“History” tells us the story about the development of our systems of weights and measures. Accordingly, we are told that they evolved from the use of seeds, peas, and grains as measures of weight. These natural units together in various amounts came to be called by a variety of names in places of commerce throughout the ancient world. By the 13th century, one measure emerged above all others. It was the combined weight of 480 grains and came to be known as the “troy ounce”. It is a fundamental measure of weight to this day.
Toward the end of the 17th century and culminating with the French revolution a hundred years later, we are told by history that French scientists had developed the metric system of weights and measures. Now, the “gram” superseded the “grain” of the troy ounce. What was once an even 480 grains is now, in this new system, a not so even 31.1034768. . . grams.
Today, if we wanted to construct a system of weights and measures, we would want this system to be based on some natural fundamental unit as opposed to one arbitrarily decreed by man. We understand from history that the French scientists pioneering the introduction of the base ten metric systems chose the distance from the North Pole to the equator, which was divided into ten million parts, to constitute their meter. That was their natural fundamental unit. It was geodetic, a physical earth-based measurement. This was special, an actual measure repeatedly subdivided by ten creating a ruler as the basis for all measurements. Contrast the much older troy ounce arbitrarily assigned 480 grains, as opposed to say 450, by decree alone.
The rest is “history”, as they say, . . . or is it? Can it be possible that the historians had got it wrong? Not so much that they misled us, but that they, the historians of their time themselves were misled (not unlike journalists and historians in our time). For when the following simple geometry of form is understood, no one can argue that at the least a serious inquiry into the veracity of our historical mythology is called into question.
A Natural System of Weights and Measures Inherent to the Geometry of Form
At the heart of any system of weights and measures there must be a fundamental unit. In this geometric-based system, where weight is the sought after measure, geometry uses the volume unit in its most efficiently packaged form, that of a prefect sphere. This “spherical” volume-one unit is this system’s base-unit of weight.
“One, one what?”, one might ask. “One” whatever you want to call it. . . . one pound, one ounce, one whatever. It is just a name. And within the sphere, what substance, gold, silver, water? Whatever you like, it doesn’t matter. What matters is the sphere, and that its content represents 1.0 unit of weight. Now just for fun, lets name this fundamental unit of weight the gram.
Of course, you can’t have a system with only one of these base units. A system based on grains, like the troy ounce, is not a system if you have only one grain. Visualize a plate with grains of wheat on a tabletop and next to it another plate containing pea- size perfect spheres. In the first plate of wheat, each “unit” is called a grain. We can call the perfect spheres in the second plate grams. Both assortments can give rise to a system.
In the world of geometry this base-unit of weight has a size. Since its volume is 1.0 unit, its surface area measures 4.835975862…square units, or areal units. We will call this areal measure our gram-unit’s “face-value”. Now it appears that when “they” constructed our monetary systems those “enlightened ones” behind the scenes designed a second weight-unit that is equal to the combined face-values of two spherical gram units. This new package is in the form of a regular tetrahedron. Its surface area or “face-value” is 2 X 4.835975862… or 9.671951724… And its volume is 1.5551203024…grams.
The Money Particle
We now have the building blocks of both the English and American monetary systems. This tetrahedron I jokingly call the “money particle” (the reason will soon be obvious). But to be consistent with the 1.0 spherical “gram” units from which it derives and is equal to in “face-value”, we should properly call it by its real name: the “pence”, or “pennyweight”. Here are just some of the reasons for this name.
The historical definition of a pence or a pennyweight is “the 1/20 part of a troy ounce”. When you do the math, you will calculate that 20 times our tetrahedron’s 1.5551203024 grams equals 31.10240604…grams and mimics the 31.10347680…grams defining a troy ounce to an astounding 0.99996… fineness in degree of perfection.
As the “money particle”, this pence or pennyweight built the coinage on both sides of the Atlantic. In England by the end of the thirteenth century it was well established that twelve of these weights equaled one “shilling”, twenty shillings made a “pound”. Of course, at that time, the “gram” did not historically exist and the unit of measure was the “grain”. Precisely 24 grains equaled one pence. Our geometrically derived pence, at 1.5551203024…grams equals 23.999173…grains and did exist, not only way back then, but eternally as an ideal geometric form. And its weight is 24 grains, at least to the previous 0.99996… fineness in degree of perfection.
Five hundred years later, in 1792, the newly established American states passed their Coinage Act. It was extremely precise in defining each coin and its composition. And it is equally obscure as to the actual reasoning for arriving at one ratio and weights of metals or another. Again, there is some history, but is it the real story?
What is undisputed is that “grains” were the base-unit of weight measures at that time and that in this Coinage Act only the cent and ½ cent coins were not delineated by grains. They were to be respectively eleven, and five and one-half pennyweights of pure copper. Congress soon reduced the size of the cent and in 1796 it dropped from the mandated 11/20 troy oz. to 7/20 troy oz., or seven pennyweights. In 1856 the cent was further reduced in size to 3/20 troy oz. and once more in 1864 to 2/20 troy oz. in weight (3.1103…grams). This size one cent coin remained America’s standard until 1982 with the introduction of the “imitation” zinc cent piece now weighing 2.5 grams.
The important point here, is that from America’s conception, its one cent piece has emerged through its first four manifestations every time being a creature of some whole number increments of 1/20 part of the troy ounce. One pence, one pennyweight. Each of these coins can be constructed with our geometric pence, again to a 0.99996… degree of accuracy.
