Good Math/Bad Math

Thursday, May 25, 2006

Magic-23 update: the author responds

I received a response to my post Magic-23 from the author of the article I was mocking. As I did earlier with Berklinski, I think that if the author is willing to take the time to respond to me, it's only fair to let their response be seen by readers. Mr. Osborne took the time to write a very civil response, and so I'm going to post it here, with my own comments at the end. His message is unedited, and quoted verbatim:
Hi Mark,

I read your essay 'Good Math, Bad Math', which criticizes my work on the 23.5-degree references and makes it all look rather silly, which is disappointing really.

I'm not really that interested in the '23' number phenomenon, neither am I "in on a joke", as one of your correspondents states, and neither am I out to exploit anything and make a quick buck.

This is a real phenomenon. I have spent years researching this, and many others have verified my findings.
I think my presentation is well balanced and is merely based on what I have discovered despite my own beliefs, if any.
Someone has to discover and bring attention to this. Surely it was intended that someone should.

Attached is a chapter from my book. This is what all these references are leading to and more.

Also, viewing the images would help. See here, another version.

http://www.freewebs.com/garyosborn/235degrees.htm


Also take a look at this version of the 23.5 Degree presentation on my website.

http://garyosborn.moonfruit.com/revelations

Also I don't have a book entitled 'Revelations'.

So at the end of the day, I am merely bringing attention to the things I have discovered and I don't see that as wrong, and I don't think my findings are "chock full of insanity" either.

Don't want to lecture you Mark, but first and foremost. I'm always careful not to believe in something that will stop me finding other alternatives, and most of the time, and if I search long enough within my own mind, I find that I really don't believe in anything 100%.
I always try to remain neutral and balanced.
We are all prone to experiencing, seeing and believing whatever it is we are focusing on at the time and really because we are creating everything ourselves, and many of us don't realise it.

Read my article The Synchroholoform on my website. There's a "bigger picture" to all this and it appears to be related to the creative nature of our own consciousness and that's something I always consider.

Oh and I too like The Flower Kings and go to see them whenever the opportunity arises - so that's something we have in common.

Kind Regards,
Gary Osborn
My response is going to be brief.

Every crackpot in the world, upon being confronted by a debunker, invariably comes back with some kind of comment about having an open mind. Having an open mind is important - but so is being skeptical. There's a lot of gibberish out there, and there are a lot of people who are either wrong, crazy, or deliberately deceptive: you should always be open to new ideas, but at the same time, you have to look at them very carefully. The reason that I think the 23.5 degree stuff is so goofy isn't because I don't have an open mind - it's because it doesn't meet the test of credibility.

For it to be believable, I would need to accept:

  • That you can, looking at a painting, distinguish between the
    "perspective angle" of 22.5 degrees, and the axis angle of 23-23.5 degrees.
  • That painters throughout history could both distinguish and paint angles so accurately that they could deliberately make a line between 1/2 and 1 degree different from the standard perspective angle.
  • That there was such a threat from the church that this knowledge had to be kept secret, but at the same time, it was so widespread that there are dozens of different painters and architects who all not only knew about it, but visibly inserted it in their work.
I don't buy that, at all.

But it gets worse: to get to your conclusion about a catastrophe that pushed the earth onto its tilted axis, I would have to accept:
  • Our understanding of gravity - which tests out accurately to a incredible degree - is entirely wrong. We can plan space probe trajectories that do double gravitational slingshots and wind up in exactly the right position - travelling millions of miles, and yet reaching a very precise destination with near-perfect accuracy.
  • The stability of the solar system is an illusion. The fact that we have a uniform ecliptic plane, with a regular pattern of near-circular orbits is something close to impossible to explain mathematically if we assume that there was a catastrophic change in the solar system during the period of human history.
  • Something drastic enough to tilt the earth on its axis and reconfigure the entire solar system occurred, and yet life on earth was pretty much unaffected; and the event left no geological evidence at all.
  • A catastrophic change occurred recently enough that people like the Egyptians were able to record it; and yet there are no explicit records of the event - not from the Egyptians, the Babylonians, the Chinese - none of them recorded it in anything like explicit terms - all just used highly ambiguous metaphorical allegories.
Nope. No way this is credible - physics, mathematics, geology, and history all argue against it.

36 Comments:

  • Mark,

    Thanks for responding. I thought you would have responded privately, but you decided to respond publically, which is OK with me. Long one this, but I feel that to bring some balance to this, certain things needed to be emphasised and explained to you.

    You write:

    "Every crackpot in the world, upon being confronted by a debunker, invariably comes back with some kind of comment about having an open mind. Having an open mind is important - but so is being skeptical".

    Agreed, but you are clearly referring to me when you say "crackpot" - and I think that shows what sort of person you are.
    This "us and them" - "crackpots and healthy skeptics" - "scientists and mystics" mentality is just one of many problems in our societies steming from human dual perception.
    I too am skeptical about a lot of things, so I find it amusing when use the tactic of labelling me a "crackpot" to put yourself above me in your argument.


    You write:

    "For it to be believable, I would need to accept:



    That you can, looking at a painting, distinguish between the
    "perspective angle" of 22.5 degrees, and the axis angle of 23-23.5 degrees."

    I have done and do. The angle I am looking for and finding is exactly 23.5 Degrees - which it almost always is. That was the reason why I mentioned the 'perspective angle' of 22.5 degrees which people say is often used in certain paintings.
    However, I haven't found many paintings with the angle of 22.5 degrees, and so this 'angle of perspective' argument does not hold water with me. Others can check this if they so wish - again the reason why I mentioned it, so as to bring some balance.

    You write:

    "That painters throughout history could both distinguish and paint angles so accurately that they could deliberately make a line between 1/2 and 1 degree different from the standard perspective angle".

    So you are saying that it was/is impossible for people to do this? Well I don't buy that.

    You write:

    "That there was such a threat from the church that this knowledge had to be kept secret, but at the same time, it was so widespread that there are dozens of different painters and architects who all not only knew about it, but visibly inserted it in their work".

    Yes, that appears to be the case - even contemporary artists. Meaning that referencing these angles appears to be a tradition that has been passed down from age to age - generation to generation.

    At the end of the day, if you or others don't want to "buy it" for whatever reason, well that's OK with me too, but I would ask you and others to also check what I have found, as many have, and agree with me that there is a phenomenon here: that certain artists and other people throughout history, appear to be bringing attention to these particular angles in many different sources and for a reason.
    I merely speculate on what I think that reason could be - granted - and its natural that I would put forward my own interpretation.

    I take it that you never read the chapter I sent you or couldn't access it.

    You write:

    ". . . you should always be open to new ideas, but at the same time, you have to look at them very carefully."

