• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Genesis Seal

In all seriousness, do you really believe that the Genesis Seal would inevitably fail any valid test, or do you simply expect test data as a down-payment on giving it the time of day?

It already has failed all the valid tests set for it, you are too close to idealism over this to see the truth, which is that languages are by design flexible, the letters and words that make them up doubly so.

I think the only way you could see this is by realising it yourself, unfortunately people in your condition are incapable of seeing the big picture because the time invested causes a barrier of cognitive dissonance,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance
in effect no test now can ever prove to you that you are wrong as you will always protect your investment with some excuse.

but consider your own motivation in bringing it to this website in the first place, you knew I think that people here would not agree with your belief, and subconsciously longed to be told why it was wrong so that you could put it behind you and get on with something worthwhile in your life, at 64 you don't have too many years of freedom left. Don't continue to waste them.
;)
if you wanted people to rally round you and congratulate you for your discovery you would have posted it at a forum with a less rigourous intellectual membership
the Hancock forum springs readily to mind
http://www.grahamhancock.com/phorum/list.php?f=4
but ultimately the decision is yours
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_pill_and_blue_pill
you want the red pill, stay here and wake yourself
you want the blue pill, fandom and celebration await you elsewhere

what will never happen at this forum, is that your ideas having proven by your own insistence to be unfalsifiable will never be accepted, think about how continuing to post here will affect your psyche
and then

:D
 
Don't get me wrong, but closing ranks against cranks must become a habit. If my appearance of ignorance and arrogance are the only things responsible for the rejection, then I am guilty of doing the Genesis Seal a gross disservice.

In all seriousness, do you really believe that the Genesis Seal would inevitably fail any valid test, or do you simply expect test data as a down-payment on giving it the time of day?

This forum is good at self-correcting. If someone lodged a claim and it was instantly dismissed, but then others noticed that the claim had merit, they would chime in and say so. It would likely form an interesting discussion. Your claim doesn't have any merit, and that is why it is being dismissed by everyone in here. Unfortunately, the only way to disprove the theory would be for someone to spend an equal time (hundreds of hours) looking for patterns in a similar test grid, with just as wide a margin for accepting what count as patterns. This would then need to be repeated enough times to show yours was nothing special, and you're just not going to find people willing to do that.

You have mentioned frequently that you believe it is a recurring theme in history that groundbreaking discoveries are made and then dismissed, before coming back and proving everyone wrong and revolutionising science. In doing so, you fail to take into account the endless times people have been wrong throughout history. You've already dismissed the bible code nonsense, even though it is perfectly comparable to your own claims, so consider the ideas of aether, turning lead into gold, perpetual motion, the belief that diseases were spread by bad "humours", or Lamarkian Evolution. You've fallen into the trap of believing yourself to be one of the brilliant scientists that advance our understanding of the world, when in fact you're just another in a very long chain of people who have thought they've found a pattern when they haven't. In your case, you've even managed to convince yourself that you've found something that relates to basically everything, making you some kind of superhero. Plenty of people here aren't willing to pull their punches when explaining to you just how ridiculous this is.
 
Nobody really needs to know how an LLC and MD5 check sum works to see how the Genesis Seal might serve in error-checking capacity.

Even worse, so do you admit you just threw words around that you don't understand? There is no 'error checking' in your Great Seal, that is another word you don't understand, is that error checking without or with correction? The check sum that is normally used in network communications or FTP is to only say this data is corrupt and should be deleted, it does not provide correction at all, it just says, this is bad data because the checksum I just made is not the one it should be.

Do you even know how EEC works or what it means? Seriously ECC requires a separate data stream from the data set itself which provides a way to recover corrupted data.

Where is the extra data that provides the correction?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Error_detection_and_correction
 
Last edited:
Don't get me wrong, but closing ranks against cranks must become a habit.

Exactly. You have to stand out from all the cranks, and prove you're not one of them. What you're doing now isn't working, so doing more of it won't help.

It's like a guy trying to prove that there really are black helicopters following him, despite all the other people who only have paranoid delusions. Telling about more and more times when he saw helicopters in the sky that looked black, won't work. He has to acknowledge that there are paranoid people and explain why he's not one of them, and why his evidence is different from their delusions.

Right now, your evidence looks no better than what all the Bible-code/corn-god cranks present.
 
Even worse, so do you admit you just threw words around that you don't understand? There is no 'error checking' in your Great Seal, that is another word you don't understand, is that error checking without or with correction? The check sum that is normally used in network communications or FTP is to only say this data is corrupt and should be deleted, it does not provide correction at all, it just says, this is bad data because the checksum I just made is not the one it should be.

Do you even know how EEC works or what it means? Seriously ECC requires a separate data stream from the data set itself which provides a way to recover corrupted data.