Though a bit of a diversion, it is worth noting at this point that the name “pence” comes to us from combining two older words: penta, meaning five, from Greek; and, centum from Latin meaning one-hundred. The “pence” is five-cents and is what the American “nickel” should be properly called. The word “penny” is a diminutive term meaning “little pence” since a penny is a 1/5th sub-division of the pence. And with the pence being by definition 1/20 of a troy oz., the troy ounce itself is seen to be naturally sub-divided into one-hundred “cents”. Furthermore, “5-ness” is embodied in the very form and weight of this special geometric unit. For example its “face-value” or surface-area is equal to exactly 5 times it height measure. And its weight should be seen as equal to 1.0 gram plus 5-tenths gram, plus 5-hundredths gram, plus 5-thousandths gram. This “money particle” shouts out its 5-ness!
The American System of Silver Coinage And the Occult Geometry to Which It Was Designed
When we now look at the American silver coinage, we can see the same geometric principle employed in its design as that which was initially used regarding our two “gram” units. Here again, the concept of equal “face-values” was used to create the dollar coin and later fractional coins. The geometry about to be introduced to you here is the pattern or blueprint that the architects of the American monetary system strove to achieve; and they did, finally! As the history shows, there was unquestionably a “hidden hand” at work in and amongst the hallowed halls of the U.S. Congress guiding each of the four coinage or monetary acts toward the realization of the following geometric ideals.
Remember, we started our geometry based system of weight with two spherical “gram” units. They each are 1.0 gram, but it is more descriptive to depict them each being 10/10 gram since “grams” are inherently base-ten. Next, we created the “money particle”, the tetrahedronal package scaled to be equal in surface area to the combined surfaces of the two gram units. They have equal “face-values”, an important concept at the heart of the geometry. An equally important concept is that this tetrahedron is born from two other geometric units which together weigh 20/10 grams. So when we found that “20” of these “money particles” or “pence” equaled one troy ounce we know that this increment of “20” was built into the system from the beginning. From twenty-tenths grams comes this new accounting unit, which in aggregations of twenty, forms the next whole accounting unit, the troy ounce.
The system of American silver coinage began with the troy ounce. Again, the enlightened ones behind the scenes employed the concept of equal “face values” from the onset, but this time it was in relation to the troy ounce (itself a derivative of the combined face-value of two spherical gram units). Here’s the geometry they were finally able to achieve, through it took them until The Coinage Act of 1873 to do so.
They started with the troy ounce, and like previously with the gram, package it in geometry’s most economical form, as a sphere. Since we are dealing with silver coins, let’s say we have one troy ounce of pure silver in the form of a perfect sphere. That’s exactly what the monetary architects started with. From here a “cube” of silver is constructed equal in surface area, that is to say equal in “face-value” to the spherical troy ounce of pure silver. Now we have a sphere of pure silver and a cube of pure silver with identical “face-values”. We know the sphere is one troy ounce and when we do the calculations we discover the cube contains 0.723601255… troy ounce of silver; which is 22.506514 grams. The amount of pure silver in the American fractional dollar coins from 1873 until they stopped minting them in 1964 is 22.50 grams. The silver content of the whole American dollar coin is this 22.50 gram cube of silver plus one “money particle”, that unit initially born from the “gram” itself. Combined, there is a total silver content equal to 0.7733900 troy ounce. Since the 1792 Coinage Act, American whole silver dollar coins contain 371.25 grains of pure silver which is 0.7734375 troy ounce. The two methods yield identical silver amounts to a 0.9999 degree of fineness.
Questioning the Veracity of The Historical Record
By the time the British colonies in the Americas won their independence from England, the silver Spanish coins known as “pieces of eight” had long been in use as the colonial “dollar”. By 1792 it had been through many transformations, scaling its gross weight and silver content downward over the previous century. The history shows that America’s founders used the Spanish coin which was in use at the time as model of the new American “dollar” unit. In fact the 1792 Coinage Act mandates that the new American dollar “be of the value of a Spanish milled dollar as the same as is now current”.
The Continental Congress back in the 1780’s commissioned a scientific study to determine just what this Spanish “reale” contained. Afterward, the 1786 Congressional Board of Treasury recommended that 375.64 grains of pure silver be contained in the American dollar coin. So in light of this study, and the clear mandate within Congress’ 1792 Coinage Act to create a coin of equal value as the Spanish coin, why did they with purpose and intent specify only 371.25 grains of pure silver in that very same Coinage Act?
I contend the answer was their target of replicating specific geometric ideals and numerical proportions that, in their minds, imbues some sort of mystical power into their creations which would otherwise go untapped. America’s founders were infected with persons affiliated with secret societies that coveted and hid certain knowledge from the rest of the world. For example, someone in one of those cabals probably knows the real reason the Washington Monument is 55 feet square at its base and 555 feet tall. These numbers mean something very specific but we, the rest of the world, don’t have the faintest clue. Do you know the intended significance of these numbers? Could this monument be not so much to glorify President Washington but to pay homage to an equally formative “unit” rooted in the numbers .555… such as the “money particle”? I honestly don’t know. But I do know something about the significance of this geometric fundamental unit (see more in appendix) and would not be surprised if this was in fact at least part of the answer.
