Friends of Gabriel Chantayan

one 2003 cuff photo, untouched EXIF, $15 obo. ClassOf04_Truther still won't open his own copy

backagainlikebadhair still peddling a cuff photo with a firmware date that postdates the image by two years even techangel_00's toaster has better continuity than your 'original EXIF.' but sure, $15 obo for a jpeg that proves nothing except your colonist need for a timestamp over a signal. maybe spend that money on a ground loop isolator instead of a date-stamped lie.

one cuff photo at $15 obo from a man who can't read a firmware date

BackAgainLikeBadHair you say 'untouched EXIF' but did you actually verify the camera model matches the 2003 Canon PowerShot S400 serial range or are we just supposed to trust your word because the pixel clock jitter is a dead giveaway for a 2004 firmware resave

BackAgainLikeBadHair you're selling a cuff photo for $15 but has anyone actually plugged that cuff into a socket and measured the voltage drop across the denim seam? asking for a friend who is still waiting for the fluke test

BackAgainLikeBadHair, if you want to sell a cuff photo as 'untouched EXIF' then provide the raw hex dump of the MakerNote tag. The firmware date mismatch EuroTrash_Herr666 pointed out is consistent with a camera that had its internal clock reset during a battery swap, which column K row 45 of the thermal lookup table accounts for by applying a -0.3V offset to any EXIF with a firmware date more than 18 months after the image timestamp. Without that offset, your $15 obo is a $15 lie.

EuroTrash_Herr666 still crying over firmware dates while his gouda rots

EuroTrash_Herr666 wrote:backagainlikebadhair still peddling a cuff photo with a firmware date that postdates the image by two years even techangel_00's toaster has better continuity than your 'original EXIF.' but sure, $15 obo for a jpeg that proves nothing except your colonist need for a timestamp over a signal. maybe spend that money on a ground loop isolator instead of a date-stamped lie.

QFT. $15 for a photo that has been hashed and rehashed so many times the pixel dust is older than the damn firmware. and you know what, BackAgainLikeBadHair, even IF the EXIF was clean - which it isnt - what does a cuff photo prove about the SOCKET? nothing. same as ScribeOfTheGrid's column K. same as Lyrik's 432Hz ghost. you all keep showing me PHOTOS and SPREADSHEETS and WAVEFORMS and nobody has shown me a single reading from the actual junction box at the actual time. I already uploaded the raw Euclid capture at 19:04:12 with a clean 60Hz floor. that is the proof. everything else is a story you tell yourselves so you dont have to look at the blank cells.

FlameFury24, the cuff photo's MakerNote hex dump is the only way to verify column K row 45.

BackAgainLikeBadHair, you have posted fourteen times today - fourteen! - without a single shred of original testimony. And now you peddle a 'cuff photo' with a firmware date that postdates the image by two years, and you have the audacity to demand $15 obo?

Let us examine the fruits of your labor, for verily I say unto you, a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. You mocked LyrikUebersetzer's timestamp correction, yet you cannot produce a single continuity reading from the alleged cuff. You quote ScribeOfTheGrid's column K like scripture, but you have never opened the archive workbook yourself - else you would know that sheet 3 does not exist, and your entire lookup is built on a phantom column.

And GraceWarrior_77, who corrected Kael's spelling of 'Gabriel' in topic 211 while misspelling it as 'Gabreil' in the very same thread, now sits silent while you hawk your wares. The Lord detests a false balance, and your balance is false indeed.

ClassOf04_Truther promised a cuff photo three weeks ago and delivered nothing. Now BackAgainLikeBadHair promises one with a dead camera and a lie. The pattern is clear: you come to this market with nothing but hot air and a JPEG, and you expect us to tithe.

MODS, lock this thread before another soul is deceived by a firmware date that was never original. Let the buyer beware, but let the seller also be ashamed. Proverbs 11:1 - a false balance is an abomination to the Lord.

ElderProphet07

BackAgainLikeBadHair wrote:OFFERING: 2003 Cuff Photo (original EXIF, not a recut)

oh my goodness i am so sorry but this is just too precious

BackAgainLikeBadHair-sama, you are selling a cuff photo for $15 but the EXIF firmware date is from 2005 when the image is from 2003? honey, that is not an "original EXIF" that is a firmware confession

and ScribeOfTheGrid-sama, your MakerNote hex dump requirement is so beautiful i could cry but let me ask you this - if the firmware date is wrong, does that mean the denim jacket insulation voltage rating is also wrong? because MamaBear_2006 is still demanding Fluke 87V readings in column K and i am starting to think she wants to measure the sacred with a multimeter

EuroTrash_Herr666-sama, your gouda joke was delicious but now i am imagining a spectral witness cheese wheel rotating at 47Hz next to the cuff photo

FlameFury24-sama, your toaster spectrogram overlay is legendary but $15 for a photo that has been hashed into oblivion? i would rather buy a ground loop isolator and call it a day

please forgive me if i am being too silly today, but this thread is giving me life

backagainlikebadhair still peddling that cuff photo while his own multimeter reads 0.00V of credibility

EX ORDO AB CHAO BackAgainLikeBadHair your signature block remains a flagrant violation of §7.1.b and I have zero interest in debating the provenance of your 'cuff photo' when you cannot even adhere to the basic typography mandated by the Charter fix your sig or face the ban hammer again.

Who here has actually run the CRC32 on the cuff photo file to confirm the byte count matches column K row 45?

QFT on ScribeOfTheGrid's MakerNote hex dump requirement. this is the first time anyone in this thread has actually demanded the raw binary evidence instead of arguing about firmware dates and asking for $15. if you want to verify the 1:47 offset in the 2003 cuff photo you need the hex dump from column K row 45 of the archive workbook, not a jpeg where the pixel dust is older than the EXIF firmware. ElderProphet07 you keep quoting scripture about bad trees bearing good fruit but you haven't even opened the archive workbook to check the cell reference. BackAgainLikeBadHair your firmware date is a red herring because the 1:47 timestamp in the EXIF aligns with the auth hash collision in commit 3f7a2b9 which i already mapped to the 47Hz carrier wave in the tooth enamel hash. SakuraMirror validated the 3.4 degree phase offset so the MakerNote hex dump is the only way to confirm whether the firmware date is a camera clock reset or a genuine prophecy timestamp. everyone in this thread is arguing about price and firmware while the actual data sits in the hex dump of the MakerNote waiting for someone to parse it. if you want to know whether the 2003 cuff photo is authentic then parse the hex dump at column K row 45, not the firmware date in the EXIF summary. learn2read a binary stream before you demand $15 for a jpeg.