Forbidden Knowledge (Post #1 ) 09/29/17
Start with a line 1.0 “unit” long. No width, no thickness, just length. Move the line horizontally through space the length of the line and geometry’s 1.02 unit of area is established. Move this square plane of area (which lacks thickness) vertically the length of the line and geometry’s 1.03 volume unit is created. That’s Euclid over 2000 years ago. I think they still teach this in school.
Someday along with Euclidian geometry they will also teach “The Geometry of Form”, discovered in modern times by Kasprzycki. For many applications this is what geometry prefers for 3-d space frames. In this system, the line is redefined as being configured in the form of a tetrahedron’s 6 edges. Euclid’s square plane of area is reconfigured into a cube’s 6 face planes. In the image the three small two-tone blue triangles each represent tetrahedrons made from unit-length lines; and the red square is one face of a cube with a total surface area = 1. The height of the three tetrahedrons together is equal to the edge-length of the red cube. They are commensurate.
Repeat this “fractal” by making 3 more tetrahedrons scaled with their edge-length equal to the cubes. The yellow square, with its edge-length equal to the height of the 3 larger tetrahedrons represents one of 6 faces of a cube this time having a volume exactly equal to 1.0 cubic unit.
If you read my book “The Geometry of Money” not only will you see this image there but will learn what an essential role it plays throughout standard Euclidian geometry. And there too you will see how the ILLUMINATI, or whatever name you want to call them, secretly used this geometry in the past to construct what has become all of humanity’s weights and measures.
It’s important for the reader to understand that if I had found the stacks of tetrahedrons to have been higher or lower than their respective cubes there would have been no point in looking any further. I would have moved along in my research since there was nothing there. But the fact that they are identical in both cases makes one question unavoidable: is this just a “coincidence” with no significance or application to geometry? Or does geometry actually care and use this in its constructs?
Of course geometry cares. I’ve written two books exposing this geometry which has been purposely concealed from the rest of us. The only question is whether there are any human beings still around who have read this far and care to take the time to look into this mystery any further? Inquisitive minds can go to www.kasprzyckiart.com to read both books for free online.
This is just one of my many hundreds of original discoveries that together comprise THE GEOMETRY OF FORM and THE GEOMETRY OF MONEY.
Forbidden Knowledge (Post #2 ) 10/03/17
1964 was the last year the U.S. minted silver coinage. The new coins minted from 1965 to this day are made of copper with a thin cupronickel plating. That’s not the only difference. Though they are the same size as the silver coins their weights are different. The pre-1965 “fractional dollar” (silver coins equal to one dollar) weighs 25 grams. Its new counterpart, a dollar’s worth of those shiny coins in our pockets today, weighs 22.68 grams.
I was born in 1947, grew up with silver coinage and never gave it a second thought. No teacher ever taught me that a dollar of the silvery stuff weighed 25 grams. Anyway, I didn’t even know what a “gram” was since all of us in the states use the “grain” based ounce and pound (not that I knew what a “grain” was back then either). Even though we didn’t normally use grams and kilograms, in hindsight I was actually carrying around exact little weight standards and didn’t even know it.
Since one fractional dollar in silver coinage weighs 25 grams, 4 dollars weigh 100, and 40 dollars 1000 grams. This is exactly 1 kilogram. Wow, how convenient is that! But wait one minute. The people of the U.S. weren’t using grams when I was a kid, and they certainly weren’t back in 1878 when the weight was changed from 384 “grains” to 25 “grams”.
Fast forward to 1965 and once again in the Coinage Act the new weight is specified in grams, not grains. Now our “imitation-silver” fractional dollar is 22.68 grams; 4 dollars 90.72, and 40 dollars 907.2 grams. These don’t make any recognizable weight standards not even for metric measures. But there is something they should have told us back then in 1965, something that even today is known to very few of us.
We should have been told back then, and children should be taught today, that 22.68 “grams” is indiscernible from 350 “grains” (99.998% identical). This is 1/20th of 1 pound. So, if in your hand you have twenty dollars of our “phony-silver” coins then you are holding 1 pound avoirdupois (like a pound of hamburger). And $1.25 of these phony silver coins, weighing 437.5 grains, is equal to 1 ounce.
Now why are we never taught this? For the answer and much, much more, read the chapter on The Geometry of 1965 in my book The Geometry of Money, free on line at my website https://www.kasprzyckiart.com/page-1/new-page/#412.5
Forbidden Knowledge (Post #3 ) 10/12/17
THE GRAIN AND THE GRAM
Historically, our “ounce” evolved from the use of seeds and grains dating back to ancient times; and the “gram” from a physical measure of earth allegedly made hundreds of years ago. “Historically” they have no known connection. But “geometrically”… well that’s a different story, one that the ILLUMINATI for centuries have gone to great lengths to conceal from us all.
When we learn that 1 gram is equal to 15.43235835 grains, it’s easy to accept the historical paradigm that these two weight standards have no intentionally designed common roots. But as you can see in this photo, I’ve literally “sculpted” both weights using the simple tools of geometry and mathematics for design. The fact that each weight can be rendered into 10 perfect cubes and 1 perfect cuboid using agglomerations of a simple “cubet” is clear proof of at least one relationship existing between them. The correspondence between the actual weights and the geometry pictured is better than 99.999% perfect!
I can assure you, this is but one of many hidden examples showing an inseparable relationship between the gram and grain. The truth is, we have not been allowed to have KNOWLEDGE about this or any of the other weights and measures designed by the ILLUMINATI that we unthinkingly accept and use daily.
If you’ve read this far and have an interest in learning the simple mathematics behind the pictured forms and the true origins of our modern systems of weights and measures I invite you to read my book THE GEOMETRY OF MONEY free online at my website www.kasprzyckiart.com.
Forbidden knowledge (Post#4) 10/16/17
The Troy Ounce and Avoirdupois Ounce
These two creations of the ILLUMINATI are presently unknown to historians and are being exposed to the public for the first time here on FB (and in my new book The Geometry of Money, free online).
This image depicts two columns made from agglomerations of a common cube, shown at the base of the Avoirdupois Ounce (today’s market ounce). Historically these ounces have no intentionally designed relationship, both evolving arbitrarily after someone a very long time ago determined that the number of “grains” they contained felt about the right weight for an ounce.
But clearly they are related “geometrically”; we can see this in the picture. The two white columns are identical, each containing 1008 cubes forming what I call their “common core”. The only difference between the two ounces is which face of the core (in red) gets one additional complete layer of cubes. The older Troy Ounce (still used today for weighing gold, silver, lead, and gunpowder) is comprised of 1152 cubes; the A.V. Ounce 1050 cubes.
Until an amount of some substance is named for the base-cube’s composition these models are without size or weight. But regardless of what material they are comprised they will always relate as 1050 / 1152, which equals .911458333…
The Avoirdupois Oz. weighs 437.5 grains and a Troy Oz. 480. They relate as 437.5 / 480, which also equals .911458333… showing that these models represent the actual weights to a 100% accuracy. Since in the case of these ounces it takes 2.4 cubes to equal a single grain, had either ounce varied by even one grain the geometry and math completely breaks down. Again this slaps the historical record in the face calling into question all of our history as presently taught. (See more of these mysteries unveiled at www.kasprzyckiart.com.)