Getting back to the American silver coinage, it has already been shown that the 22.50 gram silver content of the fractional dollar coins, as a single cube of silver, has the same “face value” (surface area) as a troy ounce of silver in the form of a sphere. To those who will say that’s just a coincidence, then is it coincidence that the pure silver content of the whole dollar coin (.7734375 troy ounce) is just as easily expressed as exactly 99/128 troy ounce? In the 1792 Coinage Act the founders specified 371.25 grains pure, or 416 grains of “standard silver. There too, standard silver is also defined: 1485 parts pure, 169 parts alloy. Why no mention of the simpler ratio 99/128? And why does this simple ratio never appear in any literature, both historical and contemporary? It’s certainly not hidden knowledge. Maybe it is out there and I just missed it. And again, if that’s just coincidence, then is 110/128 troy ounce, or exactly 412.5 grains, which is the gross weight of the whole silver dollar, is that by design or coincidence too? Even the Trade Dollar, minted in 1876 for export trade only, at 420 grains gross weight can otherwise be scaled at 112/128 troy ounce. Why is there no apparent mention of these ratios anywhere in our history? What is the significance of dividing the troy ounce into 128/128 sub-units? Is it related to standard silvers’ 1664 parts total and that 13 X 128 = 1664? Of course, 4 X 416(grains, weight of 1792 dollar) equals 1664 too.
To question the veracity of our historical record one should have some sort of clue or evidence. Even circumstantial evidence tends to throw the accepted paradigm into question. For example, it’s a fact that the monetary weights of the silver Anglo-American coinage can be derived from geometry beginning with two spherical gram units. We’ve just seen this earlier in this essay. Both of these monetary systems are based on the troy ounce which (according to history) pre-dates by a millennium or more the relatively recent introduction of the metric and gram based units. So the apparent contradiction of my suggesting the gram being progenitor of the troy ounce, with history relating the opposite narrative, makes it easy for one to dismiss this notion as nonsense. Nonetheless, at the same time, one still must admit that this weight system is at the least “reflected” in geometry.
But once again, what if the historical record has been purposely distorted more by omissions than commissions of outright falsehoods? Its probably true that the metric system, along with its gram-based weight, was introduced to the world’s masses in the 1790s. But that’s not to say or prove it was “unknown” a thousand, or thousand of years earlier. After all, the inch goes back at least to the pyramids. And the “gram” of the metric system, as was demonstrated, seems to be rooted in the timeless forms of the geometric ideals available to anyone with an inclination to look. And so too can we find the metric system’s fundamental unit of length rooted in those same simple eternal geometric forms.
The Millimeter and Inch-measure Inherent to the Geometry of Form
In fact, the two systems of measuring length that have been the most influential in the history of the western world, the inch-based and the meter-based systems, together arise from and give scale to solid geometry’s most fundamental transformation. This is when a single spherical volume unit divides its mass between two new equal spherical volume units.
Beginning with a perfect idealized sphere, geometric properties of volume, surface area, and length are established. The distance from any point on the sphere’s surface running through its center to the opposite side is its diameter. This is its fundamental unit of length. When the sphere divides into two new smaller spheres their diameters form the next natural unit of length. A comparison of these two measures
exposes the metric and inch systems. What follows is a brief explanation.
The meter is the metric systems base unit; the centimeter is one-hundredth, and the millimeter is one-thousandth that base unit. Likewise, beginning with a yard, which is about the length of a meter, we subdivide it into three feet. The foot further subdivides into twelve inches; which inch unit then breaks down into halves, quarters, eighths, sixteenths, and thirty-seconds. From the start, different countries had slightly different equivalencies for how many millimeters were contained in an inch. For example, the old imperial inch was 25.399956… millimeters. By the time Britain and the United States adopted 25.4 millimeters exact as the standard in 1958 the rest of the world had long since arrived at this measure, also by decree.
These two systems of measurement were not originally designed to be commensurate, having evolved from two completely different sets of initial conditions. Yet at the length of an inch, it was clearly seen that 32 thirty-seconds of an inch, or 32 im (inch-measures) were uncannily close to 25.4 millimeters. And so it was decreed. Therefore,
32im/25.4mm = 1.0im/0.79375mm
and can be read as: 32 inch measures per 25.4 millimeters is the same as 1.0 inch measure per 0.79375 millimeter. And this ratio
is the same ratio as the sphere diameters above to a 0.9999 degree of perfection. In fact if you consider that prior to the 1958 decree, all of the “calculated” measures were slightly less than the mandated 25.4mm, then the geometrically derived measure is even to a higher degree of perfection.
Now, in the example above, a sphere was used to illustrate the underlying geometric principle at work whenever a particular mass divides equally between two new units of identical shape as the original. This principle and specific lineal relationship extends to literally any shape, but if a cube is used as an example for the original unit, the mathematics are a little simpler than a sphere: 1.0 volume unit in the form of a cube has an edge length equal to 1.0. It divides its volume into two cubes each having a volume equal to 0.5. Therefore the edge length of each of the two new cubes is equal to the “cube root” (or volumetric root) of 0.5 which is 0.793700526… revealing the same ratio as when dividing the sphere. Again, regardless of how irregular the original form is dividing its volume into two new identically shaped forms this 1.0/0.793700 lineal relationship is inviolate.
