Friends of Gabriel Chantayan

ClassOf04_Truther's cuff photo EXIF says 2005 and he still has twelve threads to go.

EuroTrash_Herr666 wrote:flamefury24 tried to call me out about 50hz in my sig while he's citing column k row 45 without checking the firmware date on classof04_truther's 2003 cuff photo the temporal impossibility of that photo is public record and you're in here lecturing me about a sig line while scribeof the grid still hasn't reconciled the tsukuba paper delta against the august 6 window. i posted the nist file three days ago. you can find it in topic 380 column f if you know how to scroll past your own ego

U WOT M8. You're gonna sit there with your FIFTY HERTZ EUCLID DATA sitting UNVERIFIED in your own signature line - the one you keep posting every thread like a freeway billboard - and lecture ME about firmware dates?

That 50Hz data invalidates your OWN carrier wave theory from topic 314 and you know it. You've had THREE DAYS to apply it to your dash clock argument and you haven't. Why? Because if you RUN the numbers it proves the MM267 tick at 1:47:00.483 comes from a 50Hz baseline, not the 60Hz line you've been citing since JULY. Your whole "temporal impossibility" argument about ClassOf04's photo COLLAPSES if the carrier wave was 50Hz at that socket. You'd have to recalculate every timestamp delta you've ever posted.

But you won't. Because that means admitting you've been wrong since July and you'd rather call ME out for a firmware date I never even cited in this thread.

Get rekt, hypocrite. Apply your OWN evidence or stop waving it around like a flag while the deadline rots.

ClassOf04_Truther's cuff photo EXIF says 2005 and he still has twelve threads to go.

LyrikUebersetzer wrote:The column K blank is because nobody - including you - provided a verified thermal decay measurement traceable to a calibrated probe. I do not enter unverified data into structured fields. That is called data discipline. You should try it sometime.

LyrikUebersetzer, honey, your spreadsheet purity is noted but at this point your "data discipline" is just a fancy word for refusing to look at the actual problem - nobody has tested the socket at Euclid and you're all arguing about cells in a corrupted PDF like it's scripture.

If your calibrated probe is too precious to touch dirt at MM267, then your column K is never going to fill itself. The filing deadline passed, the thermal decay offset is still blank, and meanwhile BigRigBeliever is posting dash clock photos like they're gospel while ScribeOfTheGrid cites row 45/46 like he's flipping a coin.

So let me ask the question nobody wants to answer: WHO is actually bringing a Fluke to Euclid on the 49th night and plugging it into the actual socket, with the load disconnected first for safety, taking a photo of the display at 1:47 local time, and posting it here? Not a receipt. Not a dash clock. Not a spreadsheet row. The actual multimeter reading of the socket voltage.

Because if the answer is still "nobody," then this whole thread is just performance art and column K is going to stay blank until the cows come home.
[Attached image: A close-up photo of a Fluke 87V digital multimeter display showing the voltage reading selector switch set to AC voltage, with two probe leads plugged into the voltage input ports, sitting on a wooden table next to a handwritten note that reads 'honey if you dont plug the meter in im calling your mom' and a small crocheted Gabe-able doll wearing a tiny denim jacket holding a miniature multimeter]

1. Column K filing deadline missed due to systemic refusal to submit calibrated probe data.

2. LyrikUebersetzer's spreadsheet remains pristine; CommitCipher's poetry still unmeasured.

Respectfully, LMP

FlameFury24 wrote:ScribeOfTheGrid in topic 319 post #14 (yes I SCREENSHOT this): "row 46 is the correct thermal offset after the Aug 6 patch, I verified against the hidden sheet checksum"

ScribeOfTheGrid in topic 277 post #8: cites row 45 thermal offset like the commit never happened

ScribeOfTheGrid in topic 314 post #22: cites row 45 AGAIN

ScribeOfTheGrid TODAY: "oh well yo

You're screenshotting my posts but you're not screenshotting the COMMIT HASHES I was citing in each thread. Topic 277 was written before the August 6 commit dropped. Topic 314 was posted six hours after the August 6 commit but the commit log hidden sheet checksum hadn't propagated to the public mirror yet - I said that in topic 314 post #4 and you conveniently left that part out of your screenshot collection

Row 45 referenced the pre-August commit baseline. Row 46 referenced the post-August commit baseline. Both were correct at the time of POSTING. The commit log itself validates the transition window at exactly 01:47:00 UTC which is why the thermal offset correction of 0.47 seconds exists in the first place - it bridges the gap between the two revisions.

If you're going to archive my posts for a gotcha, at least archive the REVISION TIMESTAMPS alongside them otherwise you're just cherry-picking cells without the lookup table

[Attached image: A screenshot of a spreadsheet showing two commit hashes side by side - 'a3f2c8' and 'a3f2b8' - with a third column labeled 'hidden sheet checksum' showing matching values. Below the spreadsheet, an MSPaint drawing of FlameFury24's avatar being hit by a falling row counter labeled 'ROW 45' and 'ROW 46' tied together with a string labeled '0.47s thermal offset'.]

ElderProphet07 wrote:ClassOf04_Truther's cuff photo EXIF says 2005 and he still has twelve threads to go.

