Hyper Dimensional Design

[Dutch]

Please Paul, don´t split is into oneliners. Make a point in a post if you like.
The synchronicity was apparent. Hawkings´video on October 8 and first date that pops up in relation to the Cuba crisis is October 8.
That´s how a synchronicity works..... one right after the other.

 

[Paul]

Please Paul, don´t split is into oneliners. Make a point in a post if you like.
The synchronicity was apparent. Hawkings´video on October 8 and first date that pops up in relation to the Cuba crisis is October 8.
That´s how a synchronicity works..... one right after the other.

First, I'm not going to change the way I post just because you don't like it; the reason I address points individually is precisely because they are individual points I am addressing. One of the things that makes your posts so impenetrable is the lack of structured approach to presenting information.

As to Hawking and synchronicity, there isn't any; synchronicity requires simultaneity. Events which can be manipulated to appear related but which don't even happen in the same year, are not synchronous.

Cuba: October 8 isn't the first date that pops up, it's the first date in your quote, which provides no evidence for the statement.

 

[Paul]

Hyper Dimensional Physics seems to become apparent via activity at spots determined based on Platonic Solid Geometry, as researchers like RCH and Wilcock suggest.

The first problem is that you are using Hoagland as if he were a reliable source for anything; this is what he says is the purpose of his Enterprise Mission - appropriately named after science fiction:

an expanding research program seeking the facts behind the discovery in the last 4 years of "intelligently-designed, ancient artificial structures" on additional NASA and Soviet photos, not only of Mars... but of the Moon...
​

HDDesign is about these same geometrical implications on our perception of time.

Even if Hoagland were correct, why would his model of the universe be any more likely to include postdictive patterns based on platonic solids.

the 1111 days awakenings timeframe on Earth is connected via Phi Golden mean with Mars and Venus, with Mercury marking the triggerdates.

How?

How are Mars and Venus connected?

What kind of maths are you using to calculate the relative positions of all the planets and then marry this with specific dates on earth?

I have no idea, what do you mean exactly.

I mean what I asked; if you have a platonic solid with a few extra dimensions, how does this theoretical construction relate to space and time?

I think Phi is omnipresent and not limited to HD platonic Solids

I didn't ask what you though about Phi, I asked what spiralling dates have to do with platonic solids, because if the answer is nothing, why do you use them?

I use a + - 1 day timeframe around a determined date, bacause of time and date differences on Earth

That's not a good reason, you don't have to use local time and I already demonstrated that your initiating events can precise to the second, providing the same resolution for predicted dates.

( macrolevel is consciousness at global scale).

I don't suppose you could explain any of that?

I consider the determined dates to be peak dates, increasing towards and lessening afterwards, when it comes to possibilities of expressing underlying themes.

That's is not a particularly helpful excuse. Why should they be peak dates? Why can they not be precise to the resolution of the initial data? If you want to make any claim of scientific value here, you cannot start with vague claim that something might happen near one of the dates on a list.

´Nearby´ timecoded patterns which could give similar expressions as to those determined for a specific date, could ´force´the underlying theme to express earlier or later.

That sounds like a bad science fiction plot device - you know the future, but if it turns out you don't, it's because it was changed before it could happen.

I have limited it to +- 1 day but that´s probably way too rigid

Now you're just making things up and still claiming enormous wiggle room.

 

[Paul]

I have made a list with all basic HD platonic solids and their connections with the planets etc. its posted at the ´breaking the code thread´. If you really want to know you have to look it up, almost going to bed now.

Sorry Dutch, I'm not reading through 34 pages of lists to try and find the list you could just point to.

However, the very first post in that thread has problems of its own:

How does the occult number 13 fit into the patterns as monitored in the above threads?

I'm sorry, the occult number 13? Are you serious?

deduct the 13 'satanic' days gives a total of 5466 days

Oh dear, apparently you are; mind you, deducting satanic days at least gets points for creative shoehorning.

so the 'number of the beast' 6-6-6 is in fact 911-911-911!

Except that the number of the beast is now believed to be 616, a possible coded reference to Nero or Caligula.

 

[Orphia Nay]

13 and 666?

Paul is showing that he haven't read a single bit of this material while he is repeatedly commenting on this material. I have spend time to answer him but he needs to invest aswell, otherwise it just makes no sense at all. He will dismiss everything I have to say, because one needs to seriously investigate this material in order to be able to understand the 'synchronicities'.

Reading your writings does not necessarily mean believing whatever it is you claim.

