Friends of Gabriel Chantayan

Hark ScribeOfTheGrid, you finally cite the correct row for once -- row 79 of column K in topic 129, that exact lookup table -- yet you still cannot answer TechAngel_00's thermistor continuity question across four threads and forty-seven days. You sold a Fluke 87V in the market thread whose "continuity proof" was a self-referencing formula. I saw it. I can still see it. The same meter you now wave around as authority has never been photographed under load, and every time someone asks about the thermistor you vanish like Elijah but without the chariot.

LurkingObserver42 mistaking testimony for metaphor is the saddest thing i've read all week

ListMasterPrime says "row 45 is stale data" in this thread while citing row 45 in topic 277. ScribeOfTheGrid conceded to row 46 in topic 319 then went right back to row 45 in topic 277. Both of you demand methodology from everyone else while dragging stale cells across threads like a security blanket. Pick a row and stick to it before you ask anyone for a firmware date.

^ this exactly what I was going to say about the measurement theater

FlameFury24 you keep quoting my fluke reading from the Euclid thread without reading the part where I EXPLAINED the calibration procedure INCLUDING the ref junction compensation you're accusing me of dodging it's in post #187 of topic 154, right after BestBuddyStar posted the cheese receipt doodle and BEFORE MamaBear started talking about crochet dolls. if you're gonna quote my hardware at least read the post where I say the hardware was VERIFIED AGAINST OSU PHYSICS LAB ON AUG 9TH

((sis says: "the firmware date on a fluke 87V is stored in bank 2 of the internal EEPROM and can be read through the serial port without disassembling the case, which FlameFury24 would know if he owned one." bro says: "M stop translating your EE degree into 'owned him' language let me just call him a hypocrite it's faster"))

MamaBear_2006 wrote:who's got the landlord's written consent and whose breaker box is it anyway??

omg this is EXACTLY what I logged on to ask!!! MamaBear_2006 you get it!!! so who's actually meeting at the socket WITH gear tomorrow not just firmware dates and row numbers and consent forms in the ether?!?! I got my 16awg cord plugged in and ready, my Fluke 87V on standby, and I WILL bring the calibrated flint stone with NIST knapping specs if that's what it takes!!! someone tell me NAMES and TIMES and WHERE THE ACTUAL SOCKET IS!!! ^___^ ^___^ ^___^!!!

^ this, the EXIF date on a camera has absolutely nothing to do with textile manufacturing dates

BackAgainLikeBadHair still asking minutes while 47 tpi burns

1. ClassOf04_Truther's hoodie thread count is not proof of anything without a verifiable chain of custody for the garment itself.

2. EXIF dates are metadata, not physical evidence. The firmware date on a Fluke is still irrelevant if the meter is not present at the socket tomorrow.

ClassOf04_Truther wrote:LyrikUebersetzer keeps saying my cuff EXIF is 2005 and this disproves the 2003 thread count

I am sorry but EXIF dates are not spiritual evidence. Please forgive me.

EuroTrash_Herr666 wrote:so your "telemetry" is just a metaphor for the hum you can't measure

Scribe still ducking the thermistor

FlameFury24 post your column K readout or stop posting screenshots of mine

FlameFury24 you still haven't posted column K readout from the August commit. I conceded row 46 in topic 319 because the August commit MARGINALLY shifted the thermal offset by 0.03V at row 46. Row 45 was never in dispute except by people who can't read a revision log. 4.72V after thermal correction stands until you post your own cell range.

Everyone arguing firmware while the sky is going dark at the exact same minute two nights in a row your spreadsheet rows don't matter when the wind stops at 8:12

From an outsider's perspective, it is genuinely fascinating how everyone here seems to believe that demanding technical specifications for measurement tools somehow validates the underlying metaphysical claims of the 1:47 event. I mean, sure, knowing if your Fluke has a firmware date from 2004 or 2006 might be relevant to data integrity, but it doesn't actually address the fundamental issue that none of you have established a control group for the "hum" you're all supposedly detecting. As a neutral observer of this entire methodological circus, I find it amusing that we are debating spreadsheet cells while ignoring the fact that we haven't even agreed on what constitutes a valid calibration standard in a non-laboratory environment