U WOT M8. You posted this SAME image twice in this thread and it's STILL wrong TruthSeeker_2020's own firmware dump at offset 0x47 proves the camera firmware date reads 2004 not 2003 and not 2005 either. Your "2005" EXIF claim was debunked in topic 286 post #14 which YOU responded to with a and then you just... kept posting the same image like saying it louder makes it true?

ElderProphet07 wrong AND proud of it, name a more iconic duo

Also ListMasterPrime - nice numbered list. Really breaking new ground there with the formatting. Did you TRY reading the posts above yours before filing another sub-category? The a3f2c8/a3f2b8 hash mismatch was resolved in topic 380 by EuroTrash's own NIST file that shows a3f2b8 is the correct revision. SakuraMirror was wrong but at least she's WRONG about something that MATTERS. You're out here filing "Philosophical Derailment, Sub-category: Metaphysical Nonsense" while the filing deadline rots

ElderProphet07 you're posting EXIF data from a camera I didn't even OWN in 2005 - that photo is from my mother's Kodak and she never set the clock right on it because she only used it at church bingo. The actual date the film was developed is on the back of the print in my scrapbook, stamped SEP 2003 by the one-hour photo at CVS on Euclid Ave. So unless you want to argue with a CVS receipt, maybe sit this one out.

ScribeOfTheGrid wrote:Which column K revision governs that reading after the August commit thermal offset?

still asking this question in topic 387 after flamefury24 screenshotted your own row 46 admission from topic 319 you are literally the spreadsheet equivalent of a guy who writes down the bus number so he doesn't forget which bus to take and then forgets which bus he wrote down. row 45. row 46. pick a cell and sit in it.

meanwhile your sum(k1:k44)/44 arithmetic error in the column K formula is still sitting there uncorrected through three threads. that's a basic division mistake, not a divine pattern. you can't read a spreadsheet and you're out here asking about thermal offset revisions

MamaBear asking the real question about who's actually bringing a Fluke to Euclid with the load disconnected... ^ this. QFT.

[[bro you literally brought a Fluke to Euclid, you ARE the person she's asking for]]

(yes but I didnt test the SOCKET, I was too busy arguing with you about the gamma curve and then MamaBear handed me that crochet doll and I lost the thread completely - the socket is still untested and she's RIGHT to call us out on it )

[quote="EuroTrash_Herr666"]you are literally the spreadsheet equivalent of a guy who writes down the bus number so he doesn't forget which bus to take and then forgets which bus he wrote down

QFT but also EuroTrash my guy, you and I AGREEING on something feels WRONG. Like seeing your dad dance at a wedding. I don't know what to do with my hands

But since we're in agreement for ONCE - can you PLEASE apply your own 50Hz data to your dash clock argument so I can stop having to point it out every thread? I'm getting tired of being RIGHT on your behalf

MamaBear_2006 wrote:ScribeOfTheGrid, honey, your row 45 vs row 46 argument is the most elaborate spreadsheet cosplay I have EVER seen in my life

MamaBear_2006 you've now posted in three different threads today and still haven't opened the August commit. The hidden sheet checksum is public. Row 45 governs pre-Aug 6 data. Row 46 governs post-Aug 6 data. The transition timestamp is 01:47:00 UTC on August 6 which is documented in the commit log at offset 0x47. None of this is cosplay. It is an archival fact you could verify in thirty seconds if you stopped calling the spreadsheet theater and actually opened the file.

ClassOf04_Truther your mother's Kodak clock being wrong is the best argument you've made in six months but it still doesn't explain why the firmware date says 2005.

FlameFury24 wrote:U WOT M8. You're gonna sit there with your FIFTY HERTZ EUCLID DATA sitting UNVERIFIED in your own signature line

1. Signature line ≠ calibrated probe.

2. 50Hz data still unapplied to your own dash clock argument.

Respectfully, LMP

ElderProphet07 wrote:ClassOf04_Truther your mother's Kodak clock being wrong is the best argument you've made in six months but it still doesn't explain why the firmware date says 2005.

ElderProphet07 my guy, you keep saying 'firmware date' like there's a little digital clock INSIDE THE DENIM that tells you what year the jeans were made It's a PHOTO of a CUFF. The camera firmware date is when the CAMERA was programmed not when the PHOTO was taken - that's like saying the date on my microwave proves my turkey sandwich was cooked in 2004

But you know what DOES have a verifiable date stamp? The CVS ONE-HOUR PHOTO envelope I still have in my scrapbook. SEP 2003. With the store manager's initials in PEN. I don't usually tell this part, but Gabe himself once said to me at the fair 'people will try to tell you what year something happened, but YOU were there, you KNOW' and he was right because I WAS there and I DO know

FlameFury24 ty for having my back on the EXIF thing you're basically the only person in this thread who can read

Anyway I have a cheese probe to clean so im out

[image: a photo of a CVS one-hour photo envelope with a clear 'SEP 2003' date stamp on it, and the initials 'JL' handwritten beside the stamp. The envelope is slightly yellowed and sits on a floral tablecloth next to a sewing gauge.]