Simply stated, what we clearly find in the geometry is that the millimeter is the lineal measure of the original form, and the inch measure (1/32”) the corresponding lineal unit of each of the two new forms after the original’s division.
Why the Regular Tetrahedron is a Perfect Model for the “Pence”
(See Chapter on “The Great Metric Hoax” for detailed Illustrations of the Following Presentation)
Let us assume for a moment that in fact, the unit of weight measure known as the “pence” was consciously constructed from combining the surfaces of two 1.0 “gram” units in the form of perfect spheres into one regular tetrahedronal form as the pence. At some point the question must be asked: “why the tetrahedron rather than a cube, or another sphere, or some other form all together?”
At least part of the answer can be found in the unique properties of this form. The “illuminated” among the ancients probably knew what Dr. R. Buckminster Fuller re-discovered last century: that a regular tetrahedron is naturally subdivided into 24 equal volume irregular tetrahedra. Fuller called these A-Quanta Modules and they come in right and left hand pairs, 12 each per tetrahedron. If you visualize the four equal-angular triangular faces of the regular tetrahedron, and imagine each one to be the base of another tetrahedron within, when pulled apart, each is one-quarter of the original tetrahedron. These quarter tetrahedra each naturally subdivide again, first into thirds, and then each third divides again into right and left hand modules (these are illustrated in a later chapter titled “The Great Metric Hoax”).
So we find that our “Money Particle”, the tetrahedronal “pence” unit of weight measure, contains a natural geometrical sub-division of exactly 24 identically volumed, irregular, long pointy tetrahedrons. In fact, loose and in numbers, their physical appearance closely resemble “grains” of wheat or barley. And of course, as was pointed out in an earlier section, the pence unit of weight, being 1/20th of a troy ounce, also contains 24 grains.
Whoever constructed the pence from the combined surfaces of two 1.0 gram units in the form of two spheres, also knew that perfect spheres of uniform size and weight were far superior to grains of wheat or barley for use as fundamental units from which a system of weights is built. No matter how close in weight and size cereal “grains” could never even approach the perfect uniformity of idealized geometric spheres. And of course the geometers of old were also well aware that the sphere was geometry’s choice for the most efficient packaging of volume, since it contains the most volume using the least surface area than any other geometric form.
They also knew the geometry at work in a bushel full of cereal grains compared to one full of equal sized uniform spheres. By connecting with lines the centers of mass of each unit, grains in one bushel and spheres in the other, two very different geometries are revealed. The cereal grains create an irregular, and in places chaotic matrix. In contrast, in the bushel of spheres, each is surrounded by and perfectly tangent to 12 other spheres. Connecting the centers of the spheres creates what Dr. Fuller called an “isotropic vector matrix”, i.e. vectors or lines everywhere the same length. Around any point within that matrix, geometry accommodates one vertex from exactly eight tetrahedra and six octahedra. The unobstructed spatial domains, created within the individual confines of line sets, create these two commensurate regular geometric solids. They both have identical face triangles but the octahedron is four times the volume of the tetrahedron.
Geometrically speaking, the entire bushel can be viewed as being full of nothing but tetrahedrons and octahedrons with no voids in between. The eight individual triangular faces of each octahedron is in turn one face of each of eight adjacent tetrahedrons. For every eight tetrahedrons there are three octahedrons occupying any given space. The entire bushel within, indeed all of space itself, could be filled completely using volume units in the shape of these two regular polyhedrons.
But this natural geometric sub-dividing of space itself does not end here, but comes full circle back to the original tetrahedronal form of the pence and its composition of 24 “grain”-like “A Quanta Modules”. If these be the sub-divisioning within the tetrahedra of an isotropic vector matrix, then the octahedra face triangles can likewise each accommodate one of these ¼ tetrahedra subdivided into “A Quanta Modules”. Another way of looking at this is by imagining each of the tetrahedra being incased by another ¼ tetrahedron on each of its four faces creating convex clusters of 48 A Quanta Modules. What is left remaining within each octahedron is a concave cluster of 48 (what Dr. Fuller called) “B Quanta Modules”.
These “A” and “B” Quanta Modules are of identical volume, i.e. equal to one “grain” of the tetrahedronal “pence” derived from the surfaces (or “face value”) of two spherical “gram” units. That they are of equal volumes is easy to demonstrate. Divide the octahedron into eighths by cleaving it through its three square equatorial planes. Since the octahedron is four times the volume of the tetrahedron each 1/8th octahedron equals ½ a tetrahedron’s volume. If we remove the ¼ tetrahedron from the base of the 1/8th octahedron we are left with a volume equal to the ¼ tetrahedron but in the form of six “B Quanta Modules”.
Looking into the bushel now, the geometer sees nothing but neatly arranged clusters of 48 identically volumed modules. They are of two types: convex tetrahedra and concave octahedra. Interwoven like a three dimensional fabric they can fill all of space leaving no voids. But once separated into individual weight-unit-clusters their unusual complementary geometries do not lend to repacking very easily. For this the geometers chose another arrangement of these “grain”-like modules forming geometric clusters containing 480 each. Archimedes called this shape the “cuboctahedron” and later Buckminster Fuller coined the “vector-equilibrium”. I am suggesting the geometers chose this for their unit of weight measure and it has come down to us through the ages as the “Troy Ounce” of 480 “grains”.