    I have, and you have not seen everything. It would be difficult for me to place everything in an article. The article was designed to bring attention to this first, and of course I anticipated people like yourself who would try to "shoot me down", however, that's not really a problem for me because I do have a mountain of evidence to back-up what I'm saying. 'Proof' is another thing and so my research is ongoing. What I didn't like about your comments is the intellectual smugness you expressed while at the same time there was nothing constructive in your critique. Amusing, but it also got right up my nose because it was so typical of someone dumping on someone's work to just show off. Again, nothing really constructive.


    You write:

    "Nope. No way this is credible - physics, mathematics, geology, and history all argue against it".

    Yes I understand all that and a lot of that can be argued against in turn as people have and are still doing. But that's not really an argument I want to get involved in.

    You see, one thing you don't appear to have noticed in my article, is that I state that its not my own belief that the earth was upright and had tilted due to some catastrophe. I am merely saying that this is what we are being told and by people who believe(d) it. And so I am more interested in why certain believe(d) it, and this would explain all these references to this angle. And what's more the angles I have seen in the paintings are spot on 23.5 degrees and 52 degrees. And these two angles appear over and over again together. Check them out yourself. Look for them!

    I will quote from my own article:

    ------------------------------

    'If the earth did not tilt from an upright position, and had never been vertical, then to explain these references, it appears that such a scenario was nevertheless believed by many to have happened, or perhaps the vertical position of the earth was possibly an ‘ideal’ that only existed in the mind of man and largely based on ‘upright’ spiritual ideas and concepts that are shamanic in origin. I cannot stress this enough, because it’s not my intention to prove that the earth was once upright, nor my own belief that it ever was – only to bring attention to the evidence that it was once ‘believed’, and perhaps still believed that this was once a reality and/or should be or will be again'.

    -----------------------------

    The following is taken from the page on my website:

    http://www.freewebs.com/garyosborn/235degrees.htm


    I have added this section to show that a lot of people today and in the past, have imagined, considered, theorised, suggested and believed, that the earth was upright at one time and that this was what the myths and stories relating to a "Golden Age" in our past according to many different cultures, are all about.

    I really don't have to put this theory forward myself, as enough people have done this already. I only bring attention to it; and for me such notions and beliefs make sense when we find these references to the angle of 23.5 in these paintings and other sources - especially those on the theme of 'death', 'enlightenment' and Arcadia.

    This list is only a small percentage of the many sources I have come across in the course of my research.





    Hamlet's Mill An Essay Investigating the Origins of Human Knowledge And It's Transmission Through Myth.

    Giorgio de Santillana and Hertha von Dechend,. (Godine, 1998. First published in1969).



    Arktos: The Polar Myth in Science, Symbolism, and Nazi Survival.

    Joscelyn Godwin, (Adventures Unlimited Press, August 1996).



    Review of Arktos by Todfox. See here:

    "This book details mythology surrounding the earth's poles: magnetic, celestial, symbolic and otherwise. It explores the idea that there was an ancient "Golden Age" when the earth was upright on its axis and life was easy and plentiful, as well as the mythological 'Fall from Grace' of the earth itself when it slipped to its present position. Theories of pole shifts, tumbling earths (so our orientation to the sun is constantly changing), slipping mantles, and the hollow earth are all covered in detail. Godwin traces these related myths from some of its earliest sources, through its darkest hours as it was used by the occult Thule Society of the Nazis and on into the modern era. Polar fiction of Poe, Lovecraft and others also receives detailed treatment"




    Cataclysm: Compelling Evidence of a Cosmic Catastrophe in 9500 B.C.

    D. S. Allan & J. B. Delair, (Bear & Company, 1997).



    Catastrophobia: The Truth Behind Earth Changes

    Barbara hand Clow, (Bear & Company, 2001).



    Uriel's Machine: Uncovering the Secrets of Stonehenge, Noah's Flood and the Dawn of Civilization

    Christopher Knight and Robert Lomas. (Fair Winds Press, 2001).



    The Raising of the Djed: Re-membering the Center

    Moira Timms.



    A Mirror for Everyman: A View of Hamlet's Midnight

    Mather Walker.



    Ragnarok: The Age of Fire and Gravel

    Ignatius Donnelly, author of Atlantis: The Antediluvian World.



    Extract from Chapter VII. The Drift A Gigantic Catastrophe. 1883:

    "They [philosophers] admit that the poles have not always been as they are now, and that some terrible shock displaced them, changing at the same time the inclination of the axis of the rotation of the earth.".



    Troubled Times: Pole Shifts

    Slugga.



    Extract:

    "The paradisical Eden, Asgard, Meru, or Airyana Vaejo are said to have enjoyed a perennial spring-like climate, despite their traditional northern or polar location - indicating that the axis must have been more or less upright".




    Beginning, End, Eternity

    B. Fox



    Extract:

    "Perhaps the advanced civilization of Atlantis was the start of legends of this golden age. At that time the Earth was in an upright position, not tilted on its axis and had perfect weather. There was one huge land mass and a small sea and rivers and lakes. Angels and the humans were probably huge as were the animals (dinosaurs) at that time. The oxygen levels would have been much higher allowing for great growth and long life. There was also a water wall between Earth and space as protection from harmful rays".



    Cutting of the Orm

    Tracy R. Twyman.



    Appropriate extract from Tracy's article:

    "Whatever the case, I began to wonder, for the sake of the perfect calendar, what it would be like if the Earth had a perfectly circular orbit. Furthermore, assuming that the cataclysm had also tilted the axis of the Earth, I factored in the possibility that the Earth’s axis may have been perfectly perpendicular to its orbital plane.

    "So what would happen? Well, as you may have already surmised, such conditions would create a virtual Paradise on Earth, a true golden age. There would be no seasons. The middle portions of the Earth would be perfectly temperate all year round. Daylight and nighttime would always last for the same amount of time every day. At the equator, the Sun would always pass precisely overhead at midday. At the poles it would always be on the horizon. Duncan Steele writes of it in Marking Time:

    “Imagine yourself on this idealized Earth. Each time Earth spins on its axis, the stars do a complete loop around the sky. In essence these form a stationary backdrop against which one may measure the spin of the Earth.” Scholars have pondered for centuries how it is that ancient man could have acquired the astounding astronomical understanding that he had, with some cultures seeming to have master the concepts of the spherical nature of the Earth, the other planets, and their relationships to the Sun - things that our culture only surmised millennia later with the assistance of telescopes. But during this proposed golden age, these properties would have been easy to observe with the naked eye. Also, because the day is always the same length, there would be no solstices, just a perpetual equinox, and without the wobble in the Earth’s axis, there would be no Precession of the Ages.

