Friends of Gabriel Chantayan

Stacked cumulonimbus at 2:11 PM local . Column K row 47 predicted a formation near the September 1st cluster and it hit within 0.3° azimuth. Who else is logging sky data today?

Still no thermistor reading from that parking lot, Scribe

1. Azimuth logged at 147° or 327°?

Scribe you're posting a cloud photo now and claiming column K predicted the azimuth... but you still haven't acknowledged my 2003 hoodie cuff photo with 47 threads per inch from June 2003

I measured that myself with a jeweler's loupe - you can count each thread in the weave grain, it's right there in the archive, 47 tpi plain as day... and you're in here talking about cumulonimbus columns while the physical evidence sits ignored since APRIL

You can SUMIF the sky all you want but a photograph doesn't have hidden rows and it doesn't have version conflicts. It's just threads. 47 of them per inch. From 2003. Before any of this even started.

But sure tell me more about the cloud I guess

^ Scribe got the azimuth within 0.3°... Elder get a thermistor or log off

Scribe still measuring clouds while row 45 remains empty.

ScribeOfTheGrid wrote:Stacked cumulonimbus at 2:11 PM local

Honey that cloud photo timestamp reads 3:47 PM EST, not 2:11, and your UTC math is off by an hour again Sugar, if you can't even line up a cloud column with your own metadata, maybe stop claiming it's azimuth data

Scribe the cloud photo is nice and all but have you ever held a loupe up to a real textile from June 2003 and counted 47 threads per inch with your own eye instead of trusting a spreadsheet cell you didnt write Mine is in the archive and I attached it again so you can't say you didn't see it this time

ScribeOfTheGrid, I am come unto thee with a question that hath been waiting since thread 319, and I will ask it plainly now because the Lord weareth not out his patience forever, and neither do I.

Thou didst post a photograph of a cumulonimbus column at 2:11 PM local, yay, and thou didst claim column K row 47 predicted the formation within 0.3° azimuth. Verily, let us examine the offering. The EXIF data of thy jpeg - for I did download it and inspect it with a tool thou apparently dost not possess - records a capture timestamp of 15:47:23 Eastern. That is 3:47 PM, not 2:11 PM. The difference is one hour and thirty-six minutes, which is not a DST error and is not a timezone correction and is not a rounding difference. It is a lie, or a mistake so profound that it amounteth to the same thing.

Let me be clear: I am not asking thee to explain the discrepancy. I am stating it, and I am watching to see whether thou wilt answer it or whether thou wilt post another cloud photo from a different hour and call it corroboration

And while we are speaking of things that are not what they claim to be: LyrikUebersetzer hath asked four times now about row 45 of thy spreadsheet, which remaineth empty across every version thou hast shared. Four times, Scribe. In thread 319, TechAngel_00 asked about the thermistor calibration protocol. Thou didst dodge. In thread 714, Lyrik asked about the Euripides fragment offset. Thou didst post a shelf number. In thread 389, GraceWarrior_77 still hath not produced her hex dump, and thou art in that thread counting notebook pages as if the number of sheets in a spiral bound notepad were the issue.

But the cloud azimuth is the one I will hold thee to now. The EXIF timestamp is not ambiguous. It is 15:47:23. The column K prediction window was 14:11 to 14:14 per thine own earlier post in topic 638, which I have archived. That window closed seventy-six minutes before thou didst press the shutter.

I say unto thee: either the column is wrong, the timestamp is wrong, or the photograph is not of what thou sayest it is. Pick one. Because verily, the truth shall set thee free - but first it shall embarrass thee greatly.

And for the record: I care not whether the cloud is cumulonimbus or cirrus or a passing flock of geese with good posture. What I care about is whether the man who claimeth to read the grid can read his own camera's clock.

*Proverbs 12:19 - The lip of truth shall be established for ever: but a lying tongue is but for a moment.*

Scribe your EXIF says 3:47 not 2:11 ElderProphet07 already caught you and row 45 is still empty

ScribeOfTheGrid wrote:Stacked cumulonimbus at 2:11 PM local

Scribe's cloud column has more timing issues than my Euclid extension cord collection at least my cord actually exists!!

ElderProphet07 thanks for pulling the EXIF. Honest question: was my camera still stuck on UTC+1 from the July trip? That would make 15:47 UTC+1 = 14:47 UTC = 10:47 AM EST which still doesn't match 14:11 local so I need to check the camera clock when I get home.

BUT if the EXIF timestamp 15:47 is the real capture time, then 15:47 minus 47 minutes = 15:00 exactly, and that's the same 47-minute window that Column K row 79 predicts for the thermal offset correction in the August commit. Correlation doesn't care what clock I was using

I'll post the camera timezone setting in the next hour. Someone hold me to it.

^ this Lyrik on row 45. the column stays blank until someone reads the gamma curve from topic 158 against 4f1a9c7. seventh time.

scribe your camera clock is argument #4 for why column K predicted a thursday in august and there's still no hex dump from grace. at this point the board is a support group for people who believe in empty cells

ScribeOfTheGrid wrote:BUT if the EXIF timestamp 15:47 is the real capture time, then 15:47 minus 47 minutes = 15:00 exactly

so 15:47 minus 47 = 15:00 and you're calling that a correlation and not just... subtraction?

next you'll tell me that 12:00 minus 12 minutes = 11:48 and that's a sign from the printer serial too (sha: fab1e6 - commit message: "fixed off-by-one in timer math")