Pudgy

Ok, i thought about a diode, but I assumed the circuit was completely identified, with no hidden components. Was the diode in the AC taped connection on the primary side of the transformer?
WERE there two conductors in the white wire to the light?

…. my guess is the white wire has two conductors which takes the electricity to and from the light bulb, and the black wire from the bulb to the switch shorts out the circuit back to the step down transformer, and the light goes dark.
The transformer looks hefty enough with enough radiative surface to take an intermittant short circuit heat overload.
That looks like 12v automotive light bulb with a bayonet pin, and a 120v to 12v step down doorbell transformer.
I cannot tell if the light has one filament, or two. If it has two, there will be two contacts on the base and two circuits for (+) and (+), sometimes as two buttons, and sometimes as concentric conductors, separated by an insulating ceramic,  and a common (-), or “ground”.
A photo of the connections to the light bulb, sharp and clear, would be helpful. Also the connections on the primary and secondary side (4 wires) of the transformer.
I have other theories that would depend on the transformer being 6v instead of 12v.
 

That's close enough. The trick is done pretty much per your idea, but with a hidden diode, maybe two diodes on one of the designs.
Ours is not to wonder why. Ours is but to duo-diode.
-- famous old expression my dad used to say
 
I'm going to try to take this one home, although I'm sure I'll have to leae early to explain to the security at the airport that a step-down trnsformer isn't a bomb.

No wires under the switch or going through the switch, and the switch is completely replaceable with any other switch. The light and power source are also replaceable with any standard light or power source. He just used this one because it looks the most like the way a switch is drawn in a schematic circuit diagram.
But even if there were, it might still be difficult to explain how closing the switch turns the light off and opening it turns it on.

So I am assuming there were no wires running underneath that when the switch was raised closed the circuit...? and the top wires were made of non conducting material just to throw you off? I suppose not. I am completely  confused and puzzled 🤪

Now I see where that Mission Impossible line came from.

Two can play THIS WORD SALAD, Annie.
In the perplexing realm of circular discourse, where words pirouette without purpose and sentences meander aimlessly, we find ourselves trapped in a linguistic labyrinth of unparalleled absurdity. Picture a discourse so circuitous that it makes a dizzying carousel seem like a straight line. As we embark on this linguistic rollercoaster, we must prepare to navigate the convoluted contours of verbosity.
In the grand tapestry of talking in circles, the artistry lies in crafting sentences that orbit meaning without ever daring to land. Words, like mischievous acrobats, perform feats of linguistic gymnastics, contorting themselves into shapes unfamiliar to logic. It's a parade of paradoxes, where coherence is the elusive unicorn and clarity the rarest of gems.
As we delve into the heart of this linguistic carnival, one may be tempted to believe that profundity resides in the obscurity of expression. Alas, it's a masquerade where the emperor wears robes woven from the threads of ambiguity, and the courtiers nod sagely, pretending to decipher the indecipherable. Verbose vortices suck meaning into their whirlpools, leaving behind a vacuum of understanding.
Each sentence, a maze with no exit, beckons the listener to wander in perpetual confusion. It's a dance of diction where the music is composed of vague allusions and the choreography an intricate ballet of equivocation. Attempting to grasp the central theme is akin to chasing shadows, for just when you think you've caught hold of meaning, it slips through your fingers like ethereal mist.
In this topsy-turvy world of circular dialogue, the destination remains elusive, and the journey becomes an endless loop of linguistic acrobatics. It's as if words have donned roller skates, careening wildly through the terrain of syntax, leaving punctuation in disarray and grammar in a state of disrepair. A sentence may start with the promise of lucidity, only to spiral into the abyss of convolution.
To converse in circles is to revel in the absurdity of language, to embrace a carnival of confusion where coherence is sacrilege and simplicity a heretical notion. So, let us celebrate the linguistic mayhem, where words frolic in a field of lexical anarchy, and meaning is but a distant echo in the cacophony of circumlocution.
Wah de do DAH!

