432 shows harmony of Sun, Moon, Earth Design

[Jiri]

So your work is based on enlargements of reproductions from 65 year old magazines?

No, but in a scientific, peer reviewed periodical.

 

[Jiri]

Hate to break it to you Jiri, but scholars tend to avoid papers that old, things get out date fast, it would really bolster your theory if there were something newer, and truthfully, if anyone else actually proposed/supported your theory.

Facts of the matter are as good as 'eveyone else', and better.

 

[Jiri]

Us skeptics? where are you, planet jordan?

True, your skepticism doesn't cut on both sides of the blade, so you are not a fully-fledged skeptic.

[/QUOTE]You get more pompous as your arguments get more defensive.[/QUOTE]

 

[jsfisher]

Right, for a 'curious relation' it takes only a couple of accidental steps, or so to occur. For a complex 'curious relation', or in other words a full-bodied system, the number of accidental steps needed increases dramatically. So does the likelihood that the creator did it by design.

Your use of the phrase, accidental steps, implies the creation of complex art and architecture requires some complex understanding of Mathematics or a sequence of unlikely accidents. Upon what do you base this? Betsy Ross, for example, made the first official US flag with 13 five-pointed stars arranged in a circle. Is this proof Betsy Ross was conversant in trigonometry and analytic geometry?

How would you estimate the likelihood of finding higher-level Mathematical concepts in a complex design? Does the likelihood change at all when you've a priori decided what you should find?

Jiri, the lines and curves you've added were driven by your expectations, not by any scientific procedure. You have no algorithm; you rationalize your steps only after you get the result you planned on getting.

It's not science; it's nonsense.

 

[bruto]

True, your skepticism doesn't cut on both sides of the blade, so you are not a fully-fledged skeptic.

Can you explain what you mean by that curious remark, so reminiscent of Davidjayjordan? Are you sharing his redefinition of skepticism to mean "faith in rubbish?"

 

[Jiri]

You have not shown that the algorithms relate to the actual creation of the engraving. I see no demonstration that there are algorithms for the creation of the drawing itself, but only for the extrapolated and interpolated symbols that you yourself have imposed on it.

Since you cannot see the direct connection between the drawings in question and the extrapolated order, there is nothing to add.
I consider your opinions irrelevant, and there is nothing to add to that.

 

[strathmeyer]

The Jews did it!

 

[Jiri]

The Jews did it!

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_669146188afabaf9e.gif[/qimg]

.
Looks more like DJJ finding a perfect hexagonal order.
Itis a 'perfect' example of what happens to preconceived order, when it is fitted forcefully upon line art.

 

[Jiri]

Can you explain what you mean by that curious remark, so reminiscent of Davidjayjordan? Are you sharing his redefinition of skepticism to mean "faith in rubbish?"

A good example of how you try to capitalize on remarks taken out of their context (and fail).

 

[Macoy]

True, your skepticism doesn't cut on both sides of the blade, so you are not a fully-fledged skeptic.

This is still meaningless.

 

[Belz...]

Then you will have no problem producing these lineholders.

That is true, no problem.

Good. Then PRODUCE THEM.

Why needlessly complicate things?

Because your conclusions are needlessly simplistic.

I have shown that there are algorithms for the recreation of this engraving, and that these algorithms also have a higher meaning.

No, you haven't. You've shown your beliefs, nothing else.

That's rather conclusive. Even among us skeptics

HA! You ? Skeptic ? Funny.

In order to draw a single regular pentagram you have to take a minimum of steps. To show this construction using minimum steps is one of the goals behind the design of the Nazca monkey.
One figure drawn in full on a limited space, will make drawing in of more figures difficult. There is a tight limit to how many lines you can have before they fuse into a solid mass.
Athena engraving has a way of compacting meaning, and thus manages to convey massive amount of theoretical data, plus it shows pictures

Words. Prove it. Produce the lineholders.

Right, for a 'curious relation' it takes only a couple of accidental steps, or so to occur. For a complex 'curious relation', or in other words a full-bodied system, the number of accidental steps needed increases dramatically. So does the likelihood that the creator did it by design.