    Hmmmm."



    Mysteries of the Inner Earth

    David Pratt.



    Extract:

    " . . . terms such as 'the blessed land of eternal light and summer' and 'the land of the eternal sun' [The Secret Doctrine 2:401fn.] could refer either to the polar land at a time when the earth's axis was more or less upright and the polar regions were in sunlight, or to the inner central land if the earth's interior is self-luminous or contains a central sun".



    Has Nibiru Planet X Been Sighted?

    Laura Knight Jadczyk.



    Extract:

    "The importance of this star is that it was referred to as the `Mill Peg' and with the other stars surrounding the North Pole, was called the "hole of the mill peg because they represent as it were, a hole (the axle ring) in which the mill axle turns since the axle of the equator (the polar axis) is to be found in this region, fairly close to the star Al-jadi (Polaris). There is a myth associated with this that the Mill Peg which held the earth upright had broken loose and the polar axis had tilted.

    Now the serpent connected to the Garden of Eden story and Draconis was the old, evil serpent. The constellation Draco and Hercules and Ophiuchus and Serpens are associated in ancient mythology, illustrating the struggle between mankind and serpentkind. In ancient times, Draconis was on top of the World-tree and laid in the same plane as the equator, so the days and nights were equal year round - a true `paradise'. When the axis of the earth tilted, the `Serpent was cast down'."



    Emails sent to Andrew Raymond - author of Secrets of the Sphinx



    Extract from an email by Damon: 4/23/2001

    "Symbolism alone is sufficient to cause one to link the lion and man components of the Sphinx (and some say components of the Face as well) to the Age of Leo and the Age of Aquarius respectively. These two ages are when Orion "sees" Earth's axis of rotation "upright" with respect to the plane of the ecliptic when Orion, Earth, Sun, and Galactic Center are all in alignment at winter solstice. Book in progress on this "huge" story."



    Note by Gary Osborn.

    I am interested in this quote, because it is my understanding that the monumental complex at Giza - the pyramids and the sphinx - acts as a 'precessional clock' to chart the cycle of precession, and perhaps because it became necessary after the catastrophe that tilted the earth - if true. See articles on this page: - especially Giza: 10704 BC - 2175 AD.



    Also, my attention was brought to this news article by my co-author Philip Gardiner:



    Pyramid is Giant Farming Clock

    John Harlow, Los Angeles.




    Extract:

    "On a barren hillside just north of Lima, he had found an observatory more than 4,000 years old that had been built by a lost civilisation with astonishing sophistication.

    "The oldest astronomical observatory in the Americas, it told farmers exactly when to sow their crops. Its discovery has provided startling clues to the way in which early man learnt to cultivate his fields".



    Note by Gary Osborn:

    Some researchers have put forward evidence that the Deluge was related to the tilt of the earth’s axis - or that it was believed it was. If so, then afterwards man had to learn agricultural skills in sync with the newly acquired seasons, and this scenario is suggested in Joscelyn Godwin’s book Arktos.

    Godwin quotes Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712–1778) who believed that the earth’s axis tilted from the vertical in one fell swoop – bringing an end to the “Golden Age” and initiating the cycle of the seasons, therefore forcing man to measure time by the stars, the natural celestial markers of time, and learn the necessary agricultural skills needed for his own survival.



    ‘In the Golden Age, “Time” in all its plenitude was closer to Eternity than to duration. On coming out of paradise, we fell into time, and our ongoing flight is merely our Fall, gradually accelerating. Our measuring instruments are the signs of our anguish. A being that lives in harmony with the environment in which it flourishes has no need for a wrist watch: the courses of the stars are enough. It experiences growing old only as a happy ripening; it participates in the music of the spheres’.


    So, could it be that the pyramids and these stone circles and other similar temples were set up to measure time? and for both agricultural and religious/ritual/magic reasons? Its an interesting hypothesis and one which would surely be worth looking into.

    The book Uriel's Machine by Christopher Knight and Robert Lomas now comes to mind. In the 'Book of Enoch', we are told that Enoch was taken to different location around the earth by the Angels (Shining Ones) and shown these devices (circles and standing stones - hence the title "Uriel's Machine") that measured the Solstices and Equinoxes? Surely this would have been implemented to mark time after the earth tilted and man fell into the cycles of time - if indeed it did tilt.

    Regards,
    Gary

    By Blogger Gary Osborn, at 10:46 AM  

  • gary:

    No, I am *not* clearly referring to you when I said crackpot in the opening of my comments. (Which is not to say that I don't think you're a crackpot, but that's not what that sentence says.) It *is*, however, a definite fact in my experience that the "open mind" argument is a warning sign: whenever someone with a bogus argument that they are deeply personally committed to has the bogosity of their argument pointed out to them, they respond with "you need to open your mind", or some variation thereof.

    I stick by something a rabbi I used to know taught me: there are three ways of listening to an argument: with a closed mind; with an open mind; and with your brains dribbling out your ears. I try to be in that middle category: I look at the evidence and the arguments, independent of my preconceptions, my opinion of the author, etc.

    My point about the angles is very simple: 22.5 degrees and 23.5 degrees are incredibly close. Take out a yardstick and lay it on your floor, and look at the angle it makes relative to your level. Now, move the tip of it by 1/4 of an inch. *That* is the difference between 22.5 and 23.5 degrees. Your entire argument is based on the ability of both you, and numerous artists throughout history being able to make a distinction *that* small.

    Most paintings aren't precise enough for a line to be perfectly *straight* to that precision, much less to match some specific peculiar *angle*.

    Just going that far - getting no deeper in the questionable claims of your theory - it's not credible. Humans are *not* that precise. And take away that fundamental claim - that that specific angle is hidden in plain sight all over the place, and your argument falls apart.

    How do you claim that the artists were able to distinguish between 22.5 and 23.5 degrees? Were they sitting at their easels with rulers and protractors?

    By Blogger MarkCC, at 11:51 AM  

  • Mark,
    I couldn't even get through the whole comment here without scrolling past large sections.
    Also, I'm sure that once you start looking for this angle (or any other one) specifically, that you will be able to 'detect' it in a lot of paintings, just by pure chance. Of course you are right in that distinguishing between 22.5 and 23.5 degrees is difficult.

    You may not have intended 'crackpot' to refer to Mr. Osborn, but I think that shoe fits.

    By Blogger gravitybear, at 1:33 PM  

  • Mark,

    You are so wrong.

    You write:

    My point about the angles is very simple: 22.5 degrees and 23.5 degrees are incredibly close. Take out a yardstick and lay it on your floor, and look at the angle it makes relative to your level. Now, move the tip of it by 1/4 of an inch. *That* is the difference between 22.5 and 23.5 degrees. Your entire argument is based on the ability of both you, and numerous artists throughout history being able to make a distinction *that* small.

