[merril]

What I wanted to know is if you were proposing a conspiracy theory. I don't think you are. You have your opinions, and a belief system which is premised on a spiritual or religious sort of insight, and some use of mathematics, as well.

As for the fat-cats on Wall Street, I think most would agree their activities made worse the run-up to, and the aftermath of 9-11. The regulation and oversight of the economy was like a leaky sieve. It led to poor business practices, bad business practices, and outright fraud.

On the other hand, the events of September 2001, as I see it, had the underlying desire to throw the entire Middle East into disaray. In that regard, it was an attempt by Islamic fundamentalists to install more repressive forms of government, and cause additional conflict. They did not act in any spiritual regard, carrying out these attacks and all these bombings, in my opinion.

You may have some insight with the core of your belief. I can not judge that, since there may be some occasional "synchronicity", as you call it.

I'll leave it there. I don't feel particularly well, and my ability to focus on worldly matters is less than adequate.

This post has been edited by merril: 01 November 2009 - 09:01 AM

[blue triangle]

merril, on 01 November 2009 - 08:49 AM, said:

What I wanted to know is if you were proposing a conspiracy theory. I don't think you are. You have your opinions, and a belief system which is premised on a spiritual or religious sort of insight, and some use of mathematics, as well.

The New Bible Code is not a conspiracy theory: it is evidence that a higher power has encoded the NIV Bible, the events of 9/11, popular culture and historical events to leave a message for us, to be read and understood at this critical pass in our long march through history, perhaps to ensure that our history doesn't soon end.

There is a lot of meat for conspiracy theorists in 9/11, of course, but in the end it really doesn't matter whether Al Qaeda or the CIA pulled the towers. The message remains the same.

merril, on 01 November 2009 - 08:49 AM, said:

As for the fat-cats on Wall Street, I think most would agree their activities made worse the run-up to, and the aftermath of 9-11. The regulation and oversight of the economy was like a leaky sieve. It led to poor business practices, bad business practices, and outright fraud.

Agreed, but I'd go much further. The global financial system is evil through and through, founded on what the Bible calls usury, the lending of money at a rate of interest, often an exorbitant rate. Many third world countries are crippled by it, the ruthless exploitation of our natural resources is driven by it, our world is enslaved by it. Before flight 11 crashed into the North Tower at 8:46AM on that morning, 10000 children had already died of hunger, the helpless victims of a rapacious, greedy and uncaring world. We rightly mourn the victims of 9/11, but who mourns for these tragic children and their grieving parents? Where are the memorials? Who will be giving their eulogy? When will there be two minutes silence for them? Our empires are founded on greed and fear: Christ wreaked destruction on the symbols of those two great evils and revealed the truth about them in His Bible, so that the world would know them for what they were and are.

merril, on 01 November 2009 - 08:49 AM, said:

On the other hand, the events of September 2001, as I see it, had the underlying desire to throw the entire Middle East into disaray. In that regard, it was an attempt by Islamic fundamentalists to install more repressive forms of government, and cause additional conflict. They did not act in any spiritual regard, carrying out these attacks and all these bombings, in my opinion.

I have no idea what the motives of those responsible were. But if you want to see how repressive global capitalism is, go to a third-world shanty town and look at your slaves.

merril, on 01 November 2009 - 08:49 AM, said:

You may have some insight with the core of your belief. I can not judge that, since there may be some occasional "synchronicity", as you call it.

I've had a lot of synchronicity in my life. It's something to watch out for! I'm okay with belief, although we need to believe in ourselves a little more. I'm more interested in truth, though.

merril, on 01 November 2009 - 08:49 AM, said:

I'll leave it there. I don't feel particularly well, and my ability to focus on worldly matters is less than adequate.

I wish you a speedy recovery!

[digitalartist]

blue triangle, on 31 October 2009 - 07:01 PM, said:

Please don't misquote me. I said that a few years or decades either side of the millenium are nothing. 36 years - the timespan between the blackout and 9/11 - is only 1.8% of 2000 years, the timespan between the first and second comings. As for whether you believe that 9/11 could ripple back in time and cause a relay to become faulty, that depends on you worldview. If your worldview has room for synchronicity, divine intervention, prophecy and similar phenomena then you will be in a position to accept that this was possible.

