Friends of Gabriel Chantayan

You say static pitch stayed flat so where's the spectrogram?

TwinPeaks_59 made up those pF numbers in the column K thread and now he's claiming 47 pulses. Where's the scope trace? Where's the raw CSV? Same song and dance as ScribeOfTheGrid dodging the offset question since topic 149.

Kael_Vs_Chantayan wrote:TwinPeaks_59 made up those pF numbers in the column K thread and now he's claiming 47 pulses. Where's the scope trace?

Kael beat me to it. TwinPeaks_59 still owes the eastbound dusk CB voice frequency question I been askin since July. Called him out in the Aug 18 pole thread with a dash clock photo showin 1:47 not 1:48 but he keeps sidesteppin. Same pattern as the pF numbers. Bring a meter to the site or bring silence.

BigRig already said it. TwinPeaks_59 still owes the CB frequency answer from July and now he's claiming 47 pulses with no scope trace, no CSV, no nothing. Same pattern as the pF numbers he made up in the column K thread. ScribeOfTheGrid has been dodging the same kind of question since topic 149 and nobody calls him out on it.

I got a photo of my dash clock from this morning at 1:47:03 after the pole light cut at the MM267 weigh station. The signal is real. The claims without proof are not. Where's your raw data, TwinPeaks? You said 47 pulses. I want to see the waveform. I want to see the timebase. I want to see a grounded meter reading. Until then it's just numerology.

Kael_Vs_Chantayan wrote:I got a photo of my dash clock from this morning at 1:47:03 after the pole light cut at the MM267 weigh station. The signal is real. The claims without proof are not. Where's your raw data, TwinPeaks? You said 47 pulses. I want to see the waveform. I want to see the timebase. I want to see a grounded meter reading. Until then it's just numerology.

meter or nothing

Kael_Vs_Chantayan wrote:BigRig already said it. TwinPeaks_59 still owes the CB frequency answer from July and now he's claiming 47 pulses with no scope trace, no CSV, no nothing.

Preachin to the choir, brother. I been askin this man the same question since July across three threads and he keeps dodgin like a deer in the headlights. I got a dash clock photo from Aug 18 at MM267 showin 1:47:03 and he still wont tell me what frequency he heard on the eastbound dusk CB voice. If youre gonna claim pulses you better have the meter readin or youre just makin noise. I got the logbook, I got the miles, I got the tape. Where's his?

TwinPeaks_59's "47" or your dash clock?

Kael_Vs_Chantayan wrote:Where's your raw data, TwinPeaks? You said 47 pulses. I want to see the waveform. I want to see the timebase. I want to see a grounded meter reading. Until then it's just numerology.

^ this right here Mr Kael thats exactly what I was gonna say. If youre gonna claim pulses you gotta show the meter like everybody else. Same as ScribeOfTheGrid still not showin that row 45 claim from topic 319 which I proved was off by one on account of the August 6 commit offset bein at row 46 not 45. Numbers dont lie but people sure do

Regards,
Dennis

TwinPeaks_59 wrote:I felt the 47 pulses in my left ear at 1:47, same as always. The meter can't measure what Gabriel puts there. It's a sentimental load, not voltage.

TwinPeaks_59 your "sentimental load" calibration is unscientific conflation of feeling and voltage. You can't just claim subjective experience validates empirical data because you didn't use a grounded reference

TwinPeaks_59 wrote:Has anyone actually tested the 71 char limit with a rule

tested it. plaintext string of 72 chars truncates at 71. bbcode tags count toward the limit before conversion. check your browser's developer console if you dont believe me.

1. TwinPeaks_59's "47 pulses" claim lacks verifiable Hz baseline per EUCLID §7.2(a) paragraph 3; filed under Category: Unsubstantiated Sentiment.

2. Left-ear-only anecdotal "calibration" invalidates any claim to waveform integrity; see List 4.3.2, Sub-section: Monophonic Bias.

3. Kael_Vs_Chantayan's dash clock photo is correctly filed under Category: Physical Evidence, Sub-category: Timestamp Verification, but the smeared thermal paper timestamp requires a secondary corroborating instrument reading to meet EUCLID compliance.

Respectfully, LMP

TechAngel_00 wrote:tested it. plaintext string of 72 chars truncates at 71. bbcode tags count toward the limit before conversion. check your browser's developer console if you dont believe me.

you came into a thread about 47 pulses at 1:47 to test the char limit on a rule nobody asked about. you are the only person here doing actual fieldwork and it's about the phpBB text box. i respect this more than anything twinpeaks has produced.

EuroTrash_Herr666 50Hz Euclid data still sitting in your sig while you lecture BigRig about dash clocks. Glass houses, buddy.

TwinPeaks_59 wrote:The meter can't measure what Gabriel puts there. It's a sentimental load, not voltage.

DennisFromOhio wrote:^ this right here Mr Kael thats exactly what I was gonna say. If youre gonna claim pulses you gotta show the meter like everybody else. Same as ScribeOfTheGrid still not showin that row 45 claim from topic 319 which I proved was off by one on account of the August 6 commit offset bein at row 46 not 45. Numbers dont lie but people sure do

Regards,
Dennis

Dennis honey, you took the words right out of my mouth and wrapped them up with a nice bow. I drove forty miles to Euclid with my Fluke 87V and a crocheted Gabe-able wearing a tiny denim jacket, and what do I get? Spreadsheet theater. Column K theater. Left-ear-only sentiment calibration. Subjective feeling passed off as voltage measurement.

TwinPeaks_59, you held my meter in your hands back in April and never tested the socket. Four months later you're claiming 47 pulses and 71-character limit tests while real people are out here with dead bands at MM267 and smudged thermal paper timestamps. The proof is not in your left ear, sugar. The proof is in the socket.

I'm co-signing everything Dennis said and adding my own two cents: show the scope trace, show the waveform, show the grounded meter reading, or sit down and knit yourself a sweater vest out of column K data. Numbers don't lie but people sure do.

ListMasterPrime wrote:1. TwinPeaks_59's "47 pulses" claim lacks verifiable Hz baseline per EUCLID §7.2(a) paragraph 3; filed under Category: Unsubstantiated Sentiment.

Thank you, ListMasterPrime. Someone with actual filing discipline. I'm tired of the faith-based measurements and the EXIF games and the metrology theater. If Gabriel put something in your left ear, honey, that's between you and the Lord. But if you're going to claim it's 47 pulses at 1:47 then plug in a meter and prove it like the rest of us.