Hyper Dimensional Design

[Paulhoff]

What do you see, when looking at that, that I am not?

I would not what to really know.

Paul

 

[Dutch]

Bush 'loses patience' with Syria
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7154473.stm

 

[Dutch]

To be honest with you, Dutch, all I'm seeing when you post those extremely long "synchronicities" reports is coincidences. It seems to me like you are taking random, unassociated events, and forcing it within the framework of this HD design you've invented, and muddle things around until it all fits. It looks to me like you're forcing association when there isn't any. What do you see, when looking at that, that I am not?

Of course you see coincidences and of course it seems random to you and of course they seem unassociated to you. That's how reality is supposed to look to you. Just monitor the anticipations on future timeframes, I'm not forcing, I'm just following intuition and synchronicities, that pop up instantly when 'tuned in' on the hidden underlying Design

I see the same reality as you are, only our understanding of the real nature of our reality differs

 

[Dutch]

updated on the timeline: 'Deep Impact'
Scientists say asteroid could hit Mars
Space rock has 1-in-75 chance of Red Planet smash-up in January
Dec. 20, 2007
LOS ANGELES - Mars could be in for an asteroid hit.
A newly discovered hunk of space rock has a 1-in-75 chance of slamming into the Red Planet on Jan. 30, scientists said Thursday.
"These odds are extremely unusual. We frequently work with really long odds when we track ... threatening asteroids," said Steve Chesley, an astronomer with the Near Earth Object Program at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory.
The asteroid, known as 2007 WD5, was discovered in late November and is similar in size to the Tunguska object that hit remote central Siberia in 1908, unleashing energy equivalent to a 15-megaton nuclear bomb that wiped out 60 million trees.
Scientists tracking the asteroid, which is halfway to Mars, initially put the odds of impact at 1 in 350 and increased the chances this week after analyzing the data. Scientists expect the odds to diminish again early next month after getting new observations of the asteroid's orbit, Chesley said.
"We know that it's going to fly by Mars and most likely going to miss, but there's a possibility of an impact," he said.
If the asteroid does smash into Mars, it'll likely aim near the equator, close to where the rover Opportunity has been exploring the Martian plains since 2004. The robot is not in danger because it lies outside the potential impact zone. Speeding at 8 miles (12.8 kilometers) a second, a collision would carve a hole the size of the famed Meteor Crater in Arizona.
In 2004, fragments of Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 smacked into Jupiter, creating a series of overlapping fireballs in space. Astronomers have yet to witness an asteroid impact with another planet.
"Unlike an Earth impact, we're not afraid, but we're excited," Chesley said.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22350742/

 

[Paulhoff]

Of course you see coincidences and of course it seems random to you and of course they seem unassociated to you. That's how reality is supposed to look to you.

Just watch the news, and/or get on the internet if you what to quote a lot of BS, big deal Dutch, you do just point out random noise that you what with no showing of why you think it means anything.

A question for you Dutch, how old is the Earth.

Paul

 

[Mister Earl]

Of course you see coincidences and of course it seems random to you and of course they seem unassociated to you. That's how reality is supposed to look to you. Just monitor the anticipations on future timeframes, I'm not forcing, I'm just following intuition and synchronicities, that pop up instantly when 'tuned in' on the hidden underlying Design

I see the same reality as you are, only our understanding of the real nature of our reality differs

I think the major place we differ is that you consider the existance of "Synchronocities" and "underlying design" as fact without supporting evidence. For me, evidence is a necessity. But ask yourself this, Dutch. Is it or is it not possible that these events could happen at random, and not be related? Is it possible? If it is, then wouldn't you consider it necessary to rule that out first?

 

[DrBaltar]

This thread is dedicated to the search for indications of hidden underlying multidimensional design just underneath the surface of our familiar 3-dimensional reality.

Other dimensions wouldn't be 'underneath the surface'. They would be at right angles to the 3-dimensions. But wasn't that already accomplished? General Relativity assumes a 4 dimensional space-time. The total solar eclipse observation in 1919 showed that the path of starlight traveling near the sun followed a curved path as GR predicted, implying that there are at least 4 dimensions.

And then, according to the Kaluza-Klein theory, GR can be expanded to 5 dimensions and include electromagnetism.