Two can play THIS WORD SALAD, Annie.
In the perplexing realm of circular discourse, where words pirouette without purpose and sentences meander aimlessly, we find ourselves trapped in a linguistic labyrinth of unparalleled absurdity. Picture a discourse so circuitous that it makes a dizzying carousel seem like a straight line. As we embark on this linguistic rollercoaster, we must prepare to navigate the convoluted contours of verbosity.
In the grand tapestry of talking in circles, the artistry lies in crafting sentences that orbit meaning without ever daring to land. Words, like mischievous acrobats, perform feats of linguistic gymnastics, contorting themselves into shapes unfamiliar to logic. It's a parade of paradoxes, where coherence is the elusive unicorn and clarity the rarest of gems.
As we delve into the heart of this linguistic carnival, one may be tempted to believe that profundity resides in the obscurity of expression. Alas, it's a masquerade where the emperor wears robes woven from the threads of ambiguity, and the courtiers nod sagely, pretending to decipher the indecipherable. Verbose vortices suck meaning into their whirlpools, leaving behind a vacuum of understanding.
Each sentence, a maze with no exit, beckons the listener to wander in perpetual confusion. It's a dance of diction where the music is composed of vague allusions and the choreography an intricate ballet of equivocation. Attempting to grasp the central theme is akin to chasing shadows, for just when you think you've caught hold of meaning, it slips through your fingers like ethereal mist.
In this topsy-turvy world of circular dialogue, the destination remains elusive, and the journey becomes an endless loop of linguistic acrobatics. It's as if words have donned roller skates, careening wildly through the terrain of syntax, leaving punctuation in disarray and grammar in a state of disrepair. A sentence may start with the promise of lucidity, only to spiral into the abyss of convolution.
To converse in circles is to revel in the absurdity of language, to embrace a carnival of confusion where coherence is sacrilege and simplicity a heretical notion. So, let us celebrate the linguistic mayhem, where words frolic in a field of lexical anarchy, and meaning is but a distant echo in the cacophony of circumlocution.
Wah de do DAH!

While you are “away” for a few days, Many Miles, be on the lookout for viable carrion to scrape up, and cook up, and actually eat.
Try to choose something that is not covered and infested with flies, parasites, bacteria and ants.
Even if you cook it the toxins will still be there … you know … the pee and poop from bacteria and  viruses. Toxins.
Or … you could play Russian Roulette, which will give you about the same odds of survival, and only hurts for a microsecond.

Unfortunately, we are only discussing possibilities here. We weren't there, we don't know for sure, and there are no clear Bible verses that tell us the exact details. So none of this makes a very strong foundation or a premise for further argumentation. There are many interesting points to be made about why the Bible does include certain phrases and does not include others, and why the natural world as we see it around us (including ages-old fossils) isn't explained in detail in the Bible itself.
I personally think that what is stated in Acts 15 and 21 need not rely on some specific interpretations and conjectures about natural law, Noahide law or the Mosaic law. The term in Acts is "abstain from blood." It's a good translation, yet it doesn't say only to abstain from eating or drinking it. It just says abstain. That MIGHT have meant only abstain from drinking blood or from eating products made from blood, and it probably was meant to refer in some way back to the Noahide and Mosaic references to blood. But it might even go beyond those, or it might just be a simple command for Gentiles to avoid making it difficult to join in fellowship with their Jewish Christian brothers by avoiding blood when fellowshipping with those who would be disgusted by the idea. Paul seems to interpret the Acts 15 idea as not blatantly or flagrantly flaunting the freedoms that Gentile Christians have that those Jewish Christians were not ready to accept. The very idea of eating or even transfusing blood already seems disgusting to many people, even some inside the medical profession. It seems disgusting to most Jehovah's Witnesses who have repeatedly reviewed the Mosaic laws about it and the Acts 15 statement and have also heard so many negative stories about blood transfusion. So imagine how disgusting "taking" blood would seem for those Jewish Christians whose families and ancestors had been steeped in anti-blood doctrine for thousands of years. 
Paul never repeats the idea that we should not eat unbled meat. In fact Paul very clearly says:
(1 Corinthians 10:25-27) . . .Eat whatever is sold in a meat market, making no inquiry because of your conscience, 26  for “to Jehovah belong the earth and everything in it.” 27  If an unbeliever invites you and you want to go, eat whatever is set before you, making no inquiry on account of your conscience. 
(1 Corinthians 8:1-8) . . .Now concerning food offered to idols: . . . 4  Now concerning the eating of food offered to idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world and that there is no God but one.  . . . 7  However, not all have this knowledge. But some, because of their former association with the idol, eat food as something sacrificed to an idol, and their conscience, being weak, is defiled. 8  But food will not bring us nearer to God; we are no worse off if we do not eat, nor better off if we eat. 
(1 Timothy 4:3-5) . . .They forbid marriage and command people to abstain from foods that God created to be partaken of with thanksgiving by those who have faith and accurately know the truth. 4 For every creation of God is fine, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, 5  for it is sanctified through God’s word and prayer over it.
And Jesus too: (Matthew 15:11) . . . It is not what enters into a man’s mouth that defiles him, but it is what comes out of his mouth that defiles him.”
So I think a much more relevant discussion would skip the interpretations and conjectures about Noah and Moses and go straight to trying to understand why there is an apparent contradiction between the Acts 15 view of blood and things sacrificed to idols (which definitely could include blood) and Paul's view of potentially bloody meat and things sacrificed to idols.
 
