't even need that.

If you measure the distances between the points as per the many images I have shown you get two numbers: A and B. You can in fact masure these on your screen just with a ruler.

If you divide A by B you get another number.

Are you saying that A/B in the image below is not equal to, say, 2.71 (Euler's Constant)

Euler's Constant2.jpg


Do you agree that all else ignored, between the points shown, 2.71 is the result?

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

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7765
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

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

Postby Poodle » Mon Mar 13, 2017 4:23 pm

Is WHAT there? Why are you being so dense? The circle you have drawn is NOT THERE. The right-angled triangle you have implied is NOT THERE. The ability to draw the circle is predicated upon your atrocious visual acuity which allows you to insist that an amorphous blob is a point. Show me how to select the appropriate point within each blob, salomed, upon which to base your fantasies. Don't tell me it's obvious because it's not. Instruct me in point selection, O Gullible One.

WAIT - better still, show me the results of your calculations of the possible error introduced by the various sizes of those 'dots'. All of them, mind - we wouldn't want any fudging. would we?

User avatar
salomed
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1134
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2011 4:18 pm
Custom Title: Cartesian Skeptic

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

Postby salomed » Mon Mar 13, 2017 4:44 pm

Poodle wrote:Is WHAT there? Why are you being so dense? The circle you have drawn is NOT THERE. The right-angled triangle you have implied is NOT THERE. The ability to draw the circle is predicated upon your atrocious visual acuity which allows you to insist that an amorphous blob is a point. Show me how to select the appropriate point within each blob, salomed, upon which to base your fantasies. Don't tell me it's obvious because it's not. Instruct me in point selection, O Gullible One.


OK, Let's do this.

This is the image for you to use to show me I am mistaken:

Eulerproof.jpg



Now, I have labelled three points:

A: The full stop after "Imprinted"
B: The point on the lower straight line where crossed by the contentious circle.
C: The larger full stop after the G.

The distance from A to B is 1318 Pixels
The distance from B to C is 486 Pixels

AB/BC=2.71

2.71 Is Euler's Constant.

Do you agree with the above?
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
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27912
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 13, 2017 7:55 pm

Poodle wrote:Jesus H Christ, this is like wading through porridge!!!

Now now, some of us like porridge.
"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: 25274
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Salomed cheats by arbitrarily ignoring dots.

Postby Matthew Ellard » Mon Mar 13, 2017 9:38 pm

salomed wrote:OK, Let's do this.
You are openly lying in front of all the skeptics here. Firstly you are arbitrarily missing two dots simply to get any geometric shape to appear. There is no magic code that says "miss these two dots".
Sonnets missed dots.jpg

salomed wrote:show me I am mistaken
We have numerous times. :lol:
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 25274
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Salomed is lying through his teeth

Postby Matthew Ellard » Mon Mar 13, 2017 9:42 pm

Poodle wrote:.....we wouldn't want any fudging. would we?
Alan Green specifically says he is "fudging" in the second video. Salomed is pretending he forgot that. :lol:

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 25274
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

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

Postby Matthew Ellard » Mon Mar 13, 2017 9:50 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote: So..... "Mr five inch alien" How do you incorporate 18th century metres, 19th Century Egyptian cubits and feet measurements, into the same calculation, in a 17th century document? :lol:
salomed wrote: I do know how it is done. Or why. But I am certain it is there.
It isn't. You are lying. Firstly, you cannot have an Elizabethan secret code that uses metres, 170 year before metres are invented in France.

Secondly you cannot have an Elizabethan secret code that uses Egyptian cubits 210 years before Egyptian cubits are first measured by archaeologists.

Thirdly, in mathematics you cannot have calculations that have mixed measuring systems of cubits, feet and metres without converting them to the same measuring format.

Fourthly Alan Green say his end figure is only 96% close to the actual speed of light and other other measurements he claims are hidden in Shakespeare.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 25274
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Salomed does not understand basic mathematics

Postby Matthew Ellard » Mon Mar 13, 2017 10:01 pm

salomed wrote:Or do the maths yourself.
I have done the maths. You cannot incorporate metres, feet and Egyptian cubits into one calculation without converting them to a common measurement. It is you who has not done the maths.

Rene Descartes, the mathematician, whose reasoning you claim to follow, would laugh at you.
:lol:
Descartes.jpeg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
Cadmusteeth
Regular Poster
Posts: 806
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 13, 2017 10:27 pm

Poodle wrote:The whole thing is speculation, for goodness sake! Take another look at the frontispiece to Shakespeare's Sonnets.There is NO CIRCLE. There are
NO TRIANGLES. Astounding, isn't it?
Without manipulation of course.
(My bold)

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 25274
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

How does Alan Green's con-artist mathematics work?