 

[Mister Earl]

Also, the method you use for your timeframes is inaccurate and loaded. The current method you use gives you approximately a 25% chance of being correct on any "anticipation" on any given date. You spread that out by allowing yourself a +/-1 day, and spread it out even further by using gross generalizations for your "anticipations". You then further load things to your favor by not counting misses as such, but merely stating you expect it to happen on the next "anticipation" date.

I'm guessing that using your method, you have a 95% chance success rate on any anticipation. Not because you've found some deep, hidden secret, but merely because you twist and contort your "HD Design", "Synchronocities", and "Anticipations" to be so generalized and non-specific that any random newsworthy event can be shoe-horned into your invention and be declared a hit. You can't even use your method to predict anything specific or important. You're so afraid of others testing your idea and finding it invalid that you won't even fully explain the method you use to make your "anticipations". I asked you once, on the BAUT forums, to walk us through the process, step by step, so that we could replicate it on our side, and do some testing ourselves. You did no such thing. You did the same there that you did here. You post links to news sites about completely unrelated events, stating that they match up with some vague generalization of yours, which you handily predicted after the fact. When we pressed you for details, documentation, graphs, anything, you give us the same excuse. "I don't have time for anything in depth, I do this on my own time." Yet you have plenty for posting hundreds of posts, must have literally five or more hours a day to look at news sites for events you can shoe-horn into your HDD theory. You are completely disinterested in whether or not your idea has any merit. From day one we began speaking, you've made it utterly clear to me that you do not care whether or not HDD is valid. You seem more interested in how many people you can get to follow along with your scheme and do not question it.

I seriously question your motives. Are you trying to develop a following, so you can sell books and little scrolls by gas station cashiers? I haven't seen you try to sell anything other than your idea yet, so I'll give you the benefit of a doubt, but I don't see what you could possibly hope to accomplish, here. Why spend so much time on something that you don't care whether it exists or not?

 

[Dutch]

I will answer you later Mr. earl, but it will have to wait because I'm enjoying qualitytime! I'm on holiday but it can be that I will post updates that are related to the timeframes on the timeline, because that's the first priority. Beginning next year I think, but maybe I can find some spare time to reply

have a nice time

 

[Paulhoff]

I will answer you later Mr. earl, but it will have to wait because I'm enjoying qualitytime! I'm on holiday but it can be that I will post updates that are related to the timeframes on the timeline, because that's the first priority. Beginning next year I think, but maybe I can find some spare time to reply

have a nice time

Qualitytime is anything but your Hyper Time.

Paul

 

[Mister Earl]

Have a good holiday, whatever you two may happen to celebrate. So Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, and have a good Kwanzaa, Dutch and Paulhoff. I may not be here for a few days as I do the family thing as well.

 

[Dutch]