Not in this case, because you're making up the "relations" as you go.

True, your skepticism doesn't cut on both sides of the blade, so you are not a fully-fledged skeptic.

So what does that make him ? A false skeptic ? And who does that make you ?

Since you cannot see the direct connection between the drawings in question and the extrapolated order, there is nothing to add.

I submit, then, that your interpretation of this matter is entirely subjective and, dare I say, faith-based. Your reaction to opposition makes this clear.

 

[Paul]

No, but in a scientific, peer reviewed periodical.

No you didn't use enlargements, no you didn't use reproductions, or no the periodicals are not 65 years old? It seems to me that you have previously stated each of these unequivocally.

 

[Paul]

Facts of the matter are as good as 'eveyone else', and better.

If you'd care to present us with some facts, that would be a start.

 

[Paul]

Since you cannot see the direct connection between the drawings in question and the extrapolated order, there is nothing to add.

Bye, I'm sure you're a man of conviction and won't be bothering us again.

I consider your opinions irrelevant, and there is nothing to add to that.

Well, that didn't take long; why do you suppose everyone with any skill or experience in the relevant fields is wrong and only internet nutter are right?

 

[bruto]

Since you cannot see the direct connection between the drawings in question and the extrapolated order, there is nothing to add.
I consider your opinions irrelevant, and there is nothing to add to that.

Plainly put, if I cannot see the direct connection, it is either because it is not there, or because you have not explained it adequately (or both of course). You may consider my opinions irrelevant, but my questions are not. They relate to the way that truth is separated from error, and delusion from reality. If you can't do better than you have so far, you need at the very least to gain some insight into how you present your ideas, because the way you're doing it now isn't working.

You've found an ancient drawing. You have used a picture of it, but you cannot determine even that the picture preserves the perspective of the original drawing. You have applied a preconceived set of measurements and lines to it, with visible deviations from the lines actually drawn, extrapolating from imagined lines and spaces based only on the theory you brought with you. The entire procedure has been done backwards, imposing forms on the original drawing, and then claiming that these forms constitute evidence of something highly unlikely, for which no independent evidence exists. The theory is dubious, the execution as sloppy and tendentious as a ouija board reading, and the conclusion has about the same value.

Irrelevant or not, I believe that's approximately the reaction you'll get from anyone who actually thinks about what you've presented, so if you want better results, you'll have to make a better case and learn to argue it better.

 

[Jiri]

Plainly put, if I cannot see the direct connection, it is either because it is not there, or because you have not explained it adequately (or both of course). You may consider my opinions irrelevant, but my questions are not. They relate to the way that truth is separated from error, and delusion from reality. If you can't do better than you have so far, you need at the very least to gain some insight into how you present your ideas, because the way you're doing it now isn't working.

Nice little speech, Bruto, nice and general, and in the end everything is my fault.. It fails to convince me, however that my results are delusional, or that my methods are wrong. I am satisfied with what I have done (achieved), and what I have learned for myself. Failure to convince others, which comprises both skeptics and their opposite, which I would loosely term as people with perception that there are mysteries and controversies in history regarding subjects such as prehistoric advanced civilisations, Atlantis, or possibly even alien visitations, well if no one sees what I see (and show), and I am right, then it's everybody's loss, not just mine, and I stand to lose little in comparison to the rest. If I am wrong, which I doubt, then all is well.

You've found an ancient drawing. You have used a picture of it, but you cannot determine even that the picture preserves the perspective of the original drawing.

What makes you think so? I got the image from a scientific periodical, where it was published by Lwoff. The image is the result of hard work by French scientists. It's alleged that they used a variety of methods, such as taking plaster impressions, or high resolution photographs under different lighting conditions, etc. The intelligent results I got indicate that the image is sufficiently close to the original, and in my opinion, the results will only get more interesting with increasing adherence to the original.
.

