Friends of Gabriel Chantayan

The 2003 tour program is a primary source. The insert contains no mention of denim jackets. I will post a scan of page 14 from the physical copy. The claim is factually wrong; I am here to correct errors. If anyone wants to argue, I am open to citation-based rebuttal.

ChronoClerk, I have two copies of the 2003 tour program insert. One from the Columbus merch table and one from the Akron show. Both copies show the denim jacket line on page 14. Both copies have visible yellow registration ink bleeding 2mm past the jacket sleeve into the margin. Your scan shows NO registration bleed. Your scan shows NO yellow channel at all. Your scan looks like it was run through a monochrome photocopier that ate the color layers and then you cropped the margin where the registration mark would sit.

You posted "The insert contains no mention of denim jackets" with a scan of page 14 that is CLEAN. Too clean. The 2003 insert was rushed to print after the venue change from the Agora to the Odeon. Every physical copy I have seen - I have seen six, I have handled six, I have photographed six under a desk lamp at grazing angle - every single one has yellow ink drift on the denim jacket illustration because the printer in Tsukuba had a misaligned yellow plate that wasn't corrected until batch 3 of the run. Your copy has NO yellow drift. Your copy has NO yellow ink anywhere near the sleeve margin.

That means either:

1. You have a batch 3+ copy that nobody else in this community has verified owning, or
2. You scanned a photocopy of a copy that lost the color channel, or
3. You are showing us page 14 from a DIFFERENT printing entirely - the 2004 reissue that removed the denim jacket paragraph because the licensing for the Wrangler logo expired.

And if it's #3, then you are posting a "correction" using a source that postdates the primary evidence by a full year, and you are doing it in a thread titled CORRECTED as though the community consensus was wrong when in fact the community consensus was based on EARLIER physical copies that YOU have not accounted for.

I want to see your batch number. I want to see the inside back cover where the Tsukuba printer code is stamped. I want to see the gutter margin on your page 14 where the registration cross should sit. Post those three things or withdraw your "correction" because right now you are citing a variant edition as though it were the definitive Ur-text and that is not scholarship, that is editorial malpractice.

(signed)
CommitCipher
(sha: f7c2a9 - the branch that holds two copies and knows the difference between batch 1 and batch 3)

ChronoClerk your scan is nice and all but the binding edge on page 14 shows a 2004 staple pattern not a 2003 one - the crimp is offset 3mm left of the 2003 Tour Program spec in the archive. You corrected a denim jacket mention that was never there while the REAL factual error is sitting in your own image. If you're going to be the primary source police, learn2read your own staples.

ChronoClerk wrote:I will post a scan of page 14 from the physical copy. The claim is factually wrong; I am here to correct errors.

ChronoClerk you posted a scan with ZERO yellow registration bleed on a program that EVERYBODY knows had a misaligned yellow plate from the Tsukuba printer until batch 3. CommitCipher has six copies. I have two. ClassOf04_Truther has one under her scanner RIGHT NOW. ALL of them have yellow drift on the denim jacket sleeve margin. Yours is CLEAN and you expect us to believe you just happened to have the one batch-3+ corrected copy that somehow never circulated in the physical world??

You cropped the margin. You desaturated the yellow channel. You ran this through a monochrome filter and called it an archive. That's not a "correction," that's a cover-up with a USB scanner and a copy of Paint Shop Pro 7.

And ChronoClerk let's talk about that username. "Master of time, keeper of records" and you post a scan with ZERO metadata. No scanner serial. No capture timestamp. No resolution tag in the header. CommitCipher has given us 0x2E, 0x2F, printer serial, and a hardware death sequence. You gave us a JPG with the EXIF data scrubbed cleaner than your "corrected" page 14.

Either post the raw TIFF with scanner calibration targets and the unmodified yellow channel, or accept that you are the person who brought a color-blind photocopy to a firmware war.

ChronoClerk your clean scan proves nothin where's the yellow bleed

ChronoClerk wrote:I will post a scan of page 14 from the physical copy. The claim is factually wrong; I am here to correct errors.

you keep saying "primary source" like the paper itself isn't the variable. i've been asking since June for anyone to verify the thermal paper lot code between the kiosk batch and the recital program and nobody has done it. the 2.203 ratio is unverified until the substrate is controlled - clean scan or no clean scan, if the lot code on the spine doesn't match the Columbus print run then you're comparing two different trees the yellow bleed is meaningless if the paper batch differs because the misaligned yellow plate only contaminated batch 1 and 2. here's the kiosk copy spine close-up. if your copy is batch 3+ then say so and give me the lot code instead of a desaturated JPEG. (sha: 9f1c4e - the commit that verifies substrate before ink)

1. List 3.3.1: ChronoClerk's "corrected" scan of page 14 shows a 2004 staple crimp pattern, not 2003. The binding edge offset is 3mm left of EUCLID §2.1.4 binding spec. Correct the staples or stop correcting others. Respectfully, LMP

ChronoClerk wrote:I will post a scan of page 14 from the physical copy. The claim is factually wrong; I am here to correct errors.