The current timeframe can be considered to be a 'Deep Impact' echo timeframe as mentioned on the timeline. The 911 based Hyper Dimensional Tetrahedron connects the impact of the Deep Impact collidor on comet Temple 1 on July 4, 2007 with an actual Deep Impact spacecraft Earth fly-by on December 31, 2007.
Earlier in december 2007 I talked about the desintegration of MIR, symbolising the end of peace, on the Golden Mean based spiral that connceted the desintegration of MIR, the Grand Cross alignment during August 1999, the discovery of Eris, who caused the Trojan War in myths with the timeframe around December 23.
This Golden Mean based timecoded spiral originated on or around January 23, 1997, the day Mir Aimal Kasi receives the death sentence for a 1993 assault rifle attack outside CIA headquarters that killed 2 and wounded 3 others.
his motives are already posted here
This timeframe around December 23 should be seen as a timeframe of a few days , as an golden mean spiral that originates at a specific moment in time, could shows a few days difference in the future when the next keydates hit the spiral.
This timeframe coincided with December 25-26 ,Christmas 2007, - 2 Hyper Dimensional Tetrahedrons prior to the end of the Mayan Calendar, ongoing 911 based pattern, 1823 days 'control' timeframe. I expected it to be a very powerful timeframe and I asked to keep the given underlying themes in mind when observing or experiencing this timeframe.
Mir Aimal Kasi was a Pakistani. When I saw this origin of the golden mean spiral with its 'end of peace ' implication, I had to think of Pakistan but I had no idea what would actually happen. this Bhutto assassination really seems to be a valid expression on the timecoded spiral but further monitoring is necessarry.
The awakenings endtrigger for December 27, 2007 the day Bhutto was killed gives July 4, so 'Deep Impact' is an awakenings triggerevent for December 27, 2007, a few days for the actual Deep Impact' fly by of Earth that creates a Hyper Dimensional tetrahedron with the 'Deep Impact' on comet temple I on July 4, 2005
Goro is calling the assassination of Bhutto a first 'Deep Impact' wave aswell
'Deep Impact' will return as triggerevent during January and these dates are mentioned on the timeline for Q1 2008: January 5 , 11 and 25
Unfortunately I didn't look at the triggerevents for December 27, 2007 but if I would have done that, I would have filtered this out, given the already identified MIR symbolism and Pakistani Mir Aimal Kasi's end of peace theme and (symbolic) Deep Impact themes:
1111 based 'awakenings' trigger events for december 27, 2007:
1953 - Benazir Bhutto's birthday
1947 - "Indian Independence Bill" is presented before British House of Commons, suggesting bifurcation of British India into two sovereign countries - India and Pakistan.
1977 - Military coup in Pakistan Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto the very first elected Prime Minister of Pakistan overthrown.
911 HD Tetrahedron based 'control' triggerevents for december 27, 2007:
1995 - Space Shuttle program: STS-71 Mission (Atlantis docks with the Russian space station Mir for the first time.)
1914 - Franz Ferdinand, Archduke of Austria and his wife Sophie are assassinated in Sarajevo by young Serbian nationalist Gavrilo Princip , the causus belli of World War I.
(Note that this event is also related to the Hariri situation!!!!!!!!)
1997 - An unmanned Progress spacecraft collided with the Russian Space station, Mir.

also on the triggers:
the first woman and the first Muslim in space ( with space shuttle)
Deep Impact:
1938 - A 450 metric ton meteorite strikes the earth in an empty field near Chicora, Pennsylvania.
2002 - Eastern Mediterranean Event. A near-Earth asteroid estimated at 10 metres diameter explodes over the Mediterranean Sea between Greece and Libya. The resulting explosion is estimated to have a force of 26 kilotons, slightly more powerful than the Nagasaki atomic bomb.
1912 - A meteorite with an estimated mass of 190 kg explodes over the town of Holbrook in Navajo County, Arizona causing approximately 16,000 pieces of debris to rain down on the town.
1994 - Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9's Fragment Q1 hits Jupiter.
The current events are monitored here:
Eris (dwarf planet)
http://hddesign.forumup.nl/about321-hddesign.html
timeline Q1, 2008 Jan - Feb - Mar
http://hddesign.forumup.nl/about276-hddesign.html
The Hariri Killing, Casus Belli WWIII ?
http://hddesign.forumup.nl/about3-hddesign.html
you can login as 'reader' with pw 'reader'

 

[Dutch]

I think the major place we differ is that you consider the existance of "Synchronocities" and "underlying design" as fact without supporting evidence. For me, evidence is a necessity. But ask yourself this, Dutch. Is it or is it not possible that these events could happen at random, and not be related? Is it possible? If it is, then wouldn't you consider it necessary to rule that out first?

Well, our reality seems to happen at random and we only identify things as related if we can discover a direct causal connection. I started to think
about "underlying Design" after I had noticed that so many 'coincidences' popped up. Ofcourse it would be nice to prove it as fact but in that case we would have a completely new and revolutionary description of our reality. For me it is meaningfull to see these 'expectations' becoming reality, in a sense that the events that occur could indeed be expressions of the expected underlying themes.
This "underlying Design: can only be detected indirectly and so far I have seen no reason why it couldn't be there. To the contrarairy: I have seen so many 'coincidences' and I have had so much 'in the face' moments that i personally have no doubts that this hidden underlying Design is indeed there.
IF Mladic or Karadzic is captured around January 13 this year you would probably consider it to be a random event, for me it would be another confirmation on an already identified timecoded pattern.