Postby Matthew Ellard » Mon Mar 13, 2017 10:40 pm

I used to do forensic and production accounting for TV, movies with unique measurements like "frames per foot" "metres per minute" "minutes edited per hour of suite hire time". I know these old tricks. :D

Alan Green admits "fudging"
Firstly, Alan Green in the second video clearly states his final numerical results are only 96% accurate to the actual real measurements (speed of light, Google map location of Giza Pyramid etc ) he is pretending exist in the hidden code.


How does he obtain a value 96% close to the modern speed of light?
1) What Alan Green does is first determine the numerical end-result he wants.


2) Alan then writes down a variety of combinations of numbers he can claim are coded in the text. This is a wide range of numbers as he is making up the code as he goes. (Which means it isn't a code at all)

3) Alan then sits with an excel spreadsheet list of conversions for "metres per second" "centimetres per second" millimetres per hour" "Rods per hectare" "Chains per field" "Egyptian cubits per metre" "inches per nano second" and so on. Alan then applies different combination of these numerical ratios to obtain a close match between his invented coded numbers and the end result he wants.

Working Example
Here Alan Green combines metres, Egyptian cubits and his own hidden code into one calculation.

Cheating in mathematics 1.JPG


It is a totally bogus calculation mixing up 19th and 18th Century measurements with 17th century text with out any conversion to one type of measurement. Alan then shows his result in his video. The number in red, above, is Alan's result, The number in grey is the speed of light in 19th century metres per second. They don't match. Alan however claims he has found an 96% match and therefore Shakespeare knew about metres 170 years before metres were created in France.. .
cheating at mathematics 2.JPG
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
salomed
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1134
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2011 4:18 pm
Custom Title: Cartesian Skeptic

Re: Salomed cheats by arbitrarily ignoring dots.

Postby salomed » Mon Mar 13, 2017 11:21 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
salomed wrote:OK, Let's do this.
You are openly lying in front of all the skeptics here. Firstly you are arbitrarily missing two dots simply to get any geometric shape to appear. There is no magic code that says "miss these two dots".
Sonnets missed dots.jpg
salomed wrote:show me I am mistaken
We have numerous times. :lol:


Those dots DO NOT straddle the circumference of the aforementioned circle. That is the whole point.
Comment savez-vous que vous ne parlez pas bollox?
Sur internet: http://bit.ly/14A0n9H

User avatar
salomed
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1134
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2011 4:18 pm
Custom Title: Cartesian Skeptic

Re: Salomed is lying through his teeth

Postby salomed » Mon Mar 13, 2017 11:24 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Poodle wrote:.....we wouldn't want any fudging. would we?
Alan Green specifically says he is "fudging" in the second video. Salomed is pretending he forgot that. :lol:


As you admitted earlier they didn't have precision printing. Fudging is expected. As you can see, I had to fudge my attempt at a circle by a fraction of a full stop.

The circle is there. As are the constants.
Comment savez-vous que vous ne parlez pas bollox?
Sur internet: http://bit.ly/14A0n9H

User avatar
salomed
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1134
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2011 4:18 pm
Custom Title: Cartesian Skeptic

Re: Salomed does not understand basic mathematics

Postby salomed » Mon Mar 13, 2017 11:28 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
salomed wrote:Or do the maths yourself.
I have done the maths. You cannot incorporate metres, feet and Egyptian cubits into one calculation without converting them to a common measurement. It is you who has not done the maths.

Rene Descartes, the mathematician, whose reasoning you claim to follow, would laugh at you.
:lol:
Descartes.jpeg


Not once have I mentioned cubits or meters. I haven't looked at any of that stuff yet. It might all be bollox. All I am interested in right now is these anazing corelations between a handfull of tiny dots of lampblack. No matter how much I try to disprove myself, the fact remains: those constants are there encoded on that page. Refute Just That, And I Will Yeild.
Comment savez-vous que vous ne parlez pas bollox?
Sur internet: http://bit.ly/14A0n9H

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 25274
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Salomed is lying through his teeth

Postby Matthew Ellard » Mon Mar 13, 2017 11:41 pm

salomed wrote: As you admitted earlier they didn't have precision printing.
No. As I informed you, a printer's typeface block has a fixed letter on it and the block can only be placed in the print frame two ways. the right side up or upside down (eg. Inverted commas). Secondly each block has a fixed width. You cannot make geometrical shapes using text at all.
type block.jpg


Here is an IQ test for you. How many ways can you fit the typeface block into the print frame?
printer's typeface block.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 25274
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Salomed does not understand basic mathematics

Postby Matthew Ellard » Mon Mar 13, 2017 11:47 pm

salomed wrote: Not once have I mentioned cubits or meters.
I know, as you are forgetting on purpose that Alan Green specifically mentioned cubits, metres and feet and performed calculations with mixed measurements and you asked us to watch Alan's video. Did you forget again on purpose?
The earlier version.jpeg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 25274
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Salomed cheats by arbitrarily ignoring dots.