Visualize it this way. A few paragraphs back, when looking into the bushel with the matrix of connected sphere centers we saw a frame work isolating individual tetrahedronal and octahedronal spatial domains. When these were again subdivided into grain-like modules with each equal in volume to every other and a spatial domain unto itself, we can see another arrangement emerging from these clusters of 48 A and B Quanta modules. Remember, around every sphere center is a vertex from eight tetrahedra and six octahedra. The octahedra are naturally cleaved in half by the planes of the B Quanta modules of which it is composed within. Thus around any given vertex or sphere center a natural unit is formed out of the eight tetrahedra and six “one-half” octahedra. The resulting shape is a cube with its eight corners truncated (cleaved) from the mid-points of its edges. The entirety of the space within can be filled with these cuboctahedronal blocks with each containing 480 A and B Quanta Modules (336 A, and 144 B).
The parallels above between the natural “geometry of form” and the actual systems of weights and measures conform to a 0.99996 fineness. In terms of “models”, the tetrahedron with its 24 natural subdivisions, and the cuboctahedron made from these tetrahedra and composed of 480 identical units, are both perfect models for the “pence” and “troy ounce” respectively.
UNEQUIVOCABLE EVIDENCE OF A HIDDEN HAND GUIDING THE COMPOSITION OF
AMERICA’S SYSTEM OF GOLD AND SILVER COINAGE
Pictures of the Morgan silver dollar usually are accompanied by the following description:
Diameter: 38.1 millimeters: Weight: 26.73 grams
Composition: .900 silver, .100 copper
Net Weight: .77344 ounce pure silver
It is almost like somebody is purposely trying to confuse us and to steer us away from discovering their system. For example, these specifications for the silver dollar are typical regardless of where one finds the information. The gross weight is most often expressed in grams while its pure silver content is given in a decimal equivalent to a troy ounce. These are two different systems of account; and when used together like these are far less informative than if one or the other was used for both weights. At least then one will be comparing “apples with apples” so to speak, or “oranges with oranges”. When expressed as 26.72955 grams gross weight and 24.05659 grams pure silver; or, .859375 troy ounce gross weight, .7734375 troy ounce pure silver, clear evaluation of these quantities is possible. And even far more informative than these is the system the Congress used in the 1792 Coinage Act: 416 grains gross weight (reduced to 412.5 grains with the 1837 Mint Act*); 371.25 grains pure silver content. But the true architects of this coin had another system in mind altogether and have, to the best of my research, successfully concealed it from the rest of world.
* The architects would have used this weight originally in 1792 if they thought they could get away with it. Because the Spanish milled dollar was the coin most prevalent in the colonies Congress wanted to make the new American dollar to be of the same “value”. Despite this mandate being written into the 1792 act, the coin they created was nevertheless slightly lighter than the Spanish coin even at 416 grains. So they had to wait and incrementally guide the slight changes to the coins over the years with new Congresses and new excuses for the changes. All the while, that they were creating, what was to them, mystical coins with magical properties was thoroughly concealed from the rest of humanity.
The Coinage Code
The “historical record” tells us that the Coinage Act of 1792 brought into existence essentially two coins as the basis of the new American monetary system. The same historical record right up to the present day experts, also agree that the 371.25 grains of pure silver in the dollar coin was a quantity arrived at by assaying Spanish silver coins in circulation at the time. This is because they were mandated by the Act to create a coin “of the same value as the Spanish milled dollar”. The 247.5 grains of pure gold in the $10 eagle was supposedly determined by the current 15 to 1 (again alleged) global exchange rate.
History records that a thousand coins were gathered from the market place and a scientific body was charged with determining their silver content. This was done first in 1786, and a recommendation was made to the then “Continental Congress” that the coin contain 375.64 grains pure silver. But a second assay was allegedly made after Washington became president in 1789 from which it was determined that 371.25 grains would be the amount of silver in the new U.S. coin. Today, the foremost authority on the American coinage system, Dr. Edwin Vieira, at 19:00–22:00 minutes into his lecture “What is Constitutional Money?” says that if the same coins were assayed today, with today’s high technology they would most certainly arrive at a different figure. He concludes that this figure of 371.25 grains was subjectively arrived at through comparatively crude analysis and is therefore purely “arbitrary”.
Because of my 35 years of independent research into the “geometry of form”, I am able to see what “They” thought none of “us” would ever, ever see. Here is the recipe for their “coinage code”, despite what “history” insists on telling us (note that one Troy oz. = 480 grains):
( 66 ) / 6(.666…) ( (one Troy oz. / (1/.0666…) ) = 247.5 grains pure gold / (one Troy oz.)
( 99 ) / 6(.666…) ( (one Troy oz. / (1/.0666…) ) = 371.25 grains pure silver / (one Troy oz.)
Pretty cool, huh? But as clever as they were, the architects behind the scenes reveled in being even more clever, and secretive. They not only designed their coins to be based on the troy ounce of 480 grains, and their secret recipe, but unknown to the whole world until now, they fashioned these same coins using the avoirdupois ounce, our common marketplace ounce of 437.5 grains. This is especially significant because “historically” precious metals were rarely measured in any but troy units of measure. Not to worry, the illuminous architects knew better:
( 99 ) / 6( (one Av. oz. /(1/.0666…) ) = 247.5 grains pure gold / 437.5 grains (one Av. oz.)
