about the "Adam's platform"

[jules Gilbert]

I just now, just this moment, reading the posts here learned of this.
I think I heard something but never followed it at the time; Really,
I have my own ideas and don't attempt to follow the industry
generally. (Probably I should, at least to a greater degree than I
do.)

And since I have had the idea of doing a demo using six or seven
video's, showing, from different angles and perspective, a classic two
machine demo, and putting it up on Youtube, I'd like to know if
someone did this?

Has someone? Yes, I get that the Adam thing was likely fraudulent
"oh, the dog ate my source code, etc..."

None the less, though my wife and I own exactly one ordinary still
camera which we haven't used since, I think, a vacation we took in the
early 80s, So were I to do this I would have to assemble six or seven
video camera's, etc.

My basic idea was to show two machines (only one on at a time,I know
the rules,) using several cameras showing not only the machines but
clocks, both manual and electric. The goal of course is to produce a
composite video that makes it impossible for someone to continue in
their disbelief.

However, wiser? minds than I have told me that technology today is
such that what I propose is easily faked, thus my interest in "Adam's
Platform."

[Jim Leonard]

On Jan 4, 3:31 am, jules Gilbert <jules.sto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> However, wiser? minds than I have told me that technology today is
> such that what I propose is easily faked, thus my interest in "Adam's
> Platform."

Any demonstration limited to your own hardware can be faked in any
number of ways. Setting up lots of camera angles means absolutely
nothing, and demonstrates nothing. Do not waste your time.

Adam's Platform's testing was mishandled so thoroughly by The Tolly
Group that when they realized they'd been deceived, they set up the
test again, found it was bunk, and pulled the original report from
their website. Tolly didn't bother to verify the contents of the the
hard drives of both computers the first time. When the method came
into question, they set the test up again and pulled the data
connection between the two computers while transmission was in
progress. The destination computer continued to decompress and show
video, proving that there was no actual compression/decompression
process occurring. Adding insult to injury, when they did find the
fake video already on the destination computer, it turned out to be
compressed with a very common codec at the time for Mac (an On2
TrueMotion variant). So the method wasn't even original. Nearly a
decade later, after Adam had already been sent to jail and investors
defrauded, Adam put up a weak technical document on a website saying
"see? I told you so, here's the method" which turned out to be a
single sheet of paper's scrawlings that described a method no more
complex than a colorspace conversion with deltas -- in other words, a
1990's method that is not even remotely capable of the wild claims he
maintained for years.

If you show us video of you doing something with two computers and a
floppy disk, it means nothing. If you open both computers and show
that neither has a hard drive, it still means nothing -- YOU are
performing the demonstration and could be faking the results in tens
if not hundreds of different ways. You must have OTHERS reproduce
your results to receive any sort of funding.

Accept a chunk of data from a third party. Compress that data (if you
can). Then provide the compressed data only (to prove your method
reduces size), and a program that can turn it back into the original
chunk (to prove that your method isn't broken or a fake). *This does
not compromise your compression process.*

Until you're willing to do this, you're wasting your time (and,
unfortunately, everyone else's time). No serious company is going to
be interested in an idea that can't be independently verified.
Maintaining full control of any demonstration just further paints you
as a Jan Sloot fraud, or delusional, or a blatant confidence trickster.

[Thomas Richter]

On 04.01.2012 17:31, Jim Leonard wrote:
> On Jan 4, 3:31 am, jules Gilbert<jules.sto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> However, wiser? minds than I have told me that technology today is
>> such that what I propose is easily faked, thus my interest in "Adam's
>> Platform."
>
> Any demonstration limited to your own hardware can be faked in any
> number of ways. Setting up lots of camera angles means absolutely
> nothing, and demonstrates nothing. Do not waste your time.

Jim, while your comment is certainly appreciated by me, my
recommendation would also be not to waste your time, yourself. Jules
does not want to understand. He wants to continue to make false claims
collecting money (or claiming to collect money). He's trying to argue
out a scientific proof he is not able to provide, just to continue his
game and cheating.

Don't feed the troll with the obvious.

[Earl_Colby_Pottinger]

Personally, I always found it funny when he claimed he could use his
methods to predict stock prices. He claimed he would get wealthy and
show us all. Does not seem that that idea worked out either.

[jules Gilbert]

I wrote a response but want to think about it for a day or so.

I just want to be sure I want to say what I was preparing to say...

So, nothing more today.

Speaking of the day, where I am it will soon be daylight, another day
for us to love our wives, another day for us to ponder the secrets of
our universe (because God gave it to us!,) and, most of all, another
day for us to know God, to talk with him, to ask him a favor or two;
'Hello God, it's me, how about a few."

I hope people are reading the Bible, because, you know, that verse in
Matthew, MAT; 24:7, the second part of the verse. That's happening
now, we're living in it. Today. Look around, just try to count the
number of major earthquakes, for the incidence of major quakes has
increased at least 600 times, (that's easily provable, though the
actual increase is probably closer to a thousand.) In fact the
increase is so much that in violation of US law the USGS has stopped
distributing the relevant data.

Now I know most people won't like me saying these things. Too bad.
When this began, I noticed that the nay-sayer's (at least the one's
who seemed the most vocal,) were mostly gays and atheists.