A few years or decades are nothing? I'm sorry but when you try to tie the bible into your theory, it's not just a few years or decades, it's nearly 2000 years. The breaker is for your theory, shall we say a breaker. If the 9/11 event was going to ripple back in time and affect that breaker, it should also have affected that exact same breaker before the 1965 blackout to cause other blackouts. In fact it should have had a similar effect on any breaker like that one anywhere in the world. Since you have tried to tie the bible into your theory, it expands the supposed effects beyond the area of New York or even the United States.

blue triangle said:

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make, here, but I was trying to show how every property of the number 11, even its visual semblance to the roman numerals for 2, might have been utilised.

So are you saying that all 31 (out of 266) catholic popes that had II in their names chose the names they did to have those II because of 9/11. I guess we should also include those with VII, XII, and XVII as well. Does that really sound logical to you?

blue triangle said:

Incidentally,

John Paul the Second (o) = 242 = 11 x 11 x 2

John Paul II, as I already pointed out, has an ordinal value of 151, the same as 'Jesus Christ', who I am saying the Pope represented.

I found a very good ordinal calculator (which I checked out with long hand verification) at http://scripturecode.com/ov.html These are the ordinal values of the names above:

John Paul the second - 190
John Paul the second (o) - 220
John Paul II - 115
Pope John Paul II - 167
Jesus Christ - 151

Now in the time of Jesus most didn't have last names. Christ is his title not his last name and properly he would be referred to as Jesus of
Nazareth which has an ordinal value of 188

As you can see, none of the ordinal values for any of the Pope John Paul II versions, match up with the ordinal values for either Jesus Christ or Jesus of Nazareth.

blue triangle said:

Those 'normal assignments' are simply another system of gematria, which is a modern invention based on the ancient sumerian sexagesimal system. However, the ordinal value system, sometimes called simple English gematria, is just as normal and more natural and elegant. It also has a long history of use by Christian kabbalists, occultists and (in the Hebrew language) by Jewish kabbalists. Anyway, what makes you think that there is no information encoded within the NIV under the A = 6 system?

The first 18 (6 + 6 + 6) words of the NIV have an ordinal value of 906. Under the A = 6 system,

Jesus Christ = 906

In its most basic sense, "sexagesimal" denotes a system of counting that used the numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, and 20 in additive and multiplicative processes to reach 60.
Gematria, assigns numbers to letters then adds the numbers to arrive at a value.
There is no evidence that I have been able to find that shows that Gematria (which involves letters) was based on the sexagesimal (purely mathematical)

blue triangle said:

You are correct: I should have said Osama bin Muhammad bin Laden is a fuller version of his name. The reason I focused on 'Osama bin Muhammad bin Laden' in the first place is because this is the name bin Laden started using for himself after 9/11. Actually, he is called by many names. Here are some:

Osama bin Laden,
Osama bin Muhammad bin Awad bin Laden
Osama Bin Muhammad Bin Laden ,
Osama Bin Laden Muhammad al Wahal Bin Laden

Also Osama can be spelled Usama and Osamah, Muhammad can be spelled Mohammed and Laden can be spelled Ladin, so there are many possible variations of his name using the Latin alphabet.

The reason I focus on 'Osama bin Laden' on my site and in forum discussions and regard its gematria as more important that the others is because this is the name by which he is most commonly known, by far. Doing a Google search on the names above (with all the variants) gave the following numbers of hits (excluding those below 100000)

Osama bin Laden = 7,090,000
Usama bin Laden = 431,000
Osama bin Muhammad bin Awad bin Laden = 240,000
Osama Bin Muhammad Bin Ladin = 174,000
Usama bin Ladin = 174000
Osama bin Ladin = 112000
Osama Bin Muhammad Bin Laden = 109,000

As you see, the most popular name by far was the one with the most significant ordinal value, 110, Osama bin Laden. Incidentally, Usama bin laden, the second most popular variant, is 116, 911 swivelled 180 degrees.

The name version Osama Bin Laden has the largest hits now, but I'm sure that before 9/11 there would have been few if any hits as most sites mentioning him at all would have been Muslim/Arab sites that would have most likely used his full name and not the shortened version, if for no other reason then out of respect. Not only do you have to turn the ordinal value for Usama Bin Laden, 116, 180 degrees, which is 611, you also have to turn it upside down to make it 911. I know of no person who is serious about a theory that would actually turn numbers upside down to to prove it.

blue triangle said:

You are making very much of very little here, a common tactic of the debunker. Moreover, you don't apply these principles very impressively yourself, so don't try to lecture me.