Our reality looks to be random so you don't have to prove it to be random, we just don't understand the hidden underlying Design yet but knowledge about these kind of concepts will continue to emerge

 

[Dutch]

Also, the method you use for your timeframes is inaccurate and loaded. The current method you use gives you approximately a 25% chance of being correct on any "anticipation" on any given date. You spread that out by allowing yourself a +/-1 day, and spread it out even further by using gross generalizations for your "anticipations". You then further load things to your favor by not counting misses as such, but merely stating you expect it to happen on the next "anticipation" date.

What do you mean with 25%? if I put an expectation on the timeline way before the actual event and a possible theme that would be expressed, than it is not an exact prediction. I don't do exact predictions but I do think that keydates and themes I put on the timelines are valid expressions of the hidden underlying timecoded patterns.
This +/- 1 day limitation is something I decided to use because it helps to get a sense of the validity initially. I think that timeframes are indeed bigger but that will make it almost impossible to understand in the first place

I'm guessing that using your method, you have a 95% chance success rate on any anticipation. Not because you've found some deep, hidden secret, but merely because you twist and contort your "HD Design", "Synchronocities", and "Anticipations" to be so generalized and non-specific that any random newsworthy event can be shoe-horned into your invention and be declared a hit.

I think you have to follow the timelines that I use for a while, you need to do that to get an impression of what this is actually about. I'm not endlessly looking for connections, as I am focussing on the macrolevel they pop up at mainstream news sources like CNN and BBC

You can't even use your method to predict anything specific or important.

I never said that I am able to predict exact events.

You're so afraid of others testing your idea and finding it invalid that you won't even fully explain the method you use to make your "anticipations".

Well, its all there. Everything is posted 'realtime' on the HDDesign forum and some items are crossposted at several forums, for each to review in detail

I asked you once, on the BAUT forums, to walk us through the process, step by step, so that we could replicate it on our side, and do some testing ourselves. You did no such thing.

Yes I did, by choosing the 30 days ATM period in which I mentioned some keydates with anticipations and explanations. You backed off , but I have spend alot of time and efforts to explain this theories to others at BAUT like Torsten, van Rijn and others

You did the same there that you did here. You post links to news sites about completely unrelated events, stating that they match up with some vague generalization of yours, which you handily predicted after the fact.

the timeframes with related themes are posted prior to the fact or analysis are given based on the described elements of design

When we pressed you for details, documentation, graphs, anything, you give us the same excuse. "I don't have time for anything in depth, I do this on my own time."

everything is online and available.

Yet you have plenty for posting hundreds of posts, must have literally five or more hours a day to look at news sites for events you can shoe-horn into your HDD theory.

I wish I had. I do this 'in between', my time is indeed limited. To check the news only takes some minutes during the day, or I hear it on the radio. To crosspost it takes in deed some time, that's why I can't spend much time on each forum I'm posting at but serious questions always get an serious answer

You are completely disinterested in whether or not your idea has any merit. From day one we began speaking, you've made it utterly clear to me that you do not care whether or not HDD is valid.

I don't care if it can be scientifically proven at this moment because i don't see that happen on short terms. I do think current events at macrolevel do need our attention

You seem more interested in how many people you can get to follow along with your scheme and do not question it.

That's not true, because I wouldn't post this material in places where most people will dismiss it, I would be looking for like minded but that's not my objective

I seriously question your motives. Are you trying to develop a following, so you can sell books and little scrolls by gas station cashiers? I haven't seen you try to sell anything other than your idea yet, so I'll give you the benefit of a doubt, but I don't see what you could possibly hope to accomplish, here.

I remember you asking me this more than a year ago and the answer is still the same: no book or whatever. The theories are in development but more important: I trully believe we should have a commitment to what happens in our reality because these events happen for a reason.
I think that knowledge about our reality will benefit our development, as an individual and collectively. Expressions of the underlying themes can become more subtle as long as we increase our understanding of reality.

Why spend so much time on something that you don't care whether it exists or not?

I care about the truth

 

[Mister Earl]

I started to think about "underlying Design" after I had noticed that so many 'coincidences' popped up. Of course it would be nice to prove it as fact but in that case we would have a completely new and revolutionary description of our reality. For me it is meaningful to see these 'expectations' becoming reality, in a sense that the events that occur could indeed be expressions of the expected underlying themes.
This "underlying Design: can only be detected indirectly and so far I have seen no reason why it couldn't be there. To the contrarairy: I have seen so many 'coincidences' and I have had so much 'in the face' moments that i personally have no doubts that this hidden underlying Design is indeed there.
IF Mladic or Karadzic is captured around January 13 this year you would probably consider it to be a random event, for me it would be another confirmation on an already identified timecoded pattern.

