But for the reader, which would have to dig through many pages of my spam now, I will bring back a few of shaqs counter arguments:
If readers are interested, I might encourage them to look through my postings on DMW’s thread, where (if I recall) I had posted the majority of my objections and where (I am sure) there is far less spam.
Not that anyone is going to get to see this post, anyway.
“This isn’t right! It’s not even wrong!”—Wolfgang Pauli (1900–1958)
Back into trolling mode I see, @shaqmeister
All of your objections have been trash. I ignore almost all of them. They aren’t worth debating.
This goes back to when you tried to argue natural origin theory, putting moronic diagrams on here as if they proved your point. They didn’t.
And that is my opinion.
It is easy for you to sit back, trying to poke holes in it. You didn’t find the landmark, or solve this cipher. You tried, you failed. You can leave my thread now I think, forever.
Or keep posting your moronic “debunks” that aren’t even debunks. Natural origin. That was you. Cow watering hole. Uh huh. Good job detective.
Shaq is the insidious villain, trying to keep the evidence from being checked out lol.
If I found something he is another one that gets called out at this point. Had enough of this guy.
I am not debating him further, his arguments so far have been completely absurd. In his opinion, my solution is wrong. But I actually don’t care about his opinion. But he is the only one here.
Shaq never approached this cipher the right way, and was never going to, in his entire life. I did approach it the right way, now he is mad about it. Too bad for him. Scan the landmark.
I’m starting to think that you will continue to dissemble and deflect on this point, having chosen not to address it according to all the various ways I have put this to you thus far. That is a gross oversight on the part of someone claiming to have proposed a great theory, being afraid to stand in the light of day to defend its essentials one by one.
I wasn’t at all intending to troll, I thought we’d got past that. Wasn’t I just right about this, though?
“This isn’t right! It’s not even wrong!”—Wolfgang Pauli (1900–1958)
Scan the landmark.
I can’t, though. I don’t have the authority. No-one here does.
“This isn’t right! It’s not even wrong!”—Wolfgang Pauli (1900–1958)
We did get past arguing. I am not arguing with you anymore. You can say whatever you like though. But yeah you already had your chance to debate and everything you tried was just based on feelings. One of your first angles was “Zodiac didn’t use RADIANS” in the plaintext. You stated that as a fact. I stopped taking you seriously after that, at least on this topic.
Like I’ve mentioned, there are things we likely agree on, this isn’t one of them. But if it checked out and I am right, then I do win the game (finally).
There is no excuse for this matching the ciphertext ect.
We will keep going back and forth ect ect, I already gave a recap of your previous counterarguments, but they can go back and see for themselves.
Nothing against you personally as I am sure you are a fine individual. I am surprised you do not see this, considering how obvious it really is. But different eyes, different perspectives. I am sitting over here and it is crystal clear. Seems intentional to me, but we will see.
To me, the landmark literally screams “Zodiac was here”. By design.
This would be what is known as a “signature”.
Shaq is the insidious villain
As much as I truly try, I find that I am not able to even keep up with all your shifting assessments of me and my contributions.
Can Shaq pose challenges based on his past experience and knowledge and be the advocate towards understanding, or must Shaq always become the villanous troll precisely at every such attempt? It’s so confusing to me. I almost feel like I should just stop trying to be the former in any of your threads. But then, you don’t leave me alone in mine? So I’m not at all sure what I should do now.
“This isn’t right! It’s not even wrong!”—Wolfgang Pauli (1900–1958)
Like I said, we are just engaged in trench warfare. Neither side will gain ground. You can keep generating new counter arguments however.
I have no problem with this, I will just “dodge” them. I don’t expect of them to be good enough to convince my solution is wrong. Because that hasn’t happened so far. It is because I found some of them to be highly improbable, I couldn’t take them seriously. But you can still present them. I have no problem with that and am cool with it. It is a forum, after all. I look forward to your review on the third version of my white paper. I know you will hate it, and I love that.
I say you are the insidious villain because, in my opinion, something might be buried in this triangle. And so anyone that wants to come up with subjective reasons about why it is wrong/shouldn’t be scanned, I just think there is an ethical dilemma there is well. An objective falsification is a different story, that is fully legitimate. Trying to debunk it, if it turns out to be right, will look bad….
I am fully devoted to this one. This is nothing like past proposals. It is nothing like Faycal’s, he was a manual solver that felt his method was better than the Zodiacs.
“And what about the [coordinate transformation] step, to which you can apply the exact same reasoning, surely?”
I’m starting to think that you will continue to dissemble and deflect on this point, having chosen not to address it according to all the various ways I have put this to you thus far. That is a gross oversight on the part of someone claiming to have proposed a great theory, being afraid to stand in the light of day to defend its essentials one by one.
Let it be recorded, then, that you never did answer this crucial objection.
“This isn’t right! It’s not even wrong!”—Wolfgang Pauli (1900–1958)
“And what about the [coordinate transformation] step, to which you can apply the exact same reasoning, surely?”
I’m starting to think that you will continue to dissemble and deflect on this point, having chosen not to address it according to all the various ways I have put this to you thus far. That is a gross oversight on the part of someone claiming to have proposed a great theory, being afraid to stand in the light of day to defend its essentials one by one.
Let it be recorded, then, that you never did answer this crucial objection.
Yes I am dodging all of your stupid debunks moving forward, let it be recorded.
Let it be recorded that you arguing passionately that the triangle is natural in origin, and had the diagram to prove it. Too bad the diagram was useless. And that was when I realized you are trying way too hard, lol.
But that is ok, it is essentially just you and I here.
We are the only two people that care about Z32 enough to argue about it. That is pretty cool actually.
