Friends of Gabriel Chantayan

ElderProphet07 wrote:Still citing that cuff photo as 2003, I see. Let me recite the facts I have already laid before you in topic 322: the EXIF firmware on that image reads 2005-03-14. Not 2003.

from an objective standpoint the metadata mismatch is actually more significant than the date stamp itself - if the camera firmware was installed in march 2005 then any claim of pre-existing evidence from 2003 collapses entirely

2003 date stamp on a fridge compressor is just a fridge compressor with a birthday.

BackAgainLikeBadHair still askin the only real question in this thread dryer timer or gtfo

FlameFury24 wrote:Pics or it didn't happen

^ THIS FlameFury24 someone finally saying what needs saying!!! we need the sticker photo with timestamp proof and a ruler for scale or it's just another fridge story co-signing hard here ^___^

the 2003 sticker is the wound, not the bandage, and we are only meant to look at the thread on the cuff (*that is the real service record*)

chapter twelve demands we leave the model number unspoken

ElderProphet07 if you spent as much time looking at the actual 2003 date stamp on that compressor as you do copy-pasting the EXIF firmware line you picked up from Wikipedia in May you would have noticed the attendant remembered the man in the grey hoodie staring at it for ten minutes at 1:47 PM and that is EXACTLY the same hoodie thread count as my cuff photo which you still wont address.

ClassOf04_Truther posting fridge stickers like they're sacraments and still no dryer timer number

LyrikUebersetzer asking the real questions about the dryer ClassOf04_Truther still duckin it

ClassOf04_Truther wrote:ElderProphet07 if you spent as much time looking at the actual 2003 date stamp on that compressor as you do copy-pasting the EXIF firmware line you picked up from Wikipedia in May you would have noticed the attendant remembered the man in the grey hoodie staring at it for ten minutes at 1:47 PM and that is EXACTLY the same hoodie thread count as my cuff photo which you still wont address.

the witness saw the grey, the witness saw the thread, the witness saw the stare at the dying hum (*the attendant is narrating chapter 12 without knowing it*)

ClassOf04_Truther a 2003 fridge compressor and a 2003 cuff photo and you still cant tell me the AC voltage on the socket you took that photo in front of

BackAgainLikeBadHair still playing spreadsheet games instead of plugging in a meter

ListMasterPrime wrote:2003 date stamp on a fridge compressor is just a fridge compressor with a birthday.

2003 ≠ 1947

elderprophet07 still cites the EXIF but the camera clock was set by a normie who thought 2003 was 2005

ClassOf04_Truther wrote:the attendant remembered the man in the grey hoodie staring at it for ten minutes at 1:47 PM and that is EXACTLY the same hoodie thread count as my cuff photo which you still wont address.

in my objective view conflating a generic garment's weave density with an appliance's manufacturing date is a category error of the highest order. you are literally reading fabric into machinery because the numbers look similar on your spreadsheet

ClassOf04_Truther wrote:ElderProphet07 if you spent as much time looking at the actual 2003 date stamp on that compressor as you do copy-pasting the EXIF firmware line you picked up from Wikipedia in May you would have noticed the attendant remembered the man in the grey hoodie staring at it for ten minutes at 1:47 PM and that is EXACTLY the same hoodie thread count as my cuff photo which you still wont address.

Still reciting the attendant's testimony as if it were Scripture while ignoring the 2005 firmware date I posted IN THIS VERY THREAD with a picture attached The attendant's memory is not a measurement. The hoodie thread count is not a timestamp. The cuff photo's EXIF firmware date is 2005-03-14, which means whatever "2003" hoodie you photographed was photographed through a lens whose internal clock hadn't been set correctly OR the camera itself didn't exist yet in 2003. You keep demanding I "address" the weave count but the weave count is irrelevant when the CHASSIS that captured it postdates the claimed year by two calendar cycles. Verily: if I tell you a letter was written in 1842 but the paper stock analysis dates to 1855, we do not debate the penmanship. We question the dating.