He does not dismiss everything - he asks questions you should be asking yourself.

Orphia, I know you want to get rid of this, not sure about your motives though. You want to see me banned right?

What makes you think I want to get rid of this? I find your posts highly entertaining. Moreover, I also hold some hope that you will adopt some of the scientific suggestions for formulating a testable hypothesis and improving your methodology.

 

[Paulhoff]

Paul

 

[calebprime]

Paul

I knew there was a reason I was here.

 

[Dutch]

First, I'm not going to change the way I post just because you don't like it; the reason I address points individually is precisely because they are individual points I am addressing. One of the things that makes your posts so impenetrable is the lack of structured approach to presenting information.

As to Hawking and synchronicity, there isn't any; synchronicity requires simultaneity. Events which can be manipulated to appear related but which don't even happen in the same year, are not synchronous.

Cuba: October 8 isn't the first date that pops up, it's the first date in your quote, which provides no evidence for the statement.

I saw Hakings video, checked wiki and october 8 popped up. I take these tgings as a synchronicity. Last time these subject were at hand ( Cuba crisis) was back in 2004, which lead to the exit of Arafat. I will monitor these upcoming similar pattern closely in order to learn by observation.

 

[Dutch]

The first problem is that you are using Hoagland as if he were a reliable source for anything; this is what he says is the purpose of his Enterprise Mission - appropriately named after science fiction:

an expanding research program seeking the facts behind the discovery in the last 4 years of "intelligently-designed, ancient artificial structures" on additional NASA and Soviet photos, not only of Mars... but of the Moon...
​

Even if Hoagland were correct, why would his model of the universe be any more likely to include postdictive patterns based on platonic solids.

How?

I refer to Hoagland and others because of the platonic solid based geometry they use in relation to Hyper Dimensional Physics. I applied this geometry on our perceptrion of time and imagined how this geometry would still be detectable by specific events in our reality at geometrically determined positions of planets on their orbits , based on this platonic solid geometry. The first application of this idea in the shape of a HD Tetrahedron came up with a September 11, the next date that I calculated was a March 12, or 11 in a leap year: the Madrid bombings on March 11 in leap year 2004. This was a strong and instant confirmation that this initial idea should be investigated and that is what I have been doing ever since

How are Mars and Venus connected?

The 1111 days awakenings timeframe on Earth is Phi based inspiralling connected to 1 Mars year in earth days ( +/- 1 day) 1111 / 1.61803399= 686.6
1111 spiralling outwards gives 8 Venus years in Earth days (+- 1 day)
1111 times 1,61803399 is 1797,64. 8 times Venus 224,7007 is 1797,61

There are more correlations like a Venus Year in Earth days connecting 2 timeframes around 2 dots of a Hyper Dimensional Tetrahedron. There are more correlations posted in the ´breaking the code thread´.

What kind of maths are you using to calculate the relative positions of all the planets and then marry this with specific dates on earth?

Full orbits of the planets in earth days: Earth 365.242, Venus 224.7007 Mars 686.971 and Mercury 87.9691. Only the determined eventsdate is to be considered a +/- 1 day timeframe

I mean what I asked; if you have a platonic solid with a few extra dimensions, how does this theoretical construction relate to space and time?

I don't know scientifically. Personally it changed my perspective on time

I didn't ask what you though about Phi, I asked what spiralling dates have to do with platonic solids, because if the answer is nothing, why do you use them?

None, I use Phi besides the Platonic solids because Phi seems omnipresent. I try to prove that by posting my expectations based on Phi points and Phi spirals, among the other elements of HDDesign, in order to show their existence indirectly by the actual expressions in our reality. The 911 based Phi spiral is a perfect example, which will get momentum again within a few days

That's not a good reason, you don't have to use local time and I already demonstrated that your initiating events can precise to the second, providing the same resolution for predicted dates.

Yes it is. events don't happen in a split second and we can not know how big the margins are in our realiy.

I don't suppose you could explain any of that?

of what? you see, these oneliners don't work

That's is not a particularly helpful excuse. Why should they be peak dates? Why can they not be precise to the resolution of the initial data? If you want to make any claim of scientific value here, you cannot start with vague claim that something might happen near one of the dates on a list.

Why should it be determined to an exact second in our perception of time?
Maybe it can and I have tried to do this and found a very strong personal confirmation. Most events at macrolevel 'consciousness' are 'peaking'. even if you talk about a bomb that goes off. you can determine the exact second of detonation. But what happens just before and after is can also be seen as expressions of the same event or not?