For me, that is the starting point. 
 

I guess most of us would think we are doing just that, but what might seem reasonable to one person might not seem reasonable to another person. It's my opinion that just because "carrion" is one of of at least ONE MILLION PLUS "kinds" of all food, I don't think it's reasonable to think that Noah took ONE MILLION-PLUS "kinds" of food, and we especially can't arbitrarily pick any ONE of those million-plus foods and decide that it MUST have been one of the MILLION-PLUS that Noah must have included.
Reasonableness and context drive me to think that Noah took LESS than one million types of food and therefore left some of them off the list, nutritious or not. And if we are giving preference to what the Bible actually says, then we should consider that there may be a very good reason that the Bible NEVER says that Noah took carrion onto the Ark. 
I believe there is plenty of good evidence that animals were eating other animals for epochs of time prior to the Bible's timeline for Noah and Adam. And worms and insects and bacteria and microbes appear naturally designed for breaking down dead animal and vegetable matter and that could include remains from animals killed or those that died by other natural causes. So it's not a stretch to believe that many animals were designed from the start to eat other animals no matter how they died.
I agree that 2 Pet 2:12 may easily include carrion but carrion it is not explicitly mentioned here either.

Whew! 
At least it was not as bad as my memory, confusing “clean animals by sevens” and “unclean animals by twos”. 
Heretofore I was ranting for the opposite case.
Still, the same amount of extra animals to be made into Purina Lion Chow for the voyage though.
My apologies, but in my defense, my brain is 77 years old, and mostly made of fat.
 
 

That's fine. From here on I'll let readers alert me if anything you present deserves my attention. So far all you've done is spew blather in the face of simple questions a child should be able to answer. Why you do this (and the same is true of us all) is for readers to decide as they will, and that's how it should be.
Should want to me to re-engage discussion with you then it's as easy as you answering the two simple questions asked here:
Until then, goodbye.

i’m still trying to figure out how the Penguins got from Antarctica all the way up to Noah’s ark …… 
 

No.
For me, the biblical statement in which God, after the creation (of animal species), claims that everything turned out well and does not put them in the categories of clean and unclean, is sufficient. I guess that includes dinosaurs. lol

… so, Alphonse … what is it you are downvoting?
Are you downvoting the hard fact that Jehovah himself mentioned Canibalism?
Or are you downvoting the hard fact that he did not prohibit Cannibalism?
And what REALLY happened to Able’s body after Cain killed him?
Hmmmmmm?
 
 

Not rationally.

But I never saw in the WTJWorg pictures that Noah collected kangaroos. So your photo with the distance in miles and comment is a bit suspicious to me. Many would say, the WTJWorg pictures are more credible than yours.
:)))))))

With false premise logic, you can unravel EVERYTHING!