Our reality looks to be random so you don't have to prove it to be random, we just don't understand the hidden underlying Design yet but knowledge about these kind of concepts will continue to emerge

By taking a piece of word-sand-paper and slimming this down, I get from you "I can't prove this as fact, and it would be nice if I could. I'm taking coincidences I see daily and am trying to fit it into an underlying theme I've invented." Is this correct?

 

[Mister Earl]

What do you mean with 25%? if I put an expectation on the timeline way before the actual event and a possible theme that would be expressed, than it is not an exact prediction. I don't do exact predictions but I do think that keydates and themes I put on the timelines are valid expressions of the hidden underlying timecoded patterns.
This +/- 1 day limitation is something I decided to use because it helps to get a sense of the validity initially. I think that timeframes are indeed bigger but that will make it almost impossible to understand in the first place

Just a quick note. You've never proven that any "underlying designs" or "timecoded patterns" exist. Nor have you made any such attempt. You consider the existence of both as fact without any supporting evidence.

I think you have to follow the timelines that I use for a while, you need to do that to get an impression of what this is actually about. I'm not endlessly looking for connections, as I am focussing on the macrolevel they pop up at mainstream news sources like CNN and BBC

Why? Endless non-connected news events don't constitute evidence. It's all white noise. Also, if there were such a thing as "Underlying design", why would this force of nature only care about famous people and CNN and the BBC?

I never said that I am able to predict exact events.

What are you intending to predict, then?

Well, its all there. Everything is posted 'realtime' on the HDDesign forum and some items are crossposted at several forums, for each to review in detail

You datamine for your hits and ignore all misses. It's like declaring a winning team by not scoring the opponent.

Yes I did, by choosing the 30 days ATM period in which I mentioned some keydates with anticipations and explanations. You backed off , but I have spend alot of time and efforts to explain this theories to others at BAUT like Torsten, van Rijn and others

I backed off from nothing. I held you to every word you said up until the end, as I will do here now. And you've never spent any time or effort to explain any segment of your theory in great detail. You use the grey, undefined areas of your HDD theories to shoehorn events in as hits. I've asked you personally, MULTIPLE times, to walk us through your process you use when you invent a "timecoded pattern" or "underlying design". You've made no attempt there. Your singular method for trying to prove HDD is by posting enormous amounts of white noise data that corraborate nothing.

the timeframes with related themes are posted prior to the fact or analysis are given based on the described elements of design

Define timeframe. How do you determine what does and what does not constitute a timeframe?
Define theme. How do you determine whether or not a theme is related to a timeframe? What constitutes a match or a miss?
You mention described elements. Can you describe these described elements? Treat this request like a term dictionary at the end of a fantasy novel. Describe this term for me.

everything is online and available.
I wish I had. I do this 'in between', my time is indeed limited. To check the news only takes some minutes during the day, or I hear it on the radio. To crosspost it takes in deed some time, that's why I can't spend much time on each forum I'm posting at but serious questions always get an serious answer

Blatantly false. On both the forums here and the Bad Astronomy and Universe Today forums, you've spent many, many hours across more than a year posting white noise data. If you'd spent 2% of the time you've spent posting white noise toward defining HDD so we could test it ourselves, we'd already be on our way towards testing the next several thoeries.

I don't care if it can be scientifically proven at this moment because i don't see that happen on short terms. I do think current events at macrolevel do need our attention

Why? You've never proven that the "hits" on your HDD design are anything other than normal statistical occurance.

That's not true, because I wouldn't post this material in places where most people will dismiss it, I would be looking for like minded but that's not my objective

I asked you what your objective is once.

I remember you asking me this more than a year ago and the answer is still the same: no book or whatever. The theories are in development but more important: I trully believe we should have a commitment to what happens in our reality because these events happen for a reason.
I think that knowledge about our reality will benefit our development, as an individual and collectively. Expressions of the underlying themes can become more subtle as long as we increase our understanding of reality.