Postby Matthew Ellard » Mon Mar 13, 2017 11:52 pm

salomed wrote:Those dots DO NOT straddle the circumference of the aforementioned circle. That is the whole point.
I see, so you simply ignore the facts that don't fit your artificially imposed circle hypothesis?

Do you know what the Scientific method is?
:lol:


Steps of the Scientific Method
"Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment: Your experiment tests whether your prediction is accurate and thus your hypothesis is supported or not. It is important for your experiment to be a fair test."

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 25274
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Salomed cheats by ignoring technology

Postby Matthew Ellard » Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:32 am

"Learning How to set Type"
In this dramatic documentary, young Pyrrho, at the start of his career in publishing, shows us why type setting cannot produce geometric shapes, as all the spacing is inherent and fixed in the type blocks and frames. This is why William Aspley's unknown type-setter, simply could not hide secret geometric shapes in the text, in 1609AD in Shakespeare's Sonnets.

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

I used to really look forward to when the post arrived and see that lovely printed envelope.
Old Forum title.JPG
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7765
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Salomed is lying through his teeth

Postby Poodle » Tue Mar 14, 2017 6:59 am

salomed wrote:...Fudging is expected. As you can see, I had to fudge my attempt at a circle by a fraction of a full stop.


At last salomed admits to fiddling the figures ...

salomed wrote:... The circle is there. As are the constants.


... before going completely bonkers again. And all in a single post. How many salomeds are there?

Have a go at this, salomed. Multiply the numbers 7, 8 and 9 by 10. That gives you 70, 80 and 90. Agreed? OK - now establish that the value I was REALLY looking for was 83.57. You can do this - you've already demonstrated the technique.

User avatar
salomed
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1134
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2011 4:18 pm
Custom Title: Cartesian Skeptic

Re: Salomed is lying through his teeth

Postby salomed » Tue Mar 14, 2017 7:17 am

Poodle wrote:
salomed wrote:...Fudging is expected. As you can see, I had to fudge my attempt at a circle by a fraction of a full stop.


At last salomed admits to fiddling the figures ...

salomed wrote:... The circle is there. As are the constants.


... before going completely bonkers again. And all in a single post. How many salomeds are there?

Have a go at this, salomed. Multiply the numbers 7, 8 and 9 by 10. That gives you 70, 80 and 90. Agreed? OK - now establish that the value I was REALLY looking for was 83.57. You can do this - you've already demonstrated the technique.



But 83.75 is not one of the rare constants of maths. Now if 85.58 was, then that would be analogous to the Sonnets cover.

That would be quite interesting, but could well be a coincidence. Do that eight more times.


That circle and those constants are there. QED Green. QED me.
Comment savez-vous que vous ne parlez pas bollox?
Sur internet: http://bit.ly/14A0n9H

User avatar
salomed
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1134
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2011 4:18 pm
Custom Title: Cartesian Skeptic

Re: Salomed is lying through his teeth

Postby salomed » Tue Mar 14, 2017 7:21 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:No. As I informed you, a printer's typeface block has a fixed letter on it and the block can only be placed in the print frame two ways. the right side up or upside down (eg. Inverted commas). Secondly each block has a fixed width. You cannot make geometrical shapes using text at all. [/color] type block.jpg




Then they must have used some other method. Perhaps they had one big block with the whole thing on it.

That seems very likely to me. Then it could be carved and measured with, for the time, a really impressive precision.

One solid block with the dots representing a circle and these constants.

In fact, if I was the person who wanted to encode this, first I would work out the points and then make the front page around it.

You have actually helped elucidate the possibilities further.
Comment savez-vous que vous ne parlez pas bollox?
Sur internet: http://bit.ly/14A0n9H

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7765
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Salomed is lying through his teeth

Postby Poodle » Tue Mar 14, 2017 7:46 am

salomed wrote:
Matthew Ellard wrote:No. As I informed you, a printer's typeface block has a fixed letter on it and the block can only be placed in the print frame two ways. the right side up or upside down (eg. Inverted commas). Secondly each block has a fixed width. You cannot make geometrical shapes using text at all. [/color] type block.jpg




Then they must have used some other method. Perhaps they had one big block with the whole thing on it.

That seems very likely to me. Then it could be carved and measured with, for the time, a really impressive precision.

One solid block with the dots representing a circle and these constants.

In fact, if I was the person who wanted to encode this, first I would work out the points and then make the front page around it.

You have actually helped elucidate the possibilities further.