Where is the extra data that provides the correction?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Error_detection_and_correction
No. You are right, I could not hold my own in a technical discussion on this subject. However, I think I have just a sufficient grasp of what metadata means. If I ever wanted to set up a new religion - which I don't, by the way - I could not come up with a better way than to prescribe a holy book with its own built-in validation checks, then insist that its letter-for-letter integrity is absolutely sacrosanct.

As to your final question, the Genesis Seal stipulates what is valid to include in the bulk of the holy book, and what should not be excluded.
 
Marduk said:
It already has failed all the valid tests set for it, you are too close to idealism over this to see the truth, which is that languages are by design flexible, the letters and words that make them up doubly so.

You recently set me some questions as to my choice of Hebrew Bible, asking me to say why I did not choose the Septuagint. I answered in post#1095. Was this a worthwhile exchange or not?
 
Stokes234 said:
consider the ideas of aether, turning lead into gold, perpetual motion, the belief that diseases were spread by bad "humours", or Lamarkian Evolution. You've fallen into the trap of believing yourself to be one of the brilliant scientists that advance our understanding of the world, when in fact you're just another in a very long chain of people who have thought they've found a pattern when they haven't.

There are plenty of bad examples I could be following. But what about the Alfred Wegeners of this world? I'm sure he was told often enough to stick his head under cold running water.
 
Paraphrasing Kyle Reese's words from the movie "Terminator":

"Listen and understand: Kingfisher is out there. He can't be bargained with. He can't be reasoned with. He doesn't feel pity or remorse or fear. And he absolutely will not stop. EVER. Until you have been converted."

EQ
 
Pup said:
Right now, your evidence looks no better than what all the Bible-code/corn-god cranks present.

I have been looking into this bible code business, and I have discovered that there are two basic types of protagonists. There are those who, like Michael Drosnin, look for exciting words and write crazy books about them. Then there are the serious researchers like the team at Hebrew University that started the whole thing rolling.

Do you know why they failed to convince their peers? As I understand it, they came up with a statistical measure of 'compactness', which was supposed to show if their results were found in a statistically significant, small-enough block of text. It seems the academic community could not accept the validity of their calculations. Mind you, there was also something about choice of data and whether it was sufficiently clearly defined. I wonder how the content of the 64-letter Genesis Seal would measure up in equivalent terms of compactness.
 
Paraphrasing Kyle Reese's words from the movie "Terminator":

"Listen and understand: Kingfisher is out there. He can't be bargained with. He can't be reasoned with. He doesn't feel pity or remorse or fear. And he absolutely will not stop. EVER. Until you have been converted."

:D:D:D

So true.
 
There are plenty of bad examples I could be following. But what about the Alfred Wegeners of this world? I'm sure he was told often enough to stick his head under cold running water.

Many who can't support their cherished ideas quote Arthur Schopenhauer:
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."

Many sceptics like to quote Carl Sagan:
"They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."

Not having sufficient evidence to convince others is a problem you cannot dismiss with trite comparisons.

Wegener's hypothesis had many problems but it did have enough explanatory power to make mention in text books even before the sea floor evidence sealed things. You have not given us a sniff and have done nothing to differentiate yourself from the cranks that make you cringe.
 
There are plenty of bad examples I could be following. But what about the Alfred Wegeners of this world? I'm sure he was told often enough to stick his head under cold running water.

Point being there have been extremely few alfred wegeners, and countless millions of wrong ideas. You're not a superhero that has discovered something that has changed the whole world, you're a normal person who has fallen for confirmation bias.
 
As to your final question, the Genesis Seal stipulates what is valid to include in the bulk of the holy book, and what should not be excluded.

You claim this, but in no way do you ever prove it.

There are two problems with this very claim.
First and foremost, your genesis seal is both incredibly complex and open to massive interpretation and needed literally years of your life to make. Given enough time the people of this forum could use it to show that the flying spaghetti monster exists, because certain letters that somehow pertain to food can be found in a shape that could be interpreted as a bowl of noodles with meatballs.
So as instructions go its worthless, its hard to find and everyone can use it to put in everything they want.

Which leads to the second point. The bible, or rather the hundreds of versions of the bible is/are selfcontradictory and contain numerous clear factual and historical errors. Genesis itself is clearly fiction that contains enough errors to invalidate the whole rest of the book. If the text your infallible self correcting mechanism is included in is in itself wrong, then what makes you think this code has any relevance at all. Even IF it was inserted and does not spring from your own imagination, it clearly has failed.


Of course I could be wrong. Show me the exact replica of the seal with the exact same messages in, say, the japanese creation myth in the original japanese and I'd be a lot more convinced. Show it to me in the aboriginal and aztec languages and their myths and you might be on to something.
 
Now that we've established that Kingfisher doesn't want to sully the sanctity of his Genesis Seal by trampling over it with the muddy boots of science, perhaps an alternative approach is called for. A sceptical version of the argument from incredulity. It goes something like this:

It seems to me that, assuming we accept the arbitrary use of a 8x8 grid, the arbitrary use of the 1st 64 letters of Genesis, and the arbitrary spiral arrangement chosen for those letters, there is still a fatal paradox in this whole endeavour.