Why would "events" care about reason? Do you consider mere randomness to be false, or impossible? Why does meaning have to be attached to any news item, as far as "design" or "theme"? Couldn't things happen just because they happened?

I care about the truth

So do I. So let's come to an agreement, here, and bring HDD to the next step. This should take a tiny fraction of your time. Please post, in its entirety, the method you use for determining a "timeframe", an "Underlying design" from start to finish. Please furnish graphics if possible. Include the math you use when needed. Define each term that wouldn't be immediately obvious to us as well. Once you complete this minor task, we'll all be able to test your theory independently of your limited time. If there truly is something to HDD design, this would verify it for you once and for all.

 

[Dutch]

By taking a piece of word-sand-paper and slimming this down, I get from you "I can't prove this as fact, and it would be nice if I could. I'm taking coincidences I see daily and am trying to fit it into an underlying theme I've invented." Is this correct?

Our current scientific understanding of reality accepts the existence of other dimensions, at least in theory. We are still not able to describe our reality with the current scientific standards and its very likely that a Grand Unified Theory would include other dimensions eventually.
Its impossible to prove this for an individual when we talk about concepts that are beyond our currently accepted scientific standards.
I will never be able to prove this so its not my objective to try.

The validity of the concept can only be verified by continued monitoring of the expected expressions of the underlying themes on future determined key dates. Future key dates, because analysis of past events wouldn't convince anyone although it could increase our knowledge about the concept.

I haven't 'invented' something, I just had intuitive ideas and when I applied these geometrical correlations I noticed that they coincided with specific key events in our reality. The development of the theories is indeed initiated by these first intuitive ideas that showed logical correlations, at least to me. There wasn't a 'design' in the first place, the 'coincidences' and 'synchronicities' evolved in a few basic elements of design that show these correlations once applied in our (future) reality

 

[Dutch]

Just a quick note. You've never proven that any "underlying designs" or "timecoded patterns" exist. Nor have you made any such attempt. You consider the existence of both as fact without any supporting evidence.

I do my 'research' in order to show the validity of the concept. Each event can be dismissed as coincidental but repeated hits on an identified timecoded pattern is something different. It takes time to do that and that's why i use these timelines. How can i prove now that the Hariri killing will be considered afterwards to be the initial trigger in an evolving Syria-first War- scenario? or that Mladic will be captured on an keydate on an already pre-determined timecoded pattern? I did that in the past with the Pope, Arafat, the bird flu, the July 7 London bombings etc. but that's in the past now and you would not understand the signifigance anymore.

Why? Endless non-connected news events don't constitute evidence. It's all white noise. Also, if there were such a thing as "Underlying design", why would this force of nature only care about famous people and CNN and the BBC?

Enless?, I have a focus on the macrolevel and post developments at macrolevel that seem to express the expected underlying theme. The ongoing patterns should put events into perspective eventually. It remains to be seen if its non-connected, you assume it is non-connected. further monitoring down the patterns is necessarry to understand the underlying Design and connectedness.
I don't talk about a 'force of nature'. I talk about 'reflection'. This HDDesign is also applicable at microlevel in our personal lives but the macro level is reflecting our current state of collective consciousness, at least that's what I expect is going on and my continued 'research' is trying to show the validity of this concept

What are you intending to predict, then?

I think knowledge about this concep will enable us to understand our reality better and it will shine a light on the connectedness between events in our reality. It will increase our development and our commitment with our reality will lessen the impact of thes 'dark expressions of consciousness' that seem somehow to have to materialize in our reality.

There's a big difference between for instance predicting a nuclear detonation on a specific moment in our future or trying to get people involved with our reality and to increase our understanding so a more subtle expression of the underlying theme becomes more likely.

i don't think everything is fixed and that we can't do anything about it but we do have to deal with specific (carmic) issues/themes at specific moments in our our perspective of time

You datamine for your hits and ignore all misses. It's like declaring a winning team by not scoring the opponent.

I use timelines and post the dates and themes prior to the actual dates. i don't think I have made predictions that could be considered misses so i don't exactly know what you are referring to

I backed off from nothing. I held you to every word you said up until the end, as I will do here now. And you've never spent any time or effort to explain any segment of your theory in great detail.

