Me: I was telling you that I had already done what you suggested and they do line up. I blew up the blue one so I could read the numbers on the side. The resolution on the blue one is worse because of how they compressed that graphic. You can lose pixels. It could have been scanned poorly or compressed poorly being after scanned. Photoshopping something and putting it on the Web takes me less time than writing a post. I have advanced geek powers.
Judy: My point on the issue of deception--which you haven't addressed at all--is that *if* it was deceptive, it's entirely irrelevant from a marketing point of view, because nobody's going to decide to take the TM-Sidhis on the mistaken belief that high EEG coherence has been measured during actual hopping, as opposed to right before hopping. Me: We have already ruled out the theory about it being before hopping. It is a 10 minute period of coherence claimed. Deception in marketing pieces is not irrelevant to me. It is part of the proof machine that builds a case on the value of the practice to people in the movement. It should matter to people who believe that the practice has value because it weakens their case in an obvious manor. One of the reasons that it interested me is because this kind of proof was in our faces all the time at MIU. We lived and breathed this stuff and it added a lot of credibility to what we were doing in my mind. Leaning how flawed it was sucked for me. As I said before, I think the whole chart was fabricated when MMY asked someone to put the highest coherence next to flying because he "knew" this was true. It is not something to tar the movement with. They have done this all to themselves. Misusing science to build credibility in TM is an important point to me. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > Of course I had it on two layers in Photoshop with the opacity > > blended before I posted it. > > Huh?? I have no idea what you mean. > > In any case, what I'm suggesting is that instead of > blowing up the blue one to the size of the black- > and-white one, you reduce the black-and-white one > to the size of the blue one, then superimpose them. > > That wouldn't work with the blue one blown up > because of the pixellation. > > That is why I was amazed that you didn't see it > > that way. Vaj's comment about the loss of resolution in the blue > > version was right on and obvious in Photoshop. > > The blown-up version shouldn't have *lost* any > resolution from the original version, should it? > Rather, the low resolution of the original was > made obvious when you blew it up and could see > the actual pixels, right? > > Or does blowing it up in Photoshop decrease the > original resolution? In that case, Vaj's comment > is irrelevant because the differences between the > charts can be seen clearly when the blue chart is > its original size. They're harder to see in the > blown-up version because of the pixellation, but > they're still quite clear. > > > Try it yourself. > > Sorry, I don't have Photoshop. > > > About who started an argument... > > > > I had a point about what I saw as dishonesty in TM sidhi marketing. > > You have a different point of view. I didn't feel like we were > > having an argument, it all seemed civil to me. > > Arguments can be perfectly civil. The argument > Barry and Vaj were referring to is the one we're > having about whether the EEG tracings are the > same or not, which is entirely different from the > issue of whether the marketing was deceptive. > > They were insisting--erroneously and almost > certainly knowingly so--that it was I who was > prolonging that argument, when *you* had started > it and were even more invested in it than I was, > given the trouble you went to to do the > Photoshopping and put up the comparison on your > Web page. > > My point on the issue of deception--which you haven't > addressed at all--is that *if* it was deceptive, it's > entirely irrelevant from a marketing point of view, > because nobody's going to decide to take the TM-Sidhis > on the mistaken belief that high EEG coherence has > been measured during actual hopping, as opposed to > right before hopping. > > Plus which, we have no way of ruling out that the > TM researchers did figure out a way to get rid of > the artifacts, as O-J claims. > > So it's just a gigantic tempest in a teapot, it > seems to me, a kind of desperate search for > something, *anything*, to tar the TMo with. > > The ironic part is that there are so many other > *legitimate* beefs about the TMO being less than > totally straightforward. > To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/