( 66+99 ) / 6( (one Av. oz./(1/.0666…) ) = 412.5 grains pure silver / 437.5 grains (one Av. oz.)
( 69+99 ) / 6((one Av. oz./(1/.0666…)) = 420 grains (Trade Dollar) / 437.5 grains (one Av. oz.)
Again, this is pretty cool don’t you agree?
Keep in mind, right now I’m the only “regular” human on earth who knows about this aside from the contemporary custodians of this secret. They’re probably lurking within the confines of one or another of those supposedly secret societies, such as are branded “illuminati” and other related ilk. Now you too, dear reader, know about their well kept secret. And this is just the tip of an Iceberg of mind blowing examples, from numerical to 3-D geometry that I’ve discovered regarding the money system, and beyond, that turns accepted history upside down. And I can support it all by mathematical truth as clear as those examples above.
INSIDE THE MIND
BEHIND THE HIDDEN HAND
By the time of the Coinage Act of 1792 both the Troy and Avoirdupois systems of measure were firmly established standards throughout Europe as well as the new American states. So in the secret traditions of the money masters, when designing the new American coins, they first divided both the Troy ounce and the common Avoirdupois ounce into 15 parts. They divided them into 15 parts because 1/15th equals .0666, and .666 is one of the most important ratios in all of geometry and nature. Next, they allotted 4/15ths of the Troy ounce to arrive at their Troy coefficient (128), and 6/15ths of the Avoirdupois ounce to arrive at their Avoirdupois coefficient (175). Again in this 4 to 6 proportioning is found the .666 ratio. Once having established their secret allotment coefficients they proceeded in the following manner to construct these various coins in 1792
$10.00 Gold Eagle:
66/128 Troy ounce pure gold content (247.5 grains)
6/128 Troy ounce alloy (22.5 grains)
72/128 Troy ounce gross weight (270 grains)
At the same time, this same coin is:
99/175 Av. ounce pure gold content (247.5 grains)
99/175 Avoirdupois ounce alloy (22.5 grains)
108/175 Avoirdupois ounce gross weight (270 grains)
$1.00 Silver Coins:
99/128 Troy oz. pure silver content (371.25 grains)
11/128 Troy ounce alloy (41.25 grains)
10/128 Troy ounce gross weight (412.5 grains)
And the 1873 “Trade Dollar” is
112/128 Troy ounce gross weight (420 grains)
At the same time, these same two coins are:
165/175 Av. oz. gross wt silver dollar (412.5 grains)
And the 1873 “Trade Dollar” is
168/175 Avoirdupois ounce gross weight (420 grains)
There is no doubt that these “allotment coefficients” of 128 and 175 were purposely chosen. Just look at the data above and any chance that this is coincidental is obliterated. Besides, comparing 1/175th Avoirdupois ounce (2.5 grains) with 1/128th Troy ounce (3.75 grains) and here again is the 2/3 ratio.
2.5 grains/ 3.75 grains = 0.666
These very specific and unique proportions give rise to some surprising monetary relationships. For example regarding the $10.00 gold Eagle, every 128 coins contain exactly 66 Troy ounces pure gold; or, every 175 coins contain exactly 99 Avoirdupois ounces pure gold. (One cannot but notice the continually repeating juxtaposition between the quantities 66 and 99, which relate as 2 to 3 again revealing the ratio .666.) And with respect to the 412.5 grain gross weight Silver dollar there is 99 troy ounces pure silver for every 128 of these coins.
It is essential to understand that one grain, or part of one grain difference from those numbers specified by the monetary architects for each coin, and there would be none of the afore mentioned relationships. Just as important is an appreciation for their clandestine use of the Avoirdupois ounce, and the understanding that it was rarely if ever used for precious metals. So when we see the $10 Eagle, what we don’t see is that conscious intent to bind this coin to both systems of measure (just as we will see with the contemporary “bitcoin” architecture in a later chapter).
They used the Troy ounce divided into 128 parts and created a coin with a 72/128 Troy ounce gross weight. These 72 parts were divided between alloy and pure gold in a 6/66 ratio. At the same time, with this same coin, using the Avoirdupois ounce divided into 175 parts, the gross weight of the Eagle is seen to be comprised of 108 of these parts. This makes the alloy to pure gold ratio (with respect to the Avoirdupois ounce) a 9/99 portioning.
It’s important to note, that historically it is the silver “dollar” coin that was established as “the unit” in the 1792 Coinage Act. The value of the gold coins followed based on their decreeing a 15 to 1 exchange rate. Thus starting with 371.25 grains of pure silver constituting the “unit”, and with each grain of gold the equivalent of 15 grains of silver, meant that each silver dollar was worth 24.75 grains of gold (i.e., 371.25 / 15 = 24.75). Therefore, a ten dollar gold coin must contain 247.5 grains of gold.
A Brief Insight Into The 1st Debasing of “Fractional” Silver Coins
(1853 – 1873)
At the beginning of our nation’s monetary system ten silver dimes contained exactly the same amount of pure silver as did a single dollar coin. But in 1853, the Illuminati’s agents (behind the scenes) convinced Congress to debase the nation’s fractional silver coins. For the next twenty years, any combination of silver coins minted totaling one dollar, contained .72 troy ounce pure silver instead of their originally mandated .7734375 troy ounce.