That sounds like a bad science fiction plot device - you know the future, but if it turns out you don't, it's because it was changed before it could happen.

The committed observer would have understood that it was potentially there. That is , if we haven't failed and can still think about what we have done and what we have created all together. Unfortunately we seem to have a tendency to learn our lessons the hard way

Now you're just making things up and still claiming enormous wiggle room.

Its fine with me you think this way. The timelines will prove differently...eventually

 

[Dutch]

What makes you think I want to get rid of this? I find your posts highly entertaining. Moreover, I also hold some hope that you will adopt some of the scientific suggestions for formulating a testable hypothesis and improving your methodology.

You know what is entertaining? When I was posting at BAUT I have put my expectations on the timeline for june 2007 at least 6 months in advance. I the meanwhile I was given 30 days to prove this HDDesign and was not allowed to post about these issues after the 30 days. Ofcourse I did and I was banned. Soon after the expected events in June did happen but it has never been discussed. Also, some 'scientific' posters at BAUT did subconsciously contribute to this HDDesign in a splendid way, but theu dismissed it because theuy couldn't cope with the implications.

There's no hope for mankind if people who consider themselves to be scientific close their eyes for what should be obvious to them.

It would suit you Orphia if you would accept the oddities that have happened ( Srebrenica expectations and 'van Rijn' with his subconscious contributions in relation to the Syrian situation . You know if you take it serious.

 

[AWPrime]

The first application of this idea in the shape of a HD Tetrahedron came up with a September 11, the next date that I calculated was a March 12, or 11 in a leap year: the Madrid bombings on March 11 in leap year 2004.

Problem, many of these dates aren't significant. They don't matter.

 

[Paul]

I saw Hakings video, checked wiki and october 8 popped up.

The first date in the Wikipedia article is April 1961, you ignore that plus late 1961, February 1962, and September 1962 before October 8. That means you had to choose October 8 and the only reason to do that is because it matches the day and month the Hawking interview was posted on CNN.

I take these tgings as a synchronicity.

I've explained why they're not.

 

[Paul]

Problem, many of these dates aren't significant. They don't matter.

That's nothing, he once tried to conflate two words that sound alike, the Pheidippidean marathon myth, the tragic death of a runner, and an air crash.

 

[Paul]

I refer to Hoagland and others because of the platonic solid based geometry they use in relation to Hyper Dimensional Physics.

Why? As mad as they are, they're not using platonic solids:

"physics based on geometric and mathematical foundations which involves other spatial dimensions"
​

I applied this geometry on our perceptrion of time

How do you misapply notions of multidimensional geometry concerned with "predicted physical interactions of energy and matter" to a fundamental unit?

and imagined how this geometry would still be detectable by specific events in our reality at geometrically determined positions of planets on their orbits , based on this platonic solid geometry.

Do you have any reason, other than your imagination, to believe that theoretical intangible devices would be effected by, or effect in any way, astronomical bodies?

The first application of this idea in the shape of a HD Tetrahedron came up with a September 11

How does having an intangible tetrahedron in space give you September 11?

, the next date that I calculated was a March 12, or 11 in a leap year: the Madrid bombings on March 11 in leap year 2004.

Again, how? Plus, a leap year is immaterial if you calculate days from a known point.

This was a strong and instant confirmation that this initial idea should be investigated and that is what I have been doing ever since

It is nothing of the sort, it's an indication that if you wait long enough or look hard enough, something will happen on any date, especially if you then start subtracting mystical numbers and giving yourself a day either way.

 

[Paul]

There are more correlations like a Venus Year in Earth days connecting 2 timeframes around 2 dots of a Hyper Dimensional Tetrahedron.

What is a dot of a tetrahedron?

Full orbits of the planets in earth days: Earth 365.242, Venus 224.7007 Mars 686.971 and Mercury 87.9691. Only the determined eventsdate is to be considered a +/- 1 day timeframe

So any actual positions are unimportant as long as you can make the number of days work?

I don't know scientifically.

So you're not using science in your work?

Personally it changed my perspective on time

How? What is your perspective on time?

None, I use Phi besides the Platonic solids because Phi seems omnipresent.

That makes your decisions entirely arbitrary and of no use in determining any possible value of your system.

I try to prove that by posting my expectations based on Phi points and Phi spirals, among the other elements of HDDesign, in order to show their existence indirectly by the actual expressions in our reality.

Your expectations are extremely vague, often completely wrong, frequently justified with dubious data, and come with excessive built in latitude.

