The obvious (from reading her text): She was mistaken, and she is sorry. End of message.
This has been a prolonged exchange, and you have not come forward with ANY other meaning. Only assertions that there could be other meaning. You are dead in the water. You cannot put up, so you should (deduce the meaning).
That's what I am trying to ask you. You contend that some sort of meaning can be extracted from Jan Halper's apology and correction---beyond the obvious apology and correction. I'm all ears. Please elucidate.
In all this, you have never enunciated any meaning from her statements than is on their face. There is no blot. There is no meaning. You haven't shown otherwise. And I doubt there is a puzzle. I go outside my door to see the world, with its trees and clouds and light and moisture, and there is a lot of meaning for the discerning and insightful viewer, and it is no blot. There is clutter and there is meaning, and you have chosen to confuse the two. Life is too short to unscramble blots. Better to recognize them for what they are and move on.
I'm trained as a scientist and have had a career as an engineer, occupations that rely on close attention to reality. And I have been successful at it.
As for what people say, I take them at their word (and by their actions) unless there is cause not to. Like a court of law. I'm not interested in suspecting everyone of being liars or delusional psychotics (though there are plenty out there). As for this person, you offer lots of words but no "full picture" of anything, so your method is mostly assertion. What "information" is there to be had? You don't have a clue.
Reality can be simple or it can be complex, or anywhere in-between. So it is already a false conception to decide that reality is always complex. The only way we can understand it is to find a way to reduce the complexity, which is what I have done as a system theoretician for nearly 40 years.
As for objective reality, someone's motivations are anything but objective, so don't kid yourself that you are not seeking the butterfly in the blot. The essence of that experiment is that it evokes what you are already thinking about. What if there are no motivations? Does someone need to be "motivated" to simply relate the facts of a matter?
You haven't shown by any means that what she said was untruthful, so what are you working on? Your experience seems to be based on trying to look deeper than something really is, developing theories that are poorly grounded, and being disappointed when you find you are wrong. You might consider that your method is mostly a waste of time.
If what is there depends on how you "look" at it, then it is not a message but a Rorschach blot. When has this "how to look" technique ever been verified? It is interesting to me that you imply an understanding of her motives, but find them inexpressible. It is more important and meaningful to me if what she says is truthful.
Hard to read. I only managed to get 2/3ds of the way through it, before tiring of swimming in bullshit. Hilarious that territorial recovery is now accepted as no basis for "victory," when that was the battle cry up to this point.
This is tiresome. There cannot be any projected holograms, because holograms are not real images. They are virtual images, like the reflection in a mirror. You cannot see them outside the frame of the hologram (which is the photograph of the interference pattern that generates the image).
Don't get your understanding of holograms from "Star Trek." Read the book by their inventor, Dennis Gabor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Gabor
This is a nothingburger. She was apologizing for misplaced trust and wanting to acknowledge the truth. The retweet was just information, no "Zionist asset" nameplate to point at.
Especially since the story of Anne Frank is supposed to be a fabrication (as I recently read). I think a pinch of salt is indicated.
50 years of engineering, with reality always the test of it. I've been awake all the while. I see you have the common ignorance that nothing happened in the "Dark Ages." Too bad. Your talk about "replicating" theories---particularly what you regard as inexplicable theories---is incoherent. Again, the test of reality governs and we got to the Moon thanks to Newton's theory (which is only descriptive; who are you to think we know everything?).
You don't know any such fact. You are dreaming. But I am willing to consider that you don't know much or any history.
You have no conception of the "case in point." The point was settled about 200 years before the birth of Christ (the calculation of the radius of the Earth by Eratosthenes), and Christ never bothered to say otherwise.
I think you are correct on both counts.
You quote the passage and I can give you credit. I've read the Bible in three different translations, and there is nowhere an accounting of years.
Hard to scrape uranium nuclei. The slow erosion shows how much time has passed in erosion---i.e., how much time has passed.
I'm not impressed. The quibbles amount to a restatement of what I said already: that a young object can be in the midst of an old setting. Nothing to say about the distances to the stars and the time taken for light from them to reach us.
"Expanded" thinking is worse than useless unless it is informed and educated thinking. Otherwise, you just get swept up in the "Rapture" of wild ideas.
Well, you have to be in error. Not happening where I live (south of 49th parallel). Get a surveyor's transit and theodolite and measure the azimuth of the setting (or rising) sun, and see if it conforms to the geometrical calculations. And, as I suggested, contact an astronomer to ask the question. There are departments of astronomy at many universities.
Point to consider: If the horizon, near or far, has trees removed, the sun will seem as though it has moved farther along its path, due to removal of blockage.
Not just the surface layer; the whole works can't just stop. Conservation of momentum is different from conservation of energy. Forces are required to alter momentum.
But this is so juvenile. Anyone passing a high-school physics class should realize that a magnetic pole shift will have no expected change in Earth rotation. (Magnetic poles are not rotational poles.)
Patents cannot be hidden, or they would be worthless, since their value depends on them being known. There is no evidence of any secret Tesla technology. All of Tesla's papers were ultimately turned over to his heirs, after being reviewed by Trump's uncle for potential military applications.
Good chat. And we can only perceive reality. Whether we want to admit what we see is up to us. Honesty counts, and truth comes from God.
Tropical plants on Antarctica are no problem, once you accept that Antarctica wasn't originally on the south pole, but migrated there from continental drift (or Earth expansion).
The equator is fixed by our vector of angular momentum, which is pretty much unchangeable.
The Moon is attracted to all the mass of the Earth, not just the core. You need to learn about gravity.
Those of us who fly to the other side of the planet and get to look at stars which cannot be seen in the northern hemisphere are perfectly awake. We can make phone calls home that are 10 hours advanced, to wake up people here.
Well the mantle is not liquid, and only the outer core is inferred to be liquid.
So which came first? Your birth or your death? You might want to give up saying nonsensical things.
Are you illiterate? She depended on a particular politician for information.