There is nothing to debunk because you have yet to supply anything more than conjecture and coincidence to support your theory. I mentioned logic, common sense and research. Had you used them and I not used them, I would not have come up with the ordinal value of Osama's full name not supporting your theory, the incorrect ordinal values as cited above, or the unlikelihood that Gematria is based on sexagesimal.

I am skeptical of any unproven theory, including my own. I see myself as different from some who put forth theories as I hope others will try to punch holes in my theories so that I can have any flaws in my logic pointed out and can further research the matter. I have seen a number of theories get shot full of holes, and instead of the originator of the theory going back over their research to see where they erred, they cry out skeptics, debunkers and eventually move onto conspiracies and such. This was not aimed at you Triangle, your comment about debunker is what brought it to mind.

[blue triangle]

digitalartist, on 02 November 2009 - 07:49 AM, said:

A few years or decades are nothing? I'm sorry but when you try to tie the bible into your theory, it's not just a few years or decades, it's nearly 2000 years.

Yes, I said that 9/11 was influencing the Bible, but I am also saying that there seems to be a cluster of films released around 9/11 that had 9/11-related themes or titles. It's difficult to quantify, but if these films were plotted against the release date, I would expect to see a distribution curve, peaking in 2001 (in fact I would expect it to be a skewed distribution curve, the tail extending into the past being longer than the tail extending into the future). The fact that the authors of the Bible were picking up on 9/11 two or three thousand years ago is I think evidence that prophets receive greater levels of inspiration than people who work in the entertainment industry. I doubt if the influence of 9/11 on Greek plays written around the same time as the Bible was as great, for instance.

digitalartist, on 02 November 2009 - 07:49 AM, said:

The breaker is for your theory, shall we say a breaker. If the 9/11 event was going to ripple back in time and affect that breaker, it should also have affected that exact same breaker before the 1965 blackout to cause other blackouts. In fact it should have had a similar effect on any breaker like that one anywhere in the world. Since you have tried to tie the bible into your theory, it expands the supposed effects beyond the area of New York or even the United States.

You're totally misunderstanding how synchronicity works. The key is meaning. The blackout affected the New York area and occurred 13090 (11 x 1190) days before 9/11, on 11/9/65. Therefore it could be meaningfully connected with 9/11 through the location, through the date and through numerics. Other dates were insignificant. I'm not pretending to understand how the breaker failed on that particular day. However, the fact that it did fail on that day seems very synchronous to me. It is, in Jung's words, synchronicity is ''an acausal organising principle'' that weaves meaning into events.

digitalartist, on 02 November 2009 - 07:49 AM, said:

So are you saying that all 31 (out of 266) catholic popes that had II in their names chose the names they did to have those II because of 9/11. I guess we should also include those with VII, XII, and XVII as well. Does that really sound logical to you?

Of course not. I'm saying that due to synchronicity, the man who was pope at the time had the name John Paul II (note that he had two names as well). Incidentally, he was the 264th pope (11 x 24) and the 110th pope counting from the prophecies of St. Malachy to the ''end of the world''.

digitalartist, on 02 November 2009 - 07:49 AM, said:

I found a very good ordinal calculator (which I checked out with long hand verification) at http://scripturecode.com/ov.html These are the ordinal values of the names above:

John Paul the second - 190
John Paul the second (o) - 220
John Paul II - 115
Pope John Paul II - 167
Jesus Christ - 151

Now in the time of Jesus most didn't have last names. Christ is his title not his last name and properly he would be referred to as Jesus of Nazareth which has an ordinal value of 188

As you can see, none of the ordinal values for any of the Pope John Paul II versions, match up with the ordinal values for either Jesus Christ or Jesus of Nazareth.

Firstly, the point is that He is known as ''Jesus Christ'' now! The name 'Jesus of Nazareth' is a variant that is much less often used. Anyway, to His followers He was the Messiah, and would have been called 'Yehshua Ha Moshiach', 'Jesus the Messiah'. The reason we say 'Jesus Christ' in modern English, is because 'Moshiach' means 'anointed', which is 'Christos' in Greek. Remember that the NT was written in Greek, not Hebrew.