(I used to be an atheist. And let me tell you, I am so glad that I
was willing to change -- because God actually is sooo goood!)

Jim, in the next few days I'll have a response, I just need to
consider what I say more carefully than I can writing casually.

About reading the Bible, I am well aware that we Christians are
supposed to forgive our enemies.

[Earl_Colby_Pottinger]

On Jan 5, 5:27 am, jules Gilbert <jules.sto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 4, 11:31 am, Jim Leonard <mobyga...@gmail.com> wrote:

> BIG SNIP <

In other words, a bunch of stuff that has nothing to do with data
compression to distract from the fact that you have nothing. BYE!

[Jim Leonard]

On Jan 4, 6:48 pm, Thomas Richter <t...@math.tu-berlin.de> wrote:
> Jim, while your comment is certainly appreciated by me, my
> recommendation would also be not to waste your time, yourself. Jules
> does not want to understand. He wants to continue to make false claims
> collecting money (or claiming to collect money). He's trying to argue
> out a scientific proof he is not able to provide, just to continue his
> game and cheating.
>
> Don't feed the troll with the obvious.

Your advice is honored and respected. I keep thinking that I can get
him to understand the obvious flaws in his reasoning.

I am probably in the minority, but I don't think Jules is an obvious
confidence trickster -- I think Jules *actually believes* his method
works, which is why he's been so stubborn to go through verification
(code working programs, accept valid challenges). He's entering
retirement, and while this is pure conjecture he's probably looking
for one last big payout, and afraid to confront the idea that his
method is flawed.

The human brain is such a strong pattern-matching engine that it
sometimes sees patterns that aren't there. I used to think in my
early 20's that I could see patterns in random data; it took research
and tests for me to realize that what I was seeing was the normal
machinations of the human visual system. Had I performed my own
research, I might still be telling people to this day that there is a
recognizable pattern in all random things...

[Jim Leonard]

On Jan 5, 4:27 am, jules Gilbert <jules.sto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> About reading the Bible, I am well aware that we Christians are
> supposed to forgive our enemies.

Unless you can quote a verse that directly references compression
methods, please refrain from religious discussion in this group (or
any other that has nothing to do with religion). There are tens of
thousands of religious groups scattered throughout the web where such
talk is not only appropriate but well-received.

[Alex Mizrahi]

> I am probably in the minority, but I don't think Jules is an obvious
> confidence trickster -- I think Jules *actually believes* his method
> works, which is why he's been so stubborn to go through verification
> (code working programs, accept valid challenges).

If he believes that he is probably mentally ill. A sane person would try
to verify his ideas as soon as possible, and they won't claim that it
works before it does, maybe "mostly works", "it just needs a little
optimization".

There are three options:
* mentally ill
* troll
* fraudster

> He's entering
> retirement, and while this is pure conjecture he's probably looking
> for one last big payout, and afraid to confront the idea that his
> method is flawed.

I met a man who was in same position: he thought he'll be able to make
an algorithm to predict random data. The difference is that he tried to
verify his ideas as fast as possible. He couldn't program (although I
guess he could learn if he wanted to) so he paid programmers to
implement programs to test his ideas.

I've made some programs for him. I've explained three times that thing
he's doing isn't possible from mathematical, statistical and
information-theoretic perspectives. He said he understands, but doesn't
trust statistics, and asked to just implement an algorithm as is.

That's how a sane crackpots work.

> The human brain is such a strong pattern-matching engine that it
> sometimes sees patterns that aren't there. I used to think in my
> early 20's that I could see patterns in random data;

I guess that's pretty common, especially if you transform data to smooth
it out. That's, basically, what dude I wrote about above did.

But I don't see why a person who understands probability theory would
fall for it -- binomial distribution suggests that there WILL be bit
patterns, like many zeroes in a row, but that doesn't mean anything.
Likewise, if you work with octets, some patterns like same or similar
octets together are expected.

[Robert Wessel]

How about Matthew 23:24?

"You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel."

Although in the best tradition of compression crackpottery, it doesn't
say anything about the decompressor.

[Michael]

On Jan 7, 12:28 pm, Robert Wessel <robertwess...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Jan 2012 14:04:17 -0800 (PST), Jim Leonard
>

*bows to Robert*

You the man!

[Zhu Qun-Ying]

Is this jules Gilber a real person? Why the content give me the
impression that they are generated by a AI program?


On Thu, 05 Jan 2012 02:27:19 -0800, jules Gilbert <jules....@gmail.com>
wrote:

--
Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

[Earl_Colby_Pottinger]

On Jan 10, 8:36 pm, "Zhu Qun-Ying" <zhu.quny...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Is this jules Gilber a real person?  Why the content give me the
> impression that they are generated by a AI program?

He is real, it is just that A.I. has advance to the point that it can
now act like a person with a few loose screws.

[jules Gilbert]

On Jan 10, 8:36 pm, "Zhu Qun-Ying" <zhu.quny...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Is this jules Gilber a real person?  Why the content give me the
> impression that they are generated by a AI program?
>

> On Thu, 05 Jan 2012 02:27:19 -0800, jules Gilbert <jules.sto...@gmail.com>

Actually Zhu, some of my programs are based on AI.

And I am quite real. Send me an email, why don't you. Who knows what
you'll get back!