    Most paintings aren't precise enough for a line to be perfectly *straight* to that precision, much less to match some specific peculiar *angle*.

    Just going that far - getting no deeper in the questionable claims of your theory - it's not credible. Humans are *not* that precise. And take away that fundamental claim - that that specific angle is hidden in plain sight all over the place, and your argument falls apart.

    How do you claim that the artists were able to distinguish between 22.5 and 23.5 degrees? Were they sitting at their easels with rulers and protractors?

    -------------------------------

    I would like you to see an example of what you are saying.

    See here:

    http://www.freewebs.com/garyosborn/225and235.htm

    I have placed here just one example.

    Many of the linear objects I have analyzed 'close-up' in these paintings are 23.5 degrees exactly - not 22.5.

    I shall leave these images on my website for a limited time only. This is only one small segment of the detailed code in this painting that led me to the encoded information about the earth's axis in the geometrical structure of the Great Pyramid.
    This is Nicolas Poussin's Self Portrait 1650.
    You may ask how did Poussin know this information was encoded in the Great Pyramid? Well some research into his background reveals evidence as to how he could have known this, and I reveal this in my book.

    The ring on Poussin's finger contains a four-sided stone which is shaped like a pyramid.
    The goddess on the canvas behind him is wearing a diadem containing an 'all-seeing eye'. Now the symbolic link between these two items would be obvious to many people.
    But I will spare you the explanations on this, and just use this as an example of what you are saying and to show you that you are wrong!

    The angle between the centre of the ring (being the apex of the pyramid in the ring) and the centre of the 'all seeing eye' in the crown of the goddess is exactly 23.5. I have placed the angle of 22.5 beginning from the centre of the ring and it falls below the centre of the eye in the crown. Indeed the gap between both these angles is quite large if we are talking about accuracy.

    Now, if the earth's axis was 22.5 degrees instead of 23.5 degrees and I used this angle on this painting to find a reference to the obliquity of the earth's axis at 22.5, I would have to discard it, as it would be obvious that the angle between the ring and the eye in the crown is not 22.5.
    However, the earth's axis is 23.5 and so is the angle between the centre of the pyramid ring and the centre of the eye in the crown.
    And again I would like to show you the whole code here, which would be further evidence or even proof of what I am saying about these references - but I choose to leave that for the book. I don't want to give everything away do I?
    Especially to people who refuse to see it or appreciate it.

    Face it Mark, you are wrong, and really you opened a "can of worms" for yourself in attacking what I present in my article - which only touches on what I would consider to be a well-researched and extensive work.

    Try looking for these references yourself, I would wager that you would soon change your mind if you are honest with yourself.

    Regards,
    Gary

    By Blogger Gary Osborn, at 2:18 PM  

  • Gravitybear,

    Bad timing. As for the "shoe fitting", I would say you put your foot right in it.

    I have proven Mark wrong with one example. Would you like to see more?
    Well buy the book.

    And having to scroll through gaps in my post, I'm sure that was an inconvenience for you, but it really says nothing against what I am saying and instead just shows you have no patience. Shame.

    All the best to you,
    Gary Osborn

    By Blogger Gary Osborn, at 2:32 PM  

  • Gary:

    First - I don't know if that's an eye on the crown. Perhaps it's just to relatively low resolution of the images you're using, but to me, that looks more like pixellation of the digitized image than an eye. I looked for better quality images, and found one at http://www.wga.hu/art/p/poussin/4/37selfpo.jpg; that doesn't particularly look like an eye to me. I also copied the best quality image I could find on google, and I get an angle of just a hair under 25 degrees (24.8 degrees according to my software.)

    Even supposing that I'm wrong and you're right WRT this image, you haven't bothered to answer how these medieval painters were figuring out the perfect 23.5 degree angle. Like I asked before - were they standing at their easels with protractors? This is a really important issue - you're demanding a spectacular amount of accuracy, a degree of accuracy which is impossible to do freehand. Look at that painting, and explain *how* the painter was able to find the exact 23.5 degree angle to position the "eye"?

    I think that you're just experience apophenia. Humans have a way of naturally looking for patterns. If we're looking for something, we'll find it. Witness the dozens of "jesus images" that people find in everything from pierogies to treebark; or the other "2/3/5" stuff that I linked to along with your stuff in my original post. When you're looking for a specific pattern, you're likelyto find it. You're picking out two very innocuous features of a painting: a ring and some blurred feature on a crown, because they fit what you're looking for. If I look at 100 random paintings with a protractor marked at 23.5 degrees, looking for things that fit that angle, by golly, I'll be able to find them. And I'll be able to do the same with 12 degrees, 15 degrees, 28 degrees, 52 degrees, 88 degrees, etc.

    Just for example, after I typed the 12 degrees above, I went back to poussin image. If you draw a straight line from the center of the "eye" on the crown to the tip of his nose, you get an angle of precisely 12 degrees. Or how about exactly 36 degrees - a number with great mystical significance to Jews? A line from the center of the woman's eye to the peak of the part of his hair is exactly 36 degrees.

    By Blogger MarkCC, at 3:37 PM  

  • I've heard the open/closed-minded non-argument quite a lot, myself. It sets off a lot of alarms in my baloney detection kit.

    By Blogger Bronze Dog, at 2:08 PM  

  • One issue that I haven't seen addressed, though I confess I tend to skim stuff like this guy: Why would painters use this complex symbology using numerology? Why not just paint paintings, instead of leaving this magical code out for all the numerologists in the world to decipher?

    Of course, the way the human mind works, even if they did paint uncoded pictures, someone would keep chugging until they found something they wanted to see. This could be a case of Texas Sharpshooter as well: Come up with a magic cipher and look at paintings until you find one that coincidentally matches.

    Also, if the artists used some ultraprecise method to make those angles, there'd be evidence like indentations in the canvas, faint guideline sketches underneath the paint, etc.

    By Blogger Bronze Dog, at 3:29 PM  

  • bronze:

    You've hit on exactly one of the things that I find most wacky about this stuff. Why would painters through the ages go to the trouble of sitting in front of their canvases with protractors (that's what Osborne claims on his site) to embed these magic angles?

    The line that the church is out to get people who reveal the secret knowledge just doesn't fly. Either it's a secret that needs to be hidden; or it's not a secret. It's the reason why elaborate conspiracies never work: once too many people know, it's not a secret anymore. All you need is one person to reveal it, and the game's over. But Osborne's argument requires that this secret has been kept by hundreds of people for hundreds to thousands of years.

