There are certainly a number of other issues you have raised in addition to the LLM issue, but fortunately they are all independent of one another.
Message 5 is the foci/close-up of the LLM claim.
I truly regret that I did not post message 5 content when I originally posted the center claim.
But Ned/Lindum immediately viewed LLM claim separately and apart from center claim, but we know that the LLM claim always existed within the center claim.
To extract the LLM claim and discard its original context is not possible for two reasons:
1) Why is the isolation being pursued ? Answer: to disprove the center claim.
2) Removal of center context = disappearance of LLM claim altogether.
The LLM claim only existed in isolation via opponents handling.
Neither I or my sources ever argued a LLM claim apart from the center claim.
Rutherford's endorsement of the center claim includes the explanation of LLM, an explanation which probably has as its source Smyth's fullest unfolding contained in his book - a book which I do not have.
I suspect Smyth always said what Rutherford argues in
Message 5.
But I don't know for sure.
It doesn't matter - Rutherford fills in the LLM claim and I cannot be expected to leave the confines of my source and embrace an argument which BEGINS its enquiry in the error of isolation.
There is no necessity for considering them together, and in fact mixing them up in a single thread only made examining them more difficult.
Your context here is the center claim and all of its various components.
I would tend to agree, EXCEPT as we know, the LLM claim contains the asterisk of
Message 5.
Now that we know this, that the LLM claim always existed within the content of
Message 5 then to isolate it is error.
Its like when a lawyer intentionally blurts out what he knows to be inadmissable evidence in the presence of a jury for the single intent of exposing the jury to its inescapable prejudicial value. The judge will order the comment stricken from the record and he will order the jury to disregard but the damage is done, the lawyer knows the jury heard it and nothing can in reality erase that fact.
Message 5 is a factual reality, it always existed - it cannot be ignored.
You are asking to pretend that it is not in existence - why would I or how could I do that ?
WT writes:
Did you guys measure through Antartica and the Americas ?
responding Percy writes:
The meridian is measured pole to pole through the apex of the GP, so no, it does not include the Americas, but it of course includes Antarctica to the south pole. The meridian on the opposite side of the globe is referred to in your Message 5 as the "nether meridian", and it passes within 1000 miles of Hawaii.
So Lindums LLM claim is measured by the same exact standard ?
Why is the North pole land area excluded ?
I have ALWAYS assumed LLM meant the land covered in a 360 degree revolution, that is from GP to GP.
I suppose you will argue Lindum's LLM is still longer including a 360 revolution ?
How can the North and South Americas be excluded ?
You've said this several times, but you just demonstrated yourself that the issues are independent
I never agreed that micro issues within an issue to be independant.
Only 2141 BC is separate from center and height separate from these and concavity and rectification and etc.etc.
Never have I said LLM is independant - this is the desire of Ned initially.
You've said this before, too, and it was answered before. The pole to pole length of the meridian is equal to the sum of the distance over land and the distance over sea. Any meridian that crosses the most land must, by mathematical definition, cross the least amount of sea. Lindum's meridian crosses more land and less sea than the GP meridian.
Not according to
Message 5.
I only know what my sources say.
But verifying this mathematically is the purpose of this thread. Could you please confirm these numbers for the distance along the GP meridian from the GP apex to the Mediterranean coast of Egypt:
As you know I have no way of confirming any LLM figures by myself. This is why I have sources.
If you are saying this is the LLM of the GP and it is not really LLM based upon the LLM determined by someone else then we are right back to where we started: You guys disagree with my sources. I do not trust your determinations based upon the total avoidance of
Message 5 and previous conduct in the now closed original debate.
All my evidence was ignored wholesale when it proved my claims OR assertions of fraud were made without source and evidence.
You cannot have it both ways.
There is no conspiracy between Cole, Rutherford, and Lemesurier and all the other spectacular evidence.
Evos can deduce a fossil to be human millions of years old but the obvious and blatant evidence contained in this Pyramid is suddenly obscure and fraudulent.
Dr. Rutherford is the epitome of integrity and brilliance. He is demonized arbitrarily and capriciously devoid of any evidence proving it.
The best evidence for Rutherford is the focus upon his religious beliefs - he admits his bias which is based upon the evidence.
™ Version 4.2