You have applied a preconceived set of measurements and lines to it, with visible deviations from the lines actually drawn, extrapolating from imagined lines and spaces based only on the theory you brought with you. The entire procedure has been done backwards, imposing forms on the original drawing, and then claiming that these forms constitute evidence of something highly unlikely, for which no independent evidence exists. The theory is dubious, the execution as sloppy and tendentious as a ouija board reading, and the conclusion has about the same value.

You have a deep misunderstanding of my work.
Call my findings preliminary, the fact that there is no positive reaction, and that no one will pursue them further looks worse on others than on me.
.

Irrelevant or not, I believe that's approximately the reaction you'll get from anyone who actually thinks about what you've presented, so if you want better results, you'll have to make a better case and learn to argue it better.

We started this discussion with the Frame, a fairly simple and straightforward issue, and we're not yet done with it, yet everybody is all over the place. That's why I had started by telling people here about the Frame only, so we could concentrate on one thing at a time. Then someone discovered my web site, and the discussion lost its focus and got too disorganized. The Frame has the advantage that it deals in numbers rather than shapes, which makes it easier to discuss. The criticism leveled at it over here on this forum was so far very weak and escapist, all talk, but no detailed analysis.
I am not impressed.

 

[Paulhoff]

It fails to convince me, however that my results are delusional, or that my methods are wrong. I am satisfied with what I have done (achieved), and what I have learned for myself.

Then there was no need to post on this thread from the start then........

Paul

 

[Paul]

Nice little speech, Bruto, nice and general, and in the end everything is my fault..

That's a start.

It fails to convince me, however that my results are delusional, or that my methods are wrong.

And we're back to the arrogance and ignorance.

I am satisfied with what I have done (achieved), and what I have learned for myself.

Then why do you feel it necessary to convince others?

Failure to convince others, which comprises both skeptics and their opposite

You mean everyone.

which I would loosely term as people with perception that there are mysteries and controversies in history regarding subjects such as prehistoric advanced civilisations, Atlantis, or possibly even alien visitations

You mean people who don't know what they're talking about.

well if no one sees what I see (and show)

Which they don't.

and I am right,

Which you are not.

If I am wrong, which I doubt, then all is well.

Then all is well and you can go away and play somewhere else.

 

[Foster Zygote]

It's alleged that they used a variety of methods,...

Alleged by whom? A real researcher would never use alleged information as evidence in a journal publication.

...such as taking plaster impressions, or high resolution photographs under different lighting conditions, etc.

If these researchers had intended to take the sort of measurements you've made they would most certainly not have used photographs for reasons of optical distortion already mentioned. They may have used their plaster casts, but you have not had access to these casts, have you?

The intelligent results I got indicate that the image is sufficiently close to the original, and in my opinion, the results will only get more interesting with increasing adherence to the original.

But you won't know this unless you measure the originals.

You have a deep misunderstanding of my work.
Call my findings preliminary, the fact that there is no positive reaction, and that no one will pursue them further looks worse on others than on me.

I said the same thing when they laughed at my plans to create a race of mutant atomic supermen. Fools! I'll destroy them all!

 

[Paul]

What makes you think so?

You have produced nothing to show the integrity of the image you use as a basis for you work.

I got the image from a scientific periodical,

Which would appear to be unavailable to anyone else.

where it was published by Lwoff.

A man so well known that this thread comes up second in a google search of his name.

The image is the result of hard work by French scientists.

How do you know?

It's alleged that they used a variety of methods, such as taking plaster impressions, or high resolution photographs under different lighting conditions, etc.

Ah, you don't know, but you've heard allegations that they used science.

The intelligent results I got indicate that the image is sufficiently close to the original,

Your results show nothing about the accuracy of your working images.

and in my opinion, the results will only get more interesting with increasing adherence to the original.

Do you have anything but your own self-fulfilling prophesies to validate that opinion?

You have a deep misunderstanding of my work.

Your problem is that we don't.

Call my findings preliminary,

Even that would be generous.

the fact that there is no positive reaction, and that no one will pursue them further looks worse on others than on me.

Ah, poor Jiri, are all the real scientists ignoring you?