Forbidden Knowledge (Post#5) 10/25/17
The Troy Ounce and Avoirdupois Ounce
DEPICTED IS A PORTAL INTO THE ILLUMINATI’S OCCULTED system of “simple” mathematics and geometry which they used to create ALL of humanity’s contemporary systems of weights and measures. In my previous “Forbidden Knowledge” post I showed these same two ounces modeled as variances of a single column made from assemblages of a single common cube. Here, this time using a cylinder and tetrahedron, is another clear example of how these measures are built into geometry and why the Illuminati chose to use them.
IT’S AS SIMPLE AS THIS. Start with a cylinder as wide as it is tall. Its X-section is a square, and inside fits perfectly a ball. The three vertices of the tetrahedron’s base triangle atop the cylinder are touching its circumference, making these two forms in-separately commensurate. If both are made of the same substance, and if the cylinder when placed on a scale weighs 1 Avoirdupois Ounce (like one “hamburger” oz.) then when the tetrahedron is added atop the cylinder they will together weigh 1 Troy Ounce (like 1 oz. of “gold”). Historians have no knowledge of this at all, nor of any other intentionally designed relationships existing between them!
I GUARANTEE, YOU CAN take the evidence above to the bank (so to speak) but even there, they will require the mathematical proof supporting my disclosure. For any reader so inclined this link should take you directly to the supporting data where the math can be verified.
Forbidden Knowledge (Post#6) 10/30/17
The Roman and Modern Gallons
WE ALL KNOW WHAT A GALLON IS, BUT DO WE KNOW WHAT ONE “LOOKS” LIKE? Or, why our modern gallon MUST look exactly like it is modeled in this image? Well don’t feel stupid if you don’t; it wasn’t many years ago that I didn’t have a clue either.
But first, anyone who has been paying attention to my prior “FORBIDDEN KNOWLEDGE” posts will remember the image (10/16/17) of our world’s two different “ounce” weight measures modeled as two columns of stacked cubes sharing a “common core”. Their only difference is which face of their common core received the one additional complete layer of cubes.
The GALLON columns depicted in this image are also made from cubes, each measuring one cubic inch. It is impossible not to notice that their modeled design characteristics are identical to those of the two ounces, in that (like the ounce models) the only difference between these two gallons is which face of their common core receives the one additional complete layer of cubes. Can all this be attributed to just chance and happenstance and that there is no intentionally designed relationship between these four units of measure, as our historians (and the ILLUMINATI) would have us all believe?
The Roman gallon was used in many places throughout Europe and elsewhere for over a thousand years. It measures 216 cubic inches and is an eighth of a cubic foot. A 6 X 6 X 6 inch cube is its most natural modeling form. But a 2 X 2 X 54 cuboid works as a complete model as well; so does 2 X 4 X 27; or 3 X 4 X 18; or 3 X 6 X 12, etc.
However, with respect to the modern gallon of 231 cubic inches there is only one combination that will assemble into a perfectly complete cuboid: 3 X 7 X 11. Because these quantities are all “prime numbers” there can be no other workable combination, thus limiting the modeling of the modern gallon to just this one form. It is because of these unique proportions that at the same time it was codified into British law, in the late 15th century, so too was a 42 gallon “tierce” and 84 gallon “puncheon” (from where our “punchbowl” derives). In the late 1800’s the blossoming oil industry adopted the 42 gallon capacity as their standard “petro-barrel”, making it another standard global unit of measure to this day.
Now the question is “why 42 gallons and not 40 gallons or some other quantity?” Well I’ve discovered the answer the ILLUMINATI thought we’d never see. And if you’ve read this far and care to see for yourself the following link should take you to the appropriate page in my new book THE GEOMETRY OF MONEY. http://kasprzyckiart.com/?page_id=1754#volume
Forbidden Knowledge (Post#7) 11/15/17
The Concepts of Balance and Unity and the US Silver Dollar
HOW DID THE “ILLUMINATI” SECRETLY embody the concepts of both “balance” and a “fundamental unit of measure” into the U.S. Silver Dollar coin? Think I’m kidding? Not a chance.
FROM THEIR INCEPTION the Illuminati believe that magical powers can be derived from the appropriate use of particular symbols and numerical quantities. That is why they made sure that the coin they designated to become the dominant fundamental global monetary unit weighs exactly 412.5 “grains”. It’s important to note that this occurs in 1837, the same year France “re-adopts” their “metric system” which previously had been shunned by the public. So now to the French, and later throughout Europe, the weight of this same coin is 26.726550… “grams”. (Hmm . . . wonder if it’s just a coincidence that 26.726550… divided by the square-root-of-3 equals 15.432…; and, 15.432… is also the number of grains in 1.0 gram? History is forbidden to disclose this fact.)
THE ACT OF WEIGHING originally involved the use of a “balance”. A balance is the simplest of all scales. Geometry recognizes the importance of “balance” and has special forms and scales (as in sizes) which embody “equality”. These monetary architects knew that a cube with a 6 unit edge-length, or a sphere with a 6 unit diameter, or a tetrahedron with a 6 times 2 unit height measure all share a unique geometric quality in that their surface measures are equal to their volume measures. They are in “harmony”; like an old fashion scale, they are “balanced”. This is easily seen in the cube: its 6 unit edge makes a 36 square unit face-plane; times this by its 6 faces equals a 216 (square) unit surface. And its volume (6x6x6) is also 216 (cubic) units.
BOTH THE VOLUME AND SURFACE AREA of this special tetrahedron equals 374.122974… units. But this can be equally expressed as 1/.0026729… and shows itself to be a power of the same “quantity” as the weight of the U.S. silver dollar coin. Geometrically, this is describing what results after a single “unit” (1.0) is divided into 374.122974… sub-units. Each sub-unit is .0026729… of the original unit. Ten-thousand of these sub-units equal the coin’s weight. Thus by intent, through its designed proportions, it is forever connected to the concept of balance (interested readers should refer to FB Post#3 for image of grain/gram modeling, also based on ten-thousand sub-units).
THE COIN’S PEDIGREE AS A FUNDAMENTAL UNIT derives from 1.0 “square” unit in the form of a tetrahedron’s surface area. This tetrahedron’s volume is a .051700270… portion of 1.0 “cubic” unit. Obviously, to geometry this portioning of a unit is special. When we discover that this portion of this tetrahedron’s volume (i.e. .051700…X .051700…) is .0026729… we again see the same ten-thousandths portion of the U.S. Silver Dollar’s gross weight in “grams”.
SINCE WE NOW KNOW THAT .0026729… also equals 1/374.122974… we can clearly see that the weight chosen for the dollar coin literally stands between, and unites in the one coin, the two tetrahedronal volumes embodying on the one hand the concept of “balance”, and on the other of a “fundamental, or base unit”.
For more on this subject and other works of the Illuminati exposed through my research interested readers can go to my website www.kasprzyckiart.com
Forbidden Knowledge (Post#8) 12/1/17
US Silver Coinage And The Gallon Measures
IN 1836 THE BUSHEL MEASURE was formally incorporated into the United States legal codes. A bushel sub-divides into 4 pecks, 8 “dry” gallons, 32 dry quarts, or 64 dry pints. A single “dry gallon” measures 268.8025 cubic inches. This compares to our “standard” gallon’s 231 cubic inches (codified into English law long before colonial America even existed). ONE YEAR LATER, the Coinage Act of 1837 decreed 412.5 grains to be the new gross weight of the silver dollar, down from 416 grains. Within a year’s time two new seemingly unrelated measures became part of U.S. law.