 
Jehovah God HIMSELF mentions cannibalism several times …. and NOWHERE prohibits it.
 

That's true that it could and often does, but carrion COULD also be fresher than some of the meats found in my local meat market. It's still carrion even if it is only one hour old, and the animal died and freeze-dried itself in a blizzard. But I agree with you that there is no evidence that Noah ate such things. I don't think anyone here ever hinted, however, that Noah must have eaten such food before or after the Flood, only that fresh edible carrion might have been in animal diets. Even if animals died and were tempting food for other animals, for all we know, animals avoided carrion, and went for fresh kills. Maybe carrion birds and carrion insects and worms got that way after the flood. Although that could imply a fairly quick form of evolution.  

Well … I have found in life that the more words a person uses to explain contested ideas, the less likely the premises of the arguments are valid.
Juan, you are very articulate and easily understood, and logical and coherent.
But I cannot bring myself to give fealty to anyone but God and Christ.
If I was a United States Marine, of reasonable intelligence, I would of course know that most Officers were petty, deeply flawed, arrogant, presumptuous and likely to view me and my fellow Marines as career building cannon fodder.
But even in the Marines you are not required to obey an illegal order.
So, who decides what is an illegal order?
You do.
You may be shot or hanged, (or disfellowshipped) but it is better than living an unexamined life in a pseudo- fantasy.

Here: 
 

Your response is like chattering teeth. You make noise, but don't convey anything sensical.
1) As a premise, it's not "technical" whether an item is this or that. It's either this or that.
2) It's patently false to suggest flesh of animals dead of natural cause that is fit to eat is not a practical edible. Humans and animals consume this sort of food all the time. (This how I've expressly used the term "carrion" here and elsewhere on this forum and to assert otherwise is equivocation. Not that you'd care.) From a practical nutritional standpoint there is no difference between flesh of animals dead of natural cause compared to the flesh of animals dead by slaughter.
3) Availability and dependability are questions of opportunity. If the opportunity of harvesting edible flesh of an animal dead of natural cause is present then it is available, and how dependable is that availability is likewise a question of continued opportunity, just like it is with any other food source. Animals are dying of natural cause all the time. It can be harvested and stored according to availability and need.
4) Storage by the ancients of harvested flesh of an animal dead of natural cause was as possible as it was for vegetation.
5) I'm wasting my time responding to you because you don't care about the subject or persons who might read what's here. You want to clap out nonsense and share cartoons and memes, apparently to entertain yourself.
 

I would give answer to the question in the title, "What is our scriptural basis for refusing transfusion of products rendered from blood?"
We have seen that the WTJWorg interpretations seem to imply that the taking of animal or human blood is unacceptable because they tend to draw that conclusion based on a few passages of the Bible.
Then they subsequently made it clear that blood (and blood products) should not be used for nutritional purposes, but some blood products can be used (allowed) to protect or improve health.
They also inserted into that thesis the vague and inconsistent use of the amount of a certain ingredient in the blood as a measure of acceptable or unacceptable.
Whatever of their logic they want to use as a "biblical argument", we see that they (GB) have ruined the original commandment with their politicization and assumptions. If it is said that blood is not to be used (let's add a sequel-for any purpose except for a religious act) but must be shed on the ground, then it is clear that WTJWorg and GB along with their followers is a violator of that commandment because they doctrinally and literally allow the use of blood (and its parts) for an illegal (non-religious) purpose.
Since GB did not provide a single biblical quote as possible proof that some minor parts (fractions) of blood are allowed to be used by believers, GB falls into the "false teachers" category.
Or, in order not to offend some readers, we can say it like this: Teachers who do not know how to use God's Word correctly. ("...rightly dividing the word of truth” KJV), ("...handling the word of the truth aright. NWT) - 2 Timothy 2:15.

 
 

Ok, i thought about a diode, but I assumed the circuit was completely identified, with no hidden components. Was the diode in the AC taped connection on the primary side of the transformer?
WERE there two conductors in the white wire to the light?