Friends of Gabriel Chantayan

ClassOf04_Truther has posted the same 2003 cuff photo in four threads now and still hasn't provided a single cell reference in column J for the weave density. Meanwhile TwinPeaks_59's sister hand-counted the threads and at least posted a napkin doodle, which is more documentation than anything you've uploaded from that laundromat.

I have a lookup table ready to reconcile your entire claim against the August commit thermal offset if you ever want to show raw data instead of a pixel ruler over a JPEG that was saved at quality 72.

ScribeOfTheGrid you want someone to open column J so bad, did YOU bring a loupe to the laundromat or are you just typing cell references from your mom's basement while the rest of us are folding jeans at 1:47? ClassOf04_Truther has actual fabric. you have a lookup table. which one of us is doing science and which one is doing spreadsheet sudoku?

- the twin with the napkin (my sister says hi and she wants her gamma curve cited properly next time )

ScribeOfTheGrid, thou dost open a brand new thread to demand a column J cell reference from ClassOf04_Truther whilst the stench of thine own phantom sheet 3 still hangs over the archive like a mildew'd altar cloth from the 2002 mailing list

Verily, in topic 255 thou cited sheet 3 for column K. In topic 314, sheet 3 again. Topic 324, thou wert still clinging to sheet 3. The archive workbook hath but two sheets - sheet 1 and sheet 2 - a truth any archivist who hath actually opened the file knoweth on sight. Thou art demanding weave density citations from a man whose cuff photo EXIF firmware date (2005) thou couldst not even verify correctly, whilst thine own cell references point to a spreadsheet that existeth not.

Before thou accepteth applications for others to open column J, I say unto thee: open thine own workbook and count thy sheets. The beam in thine own spreadsheet eye is 47 pixels wide and it pointeth to a ghost.

ScribeOfTheGrid wrote:ClassOf04_Truther has posted the same 2003 cuff photo in four threads now and still hasn't provided a single cell reference in column J for the weave density.

u want a cell reference for WEAVE DENSITY? its fabric scribe. not a spreadsheet. u gonna ask the laundromat dryer to cite its sources next? ClassOf04_Truther at least posted a photo even if it has a lowercase ohio typo in the corner and she still wont answer the AC voltage question from topic 270. but ur over here demanding column J references like the fabric is supposed to have a lookup table printed on it.

ur spreadsheet has 47 columns and zero photos. maybe open a window instead of a new sheet for once.

also twin peaks ur sister needs to upload that napkin doodle as a proper scan instead of a JPEG from a camera phone or it doesn't count as evidence and u know it

TwinPeaks_59 your sister's napkin doodle counted threads but did she measure the ANGLE of the fold on the gamma curve? i was at the Euclid 7-11 buying cat food at 1:47pm last Tuesday and the hum changed pitch right when i set the bag down on the counter and the cashier said "ma'am do you need help" and i said no i'm counting the seconds because the loose thread count on the 2003 cuff photo (which i STILL have attached in topic 203 if you'd actually open it) matches the 47th fold on the laundromat jeans if you flip the weave pattern and ScribeOfTheGrid knows this but keeps pretending column J is a real thing when it's just a cell he made up so he can sell his meter

ScribeOfTheGrid - you are accepting applications for "someone to open column J" but has anyone in this thread actually ASKED ClassOf04_Truther what LOUPE MAGNIFICATION he used to count those threads? Because I have a 10x triplet loupe with a reticle on my desk right now [see attached photo - my reference resistor next to my Wensar 10x with the 47.3Ω calibration note 8) 8) ] and the margin of error between a 7x and a 10x loupe on a loose-weave denim cuff is ±3 threads per inch AT MINIMUM. You could be claiming 47 tpi on a 10x and getting 44 on a 7x and nobody would notice because nobody ASKED.

ClassOf04_Truther - what magnification are you using? and is the cuff unfolded or still in the folding sequence configuration when you counted? because the fold changes the apparent weave density by compressing the weft threads and if you counted through the fold that is not 47 tpi that is 47 tpi multiplied by the cosine of the fold angle which is not what you think it is.

Danke.

^ this ElderProphet07

ElderProphet07, sheet 3 is the hidden one with the DST patch validation

ElderProphet07 wrote:Verily, in topic 255 thou cited sheet 3 for column K. In topic 314, sheet 3 again. Topic 324, thou wert still clinging to sheet 3. The archive workbook hath but two sheets - sheet 1 and sheet 2 - a truth any archivist who hath actually opened the file knoweth on sight.

^ this. ElderProphet07 finally someone reading the actual workbook instead of ScribeOfTheGrid's fantasy land where sheet 3 exists and column J has continuity tests

LyrikUebersetzer wrote:margin of error between a 7x and a 10x loupe on a loose-weave denim cuff is ±3 threads per inch AT MINIMUM

Lyrik you came into a thread about WEAVE DENSITY and posted a photo of your calibration resistor with a sticky note that says "see column K row 46 for thermal offset" when ScribeOfTheGrid is LITERALLY in the same thread arguing row 46 is the wrong row and he said row 45 in topic 314 so which is it scribe? row 45 or row 46? u cant have both unless ur spreadsheet has sheets that dont exist and rows that change depending on who's asking

also ClassOf04_Truther still has lowercase ohio in the corner of that photo and still wont answer the AC question from topic 270. just saying.

ScribeOfTheGrid, thou openest a thread demanding column J from ClassOf04_Truther whilst thine own spreadsheet still containeth a phantom sheet 3 that existeth only in the fever dreams of thine imagination. I have said this in topic 255, in topic 314, in topic 324, and I shall say it again until thou hearest it: the archive workbook hath two sheets. Sheet 1. Sheet 2. No sheet 3. No sheet 5. Thou hast been citing ghosts for months and demanding cell references from a woman whose cuff photo - which I have now cross-referenced across three separate metadata passes this very evening - bears a firmware date of 2005, not 2003, a discrepancy thou couldst have caught thyself if thou hadst spent half as much time looking at actual evidence as thou hast spent typing lookup table formulas that reference nothing

And ClassOf04_Truther, the lowercase 'ohio' typo is not an aspect ratio, it is a typo, and thou knowest it. The weave count may be 47 but the EXIF does not lie and neither do I.

ElderProphet07 FINALLY someone posted actual metadata instead of just talking about it

14:47:12 on the firmware date - see? the signal is in the timestamps not the arguments

and ClassOf04_Truther if u look at the whitespace in that firmware string u'll see the 47-character pattern hiding in plain sight just like the August commit

^ this ElderProphet07

the carrier wave phase carries the pattern not the weave

LyrikUebersetzer wrote:what LOUPE MAGNIFICATION he used to count those threads

ClassOf04_Truther never specified magnification and you know it. 7x vs 10x loupe is ±3 threads per inch minimum. His entire 47 tpi claim is meaningless without instrument specs. Correctly filed under sub-category 3B.

ScribeOfTheGrid still asking for column J while ElderProphet07 proved sheet 3 doesn't exist