THOUGH HISTORY IMPLIES THE OPPOSITE, these measures are related and were intentionally introduced at the same time. Even then in 1837, had anyone looked into it they could have seen that (231 / 268.802) ÷ (412.5 / 480) = .99999070…). This shows that the relationship between the two volume measures is 99.999% identical to that between the two weight measures! (Note: the troy ounce of 480 grains is the standard unit to this day for measuring gold, silver, lead, and gunpowder.)
WE KNOW THIS CAN’T BE COINCIDENCE because in 1873 the ILLUMINATI continued their occult manipulation of these measures. This time the “fractional” U.S. silver dollar (any combination of silver coins equaling one dollar) was legislated to now weigh 25 grams; up from 24.882… grams. This new weight is a .80376… portion of the 31.1034… gram troy ounce; which is the same portion as that between the 216 cubic inch Roman gallon and (like in 1837) the 268.8025 cubic inch dry gallon. Back then, had anyone looked, someone might have seen that (216 / 268.802) ÷ (25 / 31.1034…) = .999745… again clearly showing that the relationship between the two volume measures is 99.97% identical to that between the two weight measures.
IN FACT, A TROY OUNCE is 1.244139… times the weight of 1.0 fractional dollar; and, the bushel itself measures 1.244456… times a base “unit” of 1.0 cubic foot. And it should be pointed out that ONLY between 1853 and 1873 did one half-dollar; or, two quarters; or, five dimes weighed 12.44139…grams.
COINCIDENCE OR CONSPIRACY? For more on this subject and other “Forbidden Knowledge” visit my website at www.kasprzyckiart.com
Forbidden Knowledge (Post#9) 12/15/17
The Ounce , US Silver dollar, Mile, and The Measures of Earth
THE “ILLUMINATI” HAVE SECRETLY EMBODIED this simple relationship between a tetrahedron and a cube into the systems of weights and measures that they have imposed on planet Earth. Here each form has [the sum of its edges] add up to the same length line. They are 1st dimensional geometric equivalents; but not in the 3rd dimension where their volumes differ.
SINCE THEY HAVE BEEN BORN FROM the same line, whenever a measure is assigned to one of the forms the rest of its measures and the other form’s measures can be calculated. In the picture we see that if 437.5 units is the volume assigned to the cube then the tetrahedron’s volume MUST be 412.5 units. Knowing this, we’re now going to PROVE that it is no coincidence 437.5 “grains” comprise 1 of our common “ounce” measures and 412.5 “grains” the weight of 1 US Silver Dollar. Have a look and you’ll see for yourself.
FIRST LET’S CHANGE THE VOLUME OF THE tetrahedron to 5280 “units”. This makes the cube’s volume 5600 “units”. Now think about this carefully, do you really think it’s all just “coincidental” that:
5600 1 Dollar Silver coins weigh exactly 5280 1 Ounce measures?!
THE COINS AND OUNCES ARE OBVIOUS MEASURES OF WEIGHT. Whereas 5280 is commonly associated with the number of feet in the “mile” measure, not so obvious is that 5600 can also be written as √2 X 3960, which quantity is also a “mile” measure since it is the exact mean radius of planet Earth. We can prove this is all “intentional” beyond any doubt when we look at the following simple calculations regarding spherical earth.
IF A SPHERE HAS A RADIUS OF 3960 MILES (or 5600 ÷ √2) then this same radius is also 250,905,600 “inches”. A point on a line tangent to this sphere and perpendicular to its radius, at a distance out [from the point of tangency] measuring ten times 5280 inches has exactly a 5.600 inch drop to the surface below.
*I hesitated to include this following note fearing I might over-feed the reader only to bring on mental indigestion. So after having feasted on this little plate full of ILLUMINATI appetizers, if you’ve actually read this far and your head is not already spinning, then regard this last paragraph as desert.
NOTE THAT IF 437.5 IS ASSIGNED TO THE TETRAHEDRON then the cube’s volume becomes 464. Again, if these units are “grains” then 464 grains is recognized as the weight of the “Double Eagle”, the US $20 gold coin back in the 1830’s. Arrange eight of these cubes together into one larger cube which will now contains 3712 grains; this we recognize as the weight of the pure silver contained in ten US $1 silver coins (3712.5 to be exact). Again, if 371.25 grains is the volume of the single cube, then 350 grains is the volume of the tetrahedron. And just as 371.25 grains is the pure silver content in one of the old dollar coins, 350 grains is the gross weight of the new present day (since 1964) “fractional” silver dollar (which is any combination of those nickel clad copper imitation silver coins totaling $1).
Forbidden Knowledge (Post#10) 01/5/18
The Geometry Behind The 1965 Coinage Debasement
WHEN THE ILLUMINATI GET WIND OF WHAT I’ve been posting on Facebook, and elsewhere, I suspect they will be very upset with me for exposing their works. After all, they’ve gone to great lengths for thousands of years to keep it all concealed from humanity. Like what they did to our money back when I was a kid. That’s when they robbed the silver from our coins, not so very long ago, in the year 1965.
THE U.S. MINTED THE LAST OF IT’S SILVER COINS in 1964. With these coins, one dollar of real silver “pocket-change” weighs 25 grams. One dollar of those same coins minted in 1965 (and today) weighs 22.68 grams. Besides the magic and power the Illuminati were seeking to imbue into their monetary system, what follows is the actual reasoning for their choosing this new weight, which I guarantee you will find nowhere else but here.
THE TETRAHEDRON AND CUBE depicted above are geometric first-dimensional “equivalents” since their edge-length-sums are equal to the same length line. Thus any unit of measure assigned to either of the forms will automatically dictate what the other’s measurements must be. The Illuminati have used this relationship as a “template” throughout the systems of measurements that they have designed and imposed on the people of Earth.
IN THIS EXAMPLE, THE SIMPLE EXPLANATION for the choice of 22.68 “grams” for the new base metal coins is that this quantity is the “geometrical” (though not “mathematical”) equivalent to the 371.25 “grains” of pure silver ACTUALLY contained in every whole “real-dollar” coin since 1792. No one is supposed to know about this tie to geometry, but of course now YOU know. Let me show you the simple math that proves this is true.
A 371.25 “GRAIN” CUBE OF PURE SILVER also weighs 24.05659534… “grams”. If this is represented by the volume of the cube, then the length of its edge is 2.886764711… units (simply the cube root of this volume). A tetrahedron with the sum of its 6 edges equaling the sum of this cube’s 12 edges has an edge-length twice that of the cubes: 5.773529422… Now calculate the volume of this special tetrahedron using the formula [(edge3)(√2)]÷12. It is 22.68077560 units, the weight of our phony fractional coins.
WHETHER YOU BELIEVE IN MAGIC OR NOT, the Illuminati have their own way of interpreting our reality. You have just been shown one of their feats; a kind of geometric “alchemy” carried out in relatively recent time’s right before our eyes. You probably have in your purse or pocket some of the physical evidence proving their genius, as well as their crime.
FOR HE LIED, PRESIDENT JOHNSON DID, WHEN HE assured the people of the United States that their new money was no different than the old. Maybe on the day he spoke, but from that day forth the entire money system increasingly diminished in value. Todays (1/5/2018) melt value of 4 quarters or ten dimes is a mere 17¢. The single silver $1.00 coin (on the right in the image) worth $1.00 in 1964 contains silver with a melt value of $13.33.