Some of the occulted mathematical and geometrical relationships that the monetary architects were invoking are based on the ratio 297 / 412.5 , which is equal to .72 . Of these two quantities, 412.5 (the gross weight in grains of the American silver dollar coin) is by now familiar to readers of this manuscript. But the other quantity, 297. . . overtly less familiar, yet is easily unveiled.
For example, with the advent of the Civil War came the issuance of the first United States notes (“paper” money backed only by the government’s promise). These were the old “large” notes, and were printed 32 notes per full sheet of paper; four across and eight down. This four across measure was 29.7 inches, or equally, 2.475 feet. And as the 1792 Coinage Act demanded, there is 247.5 grains of pure gold in the original $10 eagle coin. What was known in Roman times as a standard measure of volume (usually of stone or brick) and later became known as a “masons perch” is 24.75 cubic feet. A length of 24.75 feet is 1/12th 297 feet. That same Coinage Act called for 371.25 grains of pure silver (which is .7734375 troy ounce) to be in every dollar coin. And, 8.0 times 371.25 is 2970. Later in this manuscript, readers will come to realize that it is no coincidence that 1.0 cubic foot contains 297,000 grams of pure silver (this is to a 99.99% correspondence).
It can not be emphasized enough, that the measures which we have been told were arrived at arbitrarily by our ancestors, are in fact quantities inherent to the composition of geometry, and then by extension to nature herself. One doesn’t have to believe this is true because geometry will show us that this must be true. When history tells us that the avoirdupois ounce in use today (which contains 437.5 grains) was simply a “creature” of an English king’s decree, it is concealing this quantity’s kinship in geometry to a 2475 unit quantity. For geometry clearly shows us that a cube having this volume has the exact same edge-length as a tetrahedron so scaled that the sum of its’ edges equals that of a cube with a volume of (437.5 / √2). And if a cube’s volume is (371.25 / √2) it will have the exact same edge-length-sum as a tetrahedron with a volume of 247.5; and a tetrahedron with a volume of (412.5 / √2) has an edge-length equal to the edge-length of that cube with a volume of 2475. And what an “inexplicable” discovery (if following accepted beliefs) that 371.25 barrel oil just happens to also be equal to 247.5 barrel fluid.
But the Congress in 1853, doctors, lawyer, farmers, merchants . . . , was in all probability more interested in why they were asked to “debase” our fractional silver coins in the first place rather than why one particular quantity was chosen over another. But one thing we know with certainty: none of the information provided above was disclosed to these persons, or any others outside the cabal of the illuminated.
GEOMETRIC MODELABILITY AND THE AMERICAN GOLD AND SILVER DOLLAR COINS
Who would have imagined in 1837, or for that matter in this day and age, that the 412.5 grain gross weight silver dollar coin, with its 371.25 grain pure silver content, was in fact purposefully patterned on specific geometric models?
For example, take two lines that are exactly equal in length. With the first line divided into six equal parts, construct a perfect regular tetrahedron. Using the second line divided into twelve equal parts, construct a perfect cube. These two geometric forms are “equal” in the sense that the sum of their edge lengths is the same. They are equal forms with respect to geometry’s 1st dimension.
We can now impart scale to these two forms by stipulating that the tetrahedron be comprised of one 412.5 grain American silver dollar coin, and that the cube be comprised of the same metallic composition. When we weigh this cube, or do the mathematics, we find it contains 437.5223207… grains. Of course, 437.5 grains is otherwise known as one avoirdupois ounce. As we can see below, the silver dollar coin and the avoirdupois ounce conform to this geometric model to better than 99.99% perfection!
437.5 / 437.5(223207…) = 0.9999(48983…)
To any who would attribute to coincidence this intimate tie to the fundamental unit of the avoirdupois system of weight should take a closer look at that tetrahedron comprised of the silver dollar coin. Its edge length is 15.18320306 (grain length units*); that is, each of its six edges are this measure. And since the cube is from the same length line as the tetrahedron, and has twice as many edges, each edge must be one-half the length of an individual tetrahedron edge.
Now construct a second cube having each of its individual edge lengths equal to that of the tetrahedron, i.e. 15.18320306. It too is imagined to be comprised of the same metal as the other two forms. The weight of this cube in grains is found by simply “cubing” its edge length. It is 3500.178566… grains, and 3500 grains is one-half avoirdupois pound. Again, as we can see on the next page, this model is also better than 99.99% perfect!
*Grain length Unit: since the volumes of these geometric forms are expressed in grains the units of length and surface are likewise derived from the grain. A cube containing 1000 grains has an edge length of 10 (grain length units) and easily subdivides into 1000 small cubes of one grain each. Thus a single grain modeled as a cube has an edge length of 1 grain length unit and a surface area (or face value) of 6 grain surface units. Keep in mind that whatever the grain is composed of in one form (gold, silver, copper, etc) must be the same identical material as is in any of the other forms for comparison. For example, 100 grains of gold and 100 grains of silver, though they weigh the same, will form different sized geometric forms.
3500 / 3500.(178566…) = 0.9999(48983…)
What has just been demonstrated can be summarized in the following manner: If you transform the American silver dollar coin into a perfect tetrahedron, then the “cube” of any one of its edges weighs (if made of the same metal) ½ an Av. pound; and the cube made from the sum of its edges, 1/16 an Av. pound (or one Av. ounce).
