Collaboration and Documentation Ideas

[Moriarty]

For documenting, an incorporated version of wiki could be utilized, that’s not a problem.

Something like this will require a fairly considerable input from the forum members. Would be nice to know the general opinion on this.

Creating a history related alternative to our narrative compliant Wikipedia could be a pretty serious achievement. Whether we can do it or not, remains to be seen.

.... Whether 'they' let you keep it online is the bigger question. Censorship is everywhere and getting worse. Look at Reddit these days

I don’t think any one person can. To accept something as the most probable one, we need more than just two people. I’m waiting on the input from the current members to see if hours I'm gonna spend on the setup of certain things is worth it.

Simply would like to see some people say that they will, or will not participate.

Personally, I think this thing we are talking about would be unprecedented as much as important, but there have to be certain masses backing up the documented knowledge. How many, well may be 15-20 to start.

I will add a poll to the OP to see if we have that.

And for my part I am happy to partake

 

[JustWow]

I think it would be very productive for forums like this to be able to document useful solid info that members are able to agree on. Normally, forums get lots of discussion with sharing of good info, but very little comes of it all. Maybe we can improve on that.

Background.
I've been occasionally discussing such ideas with others since at least 2013 mainly on the forums at The Thunderbolts Project ™ – A voice for the Electric Universe where I've been a member since shortly after the site started in 2007. My username on that forum is Lloyd. In 2017 I started working with Bruce Nappi at John Chappell Natural Philosophy Society Forums to help develop a process for doing scientific collaboration. Bruce let me direct a project there which I decided would be on the subject of Geology. It involved asking scientists, mostly members of CNPS, some of the basic claims of their own models, having discussions and then rating each model on completeness and plausibility. I kept track of the discussions etc at a separate forum that I started separately from the official CNPS forum. Mine is at Geology | Cnps and the conclusion of the project is posted in the thread there titled "CNPS Special Project #2 SUMMARY". That project ended a year ago after going on for about 6 months.

In 2012 I organized Electric Sun Discussions and posted them at Thunderbolts Forum • View topic - Electric Sun Discussions . We had the discussions on Google Documents (those are etherpads, which worked rather well as the four of us were able to write on the same page at the same time. Google has some advantages, but it has trouble reloading the page sometimes. This site may be better in that case: Etherpad ). I mostly asked the other guys questions, as they were very knowledgeable, while I was not, and they asked each other questions as well and answered. Then I edited them and copied each discussion to that thread. I decided that I favored Charles Chandler's model after previously favoring the Thunderbolts model. Charles' model is at Electric Astrophysics .

I sometimes call myself a liberal libertarian (most libertarians seem to be fairly conservative at least economically). The Free State Project in New Hampshire had a forum that I joined in 2007 or so. There used to be a lot of discussion there, but for the past couple years I'm the only one who still posts there regularly. I only do so because my posts get a couple hundred views each week and I like to have somewhere convenient to store a lot of good info. This is where I post: The Friendly Forum . My username there is Luck. Since I needed at least 5 letters for my username here, I added an R (which I hope doesn't change my luck for the worse). Anyway, I mostly post links there to good articles I find online each week or two. I copy the tech & sci blog links to a similar thread at Thunderbolts Forum • View forum - Electric Universe - Resources

Collaboration & Documentation.
Forums, chat rooms and etherpads all work well for collaboration. The latter two are good for live discussion. Forums and Wikis etc are good for documentation. At least forums that allow members to edit their posts work well for that. That's because the OP (opening post) of each thread can be used for documentation with the later posts used for discussion. Then info from discussion can be copied to the documentation in the OP. I don't think I've actually tried that yet, but it would obviously work pretty well, if there's plenty of space in the OPs. And once the OP is at least temporarily fairly complete, it could be copied to a wiki together with all other OP documentation from other threads. There could actually be documentation in other posts after the OP if any other member wanted to do independent documentation. There should probably be a team of people to rate the completeness and plausibility of each OP summary and only copy to the wiki those rated fairly complete and highly plausible or probable.

So that's a general idea for a procedure that might make us all feel like we're accomplishing something a little more significant. I discussed this idea very briefly in another thread where Korben encouraged me to try it out. So this is an introduction to it. And next, maybe after some discussion, I'll think about starting a thread on a topic I like that I can try this procedure on. So, any comments?

P.S. (Surveys).
On some of the threads in this forum where you call for members' views or input, I think it would be a big help to write up a survey on Google Forms and ask members to answer the questions in it. Then the answers could be posted in the OP. Si? It's easy to use the Forms template to make up questionnaires. I enjoy doing that occasionally.

Qualifier: I haven't read all the replies- having said that- I have often thought that there are probably many of us doing the same digging- and some of us are better and/or like to read books (or whatever) that others find too complicated or too tedious. So- we are not being efficient is the point. I wish I were a professor at a university with a class full of graduate students- I would assign topics for them to research and write papers on. Or encourage their thesis ideas- man! that would be great.
Anyway, facts are facts and it would be great to have a place to list the facts with the supporting documentation. Then we could have another place where we could post theories with whatever supporting documentation we have (and also anything that conflicts - so that we can easily see why we could not post it under the "Facts are Facts" section. That way, others will not have to reinvent the wheel- they can just pick up where the original poster got stuck. Or perhaps a reader will already have the answer and can supply it right then and there.