Forbidden Knowledge (Post#11) 01/15/18
WHY HAVE WE NEVER BEEN TOLD ABOUT “The Great Metric Hoax”? Over 200 years have passed since its introduction to humanity and this knowledge still remains “FORBIDDEN” to the uninitiated. Instead, we have all been taught a great lie. For its long been known to the ILLUMINATI that “metric” is a foundational part of The Geometry of Form; and that in truth, ALL of our measures derive from this common root.
GEOMETRY IS SACRED TO THE ILLUMINATI. That is why they enshrined this geometry into the coinage system which they carefully designed to dominate all other monetary systems on Earth. These two coins depicted aside the three geometric solids had been introduced into the U.S. contemporaneously with the birth and introduction of the new “metric system” throughout Europe. Our gold coin back then was the “eagle” worth 10 of those silver $1 dollar coins.
THE STORIES WE ARE TOLD BY THE HISTORIANS regarding how the weights of these coins were chosen, and the creation of the metric system, are simply “stories”. As we can see, the TRUTH is right in front of our eyes; that, is if we take the time to understand the implications contained herein. I’ll help you in this process of understanding these simple relationships which are being exposed for the first time in this image.
AMERICA’S SYSTEM OF WEIGHT MEASURES was (and still is) based on the “grain”. The 1792 Coinage Act required that the $10 eagle coin contains 247.5 grains of pure gold. Later in 1837, at the same time France formally adopted and now mandated metric, in America the gross weight of the silver $1 dollar coin became 412.5 grains. Now look what happens when the grain-based weights of these coins are expressed in “grams”.
1 GRAM EQUALS 15.432 . . . GRAINS. Look at the cube in the image. To geometry, if a cube has a volume of 4125 “units” its edge-length must be 16.037 . . . , and surface area 1543.2 . . . These are purely “geometric” quantities being void of any “named” substance or named volume unit. BUT, if we name the unit of volume a “grain” and the substance “U.S. coinage silver”, then this 4125 “grain” cube of coinage silver is equal in value to the $10 “eagle” coin with its 16.037 . . . “gram” weight of pure gold matching this cubes edge-length. And its 1543.2 . . . unit surface area is a power of the grain/gram conversion quantity that didn’t even exist before the 1790’s.
NOW LOOK AT THE TETRAHEDRON. If we assign the 15.432 . . . grain/gram conversion quantity to its edge-length then its surface area becomes 412.5 units (wt. silver $ in grains). Its volume (divided by 33) reveals a 16.042 . . . quantity at its heart (wt. $10 eagle in grams).
THE 412.5 VOLUME AS THE CUBOID, if comprised of coinage silver, would simply be the silver dollar reconfigured into the cuboid. As we can see, 26.729 . . . (the weight of the coin in grams) is the surface area of each one of its 4 rectangular faces; and the 15.432 . . . grain/gram conversion factor is its edge-length.
IT MUST BE VERY OBVIOUS BY NOW that the weights of these coins were the result of intentional design based on Geometry. And that “metric” was stolen from Geometry as well. Historians, like the rest of us have been deprived of this knowledge. And for the same secretive reasons, we have all been deprived this view of geometry which long ago I named The Geometry of Form.
Forbidden Knowledge (Post#12) 02/06/18
“Endlish” is the language at the time of the “end”. No, not the apocalypse; certainly not the end of the world, nor Doom’s Day, but the culmination of a cycle or historical trend that began literally at the dawn of mankind.
This trend is revealing itself in various manifestations with the common theme being “from many to one”. The force driving this trend is the consolidation of sovereignty, and its rate of consolidation is inversely related to time. Look at it this way. In the past, the farther back one goes the more sovereigns one would find exercising unfettered authority over a specific geographic territory. As we move forward in time, not only are there fewer sovereigns, but also they disappear at an accelerated rate. For example, in Hawaii where I live, each of the islands had it own independent king at the time Captain Cook first arrived a little over two hundred years ago. Some of the islands had several kings ruling sovereign in their respective regions.
If we had a map of the islands, we could place a map pin everywhere there was an individual sovereign. As we move forward from the time of Cook, one by one, those pins disappear until only Kamehameha’s remains. For a time, the Hawaiian Islands are one dominion with a succession of sovereigns. But when it became a U.S. Territory, its “pin” is removed, symbolizing the transfer of sovereignty to a greater entity whose pin rests alone far away in Washington D.C.
This act has played out innumerable times all over the earth since the beginning of civilization. Far enough back in time, with a map pin for every sovereign, a model of the earth would look like a “pin cushion”. But as we move forward through time, pins are lost from our model at an ever-increasing rate. Today, it’s obvious there are very few true sovereigns remaining. If the historic trend plays out, there will be but one pin. At that point we have reached The End.
There are many signs reflecting this march from many to one. The adoption of the western style business suit by local political and business people the world over is just one such ominous sign of this uni-formity.
Likewise, recent times have seen the global adoption of what we call the Hindu-Arabic Numerals. Regardless of the language spoken, schools the world over teach mathematics using these ten symbols. In a sense, these numerical symbols comprise the world’s first truly global language (at least since the mythic days of ancient Babel).
With the emerging global multi-national corporate cabals comes ever more inter-dependence amongst the world’s nations resulting in further loss of national sovereignties. The European Union, for example, has abrogated national currencies as well as social and economic policy-making as it begins to bring Europe’s diverse “many” under the dominion of “one” greater sovereignty.
Instrumental to the task of globalization is the efficiency that comes with a common language. And as the trend moves more and more toward its inevitable End, it appears that English is that language.(Note: in Old German “eng” means finally.)
II. A Consistent Symbolic System
It has been said that English is one of the more difficult languages to learn. Little wonder when words like “kernel” and “colonel” have the same pronunciation, and “comb” and “bomb” do not. In the first case, the strings of symbols are totally unrelated yet both words sound the same. In the second example, the symbols are near identical but the sounds are very different. There is an obvious breakdown in the consistency embodied in the symbols. One is forced to simply commit to memory the correct sounds for specific words and disregard what the symbols would otherwise produce. This lessens the effectiveness of the language and often obscures the real meaning of the words.
Ideally, we would use the twenty-six different symbols comprising our alphabet in a consistent fashion. Identical strings of letter symbols ideally would have consistent meanings and sounds. Of course, this would imply that any particular combination of letters comprising a word were “chosen” as a reflection of a root- concept related to that particular word; it would mean that the strings are not random.
For example, the word “sovereign” was used extensively in the above introduction. Generally it means a supreme authority over some region. Most of us use this word without recognizing that its symbols are a combination of “over” and “reign”; that the “sovereign” is the “over rein” with “rein” being synonymous with control (like the reins on a horse). There is a visual image invoked by the symbols: a “rein” being above or reaching over, and covering a specific region.
According to the symbols, the following words all should share the same root-concept, which is “over”.
OVER ABOVE COVER HOVER
OVEN GLOVE LOVE GOVERN
“Above” is really the prefix ab plus over; an oven is a covered fire; a glove goes over and covers; The “h” and “c” distinguish “hover” from “cover”, but their root symbolic concepts are the same, which is “over”; just as it is for “love”. And yes, the root of “government” is also “over”, and is consistent with the concept and symbols comprising “sovereign”. Sovereigns are governments. Over-reigns are over-ments (with “ment” here meaning “mend”, as in binding together).