You're right, salomed. They could, indeed, have done that and they could, indeed, have thereby placed all of the elements on the page with greatly increased accuracy. An engraved plate rather than a printer's block would have been the ideal (and, I must say, obvious) method to choose to convey the information you claim is encoded. I wonder why they didn't do it that way.

User avatar
salomed
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1134
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2011 4:18 pm
Custom Title: Cartesian Skeptic

Re: Salomed is lying through his teeth

Postby salomed » Tue Mar 14, 2017 11:08 am

Poodle wrote:
salomed wrote:
Matthew Ellard wrote:No. As I informed you, a printer's typeface block has a fixed letter on it and the block can only be placed in the print frame two ways. the right side up or upside down (eg. Inverted commas). Secondly each block has a fixed width. You cannot make geometrical shapes using text at all. [/color] type block.jpg




Then they must have used some other method. Perhaps they had one big block with the whole thing on it.

That seems very likely to me. Then it could be carved and measured with, for the time, a really impressive precision.

One solid block with the dots representing a circle and these constants.

In fact, if I was the person who wanted to encode this, first I would work out the points and then make the front page around it.

You have actually helped elucidate the possibilities further.


You're right, salomed. They could, indeed, have done that and they could, indeed, have thereby placed all of the elements on the page with greatly increased accuracy. An engraved plate rather than a printer's block would have been the ideal (and, I must say, obvious) method to choose to convey the information you claim is encoded. I wonder why they didn't do it that way.

e
Without being circular, how fo you know they didn't?
Comment savez-vous que vous ne parlez pas bollox?
Sur internet: http://bit.ly/14A0n9H

User avatar
Cadmusteeth
Regular Poster
Posts: 806
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 » Tue Mar 14, 2017 7:23 pm

Lack of evidence for one. All you've been doing is speculating without a clear way of testing it.

User avatar
salomed
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1134
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 14, 2017 9:23 pm

Cadmusteeth wrote:Lack of evidence for one. All you've been doing is speculating without a clear way of testing it.


You guys are amazing. I have been testing it myself and uoloasing the obviously successful results.

Not one of you has done the simple test yourselves on the same inage. In the hours you have spent naysaying, insulting and nitpicking you could have done it yourself and seen either way if i am right all wrong

Instead you just shout "Wrong" and "Idiot" and "Liar".
Comment savez-vous que vous ne parlez pas bollox?
Sur internet: http://bit.ly/14A0n9H

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7765
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Salomed is lying through his teeth

Postby Poodle » Tue Mar 14, 2017 9:28 pm

salomed wrote:
Poodle wrote:
salomed wrote:
Matthew Ellard wrote:No. As I informed you, a printer's typeface block has a fixed letter on it and the block can only be placed in the print frame two ways. the right side up or upside down (eg. Inverted commas). Secondly each block has a fixed width. You cannot make geometrical shapes using text at all. [/color] type block.jpg




Then they must have used some other method. Perhaps they had one big block with the whole thing on it.

That seems very likely to me. Then it could be carved and measured with, for the time, a really impressive precision.

One solid block with the dots representing a circle and these constants.

In fact, if I was the person who wanted to encode this, first I would work out the points and then make the front page around it.

You have actually helped elucidate the possibilities further.


You're right, salomed. They could, indeed, have done that and they could, indeed, have thereby placed all of the elements on the page with greatly increased accuracy. An engraved plate rather than a printer's block would have been the ideal (and, I must say, obvious) method to choose to convey the information you claim is encoded. I wonder why they didn't do it that way.

e
Without being circular, how fo you know they didn't?


I really hope that you're joking, salomed, otherwise I would be forced to conclude I was holding a conversation with an idiot. There is a very simple and very obvious way of telling the difference between the two basic methods of printing available in the Elizabethan era. I trust I need go no further than that.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 25274
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Salomed is lying through his teeth

Postby Matthew Ellard » Tue Mar 14, 2017 10:00 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:No. As I informed you, a printer's typeface block has a fixed letter on it and the block can only be placed in the print frame two ways. the right side up or upside down (eg. Inverted commas). Secondly each block has a fixed width. You cannot make geometrical shapes using text at all.
Typeface blocks.jpg

salomed wrote:Then they must have used some other method. Perhaps they had one big block with the whole thing on it.
No and only an idiot would think that. Firstly I have shown you how Descartes books and Elizabethans incorporated mathematical diagrams using carved woodblocks and how the text type goes around the wood block illustration in the printer's frame. Secondly the type font on the Sonnets title page appear exactly the same, with the same width and height, in the body of the Sonnets. You are pretending to forget despite me educating you in this historical method.
Elizabethan Mathematics 2.jpg


salomed wrote:In fact, if I was the person who wanted to encode this....,
There is no code. You do not know what the word encode means. The unknown typesetter in 1609AD would have to have a specific code saying "ignore the two dots at the bottom and only use the right end of lines". He didn't. No such code exists. You artificially and arbitrarily attempted, in 2017, to place a circle on some of the dots and ignored others.