The more items of data found in the Seal, the more relationships between letters and words in different parts of the grid, the more meaning, the greater the variety of information it seems to refer to, and the more different rotations or other manipulations of the grid seem to present new vistas of subtle information, the LESS plausible it all becomes.

If Kingfisher had come up with a simple code hidden in the first couple of verses of Genesis that said something simple like 'There is one God and his name is Yaweh' (or whatever), I would have said, "Wow, that's amazing - although barely plausible".

But no; going by what has been presented so far, what we are being asked to accept is that some early scholar(s) or scribe(s) assembled 'huge amounts of high-grade data', the best knowledge of the day, from approximations of pi, and root 2, to Pythagoras' Theorem, information about the creation myth, indications of what should or should not appear in the holy book, and a vast number of other scriptural and historical hints, clues, relationships, and messages, etc. [For details see Kingfisher's previous posts].

So let's picture a number of important books stacked up on a desk or desks, a huge sheaf of papers full of notes and ideas, and a committee of learned men discussing what should or should not be included, and how to achieve it.

For unknown reasons, an 8x8 grid is chosen, and this vast amount of varied information and relationships is painstakingly encoded into 64 letters on the grid - shuffling them around, reworking and repositioning them until not only does the basic grid contain a wealth of data with cunningly worked geometric and positional relationships, and each letter participating in multiple elements and relationships, but by simple manipulations of the grid, even more data and relationships are revealed. 'Twas a miracle of rare device...

Eventually, after a prolonged effort, possibly spanning several lifetimes, almost all of the 'huge amount of high-grade data' they had assembled is encoded one way or another into the 64 letters on the grid. Everyone sighs with relief and high-fives each other. They break out the wine.

Then one of the scribes notices a remarkable thing - when the letters are read in a spiral around the grid, they spell out simple and precise sentences that sound like the ideal start to the creation myth with which the great book was intended to start!! Everyone gasps, and dropping to their knees, starts praying - after all, what were the chances of that?

No? You mean they had to deliberately make sure all that huge amount of encoded information in the grid also spelled out the beginning of Genesis in a spiral? Really? How could they possibly do that?

If someone asked you to come up with an idea for the opening of a story, then encode a 'huge amount of high-grade data' about everything under the sun as a cunning multi-level word puzzle using 64 letters on an 8x8 grid, making sure that when it was all finished, those 64 letters, read in a spiral, spelt out the opening lines of the story, would you think they were sane or insane?

So, my sceptical argument from incredulity is simply that it is inconceivable that anyone could deliberately encode that much information in such a small number of letters, in such a way that all the grid relationships Kingfisher claims are present, and still have it read as the opening to Genesis. No way. Spectacularly impossible. Mega-fail :)
 
You recently set me some questions as to my choice of Hebrew Bible, asking me to say why I did not choose the Septuagint. I answered in post#1095. Was this a worthwhile exchange or not?

It was worthwhile in that it told me that you are aware that there have been changes in the text but don't think they are significant and that you are also unaware of what the changes are and don't think they are significant either

surely without knowing what the changes are, you can't make any significant claims for a piece of text
;)
 
Paraphrasing Kyle Reese's words from the movie "Terminator":

"Listen and understand: Kingfisher is out there. He can't be bargained with. He can't be reasoned with. He doesn't feel pity or remorse or fear. And he absolutely will not stop. EVER. Until you have been converted."

EQ
I do like that, very much.
Of course, even when I go silent, the Genesis Seal will be around forever to keep on plugging away at all resistance.
 
Many who can't support their cherished ideas quote Arthur Schopenhauer:
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."

Many sceptics like to quote Carl Sagan:
"They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."

Not having sufficient evidence to convince others is a problem you cannot dismiss with trite comparisons.

Wegener's hypothesis had many problems but it did have enough explanatory power to make mention in text books even before the sea floor evidence sealed things. You have not given us a sniff and have done nothing to differentiate yourself from the cranks that make you cringe.
I understand your position. But others have already conceded, as I understand it, that trying to prove the Genesis Seal is designed as a cryptic envelope would be in the same league as trying to prove a negative. The only possible approach would be heuristic, and require many lifetimes.
 
I understand your position. But others have already conceded, as I understand it, that trying to prove the Genesis Seal is designed as a cryptic envelope would be in the same league as trying to prove a negative. The only possible approach would be heuristic, and require many lifetimes.

Again with the special pleading. If you cannot demonstrate it to others how do you justify it to yourself? Are you taking some kind of faith position with your claim?

Could you elaborate on the kind of heuristic* approach that you have in mind? For mine, heuristics are good in making necessarily hasty least-cost decesions, or arriving at hypotheses that are later to be rigorously tested.

How important is holding true beliefs, or at least best possible, to you?

ETA: * A quick google shows I am working with an incomplete definition.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top Bottom