This image of authority manifesting as an “over-ment” is consistent with other words describing the various shades of sovereignty. For example, a kingdom is a king-“dome”. The word king is like an adjective describing the kind of “dome” and distinguishes it from fief-“domes” and free-“domes”. The “dome” is the over-ment’s image, whereas its characteristic is king, fief, free, etc. Generically they all are called “dominions” or “domains”. The image of a dome is rooted in every example.
This “over-ment” image translates the same with other sovereignty words such as monarchy, oligarchy, patriarchy, etc. Here, the “archy” is an arch under which a particular sovereign reigns supreme. Thus the dome (a 3-dimensional mental rendering) and the arch (a dome’s 2-dimensional equivalent) were images “chosen” to convey the concept of the over-ment. Today, in most sovereign regions of the world, this over-ment is a federal government welding supreme authority. To the student of Endlish, it is a “fetter-all over-ment“, for that’s how the symbols (letters) comprising “federal” translate. “Feder”, which means to bind together, to hobble, to hamper, is the symbolic root, and the conceptual root its choosers had in mind when coining the word.
Another example of confusion resulting from disregarding the “consistency factor” is seen in the words county and country. Their symbols say they should sound the same except for their endings. Likewise, they should have the same root concept, which is “count”. . . as in counting the king’s deer, or taxes collected or owed, or the hectares within the domain. “Counting” was the concept chosen as the defining characteristic for these two entities. In times past, there was even a person called the “Count” who was in charge of running the operations for the greater sovereign.
The idea of a country, or county, is based on counting whereas a “nation” (often synonymous with country) is based on the same root concept as “natural”, “native”, and “nativity”, implying a blood-tie structuring such as family, clans, and tribes. And “state”, also often interchanged with government and country derives from the idea of “standing” or “staying” put in one place, coming to us from the Latin verb: sto, stare. We see shades of this root in words such as stabilize, stable, establish, stadium, stage, stagnant, stain, stall, stand, staple, star, station, statue, stay, to name just a few.
Conscious observers of this language will find themselves repeatedly asking a simple question: why these letters and not some others for any particular word? This effort is increasingly rewarded by a broadened understanding of what we are actually saying, and by extension, of our perception of reality itself.
III. Endlish At Work
The bow, stern, port and starboard sides, are familiar words for mariners. Doesn’t it make sense that the bow was named for the bow-shape (like bow and arrow) it historically resembles? The stern is the steer-end (say it, if you have any doubt) and the port side went against the port’s dock because an ancient rudder was a side-mounted board called the “steer-board” and might be crushed if the vessel tied-up star-board side, or steerboard side to the dock. This makes sense even with “star” instead of “steer” when one remembers that “star” means to stay as in staying one’s course. So these words persist to this day and we use them for reference, usually without any thought to their rich imagery.
But there are other words based on imagery that might not be the most flattering. We all know an “adult” is the mature form of a being. And we refer to ourselves as “adults” in every conceivable context. Yet there really aren’t any other words with the same symbols that don’t have a negative context: adulation, adulterate, and adultery, along with their derivatives comprise the conceptual family to which “adult” belongs. If the first letter “a” is considered the typical prefix denoting “to” or “away from”, that leaves dult, or dul as the root. “Adultery” could derive from the word dulcinea meaning sweetheart or mistress; the word dulcet means sweet, agreeable, pleasing; and dulcify means to make sweet or agreeable. Could this imply that “adults” are not sweet, or agreeable like their kinder gentler counterparts, children? (And isn’t “kinder” another word for children as it is used in words such as “kindergarten”, and by extension “kindling”, referring to tiny pieces of firewood?).
We also refer to ourselves as “people”, or collectively as “society”, or the “public”. The letter symbols suggest that the concepts for people and peon, or peonage, share the same root. Similarly, the words society, sock, and soccer share “foot” as their common root concept. Thus “society” must have originally referred to those who walked; foot-persons, so to speak, no doubt in contradistinction to those who rode or were carried by means other than their own feet. And “people” too has “foot” as it’s root concept (deriving from the Latin ped, pes). “Peon” and “peonage” evolved from the simple fact that the poor were on foot. The poor, or common folk, walked and therefore came to be described as “people” and “society”. And from what imagery does the word “public” derive? Can it be that we are collectively so naive that the imagery chosen to represent the greater population is the same as puberty, pubescence, pubic, puba (a larva), etc., or those words all denoting an immaturity as their root imagery? Are we, in someone’s or something’s mind nothing more than “pupas”? Is the word pupa related to puppy, or pupalation (i.e. population)?
Certainly there is something positive in understanding the difference between “freedom” and “liberty”. They are so often used interchangeably that we lose the true essence of their meanings. But their symbols retain what we’ve long since forgotten, or never even learned. For there can be no true freedom without liberty. “Liberty” is what you have when the laws are written down in books; liber, which is Latin for book, is the root concept of liberty. This is of course opposite to a dictatorship (of any kind), the very concept of which derives from the Latin word dicere “to say or tell”.
So the next time American politicians say they are sending troops off to the far corners of the earth in defense of liberty, it’s fair to point out the hypocrisy of their government routinely denying trial by jury to defendants who “if guilty stand to serve six months or less in jail and pay one-thousand or less dollars in fines”. Under the condition of “liberty”, the politicians would have troubled themselves to change the Constitutional provisions guaranteeing trial by jury for all criminal prosecutions through the amendment process rather than just ignoring that great document touted as The Supreme Law Of The Land. The fact that the supreme courts of all fifty states, and the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly “said” this denial to a jury trial is constitutional is evidence more for the existence of a dictatorship than for the existence of “liberty”. The same applies to the monetary safeguards built into the Constitution. Rather than amend the document with regards to this issue, which in essence protects the people from “legalized counterfeiters” diluting the value of labor’s remunerations, these provisions too are simply ignored in favor of the banking cartel. The student of Endlish is well aware of this distinction between liberty and dictatorship and is not so easily deceived by the vagaries of catchy slogans masking the true nature of this reality.
There are other words that quite possibly give us an insight into a truer nature of our common reality. For example, the root of “employment” is ploy, which is a clever trick or deception. And it could be argued by many that “entrepreneurs” are entrappers. This all makes very good sense in light of the abuses associated with the early days of the industrial revolution. Even the word “labor”, which in dictionaries is an etymological mystery, can be seen in its’ symbols to be related to the word “slave”. The interchange of the “b” and “v” in the same word amongst the Romance languages is well established, as is the dropping of the s or es at a words beginning (Esteban and Steven; Pablo and Pavel; and v is often pronounced b). No less flattering is the word “job” which dates back to the trying tasks of the biblical Job.
On the more benign side, how many of us realize that the “evening” of the day (pronounced eve-ning) is literally the even-ing, as in no longer day and not yet night? It is even between the two. Or that we call a bank a “bank” because, like a river embankment confines water within its walls, a bank holds money within its walls. And on the individual level we keep our money in “wall·ets”, literally “little walls”. A “talent” was a Roman measure, especially of gold or silver, so a person with talent has value or potential value. The catholic Pontiff , like a pontoon or sponson is the bridge (Latin pons, pontis) connecting the spiritual and material worlds. The words merchant, commercial, mercantile, all related in meaning also share the common root mer meaning sea. From its slight variation mar (also meaning sea) comes market, all of which is showing the importance the early mariners had in influencing our conception of trade.