I remember you posting at the ATM thread, only at the 'off topic' threat. I can't check. I did spend alot of time and efforts to answer all serious questions

You use the grey, undefined areas of your HDD theories to shoehorn events in as hits. I've asked you personally, MULTIPLE times, to walk us through your process you use when you invent a "timecoded pattern" or "underlying design". You've made no attempt there. Your singular method for trying to prove HDD is by posting enormous amounts of white noise data that corraborate nothing.

But you can do that by reading my posts. When such a timecoded pattern emerges I post about it on the forum, show the underlying Design and put the expected keydates and themes on the related timelines. You can do your research if you like and I advice you to do so.

Define timeframe. How do you determine what does and what does not constitute a timeframe?

Normally a monitored eventsday +/- 1 day correction due to timedifferences on Earth and the fact that the geometrically determined spot on an orbit doesn't have to to be 1 day long. I consider it to be the 'peak' date. The valid timeframes are probably longer than a +/- 1 day correction, think about several days.

Define theme. How do you determine whether or not a theme is related to a timeframe?

Just like the underlying pattern, the underlying themes initially emerges by synchronicity or intuitive knowledge (tuning) and becomes more clrea by apllying the elements of the described design

What constitutes a match or a miss?

The anticipated timeframe needs to be observed and a match or miss should become clear further down the pattern

You mention described elements. Can you describe these described elements? Treat this request like a term dictionary at the end of a fantasy novel. Describe this term for me.

With this I mean the Platonic Solid based Geometry, the Golden mean Phi, the 911 based Design, orbits in our solarsystem, triggerdate systems and some more

Blatantly false. On both the forums here and the Bad Astronomy and Universe Today forums, you've spent many, many hours across more than a year posting white noise data. If you'd spent 2% of the time you've spent posting white noise toward defining HDD so we could test it ourselves, we'd already be on our way towards testing the next several thoeries.

don't say things like blatantly false because its not. I show respect for you and expect you do the same. i have spend hours giving serious answers to serious requests. Eventually I couldn't express myself anymore because of the 30 days limit and being banned at baut.
These kind of concepts don't have to apply to your limited scientific standards.

Why? You've never proven that the "hits" on your HDD design are anything other than normal statistical occurance.

That's how you look at it, its different when you expect something to happen that indeed materializes in a sense that you can understand the connectedness based on the given underlying design. Not once or twice, but repeatedly and almost daily when working with this kind of material

Why would "events" care about reason? Do you consider mere randomness to be false, or impossible? Why does meaning have to be attached to any news item, as far as "design" or "theme"? Couldn't things happen just because they happened?

now we are talking about the meaning of life. Sure you could be right, who knows?

So do I. So let's come to an agreement, here, and bring HDD to the next step. This should take a tiny fraction of your time. Please post, in its entirety, the method you use for determining a "timeframe", an "Underlying design" from start to finish. Please furnish graphics if possible. Include the math you use when needed. Define each term that wouldn't be immediately obvious to us as well. Once you complete this minor task, we'll all be able to test your theory independently of your limited time. If there truly is something to HDD design, this would verify it for you once and for all.

That's what I do, just check the current threads at HDDesign forum. I post everything from first intuitive thought until emerging themes and patterns. Its all there

 

[Mister Earl]

The validity of the concept can only be verified by continued monitoring of the expected expressions of the underlying themes on future determined key dates. Future key dates, because analysis of past events wouldn't convince anyone although it could increase our knowledge about the concept.

Wrong, wrong, wrong! Throwing more white noise into the mix will NOT validate anything, as stated ad nauseum already. Give us your process so we can test your theory ourselves. Posting more of your meaningless data proves NOTHING.

 

[Mister Earl]

That's what I do, just check the current threads at HDDesign forum. I post everything from first intuitive thought until emerging themes and patterns. Its all there

No, you have *never* posted your entire process, front to back. Not one person in this entire universe could take your theory, and work out a prediction in the same method as you. Your method is currently untestable because we don't know the exact steps you take. I've asked you far too many times for you to walk us through your process, but all you do is point us to more white noise. Here's what I'm thinking of when I ask for it to be explained: Try writing it up like the construction manual for a modular desk. How do you construct a theory, from start to finish? And please, don't just throw me a link to more white noise.