salomed wrote:You have actually helped elucidate the possibilities further.
Yep. You are a gullible person falling for a fraud. You are one of the "believers" from Umberto Eco's Foucault's Pendulum, the famous novel about con-artists faking codes and conspiracy theories.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foucault's_Pendulum
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 25274
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Salomed is lying through his teeth

Postby Matthew Ellard » Tue Mar 14, 2017 10:13 pm

Poodle wrote:They could, indeed, have done that and they could, indeed, have thereby placed all of the elements on the page with greatly increased accuracy. An engraved plate rather than a printer's block would have been the ideal (and, I must say, obvious) method to choose to convey the information you claim is encoded. I wonder why they didn't do it that way.
Yes. I too would like to see an Elizabethan engraved copper plate for printing illustrations 160 years before they existed. :D

I guess we are stuck with the old Elizabethan woodblock carving that appeared on the earlier print run of Shakespeare's works, printed in 1599AD, which by some miracle doesn't have secret codes hidden in some of the dots. However, Salomed has yet to review the earlier prints runs to explain what the secret codes are.
The_Passionate_Pilgrim.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 25274
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Salomed is lying through his teeth

Postby Matthew Ellard » Tue Mar 14, 2017 10:29 pm

Salomed claims Elizabethan printers secretly used copper illustration plates for printing books, including Shakespeare's books although no such example exists.
salomed wrote: Without being circular, how do you know they didn't?


Would they buy the large copper sheets from the local medieval copper foundry, pressed by 18th Century rolling machines? Where was that foundry and press in Elizabethan England?
rolling machine.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 25274
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Salomed is lying through his teeth

Postby Matthew Ellard » Tue Mar 14, 2017 11:10 pm

Sooooo.... here are the points Salomed is avoiding.

1) The text full-stops don't precisely line up with a perfect circle.

2) Salomed and Alan Green ignore two dots, simply to get a circle to roughly fit.

3) The Elizabethan type setter could not form any geometrical shapes anyway as type blocks have fixed spacing.

4) The real spacing of the full stops, on the title page, "is fixed" and remain constant through the body of the Sonnets book

5) Salomed claims there is a code but has failed to say what the code is or how the code says "miss two full-stops".

6) The earlier prints of Shakespeare's work have no codes, geometric shapes or mathematics at all, and Salomed claims the 1609 print is a "one off".

7) Salomed directs skeptics to watch Alan Green's full video where Alan mixes up metres, feet and Egyptian cubits in mathematical formulas, without conversion, to prove John Dee was a time traveller.

8) Metres and Egyptian cubits were not known until hundreds of years later and thus cannot be known to the unknown type-setter who printed the 1609 Sonnets.

9) Alan Green directly states he gets "approximate" close numerical answers proving John Dee knew the speed of light in metres in 1609AD, although the figures don't match at all.

10) John Dee actually died in another city before the 1609AD Title page was printed.

11) Alan Gree claims John Dee predicted, in 1609AD, on the title page, the location of the Giza pyramid's co-ordinates on "Google Maps" although Google maps didn't exist in 1609AD and the co-ordinates are wrong anyway.

12) Salomed is pretending to forget there are three videos for Alan Green's claims and pretending to forget he linked to the third video with its bad mathematics and mixed measurement calculations for us the view. Salomed then denies he mentioned metres and Egyptian cubits, despite claiming the video is "the truth".

In Conclusion
Like Gorgeous, Salomed has seen a "woo" magic show, somewhere on the internet and linked it here as "the truth" without applying any critical thinking or checking historical accuracy.

If the Skeptic forum were a private estate, I would set the dogs on Salomed and Gorgeous, to chase them off back to the "woo-village" they came from.
:D
Elizabethan Hounds.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
salomed
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1134
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2011 4:18 pm
Custom Title: Cartesian Skeptic

Re: Salomed is lying through his teeth

Postby salomed » Tue Mar 14, 2017 11:33 pm

I have answered your points many times. As is your programing you ignore this and enter the same old insult (sub)routeens. But for posterity and future generations, here they are, all neat in one place.

1) The text full-stops don't precisely line up with a perfect circle.


They do within the fraction of a full stop. We are talking not even a millimeter in a centuries old resize of a scanned image on a small monitor.

2) Salomed and Alan Green ignore two dots, simply to get a circle to roughly fit.


Those dots are not on the circle. The theory is not that every dot must be included but that those dots form a circle, which they do.