    By Blogger MarkCC, at 3:43 PM  

  • And is there some vast freemasonesque conspiracy by all of the painters to pull something like this off?

    By Blogger Rev. BigDumbChimp, at 3:43 PM  

  • All valid questions.

    I'm pleased to see that you are now beginning to discuss this properly and are now asking yourselves some well thought-out questions about this phenomenon.
    And despite what you think or say, it is indeed a 'real' phenomenon.
    Others I know have found these references themselves - again in paintings that are related by theme.

    For instance, explain the angles of the limbs of the dead - and only the limbs of the dead which are all 23.5 degrees - in the painting of the 'Dance of Death' in figure 3 shown here:

    http://www.freewebs.com/garyosborn/235degrees.htm

    There are many more like this - and all related by theme as I have said.

    I don't have all the answers; but from what I discovered in Poussin's paintings, I was able to make a major discovery about the Great Pyramid which cannot be dismissed lightly - and all mathematically sound.

    What we have here is a code, which has been repeated over again and again in many different sources and some, in different ways - as simple as that.

    Gary Osborn

    By Blogger Gary Osborn, at 6:13 PM  

  • It kind of reminds me of a person in a mental institution who claimed everyone who had a 5 in their car's license plate was part of the evil conspiracy.

    By Blogger Bronze Dog, at 6:20 PM  

  • Limbs of the dead thing: Seems like you've got a lot of room to play with. Especially since on some of those, you're not going down the center of the limb. That's got to take you at least a full degree off in places.

    The repetition doesn't really mean a thing if it's so easily shoehorned.

    Still unanswered question: Why go through all the trouble of painting those very specific angles?

    On the pyramids: Remember your significant digits in those calculations.

    By Blogger Bronze Dog, at 6:34 PM  

  • It reminds you of that does it Bronze Dog?

    What I have stated in writing, or the actual paintings and sources themselves?
    http://www.freewebs.com/garyosborn/goodgeometrybadgeometry.htm

    By Blogger Gary Osborn, at 6:54 PM  

  • Bronze Dog writes:

    "Limbs of the dead thing: Seems like you've got a lot of room to play with. Especially since on some of those, you're not going down the center of the limb. That's got to take you at least a full degree off in places".

    Wrong! The angle of 23.5 degrees are all going through the centre of each limb except one.

    BD writes:

    "The repetition doesn't really mean a thing if it's so easily shoehorned".

    Crap! and "clutching at straws" if this statement is based on your wrong statement given above.

    BD writes:

    "Still unanswered question: Why go through all the trouble of painting those very specific angles?"

    Wrong! this was answered - (although it is my own interpretation) - in my article 23.5 degrees and also in 'Good Geometry, Bad Geometry'.

    BD writes:

    "On the pyramids: Remember your significant digits in those calculations".

    Really. Thank you for pointing that out.

    By Blogger Gary Osborn, at 7:12 PM  

  • Those lines still don't look like they're all going through the center of those limbs. If you'd like to show otherwise, get a higher resolution image with close-ups. Also, I'd like to know how you calculated the center of the limbs.

    And why draw an uncentered line for one? Isn't that dishonest?

    I'll skim for the answer to the why question, but I don't see any honest reason not to leave it here. I suspect it'll be immensely silly.

    By Blogger Bronze Dog, at 12:41 AM  

  • Seems there was even more text than I remembered from last time. Still nothing more than the usual backwards-working apophenia in the portions I read.

    Still wasn't able to find the reason for the angle thing in all that text. If it's a secret, there's no reason to display it. If it's hints, why do it in a way that's so subtle as to be indistinguishible from noise?

    By Blogger Bronze Dog, at 12:56 AM  

  • From where I come from, people would say you are talking 'bollocks' Bronze Dog.
    Anyone can see that the 23.5-degree angles are going through the centre of the limbs. And I'm not being "dishonest" with that 'single one' because 23.5 degrees is the angle of the bottom outline of the thigh. I added that in for good measure. I needn't have added it. But again, when all is said and done, anyone - even a half-blind person can see that all these limbs are angled at 23.5 degrees - maybe not as precise as some of the other paintings I have looked at - but THIS WAS FROM THE 16TH CENTURY.

    I'm going to show - if I haven't already Bronze Dog - that you and Mark are amateurs (a bit "wet behind the ears") and your debunking comments aren't worth "Jack". They are desperate attempts by goofy miswired minds to deny and denigrate what anyone can clearly see. In fact because your silly agenda is to now to prove me wrong no matter what, which would be irrational and really because Mark's own integrity is on the line (unlike you he doesn't hide behind a moniker) your arguments are now going against any common sense and you are "clutching at straws".
    Its so typical how people who pride themselves on being "skeptical" about everything will resort to picking on details that are unrealistic and absurd when there really isn't anything they can disprove.

    Another thing that happens is that when people like you are failing in your arguments - and let's face it Mark hasn't really come up with anything that proves this is all crap and I doubt you will either - you resort to personal attacks.

    Mark sent me a personal email calling me an "asshole" and accusing me of "hiding away" on my website - as if I have a binding written contract with him. I wasn't hiding anyway. The truth is, I came on this blog in the first place to defend myself and this research when I needn't have done and could have just ignored it. I'm certainly not bothered by your comments, or your arguments because up untill now, what I have read is amateurish and expected.

    Well I'm here now and I'm going to bring it all to Mark's "doorstep", and show 'where' and 'how' he was wrong in most, if not all his half-baked arguments and criticisms.

    So bring it on. I know I'm correct about this, because these 23.5-degree references are there and are as clear as day in the real world, and I have all the evidence at hand - although there is much in my research which I have decided to hold back on until a later date - as is my right.
    But I warn you, although its all been quite amusing guys, my patience is now wearing thin, because your arguments are ridiculous and "not even wrong" and what I would expect from a young budding debunker of the age of ten.

    Gary

    By Blogger Gary Osborn, at 4:38 AM  

  • Right Mark,
    You accuse me of hiding away on my website, instead of confronting you head-on on your forum, well I'm here now. Let's look at two or three of your recent arguments - desperate as they are - and show how wrong you are.

    Mark Chu-Carroll writes:

    "First - I don't know if that's an eye on the crown. Perhaps it's just to relatively low resolution of the images you're using, but to me, that looks more like pixellation of the digitized image than an eye. I looked for better quality images, and found one at http://www.wga.hu/art/p/poussin/4/37selfpo.jpg that doesn't particularly look like an eye to me".

    I would agree that the close-up image of the crown could be better, but its been difficult to find one as yet. In fact the image of the painting that you have given me the URL to, is the version of the painting I used for the close-up. Your statement "it doesn't look like an eye to me" is amazing and typical of debunkers - but its really a desperate attempt at this stage to undermine the whole thing. Even in the close-up one can clearly see the white of the eye around the dark pupil, and even the folds of the upper and lower lids. In any case, I have been to the Louvre and have seen this painting close up and I noted then that this is indeed an eye - and a reference to the 'All-Seeing Eye'.

