Quote:
Originally Posted by atx840
Hey Scott, agree its not getting anyone further ahead.
When I recently started to look at the 460 group I erased the base 34 from the process and started fresh. Within a few groupings it showed up 100% for every 460 back. I'd love to show someone my data in person/phone as the forum is the wrong format to get it properly across.
I'm not stating 34 is the definitive # in my previous post only that the theory is not limited to 34 per sheet but multiples stacks of 34.
I've tried to contact Ted to review notes offline, no luck  |
Well, good luck Chris. With all due respect to TedZ, I don't think he's willing to entertain anything other than what he presents. And that's ok too. We all have different opinions, but being open minded to new research and new developments would make it easier to come to a rational conclusion
Until then, it's like mountain goats butting heads on the side of a steep cliff
I think there is great progress happening with other avenues to piece together what a sheet may have looked like, with the double named cards (same name top/bottom and different name top/bottom) as well as Steve's brilliant idea to piece together the backs with the plate scratches.
Maybe one day we will have a "God particle moment"
and it will all make sense
Sincerely, Clayton
P.S. Thank everyone for their hard work and time spent trying to unravel these mysteries.