3) The Elizabethan type setter could not form any geometrical shapes anyway as type blocks have fixed spacing.

Not relevant. We are interested in just the data not the speculation. It might be that the images were made recently to be like that, I dont know. All that is certain to me is that in those images the dots and the constants are represented.

4) The real spacing of the full stops, on the title page, "is fixed" and remain constant through the body of the Sonnets book

Demonstrably not on this page. Your reasoning is circular.

5) Salomed claims there is a code but has failed to say what the code is or how the code says "miss two full-stops".

6) The earlier prints of Shakespeare's work have no codes, geometric shapes or mathematics at all, and Salomed claims the 1609 print is a "one off".




I have not claimed that. I'm just interested in the image I have looked at and the one in the video.
7) Salomed directs skeptics to watch Alan Green's full video where Alan mixes up metres, feet and Egyptian cubits in mathematical formulas, without conversion, to prove John Dee was a time traveller.


It is fascinating, but not relevant to the cover page. Nor is the Pyramid location etc.

8) Metres and Egyptian cubits were not known until hundreds of years later and thus cannot be known to the unknown type-setter who printed the 1609 Sonnets.

Not relevant to the certain existence of the nine constants encoded in the page.
9) Alan Green directly states he gets "approximate" close numerical answers proving John Dee knew the speed of light in metres in 1609AD, although the figures don't match at all.


I have not mentioned this.
Not relevant to the certain existence of the nine constants encoded in the page.

10) John Dee actually died in another city before the 1609AD Title page was printed.


I have not mentioned this.
Not relevant to the certain existence of the nine constants encoded in the page.

11) Alan Gree claims John Dee predicted, in 1609AD, on the title page, the location of the Giza pyramid's co-ordinates on "Google Maps" although Google maps didn't exist in 1609AD and the co-ordinates are wrong anyway.



I have not mentioned this.
Not relevant to the certain existence of the nine constants encoded in the page.


12) Salomed is pretending to forget there are three videos for Alan Green's claims and pretending to forget he linked to the third video with its bad mathematics and mixed measurement calculations for us the view. Salomed then denies he mentioned metres and Egyptian cubits, despite claiming the video is "the truth".


Not relevant to the certain existence of the nine constants encoded in the page.

[color=#000080]In Conclusion
Like Gorgeous, Salomed has seen a "woo" magic show, somewhere on the internet and linked it here as "the truth" without applying any critical thinking or checking historical accuracy.


But all you can do is non sequitur and ad hominem and derail. It is silly. Such poor debate from somone who has had such great debates here. Remeber years ago I PM'd you to congratulate you? You dropped the ball now:(

If the Skeptic forum were a private estate, I would set the dogs on Salomed and Gorgeous, to chase them off back to the "woo-village" they came from. :D


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

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 25274
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Salomed is lying through his teeth

Postby Matthew Ellard » Wed Mar 15, 2017 12:27 am

salomed wrote:I have answered your points many times.
No you have not. You are lying again. :lol:

Matthew Ellard wrote: 1) The text full-stops don't precisely line up with a perfect circle.
salomed wrote:They do within the fraction of a full stop. We are talking not even a millimeter in a centuries old resize of a scanned image on a small monitor.
They do not line up. Gord did this and showed us.

Matthew Ellard wrote:2) Salomed and Alan Green ignore two dots, simply to get a circle to roughly fit.
salomed wrote:Those dots are not on the circle. The theory is not that every dot must be included but that those dots form a circle, which they do.
You artificially imposed a circle on some of the dots in 2017AD. There is no magic 1609AD code that says "ignore some dots and then draw a circle". Where do you claim you read this magic code? Write down exactly what this magic code is? You can't can you.....because it doesn't exist.

Matthew Ellard wrote:3) The Elizabethan type setter could not form any geometrical shapes anyway as type blocks have fixed spacing.
salomed wrote:Not relevant.
It is 100% relevant. You cannot claim Elizabethans used modern printing techniques, when no such technology existed in 1609AD.
salomed wrote: It might be that the images were (computer manipulated) recently to be like that, I dont know
Alan Green clearly states he approximates his results in the video you told us to watch. Did you watch that video?

Matthew Ellard wrote:4) The real spacing of the full stops, on the title page, "is fixed" and remain constant through the body of the Sonnets book
salomed wrote:Demonstrably not on this page. Your reasoning is circular.
You're an idiot. The same spacing appears on the title page and in the entire book as the printer used the same type blocks,

Matthew Ellard wrote:5) Salomed claims there is a code but has failed to say what the code is or how the code says "miss two full-stops".
salomed wrote: I have not claimed that.
You are lying again. You said the shapes are "encoded" and then failed to identify any part of the magic code you claim exists. Where does this magic code say "miss the two spots after "T" and then draw a circle"?
Define what "a code" is for us Salomed?