Have I gone off in the wrong direction or is this what you are talking about?

 

[Red Bird]

I’ve thought it would be nice to have sort of a flowing timeline. For instance a baseline of mainline historical dates with overlays of discoveries. The first overlay might be to simply take 1000 years off of AD dates. One line might be Fomenco’s dates, etc.
BC same thing with first overlay Biblical dates, etc.
Other overlays could be one in a straight line from current to beginning of time and vice versa.
One overlay would be map data...
There could be many many overlays.

I have a hard time, when reading some tidbit, of trying to think outofthebox because I’m so date programmed.
Also, even though it would start out chaotically I believe patterns will become obvious.
All the evidence would be notated in one place (for instance 1812 happenings).
It would have to be split geographically, too, and perhaps other ways but they could still be overlayed on other lines.

I didn’t mention it because it would take me a long time, if ever, to first figure out how to do the graphs!! The mention of a wish for a group of grad students is a good one.

Does this make sense?

Have mainline historians done this to an extent already? You know if we can think of this stuff why can’t they?
It would be too scientific for ‘real historians’ guess ; )
Have they made their own wiki...They could’ve put all of their discoveries/anomalies in one place to see if perhaps something is out of whack etc.

Reading this post I think we need our own AI

Layers with these too (oops no link to astroclock thread)

1. Old Bohemian Time
2. Babylonian Time
3. Central European or Old German Time
4. Star Time

Add Julian...

 

[JustWow]

I’ve thought it would be nice to have sort of a flowing timeline. For instance a baseline of mainline historical dates with overlays of discoveries. The first overlay might be to simply take 1000 years off of AD dates. One line might be Fomenco’s dates, etc.
BC same thing with first overlay Biblical dates, etc.
Other overlays could be one in a straight line from current to beginning of time and vice versa.
One overlay would be map data...
There could be many many overlays.

I have a hard time, when reading some tidbit, of trying to think outofthebox because I’m so date programmed.
Also, even though it would start out chaotically I believe patterns will become obvious.
All the evidence would be notated in one place (for instance 1812 happenings).
It would have to be split geographically, too, and perhaps other ways but they could still be overlayed on other lines.

I didn’t mention it because it would take me a long time, if ever, to first figure out how to do the graphs!! The mention of a wish for a group of grad students is a good one.

Does this make sense?

Have mainline historians done this to an extent already? You know if we can think of this stuff why can’t they?
It would be too scientific for ‘real historians’ guess ; )
Have they made their own wiki...They could’ve put all of their discoveries/anomalies in one place to see if perhaps something is out of whack etc.

Reading this post I think we need our own AI

Layers with these too (oops no link to astroclock thread)

1. Old Bohemian Time
2. Babylonian Time
3. Central European or Old German Time
4. Star Time

Add Julian...

Yes- I have actually purchased software to help me build a timeline- but the software wasn't what I needed. I have also thought if we could see a timeline of when things happened- even if it includes "their" BS, it might be very enlightening. I feel like some things would stand out like a sore thumb if we could see everything at once.

 

[KorbenDallas]

Sounds like we might get enough participants after all...

 

[JustWow]

I woke up thinking about this- as I said earlier, I have tried to find a software to construct a timeline. I am wondering if any of the great contributors here have a suggestion?
As far as "wiki" kind of site- I can see that KD put it to a vote (at the top of this thread) My question is- can all members see this vote or only if they have clicked on this thread?

 

[Bear Claw]

As an amateur writer, I find the idea quite romantic of everyone choosing a topic / time period. Researching. Writing, almost like a school project or dissertation. Then sending to others for peer review / proof reading. Then accumulating in either a free internet book, or self publishing (not that hard). This would allow greater planning as you could plan each book with the relevant chapters and sections that fit together. Furthermore it creates a hard tangible copy that will save data stored in the event of an internet data collapse.

FYI my writing writing is much better than my internet writing.

The wiki idea is possibly better and more practical - my views are possibly a little old skool. Would LOVE to help out

 

[whitewave]

@JustWow:
My question is- can all members see this vote or only if they have clicked on this thread?

I can't speak for everyone but, for myself, I can only see a vote on a particular thread when I click on that particular thread..

 

[Bear Claw]

As an amateur writer, I find the idea quite romantic of everyone choosing a topic / time period. Researching. Writing, almost like a school project or dissertation. Then sending to others for peer review / proof reading. Then accumulating in either a free internet book, or self publishing (not that hard). This would allow greater planning as you could plan each book with the relevant chapters and sections that fit together. Furthermore it creates a hard tangible copy that will save data stored in the event of an internet data collapse.

FYI my writing writing is much better than my internet writing.