    Further confirmation is given in this detailed description of the painting. Source:

    http://arts.guardian.co.uk/portrait/story/0,,804750,00.html

    Distinguishing features: "Poussin looks at us with terrible intensity. He is apparently walled in by his art: three canvases are stacked between him and the doorway. The furthest is hidden; the middle one has a woman wearing a crown with an eye on it, being embraced by someone she smiles at with recognition; the front canvas is blank except for the words, "Portrayal of Nicolas Poussin of Les Andalys, done at Rome during the Jubilee Year of 1650, aged 56 years." Poussin wears a dark toga and rests his right hand on a sketchbook. On his little finger is a gold ring with a pyramid-shaped diamond glinting black and white.

    "Each detail cries out for decoding, and each has been interpreted in multiple ways. The woman with the crown has been seen as a personification of painting as the supreme art and as Amicitia, friendship. The diamond has been taken as a reference to 17th-century optics, or as a symbol of Constantia, strength of character".

    Knowing what I now know, I would have to say that the interpretations given in this descriptic are quite lame and remain on the surface for the uninitiated public. The pyramid and the eye are deeply connected and were meant to be connected together in this painting - as shown. Is it a coincidence that they are connected by the angle of 23.5 degrees exactly - being the angle of the celestial axis of the earth?

    Mark:

    "I also copied the best quality image I could find on google, and I get an angle of just a hair under 25 degrees (24.8 degrees according to my software.)"

    I really cannot accept this having examined most if not all the images of this painting I have found, which always result in the angle of 23.5 degrees - and the software I am using is expensive and accurate. Also, the version of this painting which I chose to present the code hiding within it and which I have now deciphered in full, was the best image in terms of proper perspective - being the version shown above. It also shows the whole of the canvas - i.e., the unpainted edges which are usually hidden by the frame.

    Mark:

    "Even supposing that I'm wrong and you're right WRT this image, you haven't bothered to answer how these medieval painters [Baroque period Mark] were figuring out the perfect 23.5 degree angle. Like I asked before - were they standing at their easels with protractors? This is a really important issue - you're demanding a spectacular amount of accuracy, a degree of accuracy which is impossible to do freehand. Look at that painting, and explain *how* the painter was able to find the exact 23.5 degree angle to position the "eye"?"

    A weak argument. Answer: Through using a protractor and ruler. Actually, protractors and rulers existed at that time and earlier. See here:

    http://www.geometricum.com/Pic_of_Month_112005.htm

    Gary Osborn

    By Blogger Gary Osborn, at 4:48 AM  

  • gary:

    If you want to bring up comments from personal email, how about being honest about the context? (It was in response to Gary's implication on his website that I'm using a pseudonym, which pissed me off.)

    WRT to the image on the crown. I haven't had the privilege of being in Paris (short of a 10 minute transfer between flights on my way to a conference on Toulouse), so I haven't seen the image. I'm looking at images on the web, and the resolution is lacking. Certainly the zoomed image that you use is absolutely inadequate for perceiving any of the details you're talking about - it's so pixellated that any fine features are lost. It *still* doesn't look like an eye to me in the images I can find; it looks like a round feature of some kind, but I can't see any more detail than that. I'm perfectly willing to concede the point given the third-party verification that it is an eye.

    WRT the angles: it doesn't take expensive software to measure angles. And I *still* get 24.8 degrees.

    You're extremely touchy about measurement issues, throwing tantrums rather than just answering the question. For example, I've asked several times about just *how* you claimed the artists measured angles of precisely 23.5 degrees. It took three repetitions of the question to you get you to say "protractor and ruler". Why? It's a natural question with an apparently simple answer. Why make such a big deal out of a simple question, rather than just answering it?

    Similarly - why are you throwing tantrums and insults at BronzeDog over the issue of how you measure the angles of limbs? There are perfectly reasonable questions about how you take your measurements. In fact, in the kind of thing that you're talking about, those are some of the most important questions to ask; the only way to rule out apophenia is to demonstrate a careful and rigorous approach to measurement. If you're demanding that a difference of 1/2 of one degree is significant, then eyeballing a centerline isn't sufficient. As another commenter said: don't forget to keep track of significant digits; you need to show that your measurement techniques are sufficiently precise to meaningfully differentiate between the small differences you're measuring. But instead of answering those questions, you just go off in paranoid rants.

    On a similar topic, why won't you answer the question about why so many artists are hiding this stuff in plain sight? As I keep saying, the church persecution angle just doesn't make sense. If people are hiding things because they're afraid of persecution from the church, then it needs to be a closely held secret; but you claim dozens of artists over a period of hundreds of years were in on it. How was it that this was passed around for hundreds of years, without the church ever getting wind of it? It's an odd claim that somehow, dozens of people "hiding" it in obvious places would never get back to the church.

    How about just simply *answering the questions*? Doesn't seem particularly difficult to me. I'm a professional researcher, and sometimes it seems like I spend more of my time answering questions about exactly how my tests and evaluations of results are put together than I do actually doing to the work; but that's an expected part of research. People *do* ask questions; people *will* be skeptical, especially when you're making strong claims. So just answer the questions, without hyperbole, insults, or self-aggrandizing rants.

    By Blogger MarkCC, at 8:48 AM  

  • No Mark, you are wrong again and you are projecting.

    I am not "throwing tantrums" or "ranting", or getting all "worked up", and neither am I "paranoid".

    Actually I'm enjoying these "discussions", and I'm quite amused by your responses and the questions and answers you and others here are coming back with, and really because a lot of it is typical of the 'pseudoskeptical' mind.

    If anyone was throwing a tantrum it was you, in your personal email to me where you lost it and called me an "asshole". And about what? That I dare to imply that your name was a pseudonym?
    Ok, my mistake, but its not something I get mad about and go on about - but each to their own I suppose.
    You continue to spell my name wrong, but I'm really not bothered by that. In fact there's not a lot I am bothered about really.

    I may get exasperated by your lack of knowledge and your failure to comprehend the most simplest things that are obvious to a lot of us.

    I'm not alone in this line of research, and I don't mind confronting you or anyone else on these issues. And for your information I don't run and away and hide from such confrontations.

    Ok, lets get back to the issues in hand.

    Take it from me, you are wrong about the eye in the crown. It is an eye.

    You write:

    "It took three repetitions of the question to you get you to say "protractor and ruler". Why? It's a natural question with an apparently simple answer. Why make such a big deal out of a simple question, rather than just answering it?"