Matthew Ellard wrote:6) The earlier prints of Shakespeare's work have no codes, geometric shapes or mathematics at all, and Salomed claims the 1609 print is a "one off".
salomed wrote:I have not claimed that. I'm just interested in the image I have looked at and the one in the video.
So there is no code and you admit to lying, when you said it is encoded?

Matthew Ellard wrote: 7) Salomed directs skeptics to watch Alan Green's full video where Alan mixes up metres, feet and Egyptian cubits in mathematical formulas, without conversion, to prove John Dee was a time traveller.
salomed wrote:It is fascinating, but not relevant to the cover page. Nor is the Pyramid location
Then why did you tell us to watch that second video, with the pyramid and bad mathematics and say it is "the truth" and "truly amazing"?
viewtopic.php?f=72&t=27871&start=120#p565202

Matthew Ellard wrote: 8) Metres and Egyptian cubits were not known until hundreds of years later and thus cannot be known to the unknown type-setter who printed the 1609 Sonnets.
salomed wrote:Not relevant to the certain existence of the nine constants encoded in the page.
WHAT CODE!!!! What is this secret 1609 code you keep bringing up? You have found a mere coincidence that a circle roughly fits over some dots but not others in 2017AD.

Are you saying you don't know the difference between a coded message and a mere coincidence?
:lol:

Matthew Ellard wrote:9) Alan Green directly states he gets "approximate" close numerical answers proving John Dee knew the speed of light in metres in 1609AD, although the figures don't match at all.
salomed wrote:I have not mentioned this.
You linked us to this specific You tube video, you idiot.
viewtopic.php?f=72&t=27871&start=120#p565202

Matthew Ellard wrote: 10) John Dee actually died in another city before the 1609AD Title page was printed.
salomed wrote:I have not mentioned this.
You linked us to a specific Alan Green video that claimed this. I checked the facts and Alan Green was lying. John Dee was already dead when the title page was printed by an unknown type setter.
viewtopic.php?f=72&t=27871&start=120#p565202

Matthew Ellard wrote:11) Alan Gree claims John Dee predicted, in 1609AD, on the title page, the location of the Giza pyramid's co-ordinates on "Google Maps" although Google maps didn't exist in 1609AD and the co-ordinates are wrong anyway.
salomed wrote:I have not mentioned this.
You linked us to that specific video. Are you pretending to forget again?

Matthew Ellard wrote:12) Salomed is pretending to forget there are three videos for Alan Green's claims and pretending to forget he linked to the third video with its bad mathematics and mixed measurement calculations for us the view. Salomed then denies he mentioned metres and Egyptian cubits, despite claiming the video is "the truth".
salomed wrote:Not relevant
You linked us to the video. Stop lying.

Why do you lie so much Salomed? Are you simply imitating Gorgeous? :lol:

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7765
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Salomed is lying through his teeth

Postby Poodle » Wed Mar 15, 2017 1:07 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Poodle wrote:They could, indeed, have done that and they could, indeed, have thereby placed all of the elements on the page with greatly increased accuracy. An engraved plate rather than a printer's block would have been the ideal (and, I must say, obvious) method to choose to convey the information you claim is encoded. I wonder why they didn't do it that way.
Yes. I too would like to see an Elizabethan engraved copper plate for printing illustrations 160 years before they existed. :D

I guess we are stuck with the old Elizabethan woodblock carving that appeared on the earlier print run of Shakespeare's works, printed in 1599AD, which by some miracle doesn't have secret codes hidden in some of the dots. However, Salomed has yet to review the earlier prints runs to explain what the secret codes are. The_Passionate_Pilgrim.jpg


No, no, Matthew - they DID have copperplate engraving as a possibility - it had been developing in Europe (Germany, mainly) since the 1430s. Just think of the accuracy possible with such a technique! They could have placed much more finely defined full stops in much more finely defined positions. They could have ensured that the slope of Italic lettering really did point in the direction desired. They could, if they so desired, have actually inscribed an accurate circle on an accurate centre. They could have done all that but, given the necessity to define as yet unknown constants to three decimal places, they decided to go with block printing instead. Common sense, see? They could also simply have printed all of the stuff in plain English but hey! - why simplify things when a complex solution is readily available? This is, of course, salomed's HUGE problem. It beggars belief that in the days of Francis Bacon such stupid information transmission methods would have been used.