The wiki idea is possibly better and more practical - my views are possibly a little old skool. Would LOVE to help out

Although I must caveat before proffering myself. I am not very good with web design / software / tech. But am more than happy to write and research away. In corporate speak, managing expectations.

 

[KorbenDallas]

We probably want to keep it simple. Will get this tied in into forum discussions within a specific sub. And whoever is responsible for that particular thread will be editing the OP in that thread. Once the result was achieved, the info from the OP will get transferred into the SH Wiki.

Obviously not a final thing here.

 

[GroundhogLfe]

I did not vote, but I do support the idea.

My word of caution is about coming up with any definitive narrative without certainty or that would not differ in any way from the official wiki with just being another angle. What I mean that there should be no gaps in what is written. As an example of a worry of this would be that when I see a thread that is suggesting something to be of Tartarian I'm not personally not certain of that, but rather deem them as a hypothesis. So I'd rather recommend to have this as a source for proving what is actually wrong with the official narrative or at least strongly build a case why we must question it. For these We have the expos and the architects involved in some specific buildings as a great example for something quite definitive. If a topic comes up with a narrative I think it should as well contain the contesting ideas or theories to it in the bottom of the page or maybe at least a link to the thread where it has been discussed here so one can find out more about possible contesting ideas to it.

Perhaps this was already in the plans as such and my word of caution was in vain, but at least I came forward with it.

As a suggestion could that also have a wiki of maps implemented to it? If we could put the maps on a timescale there and what places have been mentioned and where at what times it would give a nice overview of things. There could be a list of map makers and look for their affiliations, have a list of key towns and countries and in which maps they can be found. Here I mean the contradictions mostly as for example listing London from every map would be kinda useless. As an example like under the topic of Babylon have a list of the maps when it has been listed and where. We also have medieval "Gazaria" mentioned a few times on maps suggesting strongly a presence of Khazaria. Also if possible we could also upload maps for the staff to enter them and have for a download for everyone. If we could send them with an input of our own of contradictions and findings on the maps it could save job from the staff a bit just for a review, not in need to study them thoroughly themselves. This would probably take several gigabytes of reserve space from the server however. But here's and idea to play around with. This would be grandly ambitious and contain much work, but it could be very rewarding.

 

[Bald Eagle]

Well, I'm glad that the idea of needing to use timelines and maps to try to visualize all the related / disparate information is apparent.

It's certainly along the lines of the way I was thinking of analyzing all of the information that gets deposited here.
Welcomes, Testimonies, Geography and Favorites

Maybe there's a "big data" solution out there already - some sort of cloud-based thing.... lots of options. I'd say the main points would be ease-of-use, flexibility, and ease-of-updating

 

[maco144]

I had the thought that compiling a group map of all the Tartarian cities would be helpful. It would be a ton of work, but it would give us a visual on all the places they were.

 

[Bald Eagle]

So, I was poking around in the Linux Mint Software Manager, and came across "Grads".

GrADS Home Page

The Grid Analysis and Display System (GrADS) is an interactive desktop tool that is used for easy access, manipulation, and visualization of earth science data. GrADS has two data models for handling gridded and station data. GrADS supports many data file formats, including binary (stream or sequential), GRIB (version 1 and 2), NetCDF, HDF (version 4 and 5), and BUFR (for station data). GrADS has been implemented worldwide on a variety of commonly used operating systems and is freely distributed over the Internet.

GrADS uses a 5-Dimensional data environment: the four conventional dimensions (longitude, latitude, vertical level, and time) plus an optional 5th dimension for grids that is generally implemented but designed to be used for ensembles. Data sets are placed within the 5-D space by use of a data descriptor file. GrADS handles grids that are regular, non-linearly spaced, gaussian, or of variable resolution. Data from different data sets may be graphically overlaid, with correct spatial and time registration. Operations are executed interactively by entering FORTRAN-like expressions at the command line. A rich set of built-in functions are provided, but users may also add their own functions as external routines written in any programming language.

Data may be displayed using a variety of graphical techniques: line and bar graphs, scatter plots, smoothed contours, shaded contours, streamlines, wind vectors, grid boxes, shaded grid boxes, and station model plots. Graphics may be output in PostScript or image formats. GrADS provides geophysically intuitive defaults, but the user has the option to control all aspects of graphics output.

GrADS has a programmable interface (scripting language) that allows for sophisticated analysis and display applications. Use scripts to display buttons and dropmenus as well as graphics, and then take action based on user point-and-clicks. GrADS can be run in batch mode, and the scripting language facilitates using GrADS to do long overnight batch jobs.

Sounds like we can have multiple data sets for things like
suspected Tartarian cities / buildings
devastating fires
pyramids
mud-flooded buildings
... you know the rest

And then overlay the data.

What I'm really thinking would be interesting would be to do a time-lapse animation....

... and looky -

GrADS Tutorial

We now have two varying dimensions, so by default we get a contour plot. If we have 3 varying dimensions:

• c
  set t 1 5
  d hgt

we get an animation sequence, in this case through time. For some modern computers, the display of all 5 time steps may be so fast that the animation may not be evident.