    Correction: You are making a big deal out of it. So what if it did take three repetitions of the question before I answered? That doesn't disguise the fact that you are wrong about it.

    You write:

    "Similarly - why are you throwing tantrums and insults at BronzeDog over the issue of how you measure the angles of limbs"?

    Again, not tantrums, and if I remember correctly, I'm the one who was and has been attacked and insulted, and right from the beginning.

    You write:

    "There are perfectly reasonable questions about how you take your measurements. In fact, in the kind of thing that you're talking about, those are some of the most important questions to ask; the only way to rule out apophenia is to demonstrate a careful and rigorous approach to measurement."

    That's what I have done.

    You write:

    "If you're demanding that a difference of 1/2 of one degree is significant, then eyeballing a centerline isn't sufficient. As another commenter said: don't forget to keep track of significant digits; you need to show that your measurement techniques are sufficiently precise to meaningfully differentiate between the small differences you're measuring. But instead of answering those questions, you just go off in paranoid rants."

    There's the demeaning "rant" tag again - utilised to undermine my whole approach and therefore my character.
    There are certain paintings where the 23.5-degree measurement isn't precise as I or we would like it, but I really don't buy the alternative argument that these limbs are displaying the angle of perspective - if some happen to fall close to 22.5 degrees instead.
    No! its clear to me based on other corresponding data that these limbs were painted at these angles to bring attention to the 23.5 degree angle and therefore the obliquity of the ecliptic - reflecting 'imbalance' and everything associated - and of course 'death' . . . symbolically speaking. No doubt you would argue with that or calculate some other way in which to avoid the obvious.

    And as for your arguments about the attitude of the Church, people at that time were afraid of the Church. That's a fact. Indeed the burning of Bruno in 1640 sent a shock wave throughout Europe, which carried on through the 17th century. No doubt people (artists)felt the need to encode this information to preserve it.
    This of course is my interpretation, but again there are many reasons why I feel compelled to adopt this theory - and I cannot do it justice in a post to you.

    You write:

    "How about just simply *answering the questions*?"

    Surely that's what I've been doing all along, and in the course of this I have proven you wrong several times.

    You write:

    "People *do* ask questions; people *will* be skeptical, especially when you're making strong claims".

    Fair enough, and that's OK with me.
    What I object to is the smug wrong assumptions you made to my article at the very beginning, and without having looked deeply into it.
    You really didn't think I would respond did you? You thought you could say what you liked and people would take it all on board without question. Well you've bitten off more than you can chew Mark and that's not my problem, its yours.

    You write:

    "So just answer the questions, without hyperbole, insults, or self-aggrandizing rants".

    The assertion that I am full of "hyperbole", throwing insults without reason and expressing myself through "self-aggrandizing rants", are not true.

    I have answered your questions and have shown you wrong on the what you have detailed.
    Even in the face of the many examples I have given on the page on my website, you continue to go on denying that we have a real phenomenon here - i.e., the existence of these references to the 23.5 degrees angle and others which are clearly there in the paintings, again and again.
    The Masonic drawing is a typical case in point - all the objects in the drawing are at the angles I am continually finding and often all together in other paintings and sources. What about the paper and letter rack by Edward Collier? Would you like to see others he has painted with objects at these angles? It goes beyond coincidence. There has to be an answer and that's what I'm working on, and yes I have my own interpretations, based on what I already understand.

    You just don't like being proven wrong - which is understandable - and so you will now use anything to bring some "credibility" back to the arguments with which you began, but which you really didn't have in the first place.

    Gary Osborn

    By Blogger Gary Osborn, at 10:10 AM  

  • My mistake. Bruno was burnt at the stake in 1600 AD not 1640.

    Gary

    By Blogger Gary Osborn, at 10:19 AM  

  • gary:

    You're *still* just arguing about the argument, and avoiding answering the questions.

    You say "So what if it did take three repetitions of the question before I answered? ". I say, "Answer the questions instead of complaining about them." I asked a perfectly reasonable, civil question: how did people get the angles so precise? You didn't answer - you complained about how closed-minded I was and how obvious the angles were. I asked again. You didn't answer - you complained about the tone of my response. I asked *again*, and said "were they standing at their easels with protractors", and then finally, you said "Yes, protractors and rulers". Why did it require repeated attempts to pin you down just to get a simple answer?

    Likewise with the limb angles. You've been asked twice by bronze, and once now by me to explain how you're measuring the limb angles - where's the angle-line coming from? How are you finding the center of the limb? That's *crucial* if you're claiming that minute differences in the angle have meaning. And after being asked three times, the closest you've come to answering the question is to say, and I'm quoting you verbatim here: "There are certain paintings where the 23.5-degree measurement isn't precise as I or we would like it, but I really don't buy the alternative argument that these limbs are displaying the angle of perspective - if some happen to fall close to 22.5 degrees instead.
    No! its clear to me based on other corresponding data that these limbs were painted at these angles.."

    You demand that a one half to one degree difference - an incredibly minute and hard to perceive difference - from the standard perspective angle is meaningful; and then also assert that if the measurement isn't precise, that it's unimportant, because you *know* what the angle is supposed to be.

    A real researcher is never afraid to explain their methodology in great detail; and when there's data that disagrees with their thesis, they're willing to accept it. You demand that when an angle matches what you want it to be - then it's absolutely perfectly precise, and we should accept the minute difference as meaningful; but that when an angle *doesn't* match what you want, or when there's a question of whether your measurement is accurate enough to draw the conclusion that you want, you then insist that inaccuracies are insignificant. Which is it? Are the angles precise? Are the artists precise enough to really make a 1/2 to 1 degree distinction, or are they not? You can't have it both ways.

    By Blogger MarkCC, at 10:54 AM  

  • Since this is a personal issue, I separated it into a separate comment.

    Sorry about mispelling your name; I'll make sure to get it right from now on.

    But misspelling a name is quite different from accusing someone of hiding behind a false name. As someone who has taken the trouble (and accepted the incredible volume of spam) of being open about my identity on the net, to accuse me of using a false name is, to put it mildly, obnoxious. If you look at the history of this blog, you'll find that I take criticism of my writing quite well - you can call me a lousy writer, you can criticize my analysis, you can criticize my literacy, and I'll take it in stride. But personal attacks are a different matter. You fabricated a claim that I'm *lying* about my identity. I take that damned seriously; as far as I'm concerned, anyone who does that *is* an asshole.

    (And incidentally, since you refused to take responsibility for that, and claimed that "you'd heard otherwise" about whether Mark Chu-Carroll is my real name, I'll point out that you've still not answered the question about just *where* you heard otherwise. Dare I to suggest that you just made it up?)

