Hidden Truth/Hidden Truth.iso/data/newspostings/reports/401-500/431

Internet Message Format | 1996-06-19 | 7.9 KB

Path: news.demon.co.uk!dispatch.news.demon.net!demon!usenet1.news.uk.psi.net!uknet!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!lade.news.pipex.net!pipex!tube.news.pipex.net!pipex!dish.news.pipex.net!pipex!news.be.innet.net!INbe.net!news.nl.innet.net!INnl.net!hunter.premier.net!news.mathworks.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.compuserve.com!newsmaster
From: jiri_mruzek <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.alien.research,alt.ufo.reports,alt.paranet.abduct,sci.skeptic,alt.paranet.science,uk.media
Subject: Re: Are all believers crackpots?
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 1996 13:01:12 -0700
Organization: Ancient Science-Art
Lines: 150
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hd22-189.compuserve.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win95; I; 16bit)
Xref: news.demon.co.uk alt.alien.visitors:88438 alt.paranet.ufo:53813 alt.alien.research:26202 alt.ufo.reports:9504 alt.paranet.abduct:5884 sci.skeptic:72716 alt.paranet.science:3213 uk.media:17214

[e-mail] (Mark O'Leary) wrote:

In article <[e-mail]>,
jiri_mruzek  <[e-mail]> wrote:

>>study my discovery of Science-Art at:
>> http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/jiri_mruzek/

>OK, I did.

>>**********************************************
>>Questions: Who says there is no way to encode exact ideas into art?

>Nobody, as far as I know. The symbolism of Elizabethan portraiture, for
>example, is an exquisite language that can relate a lot of biographical
>information in the guise of ornament.

Good evening, Mark.
No matter, how much I compare "encoding Exact ideas into art", to
" Exquisite language - biographical information - in the guise of ornament,
it escapes me how  I should equate the two.
Sure, ornaments, and any other objects in the Elizabethan portraits, might
have an established meaning. But just as indubitably, convention might imbue
the same symbols with any other arbitrary meaning. Example:
 "Pan" (pronounce pun) - means Mister in the Czech language, yet, in English
the same sounds mean "Pun", no pun intended.
But we couldn't decree that the equilateral triangle should mean the square
instead, in Geometry.
Without detailed historical knowledge of the Elizabethans, we could never
ever figure their symbolism out(.)
OTOH, any intelligence in the Universe can figure out the exact geometrical
meaning of the Nasca Monkey. That's why Geometry is an Exact Science.
That's why your agreement is very misleading.

>>************************************************************************
>>Summons:   Debunker! Tell it to the Nasca Monkey's face..

>Well, as I said, I checked the mans page. I've left the URL above - check
> it yourself, as he wishes us to.

Please, check it very carefully, folks, I wish Mark had..

>However, I find no logical basis to support his arbritrary selection of
>'significant' lines out of a complex drawing other than to support his
> thesis of mathematical ratios and concepts encoded into the piece.

Here, you're presenting a virtue, as a flaw..
" No logical basis .. other than to support his thesis of mathematical
ratios and concepts encoded into the piece"?
 Excuse me - but, that's a pretty awesome basis, you should know so much!

 "to support his arbritrary selection of 'significant' lines out of a
complex  drawing"

Arbitrary Selection? Than how do those lines provide the support, which
you admit to yourself?

"his arbritrary selection of 'significant' lines out of a complex drawing"

The lines are in place to do the job, and what a job it is. The whole Monkey
integrates into one intelligent, thematic system, nothing is left out.
Take the "Head-Hands-Feet-Inner Star-circle category. What does it lack in
Consistency, and Perfect Completeness?

Mark, Mark, you have not read my work through.

>defined as significant *because* they, out of many that don't, do support
>that thesis.

Again, simply not true. Check the passage, where I speak of how I measure
the existing alignments for probability. I have thus answered similar
charges on sci.archaeology once, and it stopped any further criticism dead
in its tracks. - The alignments are fantastically improbable!

>Another objection is that the accuracy of the line measurements
>required to make the ratios come out right exceeds, imo, the accuracy with
>which the lines could be drawn with a primitive implement on a curved
>surface - especially considering the overall free-flowing and spontaenious
>nature of the artwork itself: these were not (again, imo) carefully
> measured and painstakingly scribed codes.

>"the accuracy of the line measurements exceeds, imo, the accuracy required
>to make the ratios come out right"

Again, that's pretty good, in my opinion. Sounds like a historic first.
Don't skeptics charge Hoagland's geometrical analysis with inaccuracy?
And so - if it were accurate -  would they charge him with that too?

>"especially considering the overall free-flowing and spontaenious
>nature of the artwork itself: these were not (again, imo) carefully
> measured and painstakingly scribed codes."

Appearances are deceptive, sometimes. Aren't they?

>Overall, I'd suggest that any sufficiently complex doodle could be
> subjected to the same kind of 'analysis' and similar results could be
> obtained. Anyone wishing to 'prove' that their two year old is a
> mathematical prodigy, take note.

Ho, ho, ho, sir _ You go ahead and try to doodle, then show us the result.
Again, your mistake is in expecting order out of unpremeditated chaos.
What you propose has Never been done, but it has been proposed countless
times. Good Luck with the myth! Good try! Please, try again..
( If you'd like me to elaborate, I have written on the subject before.
 Too bad, you must have missed it!!)

>I answered your summons, but I wasn't out to debunk. I was quite
>disappointed that your case was made so sloppily.

So what is it that you're doing - if you can't show the sloppiness, yet
charge  it. You just spoke about my excessive accuracy!
Now, it's turned into sloppiness? Sounds like a debunking tactic..

>But don't take my word for it. Go yourself, make up your own minds. I think
>'the monkeys' case falls on its own merits.

Thanks - if the Nasca Monkey's case falls on anything - it falls on deaf
ears, and blind eyes, and politically correct hearts and minds..

>I might also point you to another 'image analysis' web page - but I cant
>find the URL. It's some person who magnifies their 'automatic writing'
>doodles, plays with the contrast of the image and then 'interprets'. I
>looked long and hard at the blown-up squiggle, but I couldn't see the
>'horses head just above the silhouette of the man in the hat' or whatever
>was supposed to be there - and when I downloaded the 'mandalla' image that
>became apparent when 'noise' was added to a magnified doodle, I nearly fell
>off my chair laughing; it's obviously an artifact of the graphics package -
>a symettrical image centred on the exact centre of the cropped graphic. You
>could probably replicate it without having the original doodle in frame at
>all!

Now, you've gone elsewhere in space'n time.

>"I couldn't see the 'horses head just above the silhouette of the man in
> the hat' or whatever was supposed to be there - and when I downloaded
> the 'mandalla' image

You've given an example of the insanity out there. Is it supposed to tar
me by association?  What's the point? There is Image Analysis, and then
there is 'image analysis'!
I wonder, if you would alsolarly fall out of your chair, when looking
at the Oldest Image of a man on a horse in the world, available to you
on my pages. Or, at the mandala of "Ten Nasca Monkeys".. You had a chance
to look at those images, and then report on them. Yet, you didn't.. Why?
Mark, you haven't found a single mentionable mistake in my thesis..
Shouldn't you give my work more (way more) respect ?
namon
*******************************************************
Regards from Nasca Monkey - Americas' Golden Mean champ