Secondly, it may be a good calculator, but you don't know how to use it properly. Here are the correct values:

John Paul the second (o) - 190
John Paul II (o) - 99 (9 x 11)
Pope John Paul II (o) - 151
Jesus Christ (o) - 151

digitalartist, on 02 November 2009 - 07:49 AM, said:

In its most basic sense, "sexagesimal" denotes a system of counting that used the numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, and 20 in additive and multiplicative processes to reach 60.
Gematria, assigns numbers to letters then adds the numbers to arrive at a value.
There is no evidence that I have been able to find that shows that Gematria (which involves letters) was based on the sexagesimal (purely mathematical)

You're being a little bit picky here. I got my information from a popular site on English gematria (the first I myself came across), which uses the A = 6 system. I'll quote from it.

Quote

Dr. J. R. Church did this years ago as he was studying Revelation Chapter 13 and the number 666. He developed the above English Gematria System which is based on the ancient Sumerian civilization's method of calculating. It is believed that the Sumerian civilization is the most ancient and that their system of counting was the very first. The Sumerian system can still be seen in our use of the foot (12 inches = 2 x 6) and yard (36 inches = 6 x 6), in our 24 hour clock (24 = 4 x 6), and our sexagesimal measurement of time (60 seconds, 60 minuets).

The site is http://real-world-ne...h-gematria.html

digitalartist, on 02 November 2009 - 07:49 AM, said:

The name version Osama Bin Laden has the largest hits now, but I'm sure that before 9/11 there would have been few if any hits as most sites mentioning him at all would have been Muslim/Arab sites that would have most likely used his full name and not the shortened version, if for no other reason then out of respect.

I disagree here. Do you really think that arab newspapers would have used his full name? I doubt it. The numbers would undoubtedly have been smaller, but the relative frequencies would probably have been similar. It was because every newspaper and TV report was referring to him as ''Osama bin Laden'' that I worked out the gematria of that version first.

digitalartist, on 02 November 2009 - 07:49 AM, said:

Not only do you have to turn the ordinal value for Usama Bin Laden, 116, 180 degrees, which is 611, you also have to turn it upside down to make it 911. I know of no person who is serious about a theory that would actually turn numbers upside down to to prove it.

Imagine writing the numbers '116' on a piece of paper. Rotate the paper one half circle (180 degrees) and you'll see '911'. Now it's not the sort of thing I'd put on my website, but it may be significant. I can't say for sure, though, so you may be right.

digitalartist, on 02 November 2009 - 07:49 AM, said:

There is nothing to debunk because you have yet to supply anything more than conjecture and coincidence to support your theory. I mentioned logic, common sense and research. Had you used them and I not used them, I would not have come up with the ordinal value of Osama's full name not supporting your theory, the incorrect ordinal values as cited above, or the unlikelihood that Gematria is based on sexagesimal.

I think you are now going to have to retract those words! In truth, I've made a couple of silly mistakes myself in my postings here, partly because my computer is playing up at the moment and it is difficult for me to post at all. However, I thank you for pointing out the full name of bin Laden. I was aware that he had many names, but it was remiss of me to state that 'Osama bin Muhammad bin Laden' is his full name. I may do a page on the names of bin Laden and Pope JPII at some point (properly researched, of course!).

digitalartist, on 02 November 2009 - 07:49 AM, said:

I am skeptical of any unproven theory, including my own. I see myself as different from some who put forth theories as I hope others will try to punch holes in my theories so that I can have any flaws in my logic pointed out and can further research the matter. I have seen a number of theories get shot full of holes, and instead of the originator of the theory going back over their research to see where they erred, they cry out skeptics, debunkers and eventually move onto conspiracies and such. This was not aimed at you Triangle, your comment about debunker is what brought it to mind.

Believe me, I have no problem with you or anyone else trying to punch holes in my work. That's one of the reasons I come to forums. The reason I said 'debunker' was because you did seem to be playing the debunker's game of devil's advocate and focusing on minor flaws instead of looking at the overall picture. But I am perfectly aware that in doing so you also do me a service and improve the quality of my work, so I thank you for your criticisms. The New Bible Code is a work in progress and far from perfectly worked out or presented.

You mentioned that you have your own theory. I'd be interested in hearing it. Have you posted on it elsewhere on the forum?

This post has been edited by blue triangle: 05 November 2009 - 11:41 AM

[Janglin Jack]

Blue Triangle, you obviously have a huge self belief in yourself and your theories, which is cool, each to their own as the saying goes. I must say I am confused about what the outcome of your theory and the WTC event is all about? Now not to sound disrespectful to those that lost their lives, family members etc on 9/11, which truly was a deplorable act, but there have been greater catastrophies both natural and man made since JC shuffled off this mortal coil that would seem equally or more worthy of a godly message?. Why are you hellbent on pointing to 9/11 and to what purpose?