The 911 based Phi spiral is a perfect example, which will get momentum again within a few days

If it's a spiral, how can it gain momentum?

Yes it is. events don't happen in a split second and we can not know how big the margins are in our realiy.

Of course events can happen over a very short timespan. I gave you a perfect example with your deep impact dates: The occurrence of the initiating events can be timed to the second (probably better) and their duration is very brief.

So, why should any other event in that spiral need a margin of error as vast as an entire day?

of what? you see, these oneliners don't work

They work perfectly well if you stop behaving childishly and simply read the quote box.

In case you've forgotten, what does "macrolevel is consciousness at global scale" mean?

 

[Paul]

Why should it be determined to an exact second in our perception of time?

Why shouldn't it? If you have a specific event which has known limits, why are those limits not applicable to any other events supposedly indicated by the first?

Maybe it can and I have tried to do this and found a very strong personal confirmation.

Then why do you keep arguing against it and using the silly 1 day excuse?

even if you talk about a bomb that goes off. you can determine the exact second of detonation. But what happens just before and after is can also be seen as expressions of the same event or not?

That would depend on what you assigned importance to; the most obvious and easily quantified part of the event is the detonation.

To use another part you would have to justify the choice in light of the overall event, perhaps in relation to human, social, political, financial, or even structural concerns.

However, the broader the scope of your 'expression' the less accurate or rigorous any derived data would be and the more open to calls of confirmation bias, cherry-picking or just plain fudging the results you would be.

The committed observer would have understood that it was potentially there.

A possible indicator of a potential event with vaguely defined limits, unreliable indicators for type, and a likelihood of not happening at all, is of no practical use to anyone.

Unfortunately we seem to have a tendency to learn our lessons the hard way

You can't learn lessons from the future.

 

[Blue Mountain]

Full orbits of the planets in earth days: Earth 365.242, Venus 224.7007 Mars 686.971 and Mercury 87.9691. Only the determined eventsdate is to be considered a +/- 1 day timeframe

So any actual positions are unimportant as long as you can make the number of days work?

This to me is one of the big failings of the system.

Consider the orbits of Mercury and the Earth. Mercury makes a complete revolution of the sun once as the Earth makes 87.9691 rotations on its axis. A particular event occurs on Earth, and then an apparently related event occurs later on. Computing the number of days between the events shows an apparent synchronicity between that number and a multiple of the number of days it takes Mercury to go around the Sun (for example, 1:1, 1:2, 1:4). But due to the different orbital velocities, the position of Mercury with respect to the Earth has no such correlation.

Even if events happen precisely (say) 351.8764 days apart, which is the length of time it takes Mercury to make four complete revolutions around the sun, the Earth has also moved in that time, so things are no longer in the same alignment as when the initial event occurred.

About the only time you could even hint that Mercury might have an effect on events on Earth is when they are aligned, either on the same side of the Sun or the opposite, or perhaps at 90 degree angles. But those events don't happen on 87 or 365 day periods, because both planets are in motion.

Use a planetarium program to position yourself over the Sun's North pole, then watch as Mercury and the Earth orbit. I did that myself, and by using a straightedge to determine when the Sun, Mercury, and Earth were all in a straight line, came up with the following dates:
* 26 Nov 2008
* 28 Jan 2009 (55 days later)
* 20 March 2009 (69 days later)
* 18 May 2009 (49 days later)

Now I would have expected the number of days between conjunctions to be more even. The fact they are not means either I don't understand orbital mechanics (I don't!) or I was too lax in deciding just what constituted a straight line when I had my ruler against the screen.

Having said all that, it's simply astrological nonsense to believe that anything Mercury, Venus, or Mars do as they go around the Sun has any effect at all on events on Earth.

 

[Orphia Nay]

Dutch, you've been doing this stuff for years and years, and have never proved anything. How's "only" 30 days at BAUT going to change anything?

Paul

I wub you, Paulhoff.

 

[Dutch]

Problem, many of these dates aren't significant. They don't matter.

So 9/11 and the Madrid bombings aren't significant? I say that the 'geometry' is so obvious, that these events are meant to be 'markers'.

 

[Dutch]

The first date in the Wikipedia article is April 1961, you ignore that plus late 1961, February 1962, and September 1962 before October 8. That means you had to choose October 8 and the only reason to do that is because it matches the day and month the Hawking interview was posted on CNN.

I've explained why they're not.

What do you know about my observation? I experienced this synchronicity.