Hyper Dimensional Design

[Paul]

Which part was meaningless? You forgot the quote option here

This part:

"They don't have 3 dimensional shape in our reality, only the correlating orbital positions remain as explained before"

The part that was in the quote box at the top of the post, that part is meaningless.

 

[Paul]

But The Man, I agree with you.........I've told you they don't look at all like a Tetrahedron, in fact they don't have shape at all

Then stop referring to tetrahedrons, platonic solids and higher dimensions until you can come up with either something that you actually mean or some evidence that you're not just appropriating words you don't understand.

 

[Paul]

The tetrhedronal geometry is the only thing that remains when a HD Tetrahedron is 'translated' in to our dimensional realm, corresponding with specific orbital positions ( as determined as a specific number of rotations in an orbit of a planet for instance). We have gone through that The Man.

And every time we go through it you fail to grasp that it's total nonsense.

 

[Paul]

My 'conclusions' are confirmed by actual events in our reality, for each and everyone to review as everything is logged.

If that were actually true, as opposed to in your head, at least a few of your conclusions would have been acknowledged here.

Contrary to the often entrenched attitudes displayed by proponents od alternative thought, many here would be more than pleased if some of the ideas offered were true; their utility would be enormous and of benefit to the whole planet.

I say that a serious investigation makes that people eventually would come to the same conclusions based on the same available material: that its valid

If you really believed that you would have attempted a serious investigation before now, instead of just talking about one endlessly.

 

[Hans]

Which stress?

The only thing that has changed is that I have increased my understanding of this HDdesign concept, so its inevitable that differences between you and me increased aswell.

You don't actually think you guys can crack me up, do you?

Crack you up? Us? You are doing a fine job yourself Dutch. Remember you believe you can predict the future and see 'signs' in random coincidence.

Go back and read your early stuff and compare it to what you write now....notice anything?

 

[Hans]

funny guy, you just can't deal with me and the implications of this HDdesign material, so now you are talking as if you've all sorted it out.

The profoundness of what I am saying is only increasing but you just keep on closing your eyes for it.

Dutch it is quite easy - I'll take it step by step

You are self delusional

You support that delusion by making stuff up

Yes I have sorted it all out, see the two sentences above

profoundness of what I am saying is only increasing

Profounness? More like gekheid

 

[Wolrab]

For instance: that Theo van Gogh was killed on the 911 - HD Tetrahedron based timecoded spiral was a 'confirmation' of the hidden underlying pattern.
The understanding that this has to do with Srebrenia karma being played out is something else, that took me more than a year to find out , after continued monitoring of the hidden underlying patterns.

Show the math you used to come up with this. You keep throwing around mathematical and geometric terms, so you must have some equations to post. Where are they?

 

[Daylightstar]

The difference is that the whole world could have potentially witnessed this Jupiter Impact and nobody witnesses the airplane

Which one is true???

That's right Dutch, nobody witnesses the airplane.....like hdd.

 

[Daylightstar]

So, Dutch dumps 20 posts in a row, and it's all about, he says: "I have this thought out of nowhere", he posts news stories and unsupported or unsupportable statements, and it's all true, because else, he says: "I wouldn't do this".
To top it all, he says that what he has to say is profound.

Okidoki

Is there a bit delusion of grandeur here?

 

[Daylightstar]

Show the math you used to come up with this. You keep throwing around mathematical and geometric terms, so you must have some equations to post. Where are they?

There's no math, Dutch doesn't know any math. Dutch works with thoughts out of nowhere.

 

[dafydd]

determined more than a year in advance.......

What's the matter with you? Why is it, that you always ignore this?

Point me to the place where you predicted Theo Van Gogh's death,and give me another prediction.

 

[The Man]

The man:



Because I think so. Your test will be set up so that everybody should be able to repeat what I am doing and I have already explained to you years ago that you have to take the 'intuition' and the synchroniciyies into consideration. If you think you can set up test that are able to do so I will go for JREFF's 1 million challege instantly

Dutch:

Check the source of your quote.

 

[Chris L]

For instance: that Theo van Gogh was killed on the 911 - HD Tetrahedron based timecoded spiral was a 'confirmation' of the hidden underlying pattern.

Has someone already mentioned to Dutch that something of note happens pretty much every day (it's called news), and therefore any random "time coded spiral" can look like it confirms a "pattern"?

 

[The Man]

The man:


But The Man, I agree with you.........I've told you they don't look at all like a Tetrahedron, in fact they don't have shape at all

So you agree that you don’t actually use a tetrahedron but still use the word tetrahedron? Why do you reference a specific geometrical shape that you “agree” you don’t use?

The tetrhedronal geometry is the only thing that remains when a HD Tetrahedron is 'translated' in to our dimensional realm, corresponding with specific orbital positions ( as determined as a specific number of rotations in an orbit of a planet for instance). We have gone through that The Man.

Once again a tetrahedron is specifically a 3-dimensional shape in “our dimensional realm” that “geometry” does not remain in your HD nonsense because you never use it to begin with. Stop being simply and clearly deliberately deceptive Dutch.

 

[The Man]

That's because your thinking stops with 'I didn't pull the trigger in Srebrenica'

You’ve already confessed that you don’t know me Dutch so don’t presume to assert where you would simply like my “thinking” to stop.