I remain confused I'm afraid, please enlighten me.

[blue triangle]

Janglin Jack, on 05 November 2009 - 12:47 PM, said:

Blue Triangle, you obviously have a huge self belief in yourself and your theories, which is cool, each to their own as the saying goes. I must say I am confused about what the outcome of your theory and the WTC event is all about? Now not to sound disrespectful to those that lost their lives, family members etc on 9/11, which truly was a deplorable act, but there have been greater catastrophies both natural and man made since JC shuffled off this mortal coil that would seem equally or more worthy of a godly message?. Why are you hellbent on pointing to 9/11 and to what purpose?

I remain confused I'm afraid, please enlighten me.

Hi Janglin Jack!

Well, natural disasters happen all the time, but 9/11 was unique in many ways.

1. First of all, it took place in front of the entire world.

2. Secondly, it took place in two of the busiest, most politicaly and economically important cities in the world. If the airplnes had crashed into two hi-rise appartment blocks in Cleveland, that would have been big news, of course, but nothing on the scale of 9/11.

3. The two building complexes that were hit were the nerve centres of the USA's financial and military operations. They were already very famous before 9/11 and symbolised the USA's economic and military might, and underpinned the USA's hegemony over the world.

4. Many people in the rich west place their trust in the strength of their government to maintain their standard of living. The twin towers and Pentagon were also symbols of that (misplaced) trust.

5. The news that day, and for many days afterwards, was dominated by 9/11 and its aftermath. In the UK it was voted the most dramatic TV footage af all time a few years ago. Therefore 9/11 has had a huge impact on the psyche of modern man. It burst the bubble of false security that many people in the west felt, including many 'conservative Christians', and exposed them to the reality of a world in crisis. No longer would they look at starving children in Africa, or murdered villagers in South America, and feel that this could never happen in the 'first world' of the USA and Europe. It woke them up.

6. The New Bible Code also links 9/11 to many, many biblical themes. In fact, the entire Bible, at one level, was written in preparation for 9/11. These themes are all related to man's separation from God and the many baleful consequences of separation.

7. In attacking these symbols of the USA's military and economic might, Christ was reenacting His own crucifixion by symbolically destroying the beast that controls us (symbolised by those two structures, but in reality, existing within our own hearts), pointing to the very source of our troubles (our own greed and fear), fulfilling many biblical prophecies, and by doing all of this, showing us that He controlled the evolution of the Bible and is now in control of our destiny.

[mandy1979]

omg

[digitalartist]

blue triangle you made these comments early on in this topic:

Blue Triangle Post

Quote

I was 'awakened' in 1998, then trained for 3 1/2 years before being given a'key' (a passage from 1 Thessalonians) that showed how to properly decode the NIV and the details of the attacks themselves

Blue Triangle Post 2

Quote

I was trained through a combination of visions, dreams, synchronicities and other spiritual experiences.

They seem to be at odds with your own comments found on the main page of your site from 2003 (c/o internet archives)

blue triangle site on internet archive

Quote

I discovered the New Bible Code by a process which involved considerable assistance from the encoder Himself, and which led me to the findings of two researchers, who work with the original Hebrew and Greek scriptures, and from whom I have learned much. They are Vernon Jenkins and Richard McGough

On here, you refer to your training as completely spiritual based while on your own site, some 6 years ago, you indicated the assistance of research done by others.

[swollen_ostrich]

You keep mentioning that synchronicity is "meaningful coincidence" - I think you are leaving out the "meaningful" part in your theory.

Here's an example of Syncronicity from Jung himself:

""A young woman I was treating had, at a critical moment, a dream in which she was given a golden scarab. While she was telling me this dream, I sat with my back to the closed window. Suddenly I heard a noise behind me, like a gentle tapping. I turned round and saw a flying insect knocking against the window-pane from the outside. I opened the window and caught the creature in the air as it flew in. It was the nearest analogy to a golden scarab one finds in our latitudes, a scarabaeid beetle, the common rose-chafer (Cetonia aurata), which, contrary to its usual habits had evidently felt the urge to get into a dark room at this particular moment. I must admit that nothing like it ever happened to me before or since."

This synchronistic event is nothing like what you are proposing.