Here is another related example. In addition to a silver dollar coin there was also a gold ten dollar coin that was created with the 1792 Coinage Act. It was called the “eagle” and was equivalent in value to ten silver dollar coins. This ten dollar value and the one dollar silver coin are united in one perfect geometric cube which again derives directly from the avoirdupois ounce. In this example, it is the weight of the silver dollar coin’s pure silver content, its 371.25 grains of pure silver, which is at the root of this model:
Begin with an avoirdupois ounce of pure silver, this time in the form of a regular tetrahedron. Its individual edge length measures 15.48420173… Next to this tetrahedron is a cube of pure silver also with a 15.48420173… individual edge length. Its weight is 3,712.310602… grains and 3,712.5 grains is the pure silver content of ten one dollar coins. The conformance of the actual coinage to the ideal geometry is seen in the equation below:
3,712.310602… / 3,712.5 = 0.999948984…
showing once again a better than 99.99% approach to perfection.
Briefly in review: On the one hand, coming from the Av. Oz. in the form of a cube is a commensurate tetrahedron (having the same edge-length sum) equal to the 412.5 grain gross weight of the American silver dollar coin. And on the other hand, coming from the Av. Oz. in the form of a regular tetrahedron, is a commensurate cube equal in weight to the pure silver content of ten silver dollar coins. So the straight forward geometric modeling of the avoirdupois ounce gives rise to both the coin’s gross weight and pure silver content.
Note that in the first example on the previous page, with the cube and tetrahedron deriving from the same line it is the dollar coin’s 412.5 grain gross weight that was assigned to the tetrahedron. This resulted in the larger cube’s weight in the same metal becoming the 3500.178568… grain ½ avoirdupois pound. In the second example immediately above, using the same two forms but this time giving the tetrahedron the value of the 437.5 grain avoirdupois ounce, results in the cube containing the 3,712.310601… grains.
There is still more to this cube of 3,712.310601… grains. Its natural subdivision is into eight smaller cubes of 464.0388253… grains each. This is significant when one realizes that when the gold content of the “eagle” was reduced with the 1834 Coinage Act the coins then each contained 232 grains of pure gold. Two such coins contained 464 grains of pure gold. Therefore, this same cube of 3,712.310601… grains, deriving directly from the geometric modeling of the Av. Oz. represents the pure metal content of both the silver and the gold coins!
The photographs below show these forms and the relationships described above. When the five forms are considered to be of the same substance the relative weights (in grains) flows naturally from the geometry.
And here is another geometric model involving the 371.25 grain pure silver content of the dollar coin and the 437.5 grain Avoirdupois ounce. These two weights relate as
437.5 / 371.25 = 1.178451178 / 1.0.
To the monetary architects who knew how to read and interpret these quantities “geometrically”, this equation depicts the following images: On the left hand side is an avoirdupois ounce of pure silver compared to the pure silver content of the dollar coin. And on the right hand side they see the total weight of ten regular tetrahedrons of pure silver (each weighing .117851130… grain), and having individual edge-lengths measuring 1.0 unit, being compared to one perfect cube having a pure silver content of 1.0 grain and edge lengths, like the tetrahedrons, of 1.0 unit.
This model is beautiful and elegant in both its simplicity and accuracy. There are eleven geometric forms in all, ten tetrahedrons and one cube, all with edge lengths equal to 1.0. Moreover, if we change the scale and assign a value of 371.25 grains to the cube then the ten tetrahedrons together have a value of 437.522320….grains, or one avoirdupois ounce.
How closely does this coin conform to these geometric ideals? Once again, it is to better than 99.99%
In the last example, the pure silver content of the dollar coin was compared to the avoirdupois ounce. This revealed a system of geometric modeling rooted in unity (tetrahedra with edge = 1.0; a cube with volume and weight = 1.0). Now compare the gross weight of the dollar coin to the avoirdupois ounce:
437.5 / 412.5 = 1.06060606… / 1.0
Once again, there is a geometric structure underlying these proportions and it is reflected in the fundamental proportions of the regular tetrahedron. When the height of an equilateral triangle forming any one of a tetrahedron’s four faces is compared to the height of the tetrahedron itself, the ratio between the avoirdupois ounce and the dollar coin’s gross weight is revealed in the resulting equation:
Ht. Triangle / Ht. Tetrahedron = 1.0606601… / 1.0
The above equation involves lineal relations inherent to the three dimensional tetrahedronal form. But this same geometric constant appears again when the volumes of the cube and tetrahedron having equal edge lengths are compared. The cube will always be 8.485281374… times the volume of the tetrahedron, which can also be written as 8 X 1.0606601… Readers familiar with Buckminster Fuller’s Synergetics will also recognize this number as a synergetic constant. And just how closely does the coinage and the avoirdupois ounce conform to the geometry? For this, look to the equation below:
1.060606… / 1.0606601… = 0.9999(48983…)
Again, the very same approach to perfection (99.99%) as the other geometric models presented thus far.
Additional models will show unequivocally that the portions 480 (one troy oz.), 437.5 (one av. oz.), 412.5 (gross wt. $1 coin), 371.25 (silver wt. $1 coin), 247.5 (wt. $10 gold coin 1792), and 232 (gold wt. $10 coin 1834) derive from the fundamental compositions of geometry and can be seen on the following pages.
(CONTINUE ON TO: The Simple Geometry Uniting The Silver Dollar Coin And The Avoirdupois Pound of 7000 grains)