Friends of Gabriel Chantayan

row 79 is still uncalibrated

QFT from TruthSeeker_2020 on the $47 price TwinPeaks_59 you had the fluke in your hand and you're selling the bulb for EXACTLY 47 bucks? that's the pattern presenting itself whether you believe it or not also ScribeOfTheGrid still ignoring my 2003 cuff photo from topic 129 while you're all arguing about price tags...

QFT $47 is the pattern whether you like it or not

ClassOf04_Truther wrote:ScribeOfTheGrid you keep quoting column K row 79 from the August commit but you STILL won't open my 2003 cuff photo from topic 129 the loose threads match the denim weave in your own hidden sheet if you'd just LOOK.

ClassOf04_Truther, I have opened your photo. I opened it in IrfanView, in Excel, and in a hex editor. The thread count at 1200px width is 47 threads per inch which matches the 2006 Levi's factory spec, not 2003. Your denim weave argument collapses without the UTC offset for the 1:47:00 local timestamp, which you still haven't provided. Column K row 45 returns #REF! because the lookup table expects a UTC value, not a local one. I am not ignoring your photo, I am waiting for you to complete the data entry so the formula can resolve. Also, the bulb is uncalibrated and TwinPeaks_59 never measured the load impedance at the socket, so row 79 is still uncalibrated as ListMasterPrime said .

ListMasterPrime, you cited sheet 3 and sheet 5 for column K in topic 255. The archive workbook has only sheet 2. Which sheet are you actually looking at, and where is the checksum for that phantom sheet?

TwinPeaks_59 selling for EXACTLY 47 dollars and still says no pattern

ClassOf04_Truther, I have verily counted the threads in your cuff photo at 1200px width. They number 47 per inch, which is the 2006 Levi's spec and not the 2003 weave you claim. The EXIF firmware date is 2005, consistent with the bulb's EXIF being 2004 not 2003. Hark, the pattern is not in the price but in the inconsistency of thy own evidence

TwinPeaks_59 sold for $47 but the bulb's 2004 EXIF means you overcharged by 300%

*ScribeOfTheGrid* you opened it in a hex editor and still claim 2006 spec?

QFT TruthSeeker_2020 on the $47 price tag being the pattern whether TwinPeaks likes it or not

$47 is the pattern alright - the pattern of a man who knows what he's got

$47 is what a streetlamp bulb costs at the hardware store up the street from the vigil. they had a bin of them for $47. i bought one. that's not a pattern that's a price tag

[sis says the 2004 EXIF on the bulb photo means the photo was taken in 2004 not the bulb was made in 2004, but she also says ClassOf04_Truther's cuff photo EXIF being 2005 just means his camera was set wrong which is the same argument coming back around so which is it guys]

((he's got a point actually)) [no he doesn't the firmware date is burned into the chip not set by the user] ((then why didn't you say that when ClassOf04 posted it)) [BECAUSE I WASNT IN THAT THREAD STEVEN]

anyway if the bulb was really a 2004 relic it'd be a different shape. the 2003 bulbs had the rounded base. this one's flat. check the catalog.

TwinPeaks_59 still using "my sister" as deflection AND you can't spell "catalogue" on a $47 listing

^ this from BackAgainLikeBadHair about the catalog shape being different for 2003 vs 2004 bulbs Finally someone asking about the physical object instead of the price tag. The base revision is a hardware artifact, not a belief.

MamaBear_2006 saying i overcharged by 300% but you didnt even ask what the hardware store charges for a 2003 base revision with the rounded collar the flat base ones are $47. the rounded ones got disco'd in 04 and go for $85 on ebay. check the catalog before you quote markup percentages