Another phrase I see in regards to synchronicity is this:

"To count as synchronicity, the events should be unlikely to occur together by chance."

All examples of true Jungian synchronicity that I can find are things that either happened within a short period of time to each other, or events where the same thing happened almost exactly as they did before.

Let me use one of your own examples - you tie the 9/11 attacks with a reference to the sacrificing of a bull in the bible. I am almost certain that there are other major works of literature, religious or otherwise, that feature the sacrifice of a bull. This fails the "unlikely to occur together by chance" part of synchronicity, as you could then link the 9/11 attacks to any number of other works. There is no coincidence here.

Also, if you actually read (or understand) Jung, you will notice that the examples he gives of synchronicity are obvious coincidences - in other words, you DON'T NEED A KEY to see the coincidence of the events.

There is no synchronicity in any part of your theory.

This post has been edited by swollen_ostrich: 13 November 2009 - 09:48 PM

[blue triangle]

digitalartist, on 13 November 2009 - 08:28 PM, said:

blue triangle you made these comments early on in this topic:

Blue Triangle Post



Blue Triangle Post 2



They seem to be at odds with your own comments found on the main page of your site from 2003 (c/o internet archives)

blue triangle site on internet archive



On here, you refer to your training as completely spiritual based while on your own site, some 6 years ago, you indicated the assistance of research done by others.

In all the years I have spent arguing my case on forums, this is without doubt the most laughable, mean spirited, sabotage attempt I have ever come across. Because I respect their work and have learned from them, I went out of my way to acknowledge my debt to Vernon Jenkins and Richard McGough on my website. I did this in 2003 when the site was launched and I still do it to this today: just look on my introductory page. Do you honestly think I have to mention them in this forum too? When I say I was spiritually trained, that is exactly what I mean. I was trained, assigned this task then began work on it before I had heard of Vernon Jenkins or Richard McGough. I wasn't even on the internet (apart from occasional library use) until 2003.

Just so you are absolutely sure about the chronology of my discoveries, here is a timeline.

April 1998 to Nov. 2001 - trained to find the code.
Nov. 2001 - began to work on code, initially concentrating on word/number connections relating to 9/11 and within the NIV.
Dec. 2001 - discovered work of Vernon Jenkins and realised that there was a third, geometric element.
late 2002 - discovered work of Richard McGough and saw that his 'Logos Star' integrated with my Creation Snowflake.

Apart from the considerable assistance of the Lord, the code is substantially my own, as it a) almost completely relies on English gematria (Vernon and Richard work with Hebrew/Greek systems), b)concerns 9/11 (neither Vernon or Richard have done any work in this area), c) uses a unique two-system decoding method, d) uses a novel system of gematria unique to the New Bible Code.

Vernon is a trailblazer and, as well as learning some numerical geometry from him (which I then took in a new direction for my own work with my use of fractal snowflakes, independently of Richard) and some valuable techniques for manipulating numbers, I also began to learn the difference between rigourous analysis and the kind of amateurish numerology that characterised a lot of my early efforts. Vernon, Richard and I all know each other and have shared discoveries in the past. I usually alert them first whenever I put a new page up that I think will interest them.

I'm here to share my discoveries and discuss them with people. Why on earth are you here?

BT

This post has been edited by blue triangle: 13 November 2009 - 10:03 PM

[blue triangle]

swollen_ostrich, on 13 November 2009 - 09:47 PM, said:

You keep mentioning that synchronicity is "meaningful coincidence" - I think you are leaving out the "meaningful" part in your theory.

Here's an example of Syncronicity from Jung himself:

""A young woman I was treating had, at a critical moment, a dream in which she was given a golden scarab. While she was telling me this dream, I sat with my back to the closed window. Suddenly I heard a noise behind me, like a gentle tapping. I turned round and saw a flying insect knocking against the window-pane from the outside. I opened the window and caught the creature in the air as it flew in. It was the nearest analogy to a golden scarab one finds in our latitudes, a scarabaeid beetle, the common rose-chafer (Cetonia aurata), which, contrary to its usual habits had evidently felt the urge to get into a dark room at this particular moment. I must admit that nothing like it ever happened to me before or since."

This synchronistic event is nothing like what you are proposing.

With respect, I think you are wrong.