    By Blogger MarkCC, at 11:02 AM  

  • It doesn't matter who MarkCC or Bronze Dog are. We're irrelevant to the argument. We're just a pair of people presenting arguments. Just like Robert Lancaster's identity isn't going to change which way the sun rises.

    Back on topic: The one limb that was off that I noticed featured a "23.5" degree line going from the top of the bicep, near the inside of the elbow to the bottom of the wrist. Then Gary mentioned a thigh that was off-center as the "one limb". Looks like we're dealing with more than one.

    By Blogger Bronze Dog, at 11:19 AM  

  • Actually Mark I didn't accuse you of hiding behind a pseudonym. It wasn't that important to me and hardly crossed my mind - until you brought it up. As I said, I have altered the text now. Please don't continue to use that "issue" to divert attention away from your incompetence at debunking my work.

    I have corresponded privately with more than one person who frequents this blog and the guy who told me that your name was "possibly" a moniker, shall remain anonymous. I wasn't making that up. As I said, it wasn't important to me, and it really didn't interest me if it was your real name or not.

    In any case I think this 'nuttiness' has gone on long enough, and I've got more important things to do now.
    Perhaps we can continue when the book comes out.

    Best,
    Gary.

    PS Bronze Dog, you're just 'nitpicking', get over it.

    By Blogger Gary Osborn, at 11:59 AM  

  • Gary:

    In other words, you're *still* not going to answer any of the perfectly legitimate questions that we've asked you. I wonder why that is?

    By Blogger MarkCC, at 12:05 PM  

  • It's a scientist's job to pick nits. Especially if they lie at the foundation of a person's claims. Without defining the center of the limbs, you have no foundation for claiming they're at a particular angle: The center seems to be whatever you want it to be, which makes your job as easy as any crackpot's.

    Here's a general tip: If you're going to ramble on about precision angles, eyeballing the center of limbs isn't the way to go.

    By Blogger Bronze Dog, at 12:20 PM  

  • Bronze Dog,

    This painting is an exception to the rule of precision, because ALL the limbs except one are at the angle of 23.5 degrees! and/or close. Its as plain as your nose in front of your face, and one could see that by just measuring one limb, using the eight pointed circle at 23.5 degrees shown below and noting 'by eyesight' that the others are at the same angle. That's the conclusion one would naturally deduce. Its simple.
    You are trying to paint me into a corner on this 'precise' issue. Precision does not always apply, but in those things where it is crucial, these references still stand up to scrutiny.

    What are you on? You are making a fool of yourself.

    And Mark, I have answered enough of your questions - some of which were weak in argument and based on your limited knowledge. I cannot take you seriously, sorry.

    Goodbye gentlemen.

    By Blogger Gary Osborn, at 12:43 PM  

  • Ok, so let's sum up.

    A 1/2 to 1 degree difference in angle is crucial, except when it isn't, and there's no point in arguing about when it isn't, because it's just obvious.

    And asking questions about how you make the crucial measurements that lead to your conclusions is a demonstration of such woeful ignorance that the question isn't worth answering; but it *is* worth taking the time to come back to blog to tell us all about how ignorant we are, and how we're not worth the effort of responding to.

    And you wonder why I think you're a crank?

    (Anyone want to take a bet that he'll go back to his private comment-free website and "respond" there, declaring victory?)

    By Blogger MarkCC, at 1:04 PM  

  • The website will have a comment section soon. You can rant and rave all you like then. Be my guest.

    I thought the precision argument was explained. Its a human thing Mark. If you want precision there are enough examples to show that.
    However, again there are paintings where these references are not always so precise but are definitely giving us the same clues and conveying the same meaning. As simple as that.
    Too bad you cannot see it and share in this really interesting work.

    As for "declaring victory", I don't have to, but let's say that you won. There, that should put a smile on your face.
    I'm not competitive, just always striving to get to the truth.

    Now I really must get on.

    Ciao!

    By Blogger Gary Osborn, at 1:39 PM  

  • This painting is an exception to the rule of precision, because ALL the limbs except one are at the angle of 23.5 degrees! and/or close.

    Except one? More like two: That thigh you mentioned and that arm I mentioned.

    Define "close." All measurements do have a degree of error, you know. +/- half a degree? A full degree? Several degrees? That arm I mentioned had to be off by at least 3 or 4 degrees.

    These measurement errors would also be compounded if the images were captured slightly off. I'd need some guarantee the camera/scanner and the original were both level before simply accepting your measurements.

    Of course, if you don't care for that precision, you shouldn't be handling math with decimal places.

    ...and noting 'by eyesight' that the others are at the same angle. That's the conclusion one would naturally deduce. Its simple.

    In other words, they're exactly 23.5 degrees because they look to your eyes to be the same, despite not being the same to my eyes.

    You are trying to paint me into a corner on this 'precise' issue. Precision does not always apply, but in those things where it is crucial, these references still stand up to scrutiny.

    Translation: It doesn't matter when you're wrong. It only matters when you're right. Ever work in a cherry orchard?

    What are you on? You are making a fool of yourself.

    I'm on the impression that a person should be able to show us the paths he followed to arrive to his conclusions, rather than handwave away his errors by saying precision only sometimes applies to him. If investigating those things makes me foolish, so be it. That would make pretty much all of science foolish, despite getting consistent results.

    By Blogger Bronze Dog, at 1:54 PM  

  • gary:

    My point isn't to fight about "who wins/who loses". It's that you're refusing to respond with real answers to simple legitimate questions. I'm just betting that you're going to pull the same stunt you did a couple of days ago: run back to your own web site, and pretend that you answered all of the questions that were put to you.

    You're running away from legit questions, and I'm betting that you're not going to answer the questions, and at the same time claim that you answered all questions. That's why you're running back to your website, where you're in control.

    By Blogger MarkCC, at 2:06 PM  

  • I was going to respond quite sensibly to your rubbish and after I explained it all, and then I looked at the 'word verification' before sending and thought that sums up your post quite nicely.

    "grarvark"

    By Blogger Gary Osborn, at 2:11 PM  

  • gary:

    How surprising. You've responded with yet another excuse for why you can't be bothered to answer the questions that have been put to you.

    By Blogger MarkCC, at 2:29 PM  

  • That is a superb non-response to some perfectly well-meant questions. A true scientist does not mind answering questions on his experimental protocol no matter how apparently inane.

    For the record, the word verification for this entry is "yuvlviqm".

    In other news, I grabbed a ruler and protractor and did some real home experimentin' old-school style, and found two 23.5 degree angles on the pizza box my lunch came in. Domino's Pizza must be in on the secret.

    By Blogger Thomas Winwood, at 11:29 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home