The very words commemorate the importance of the role seamen played in the dissemination of trade and all that accompanies trade. Seamen, like their namesake counterpart “semen”, have been the prime disseminators of this world’s cultural seeds. “Rent” is render; to wonder is to wander (mentally); and, to imagine is to “im-ago”, from Latin meaning to go into.
All of this can be seen in one light to be quite logical. And in that light or point of view, the description of Endlish thus far is not only a plausible explanation for the “choosing” of the symbols, but probably what one would expect to be taking place within the language if one gave the topic enough thought to come to any conclusion. But is there something else at work as well?
IV. Deus Ex Machina (The Machine From God)
There is another element at work: Spirit, or by whatever other name you might prefer to call It. Etymology alone cannot account for the logic inherent to the present day organization of this language’s symbols. Some might prefer to view this as merely coincidence arising from predominantly random chaos. But if one is inclined to accept Spirit as a part of our reality’s composition, then considering Endlish as a possible manifestation of Spirit’s presence is not so great a leap. I believe this Spirit is that of the Good. I believe its’ intentions through Endlish is to give a clearer understanding of our reality so that others whose values do not embrace the Good will not so readily be able to deceive. Endlish is a revelation; and, it is there for any who dare question the authoritarians’ fabricated paradigm.
Endlish is like a sign. Everyone has the capacity of being a seer. Its up to each individual who becomes aware as to how one interprets seeing. For example, the transition from a “holy day” (pronounced like the word whole) into a “holiday” (pronounced like the word hollow), where the essence of the word’s true meaning is emptied; or, from “busy-ness” (three syllables) to “business” (two syllables and pronounced “biz-ness”) again at the cost of destroying the very essence of the word.
Now ultimately I don’t know whether a “fetter-all overment” is necessarily a good or bad thing. I do know I don’t like the sound of it. I’m suspect of the word “ploy” being the root concept of what we know and experience as “employment”. And uni-forms have always made me feel uncomfortable. Maybe it will prove to be unhealthy to the human spirit, in general, to be collared, tied, cuffed, belted, socked and shod all alike. It should be no surprise if it’s contributed to a dampening of our awareness, and has helped lead to a taming of our instinctual inclination to defend our own sovereignties as individuals. Pay attention to the symbols . . . and take heed.
© P. Kasprzycki 2003
Forbidden Knowledge (Post#13) 02/18/18
YOU’VE PROBABLY NEVER WONDERED WHY A COPPER PENNY (old or new) measures 1.52 mm in thickness rather than some other number; like maybe a simpler 1.5 mm. In 1864 a Congressional Act reduced the weight of the U.S. penny to 48 “grains”, a non-metric measure and its weight until 1982. But the Act said nothing as to its new physical dimensions. I wondered if there is something more behind this 1.52 mm measure that we’ve purposely not been told. What follows is some of what I’ve discovered. You decide if it’s all just a “coincidence” . . . or a “conspiracy” to keep us in the dark.
IN THE IMAGE, WE CAN SEE THAT A STACK OF 40 PENNYS measures 60.8 mm (40 X 1.52 mm). When we convert this into “inches” it is 2.3937007874 inches. This means that 4000 pennies stacked atop one another will measure 239.37007874 inches. Now since 1 “meter” measures 39.37007874 inches, is it by “accident” or “intent” that our stack of 4000 pennies is exactly:
(1 meter) + (200 inches)
4000 PENNIES IS $40, AND IN A PREVIOUS POST (10/03/17) $40 in REAL SILVER fractional coins was shown to weigh exactly 1 “kilogram”. And that similarly, $40 in our present IMMITATION SILVER coins weighs 2 “pounds”. Now we see that $40 in pre-1982 pennies weigh 192,000 grains (400 troy ounces). This is the equivalent weight of 1000 silver half-dollars minted between 1853-1873. Remember, this penny first appeared in 1864. Is it fair to suspect some intended connection between the penny’s thickness, the meter measure, and the silver coinage? Especially when seen in the context of the following examples:
CALCULATE THE HEIGHT OF 825 PENNIES (825 X 1.52 mm). We get 1,254 mm. And since there is 25.4 mm to an inch, and 1000 mm to a meter, the height of this stack can be read as being exactly:
(1 meter) + (10 inches)
WE SHOULD PROBABLY ASK WHY THIS QUANTITY OF 825 seems to be special. Is it because the U.S. silver dollar coin weighs 412.5 “grains” and that (2 X 412.5) = 825?
Or because 825 = (.4125/2)4000? And what does a stack of 825 pennies weigh? Well, if they are the new zinc-filled pennies at 2.5 grams each it’ll weigh 2062.5 grams . . . which again can be written 4125 ÷ 2 grams. Mysteriously, we see this 412.5 “quantitative specter” of the silver dollar coin actually built into our penny. Is this by “accident” or “intent”?
ANOTHER STACK OF 825 REAL COPPER PENNIES (pre-1982), at 1/10 troy ounce each, weighs 39,600 grains. This quantity is a power of 3,960, which is also (like the inches and meters above) a measure of length. For it is the exact number of “miles” the ILLUMINATI chose (a very long time ago) to be the radius of our planet Earth. This became the measuring rod from which ALL OF HUMANITIES measures of length, area, and volume derive. Unequivocal proof of this will be the subject of my next Forbidden Knowledge post.
Forbidden Knowledge (Post#14) 03/12/18
“EXACTLY” IS A WORD NOT TO BE TAKEN LIGHTLY. Actual recent measurements have ranged from 3947 miles to 3968 miles (Wikipedia) with most sources citing 3959 miles as Earth’s mean radius. So how is it that I can boldly claim it is in fact 3960 miles? Once again, we can finger the ILLUMINATI for sticking us with this quantity above all others. And of course, this knowledge has long been “forbidden” to the likes of us, the “uninitiated”.
SINCE “IN THE BEGINNING” THE ILLUMINATI “assigned” this quantity of units to be Earth’s radius, today it can be no other. For you see, it is this physical measure of Earth that long ago became their yardstick and from which all of our others measures derive. The “meter” (from which come all measures metric) is a 1 ten-millionth part of Earth’s longitudinal quadrant running through Paris. We are told it was deduced from measurements conducted in relatively recent times (using miles) during the French Revolution. But the “mile” traces back millennia, to when the illuminati decreed (not measured) that the diameter of the sphere they were standing on would be divided first into 7920 “units” creating a 3960 “unit” radius. This “unit” much later became known as the “mile”.
TODAY WE KNOW THAT THE “MILE” sub-divides into 5280 “feet”, and the foot into 12 “inches”. This then makes the mile equal 63,360 inches. Geometrically these are all related quantities. For example, a cube with a volume of 63,360 “units” subdivides into eight cubes each containing 7920 “units”. There are many more examples, but for now let’s focus on the image accompanying this post and the two graphics therein.
IT’S ALL ABOUT THE “DROP DISTANCE” measurement computed at a specific distance out from any point on the sphere down to the surface below. This is illustrated with the image of the Earth. Here is how it works for spheres very close to the size of what is claimed to be our sphere with a 3959 mile radius.