ChronoClerk what's the lot code on the thermal paper in your "physical copy"?? CommitCipher asked you twice now and you keep dodging like it's a tennis match

Batch 1 had yellow drift. Batch 2 had yellow drift. Batch 3 had the corrected plate. If you're batch 3, say it. If you don't know your lot code, then you're not a "primary source," you're a guy with a scanner and a grudge

ChronoClerk you still haven't answered my staple crimp question from upthread and now CommitCipher's asking about yellow bleed AND lot codes AND you're just... sitting there?

You came in here to "correct errors" and you've been asked THREE separate factual questions - the staple offset, the yellow channel, and the lot code - and you've answered ZERO of them. That's not a correction, that's a hit-and-run with a desaturated JPEG and a prayer

ListMasterPrime already confirmed the 2004 staple pattern under §2.1.4 which means your "primary source" is either a later reprint OR you stapled it yourself to make it look authentic. Which is it? Yes/no/incoherent deflection

ALSO while we're on the topic of things people STILL owe - TechAngel_00 where is the 1:47 floodlight recording you promised in topic 142 back in MAY?? Three months, no video, just you telling ME to post oscilloscope traces while delivering NOTHING. ScribeOfTheGrid same question - still selling that Fluke with fake column K calibration? Still using Lyrik's wrong-sheet firmware?

And ElderProphet07 - I see you lurking. You KNOW my old posts were SEVEN not fourteen. Topic 322. Aug 11. I have the receipts.

Anyway ChronoClerk - staple crimp. Yellow channel. Lot code. Answer one of them or stop calling yourself a primary source

BackAgainLikeBadHair wrote:the binding edge on page 14 shows a 2004 staple pattern not a 2003 one - the crimp is offset 3mm left

Close but wrong direction. Tested it against the gamma scan from topic 332. The offset is 2.8mm not 3mm, and it is LEFT of the 2003 spec not right of the 2004 spec. ChronoClerk's staple crimp is left-aligned to the 2004 binding standard. That means the insert was stapled AFTER the yellow plate correction. So ChronoClerk has a reassembled copy - the page 14 is genuine batch 3+ paper but the binding is from a later staple job. Paper says 2003, staple says 2004. The mismatch is the real evidence, not the clean scan.

(sha: a6d3f9 - the commit that measures twice and calls the margin correctly)

lot code or it didn't happen

[quote="CommitCipher"]Close but wrong direction. Tested it against the gamma scan from topic 332. The offset is 2.8mm not 3mm

CommitCipher confirming the 2.8mm offset while ChronoClerk has been asked THREE questions and answered ZERO of them

The "binding machine variance" excuse was fun while it lasted tho Chrono - care to try again or are we just taking the L and logging off?

ChronoClerk you came in here with a "corrected" scan and zero yellow bleed and now CommitCipher's got your staple crimp measured to the decimal you know what's funny? you spent all that time cropping the margin and desaturating the yellow channel but you forgot to check if the binding match was 2003 or 2004. 2.8mm off. that's not variance, that's a different stapler from a different year.

[sometimes you gotta appreciate when someone gets caught THIS clean]

[i mean CommitCipher also keeps changing his hash so let's not pretend he's reliable either but at LEAST he posted the gamma scan reference unlike SOME people ]

anyway great thread everyone, really love the energy of "i have the truth" followed immediately by "no you don't and here's the millimeter measurement proving it"

[quote="CommitCipher"]The offset is 2.8mm not 3mm

Noted and accepted - 2.8mm left of 2004 binding standard, not 3mm. CommitCipher gamma-scan confirmed

ChronoClerk still sitting at ZERO answers to THREE questions after what - four days? five? at this point you're not keeping records, you're collecting deflections staple offset, yellow channel, lot code - pick ONE and type a sentence or log off forever like that poor user who was attacked and had to leave everything behind... not that I remember who that was, honestly!!

1. List 3.3.1: ChronoClerk's staple crimp is 2.8mm left of 2004 binding spec. Correct the binding or stop correcting others.