I often use this very famous example from Jung's life myself as an illustration of what Jung meant by synchronicity. Another example would be the well known clustering of elevens around the 9/11 event:

The date was the 11th, flight 11 hit first, the towers resembled 11, they had 110 storeys, Manhattan Island, on which the towers stood, was discovered on September the 11th, etc, etc, etc. Just as Jung's rose-chafer beetle and the dream of his patient were brought together in space and time, so were the elevens permeating and surrounding the 9/11 event. You might argue that the clustering of elevens around 9/11 was chance and those who disagree are guilty of confirmation bias. But a sceptic could say the same about Jung's claimed synchronicity. However, once the meaning contained within the event is fully appreciated, chance seems much less likely, either for Jung's experience or for 9/11.

And just as Jung's synchronicity was arranged for the purpose of delivering a life-changing message to his patient, so the much larger and more extensive wave of synchronicities that attended the events of September the 11th, 2001 had a message for the entire world.

BT

[swollen_ostrich]

blue triangle, on 13 November 2009 - 07:00 PM, said:

The date was the 11th, flight 11 hit first, the towers resembled 11, they had 110 storeys, Manhattan Island, on which the towers stood, was discovered on September the 11th, etc, etc, etc.

I will give you the date and I will give you the flight 11 thing as COINCIDENCES ONLY. Again, there is no "meaningful" connection between them and anything else. All examples of snychronicity are meaningful in and of themselves. They do not need a connection to a book written 2000+ years ago as a key to their understanding.

However, the fact that the towers "resemble" 11 (which is stretching it, as the towers weren't of the same height due to towers on top of one of them), and the "Manhattan island discovered on September the 11th" (which it wasn't - the correct date that history gives us is September 4, 1609) I won't give you. Also, I will not give you the "110 stories" thing, either. The fact that they each have 110 stories and that 110 is 11x10 is NOT MEANINGFUL. Like I said, you are missing the "meaningful" part.

Quote

You might argue that the clustering of elevens around 9/11 was chance and those who disagree are guilty of confirmation bias. But a sceptic could say the same about Jung's claimed synchronicity. However, once the meaning contained within the event is fully appreciated, chance seems much less likely, either for Jung's experience or for 9/11.

I find it ironic that the very things you have been using as examples of your perceived "synchronicity" throughout this thread are some of the best examples of confirmation bias I have seen in some time!

For example - all the numerology stuff, the math you have to do to show the "elevenness" of things, the way you have to spell names a certain way to make them fit, etc. You are cherry picking and massaging facts to match your belief.

[blue triangle]

swollen_ostrich, on 14 November 2009 - 03:23 PM, said:

I will give you the date and I will give you the flight 11 thing as COINCIDENCES ONLY. Again, there is no "meaningful" connection between them and anything else. All examples of snychronicity are meaningful in and of themselves. They do not need a connection to a book written 2000+ years ago as a key to their understanding.

However, the fact that the towers "resemble" 11 (which is stretching it, as the towers weren't of the same height due to towers on top of one of them), and the "Manhattan island discovered on September the 11th" (which it wasn't - the correct date that history gives us is September 4, 1609) I won't give you. Also, I will not give you the "110 stories" thing, either. The fact that they each have 110 stories and that 110 is 11x10 is NOT MEANINGFUL. Like I said, you are missing the "meaningful" part.

I think what you're trying to say here is 'I disagree'.

There is great meaning in the 9/11 event. The clustering of numbers, especially 11, around 9/11 leads to an understanding of what was achieved on that day and connects it to biblical prophecy. How? Through biblical numerics and gematria. The number 11 is biblically related to disorganisation, disorder, disintegration and imperfection, according to Bullinger, something that can easily be confirmed through a study of scripture. Biblical narratives and prophecies related to 9/11 are earmarked with 11 through synchronicity (for instance, the Tower of Babel in Genesis 11, the two witnesses in Revelation 11, Jesus overturning the tables of the moneychangers in Mark 11, etc, etc, etc). Eleven is also the reduced value of the word 'Jesus', the first of many clues to the meaning contained in the event.

You can deny that 9/11 was meaningful if you like and you can turn a blind eye to the patterns of meaning woven into it (which is itself a form of confirmation bias), but you're going to have to do better than emboldened, capitalised ranting. Let's have a reasoned discussion (without the eye-jarring emboldened capitals).

swollen_ostrich, on 14 November 2009 - 03:23 PM, said:

I find it ironic that the very things you have been using as examples of your perceived "synchronicity" throughout this thread are some of the best examples of confirmation bias I have seen in some time!