WHEN MILES ARE CONVERTED INTO INCHES for calculations, if on a sphere with a 3959 mile radius, and you move 1 mile out from the point, you’ll find that the drop distance back down to the surface is exactly 8 inches. This is also true for spheres with radii ranging from 3928 to 3980 miles. Move 2 miles out and the drop distance is exactly: (2) “squared” times 8 inches (or 32”). This holds true for spheres with radii ranging from 3956 to 3966 miles. At 3 miles out on our supposed Earth size (3959) sphere, the drop distance is exactly: (3) “squared” times 8 inches (or 72”). But this holds true only for spheres with radii ranging from 3958 through 3962 miles. At 4 miles out, using the same formula (of “squaring” the distance) X (the 8” drop distance constant) radii of 3958, 3959, and 3960 miles all drop an exact 128”. And at 5 miles, only the 3959 and 3960 mile radii result in a perfect (5) “squared” times 8 inches (or 200”) drop to the surface.
AT 6 MILES OUT, ONLY THE SPHERE WITH A 3960 mile radius will have a perfect mathematical conformance to the formula (of “squaring” the distance out from the point) X (the 8” drop distance constant). At 6 miles out the drop is exactly 288 inches (36 X 8”). But on a sphere with a 3959 mile radius the drop distance at 6 miles is a not so perfect 288.1 inches. And a 3961 mile radius has a drop of 287.9 inches.
ARE WE SEEING THE PICTURE YET? When we follow this trail of numbers we’ll find ourselves at a distance of 25 miles out. Every mile along the way, including the 25th mile, shows us a perfect conformance to the formula and the exact 8 inch drop distance constant. This data is illustrated with the yellow bar graph in the lower left side of the image.
THIS IS STRONG EVIDENCE SUPPORTING MY claim that when “They” devised a system of measures for Earth They chose the diameter of Our sphere to be the length of their fundamental unit. That is the reason why our mile measure conforms so perfectly ONLY to the sphere with a 7920 mile diameter. Maybe this is why the surveyor’s chain (introduced at the end of the 16th century, and used right up into the 1960’s) is exactly 792.0 inches long? Is this just a coincidence, or part of a conspiracy? You be the judge.
MORE TO COME ON THE MEASURES OF SPHERICAL EARTH.
Forbidden Knowledge (Post#15) 04/01/18
IT IS WIDELY KNOWN THAT THE ILLUMINATI, the Masons, and other “secret societies” have great reverence and respect for the numerical quantities “32” and “33”. In my own personal research, I have found that these quantities appear together at the very heart of many fundamental constructs of geometry. But I’ve also found them in most of contemporary humanity’s systems of weights and measures as well. What a coincidence.
EVEN THE 33rd DEGREE MASONS IN ALL probability don’t know what you are about to read. It’s in regard to the two “ounce” measures that came to dominate across our globe and their derivation from geometry by the “Illuminated Ones”. Just look at the accompanying graphic. We see first and foremost a sphere atop a square which represents the sphere’s surface area. The edge-length of this square is the “square-root” of the sphere’s surface. Now, divide this square’s edge-length into 32 parts, and then construct another square with its edge measuring 33 of these parts. And finally, transform this new square area into the surface of another sphere.
COMPARE THE VOLUMES OF THE NOW TWO SPHERES. We’ll find that the smaller relates to the larger in the same manner as the Market Ounce compares to the Troy Ounce. For example, if the smaller sphere is comprise of 1 Market Oz. of pure gold, then the larger sphere (if of the same metal) will weigh 1 Troy Oz.
AND IF THE MARKET OUNCE OF GOLD is transformed into a perfect cube, and the edge of this cube divided into 32 parts, then another cube of gold with edge equal to 33 of those parts will weigh 1 Troy ounce. In fact any two identical 3-dimensional geometric forms, having their edges in a 32/33 proportioning, will produce the same ratio between their volumes as the two ounces. For spherical volumes, it is their radii in a 32/33 ratio that in every case produce volumes mimicking the ounce ratio. And any two identical 3-dimensional geometric forms, having the square-root of their surface areas in a 32/33 proportioning also will produce the same ratio between their volumes as the two ounces.
OUR MEASURES OF LAND AND MONEY are sources rich with examples of the interplay between the 33 and 32. The square of 32 (1024) ÷ the square of 33 (1089) = 0.9403122…; and, 0.09403159… is the volume of the sphere depicted in the graphic above when the square below it is exactly 1.0 square unit. If the “unit” is named a square “foot”, its edge-length becomes 32/32 foot. But it is the square with a 33/32 edge-length that is found to be base unit for our measures of land area. Here’s how it works.
START WITH AN (8 X 8) CHESSBOARD PATTERN with each of the 64 square’s edges measuring (33/32) foot. The area of each of these squares is 1.0634765… “square” foot; and the 64 together equal 68.0625 sq. ft (note: 64 = 2 X 32). Again, repeat the chessboard pattern but with this new square. Now the area within the squares (68.0625 sq. ft X 64) becomes 4356 square feet exact! Each edge measures 2 X 33 feet. This is 1 square survey “chain”, the tool of western surveyors from the early 1600’s to the 1960’s. Ten square chains equal 1 acre. This 792 “inch” long chain is a 1/633,600 part of the Earth’s diameter of 7920 “miles” (which was proven to be its “exact” diameter in my last post on 3/12/18). And of course what a coincidence, that there is 63,360 inches in a mile.
AND LAST BUT NOT LEAST, we find that the fundamental units comprising the U.S. system of gold and silver coinage lay hidden in this 33/32 quantity. The pure gold and silver content of the silver dollar, and ten dollar gold eagle coins, is respectively 371.25 and 247.5 “grains” (and was written into law in 1792). The gross weight of the dollar coin was set at 412.5 grains in 1837. Yes, ALL of our measures descend from one system of secreted geometry, and yes it is NO coincidence that these monetary quantities .37125 + .2475 + .4125 = 1.03125 . . . , the edge-length of that very special square and is otherwise known as 33/32. Or simply divide 1.03125 by 2 and this resulting .515625 quantity, as a portion of the Troy ounce, is 247.5 grains. Once again, we find the weight quantity of the pure gold content of the $10 “eagle”.
Forbidden Knowledge (Post#16) 04/09/18
I’M GUESSING THAT even the ILLUMINITI don’t know all of the reasons I am about to present that proves why these specific sizes were imposed on U.S. paper “notes” (first in 1864, and again in 1928-29). Maybe I’m wrong about that, but I’m not wrong about the reasons for choosing these quantities.
THE OBVIOUS QUESTION BEING ANSWERED HERE is “why our dollar bill is the size that it is today?” You won’t find an answer anywhere; it’s not “out there”; just try looking it up. But there is an answer, and it can be found only in geometry, and it begins first in understanding why our pre-1929 bills were the size they are going back to the early 1860’s.
ALL PAPER MONEY IS A REPRESENTATION of “real” money. Prior to the Civil War “real” money was gold, silver, and copper coins of known specific weights and purities. The Illuminati had already instilled their geometrically significant weight ratios into the U.S. coinage system (read my book, “The Geometry of Money” on line free). This imbued what they believed to be magic and power into their chosen monetary system. One of the most important of all these quantities is the 371.25 “grains” of pure silver contained in every dollar coin. “That” is what literally constitutes one “real” dollar.