In order to understand you have to think deeper than 'linear cause and effect' line of thoughts

Again don’t simply try to ascribe to people you do not know the “thoughts” you would prefer them to have.

You have to think about these issues from another point of view

Indeed and if you really want to understand how things like this happen, I suggest you try thinking about it from the point of view of those that did “’…pull the trigger in Srebrenica'.

 

[The Man]

My 'conclusions' are confirmed by actual events in our reality, for each and everyone to review as everything is logged. I say that a serious investigation makes that people eventually would come to the same conclusions based on the same available material: that its valid

As already demonstrated, one can come to a completely opposite ‘conclusions’ (basically just your own personal interpretations) by the same “actual events in our reality”. So your predetermined ‘conclusions’ “that a serious investigation makes that people eventually would come to the same conclusions” is as invalid as your predetermined “'conclusions'” being “confirmed by actual events in our reality”.

 

[The Man]

Originally Posted by The Man [qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif[/qimg] :






Aha, now I know what you mean. I think I have to clarify about this 20 years. When I was at age 25 I was not happy about my understanding of reality and from that age on I really wanted to know what life's about.

For years I read several books a week about alot of non-fiction subjects, including science, religion, ( para) psychology, philosophy, ancient past, etc. Only the last 7 years I used the internet too. My point of view has been changed over the years. When I was young I thought I knew it all and I had a very skeptical mind, very rational but also, as appeared later on, very limited. I began to understand that I should also trust intuitive knowledge.
When I began to read about Hyper Dimensional Physics back in 2003 I was very curious. I had this idea to apply this Hyper Dimensional Physics on our perception of time and from then on, this HDDesign 'research' was ongoing. It really changed the way I looked at reality and when I noticed that all these coindedences and synchronicities emerged in the material I began to understand that I was dealing with very profound and fundamental knowledge.
I understood that with specific knowledge comes specific responsibilities, so I decided to share the material ( from 2004 on).

What did you “read about Hyper Dimensional Physics back in 2003”? What makes you think you are applying “Hyper Dimensional Physics on our perception of time”?

Well thank you for more accurately addressing my question. I can understand how one might not be happy with their understanding of reality, but just pretending you’re applying “Hyper Dimensional Physics on our perception of time”, while it might make you happier, it certainly does not demonstrate that your “understanding of reality” has improved at all. So the 9/11 and Madrid bombing “coindedences and synchronicities” were your first?

When you were young you thought you knew it all and thought you had a skeptical mind. Unfortunately thinking you know it all shows that you in fact don’t have a skeptical mind. Then you began to “trust” you intuition, which was already wrong in making you think you knew it all and had a skeptical mind. Later you claim you began reading about “Hyper Dimensional Physics” which I suspect from your claims on this tread, had very little actually to do with Hyper Dimensional Physics. So you have come up with this HDD nonsense to help you “confirm” you intuition, that you were not happy with before and that had already failed you by getting you to think you knew it all and had a skeptical mind?

Don’t you see Dutch, instead of moving away from what you were not happy with and had failed you when you were young, your intuition. You have simply come to rely on it fully and have invented a means to simply help you confirm it for yourself. So instead of actually improving your understanding of our reality you have simply chosen to make yourself happy with your own intuition, in spite of the fact that it fails you now as it did when you were young.

 

[The Man]

I've only read about 10 pages of this tome over time. My interest in HDD is quite minimal, but I am curious about the social dynamics in play here. Trying to see it and similar threads from a cyber-cultural anthro perspective. Toward this end, it would be greatly appreciated if some of the regulars could make some response to my questions below.

1. What percentage of the posts here (roughly) were made by Dutch?
2. If you totally disagree with the OP and think the way Dutch defends it is based solely on fallacies such as circular argumentation/begging the question etc., what keeps you coming back for more?
3. Looking back on your participation in this discussion, do you feel it was time well spent or not? Reasons for either choice would be quite helpful.

My apologies to any who consider the above questions a derail. From what I've read, IMHO most of this debate comes down to a kind of semantical glasperlenspiel anyway, so I'm hoping this attempt to grok what motivates the participants won't be considered too disruptive. Thanks for any help you can render.

I’ll give it my best shot.

1) I have no idea, though given his propensity to respond in multiple posts I would not be surprised if he was the most prolific poster here.

2) To some extent that disagreement, were we to agree I doubt there would be more to discuss. Also the posts by others, were it simply me and Dutch I doubt there would be anything to keep me coming back even if we continued to disagree.

3) I try to learn regardless of what I’m doing and I often learn a lot even from threads like this where the OP doesn’t seem to be learning anything.

 

[Dutch]

This part:

"They don't have 3 dimensional shape in our reality, only the correlating orbital positions remain as explained before"

The part that was in the quote box at the top of the post, that part is meaningless.

You were not quoting the given explanations earlier in this thread as you should have done.

I haven't read your previous 2 posts as you are still splitting it in sentences.

 

[Dutch]

Then stop referring to tetrahedrons, platonic solids and higher dimensions until you can come up with either something that you actually mean or some evidence that you're not just appropriating words you don't understand.

I mean what I say, its about platonic solid geometry corresponding with orbital positions. expand your mind