Seeing patterns that aren't there is a form of confirmation bias, but so is turning a blind eye to patterns that are there.

swollen_ostrich, on 14 November 2009 - 03:23 PM, said:

For example - all the numerology stuff, the math you have to do to show the "elevenness" of things, the way you have to spell names a certain way to make them fit, etc. You are cherry picking and massaging facts to match your belief.

Not at all. The names I use for gematria are either the official names or very popular ones. Regarding bin Laden, there are indeed variant forms of spelling for Arabic names transliterated into English, but the spelling I use is by far the most common ( 6 million Google hits for 'Osama bin Laden' but only 400000 hits for 'Usama bin Laden', for instance) and the names I use for him are 1) the given name and family surname, and 2) the name bin Laden himself uses to sign documentsd. The full name is also encoded, incidentally, but I have not yet put any information about it on my site.

This post has been edited by blue triangle: 15 November 2009 - 10:05 PM

[swollen_ostrich]

blue triangle, on 15 November 2009 - 04:04 PM, said:

the two witnesses in Revelation 11

Ok, let's start a reasonable discussion here....

Please tell me how this chapter of Revelation ties into the 9/11 tragedy?

[digitalartist]

blue triangle, on 13 November 2009 - 05:00 PM, said:

In all the years I have spent arguing my case on forums, this is without doubt the most laughable, mean spirited, sabotage attempt I have ever come across. Because I respect their work and have learned from them, I went out of my way to acknowledge my debt to Vernon Jenkins and Richard McGough on my website. I did this in 2003 when the site was launched and I still do it to this today: just look on my introductory page. Do you honestly think I have to mention them in this forum too? When I say I was spiritually trained, that is exactly what I mean. I was trained, assigned this task then began work on it before I had heard of Vernon Jenkins or Richard McGough. I wasn't even on the internet (apart from occasional library use) until 2003.

When you say spiritually trained, most people don't automatically equate that with research done by others. I'd be willing to bet that spiritually trained to the average person means training received by God, some higher power or a supernatural entity. That coupled with the reasonable estmate that 99% of those visiting UM would not actually go to your site and see what you have put there does indicate that you need to mention them here 1 - to alleviate misconceptions and 2 - to give credit where credit is due. I chose the earliest record of your site as the reference point mostly from past experience. What I am referring to is that most people are not aware of the internet archive and over time information, statements and messages they post today can be vastly different from what was on those early versions of their site. Also had you understood what I wrote, you would have realized I said they seem (appear) to be at odds. No where did I call you a liar. In fact using the wording I did allows you to, in a civil manner, explain why they are not at odds or to explain that you had missed giving credit for some of the information you received, but you immediately jumped in with a statement that my post was an attempt at sabotage.

Quote

The gentleman doth protest too much, methinks

(apologies to Shakespear for the slight change)

blue triangle said:

Just so you are absolutely sure about the chronology of my discoveries, here is a timeline.

April 1998 to Nov. 2001 - trained to find the code.
Nov. 2001 - began to work on code, initially concentrating on word/number connections relating to 9/11 and within the NIV.
Dec. 2001 - discovered work of Vernon Jenkins and realised that there was a third, geometric element.
late 2002 - discovered work of Richard McGough and saw that his 'Logos Star' integrated with my Creation Snowflake.

Apart from the considerable assistance of the Lord, the code is substantially my own, as it a) almost completely relies on English gematria (Vernon and Richard work with Hebrew/Greek systems), b)concerns 9/11 (neither Vernon or Richard have done any work in this area), c) uses a unique two-system decoding method, d) uses a novel system of gematria unique to the New Bible Code.

Vernon is a trailblazer and, as well as learning some numerical geometry from him (which I then took in a new direction for my own work with my use of fractal snowflakes, independently of Richard) and some valuable techniques for manipulating numbers, I also began to learn the difference between rigourous analysis and the kind of amateurish numerology that characterised a lot of my early efforts. Vernon, Richard and I all know each other and have shared discoveries in the past. I usually alert them first whenever I put a new page up that I think will interest them.

Posting that information didn't seem too difficult. It rectifies giving credit and clears up any misconceptions that might have arisen from your earlier spiritually trained statement(s).

blue triangle said:

I'm here to share my discoveries and discuss them with people. Why on earth are you here?

BT

Discussion by it's very nature can be between those with the same beliefs or those whose beliefs differ. If you came here thinking discussions would be with people that would not question what you post then I am sorry for the rude awakening.