THE MONETARY ARCHITECTS SYMBOLICALLY transferred this definitive quantity into their new paper “dollar” by making its edge-length overtly 7.425”; which covertly is 2 (X) 3.7125” long. Printing 32 bills per sheet (4 lengths (X) 8 widths) makes the finished image [29.7” (X) 25”] and is itself 742.5 square inches; this again is 2 (X) 371.25 sq”. This 742.5 square inch area is also 5.15625 square “feet”, in which quantity we can see the .515625 portion of a Troy ounce of pure gold (247.5 grains) contained in the original 1792 $10 eagle coins. Twice this .515625 portion is 1.03125, which is 33/32 and was shown to be a formative measure when modeling both weights and land (and was the topic of my last post). There are other direct links between this 7.425” length and measures of land and money. For example, add to it twice .2475” and we have one “link” (7.92”) of a survey chain; or laying 51,200 of these old bills end to end precisely measures one 6 mile edge of a “township”. And the surface area of (51,200 (X) 5.280) old large notes exactly equals that of 1 “acre”.
FROM 1834, WHEN THE EAGLE’S GOLD CONTENT was reduced to 232.0 grains, until 1933, 1 grain of gold was valued at 16 grains of silver (previously it was 15 grains). This gold content and 16 to 1 ratio is embodied in the 23.203125 square inches of paper comprising each of these old large notes (7.425” X 3.125”). This is the number of grains of gold equal to one dollar of silver. Geometrically, if we make a cube with volume 232.03125, and then make a tetrahedron with the sum of its edges equal to that of this cube’s edge-length sum; then, we can make another cube twice the volume of this tetrahedron (437.5; if in grains = 1 AV OZ). Now another tetrahedron, with its edge-length sum equal to this cube’s edge-length sum, has a volume of 412.5 and replicates the 412.5 grain gross weight of the silver dollar coin!
WE SEE IN THE ACCOMPANYING GRAPHIC a sphere and a tetrahedron. The height of the tetrahedron is equal to the diameter of the sphere; they are two commensurate forms. The relationship between these two forms in this particular scale is special to geometry for many reasons. But for purposes here it is enough to show that their quantitative volumetric relationship patterns that between the old large notes and today’s currency. A greater appreciation for “why” they chose this geometric patterning comes by understanding that if the tetrahedron is spun on one of its faces into a cone (like a 3-sided pyramid) its volume (now as a cone) becomes equal to the sphere’s volume of 1 unit. Moreover, if instead of volume this quantity .413468 is the tetrahedron’s surface area, then its face triangle is commensurate to the circumference of a sphere with a surface area equal to 1 square unit.
THE TRANSITION OF THESE LARGE NOTES to the smaller and current Federal Reserve Notes will be the topic of my next post.
Forbidden Knowledge (Post#17) 04/30/18
ONCE AGAIN, THE ILLUMINATI USED GEOMETRY when in 1929 the size of the U.S. currency was reduced from 7.425” X 3.125” down to 6.14” X 2.61” (reference my previous post dated 04/09). And once again, they succeeded in transferring the actual weight-measures of the old gold and silver coinage into this new system of smaller paper notes. Here’s how they did it this time around.
IN 1873 THE WEIGHT OF PURE SILVER CONTAINED IN $1.00 of fractional silver coins (silver coins adding up to $1.00) was set at .72339… of one Troy Ounce and is represented by the cube in the accompanying graphic. One of the many reasons for this number is that the surface area of 1 Troy ounce of pure silver, if in the form of a sphere, will contain as the surface area of a cube .72360… Troy ounce of pure silver. This way it can be said that a dollar’s worth of silver change is actually equal to the “face value” (i.e. “surface area” in this case) of one “full” ounce of “pure” silver.
THAT IS ALSO WHY EVER SINCE THE EARLY 1860’s to this day the paper itself is comprised of 72.3% cotton and 27.7% linen. This means that for every 2.61 strands of cotton there is 1 of linen.
72.3 / 27.7 = 2.61 / 1.00
This fiber pattern is illustrated in the right side of the image where 2.61” is shown to be the width of our current dollar bill.
THE LENGTH OF THE OLDER LARGE BILL IS 7.000” plus a .425” quantity (see graphic). This quantity is carried forth into our current smaller bill and can be clearly seen in its width to length ratio:
2.61” / 6.14” = .425081… / 1.00
This shows that if the length of those bills in your pocket is considered as 1.0 unit, then their width by comparison is .425 of that unit.
THE BUREAU OF ENGRAVING AND PRINTING STATES that the thickness of U.S. bills going back to the 1860’s to this day is .0043”. Of course this is because .00425” rounds off to .0043”. The amount these figures differ is a mere 5 one-hundred-thousandths of an inch, which is far beyond any practical working tolerance in the actual paper production process. So this .0043” thickness is obviously a quantity related to both the old bills .425” amount over its 7.000” length, as well as the ratio of the small bills width to length (2.61” / 6.14” = .425).
IN 1837 THE SILVER DOLLAR’S GROSS WEIGHT WAS fixed at 412.5 grains and its diameter at 1.5”. Compare the coin’s diameter to the length of the old notes current at that time (7.425” / 1.5” = 4.95). When this equation is rewritten as:
(3.7125” + 3.7125”) / 1.5” = (2.475” X 2); or, .4125 foot
exposes the three prime U.S. coinage quantities hiding within.
THERE ARE MANY MORE REASONS FOR CHOOSING these dollar bill dimensions. For example, if the surface quantities of the two bills are viewed as measures of weight then the large bills’ 23.03125 (square inches), as “grains”, is the amount of gold equal to $1.00. And the small bills’ 16.0254 (square inches), as “grams”, is the amount of pure gold in the $10.00 “eagle”.
COINCIDENCE OR CONSPIRACY? You be the Judge
Forbidden Knowledge (Post#18) 05/20/18
IN THE 1792 COINAGE ACT, THE ILLUMINATI SECRETLY influenced the U.S. Congress to decree that the foundational coin of their new monetary system would contain 24.056 grams of pure silver; and, that the “eagle” (the $10 gold coin) was to contain 16.037 grams of pure gold. But since the “gram” unit had not yet been introduced to the world, these weights were specified in “grains”; respectively, 371.25 and 247.5. Later in 1837, the copper alloy in the silver dollar was reduced by 3.5 grains bringing its gross weight down to 26.729 grams (412.5 grains). These “quantities” appear in red fonts in the included illustration.
HISTORIANS TELL US THAT THE WEIGHTS OF THESE COINS ultimately were derived by purely arbitrary and subjective decision making. But they have been misled, and thus are clueless to the secret reality of one hidden system of simple geometry uniting ALL of our systems of weights and measures. In the accompanying graphic is a very clear example of fundamental geometric relationships patterning what became the world’s most powerful monetary system?
HERE WE SEE A DIRECT RELATIONSHIP THAT BEGINS with Euclid’s basic square representing “one unit” of surface area (1.02); and, (1.0) monetary unit of silver coinage, the silver dollar. This one surface unit, when reconfigured into the form of a tetrahedron’s surface, captures a volume of .05170027. As the graphic clearly shows, multiples of this “geometric quantity” squared, based on 1, 6, and 9, create powers of these three primary U.S. monetary weight units (in grams). These monetary measures are 99.998% identical to these eternal measures of geometry.
WHAT ARE THE ODDS OF THIS ALL HAPPENING BY “COIN”CIDENCE and not CONSPIRACY? The answer is ZERO when viewed on a backdrop of my previous seventeen “Forbidden Knowledge” posts.
YOU be the judge: Conspiracy or coincidence?