But then - pigs do fly. Salomed's seen 'em.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 25274
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Salomed is lying through his teeth

Postby Matthew Ellard » Wed Mar 15, 2017 1:32 am

Poodle wrote: No, no, Matthew - they DID have copperplate engraving as a possibility - it had been developing in Europe (Germany, mainly) since the 1430s.
Not for text. It is a bit time consuming to carve each letter in exactly the same way.. Additionally, the illustration at the top of the Sonnets page is a woodblock print. :D

Poodle wrote: Just think of the accuracy possible with such a technique! They could have placed much more finely defined full stops in much more finely defined positions.
Yes. In fact the Elizabethan printers did use woodblock for mathematical drawings and illustrations but not for text. :D
Elizabethan Mathematics 3.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7765
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 » Wed Mar 15, 2017 1:48 am

Oh, I'm not for a moment suggesting that they DID do that, Matthew. But had I or you been an Elizabethan printer (I can picture you in those fetching knickerbockers) and had such a technique been available and had the publisher wanted a particular degree of accuracy, then there was a way of satisfying those requirements. Puzzling, then, that they chose not to do it.

Salomed will explain shortly why they didn't, I'm sure.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 25274
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 » Wed Mar 15, 2017 2:49 am

Poodle wrote:Oh, I'm not for a moment suggesting that they DID do that, Matthew.
I did pick up a hint of sarcasm in your post. :D

Poodle wrote:But had I or you been an Elizabethan printer (I can picture you in those fetching knickerbockers) and had such a technique been available and had the publisher wanted a particular degree of accuracy, then there was a way of satisfying those requirements. Puzzling, then, that they chose not to do it. Salomed will explain shortly why they didn't, I'm sure.


I love how Salomed has painted himself into this bizarre corner. Why in hell would an unknown Elizabethan type setter put a secret circle in a print job? ....where no one could identify him?

The "Salomed Hypothesis"
If ever a page is printed where some of the full stops, but not all, can roughly have a circle drawn over them, then there is a secret code on that page.

Noddy.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 25274
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 » Wed Mar 15, 2017 2:55 am

"How was all of this encoded into the front page of the Sonnets?"
Hey Salomed? What does encoded mean? What does coincidence mean?


Definition of code
1: a systematic statement of a body of law;
2: a system of signals or symbols for communication
b : a system of symbols (as letters or numbers) used to represent assigned and often secret meanings


What is the encoding system? Set it out for us. :lol:

Rene Descartes hidden mathematics.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27912
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 10:02 am

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.
"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: 1134
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 » Wed Mar 15, 2017 4:15 pm

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.

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

Strange.

Why won't any of you?

Just get the image. Show the constants are not there. Forget the circle. Just show me that one of these is not true:


Brun's Constant - encoded by two full stops and the end of the line.


Bruns_Constant_Proof2.jpg


Phi - encoded by three dots.

Phi_Proof2.jpg


The above constants do not need the controversial circle to be represented. Simply take the three points and divide the lengths of the lines.

I cannot make it any easier for any of you to shut me up: show me either of those two constants, that need no circle, are not there in the dots on the cover.

I wait.
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: 25274
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 » Wed Mar 15, 2017 10:33 pm

salomed wrote: I wait.
While you are waiting you can start answering the questions you keep running away from.

What Code?
You directly claim a circle is "encoded" into the Sonnet's page, but you are unable to set out or show any code that systematically states a circle should be drawn and you deceptively ignore some full stops to get your circle to fit. That is simply cheating.
Sonnets missed dots.jpg


Where does any code or secret message or cipher exist and say "draw a circle and miss two full stops?"


Bad Mathematics / Metres Cubits and feet / Time travel
You specifically linked and told us to watch a two hour video by Alan Green, where Alan Green draws the circle and then mixes up standard mathematical constants concerning any circle, to bogus mathematics using metres, cubits and so on. Alan Green uses this poor deception to claim John Dee was a time traveller, who knew the speed of light in metres and used Shakespeare to tell the world.

Do you deny telling us to watch this video?

We informed you of the bad mathematics and deception in Alan Greens video. Do you agree that this video is full of lies and deception and is also the first video that tells people to draw the circle on the Sonnets page.


Image from video Salomed told us to watch.
The earlier version.jpeg



What is your hypothesis?
You seem unable to state what you working hypothesis is. You seem to be claiming that : if 70% of full stops, on any printed page of text, form a geometric shape, then there are hidden codes on that page. Is that your claim?


Our first working hypothesis is much simpler. : "Of the millions pages of printed text issued each year, by mere coincidence, on some of the pages, some of the full stops will form a geometric shape."

Our second hypothesis is just as simple. "Con-artists like Eric Von Daniken, Steve Greer, and Alan Green release books and TV show to make a profit exploiting idiots like yourself and Gorgeous who think a mere coincidence is really a hidden code."
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 25274
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 » Wed Mar 15, 2017 10:46 pm

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.


Return to “Conspiracies”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest