Google Ads

Google Ads

Bible Wheel Book

Google Ads

+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 15 FirstFirst 1234567814 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 143
  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    14,317
    Quote Originally Posted by RC Christian View Post
    In regards to me "mistakenly" saying "that the inclusive count of all words"...just for the record, in post #7, in did indicate that the Selahs were left out of the word count of Psalm 46...and I indicated that I didn't know why...it wasn't my discovery...just passing on info. So, the 111 word inclusive count followed the same "pattern" of omitting the Selahs as did the 46 up/down count did.

    I've been out all day and haven't had an opportunity to read Facterd's paper yet, but plan to tonight. I still have plans on doing the post I mentioned on prime #'s, also...man...where does the time go???!!!!
    Oops - it looks like I was the one who mistakenly said you mistakenly said ... well, you know what I mean. Glad we got that cleared up!

    As for where the time goes ... maybe we should start a thread on that topic. Oh wait ... that probably won't help since that's where a lot of the time seems to be going!

    Catch 22. Again. It got me big time!
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  2. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by RAM View Post
    I'll take a look at your pdf file and comment more.
    Quote Originally Posted by RC Christian View Post
    I've been out all day and haven't had an opportunity to read Facterd's paper yet, but plan to tonight.
    Great. I would love to hear what you two have to say about it.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    14,317
    Quote Originally Posted by Facterd View Post
    Great. I would love to hear what you two have to say about it.
    Hey there Facterd,

    I finished your smaller pdf. It was well presented. The fact that the 9th and 18th sonnets are the only sonnets to begin with the letter corresponding to the sonnet number, coupled with the fact that those are the only two sonnets with periods after the numbers is good evidence supporting your case.

    And some of the 3-4-5 triangles are pretty striking. But I find myself feelling that I am looking at the results of countelss hours of trial and error as you overlaid your 3-4-5 triangle on the text looking for connections. It is this that makes me suspicious of the results. What would I find if I put forth a similar effort with some other triangle? Now granted, there is no triangle like the 3-4-5, so if the pattern is real, it makes sense that Bacon would have used that triangle. But what if the pattern is not real? Could you find similar results using some other triangle of arbitrary dimensions? This is my fundamental reservation. I know you spent endless hours overlaying 3-4-5 triangles of various sizes till you finally found some results that seemed pretty convincing.

    Bottom line: How am I supposed to discern if your results are the prduct of cherry picking or not? The only way seems to go through an elaborate effort to produce similar results with a different triangle. That's how the ELS Bible codes were debunked. But it wasn't so hard for them because they could use computers. Your work is a laborious hand analysis and I don't have time to test it right now.

    I look forward to your response.

    Great chatting,

    Richard
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    258
    Quote Originally Posted by RAM View Post
    Hey there Facterd,

    I finished your smaller pdf. It was well presented. The fact that the 9th and 18th sonnets are the only sonnets to begin with the letter corresponding to the sonnet number, coupled with the fact that those are the only two sonnets with periods after the numbers is good evidence supporting your case.

    And some of the 3-4-5 triangles are pretty striking. But I find myself feelling that I am looking at the results of countelss hours of trial and error as you overlaid your 3-4-5 triangle on the text looking for connections. It is this that makes me suspicious of the results. What would I find if I put forth a similar effort with some other triangle? Now granted, there is no triangle like the 3-4-5, so if the pattern is real, it makes sense that Bacon would have used that triangle. But what if the pattern is not real? Could you find similar results using some other triangle of arbitrary dimensions? This is my fundamental reservation. I know you spent endless hours overlaying 3-4-5 triangles of various sizes till you finally found some results that seemed pretty convincing.

    Bottom line: How am I supposed to discern if your results are the prduct of cherry picking or not? The only way seems to go through an elaborate effort to produce similar results with a different triangle. That's how the ELS Bible codes were debunked. But it wasn't so hard for them because they could use computers. Your work is a laborious hand analysis and I don't have time to test it right now.

    I look forward to your response.

    Great chatting,

    Richard
    This post should probably be in the "Mystery Religions" section, but I wanted to introduce it here, since the discussion was focusing on the relevance of Euclid's 47th Proposition. Here's a couple of posts to demonstrate the importance of the 3-4-5 triangle within the esoteric societies (trying to avoid the word...secret). Also, of immense importance to these same societies is the equilateral triangle, but more on that later.

    http://burningtaper.blogspot.com/200...f-euclids.html

    http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/aqc/1901/euclid.html


    http://www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/capt...eemasonry6.htm


    I've still not finished Facterd's paper yet...been on the go all day.
    Facing the East,
    Frater Rosae Crucis



    "It is only by the exercise of Reason, that man can discover God."
    ~ Thomas Paine

  5. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by RC Christian View Post
    This post should probably be in the "Mystery Religions" section, but I wanted to introduce it here, since the discussion was focusing on the relevance of Euclid's 47th Proposition. Here's a couple of posts to demonstrate the importance of the 3-4-5 triangle within the esoteric societies (trying to avoid the word...secret). Also, of immense importance to these same societies is the equilateral triangle, but more on that later.

    http://burningtaper.blogspot.com/200...f-euclids.html

    http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/aqc/1901/euclid.html


    http://www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/capt...eemasonry6.htm


    I've still not finished Facterd's paper yet...been on the go all day.
    Great links. I mention in my paper that Petter Amundsen, the guy who discovered Bacon's use of the 3-4-5 triangle, claim that it was important within the esoteric societies. He is a freemason himself, and says that is the reason he was able to see the pattern. I have avoided the connection in my paper because a) I don't know much about esoteric societies, and (being esoteric) most of the information out there is unreliable, b) Reader's generally take you less seriously if you refer to secret societies.

    I have found many references to Euclid I,47 in Bacon's puzzles.

  6. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by RAM View Post
    Hey there Facterd,

    I finished your smaller pdf. It was well presented. The fact that the 9th and 18th sonnets are the only sonnets to begin with the letter corresponding to the sonnet number, coupled with the fact that those are the only two sonnets with periods after the numbers is good evidence supporting your case.

    And some of the 3-4-5 triangles are pretty striking. But I find myself feelling that I am looking at the results of countelss hours of trial and error as you overlaid your 3-4-5 triangle on the text looking for connections. It is this that makes me suspicious of the results. What would I find if I put forth a similar effort with some other triangle? Now granted, there is no triangle like the 3-4-5, so if the pattern is real, it makes sense that Bacon would have used that triangle. But what if the pattern is not real? Could you find similar results using some other triangle of arbitrary dimensions? This is my fundamental reservation. I know you spent endless hours overlaying 3-4-5 triangles of various sizes till you finally found some results that seemed pretty convincing.

    Bottom line: How am I supposed to discern if your results are the prduct of cherry picking or not? The only way seems to go through an elaborate effort to produce similar results with a different triangle. That's how the ELS Bible codes were debunked. But it wasn't so hard for them because they could use computers. Your work is a laborious hand analysis and I don't have time to test it right now.

    I look forward to your response.
    Great chatting,
    Richard
    I think your objections are very much to the point, and I donít have a knock-down argument against them. Let me first list a couple of points which strengthens the hypothesis that what I have presented is a product of design and not chance

    1) What I have presented is not just a haphazard collection of 3-4-5 triangles. There is a tight connection between them, where my view is that the connections between them express intentionality, and arguments.

    2) An important part of the structure is that the first set of 3-4-5 triangles I present is meant to confirm the use of 3-4-5 triangles. They do that by connecting 3-4-5 triangles with a number that clearly can be associated with such 3-4-5 triangles (1609), and the historically most well known description of 3-4-5 triangles (by Plutarch). The two 3-4-5 triangles found on the title page are especially noteworthy, since they connect all the 6 periods found on the lower half of the title page. In the long version of the manuscript I show that these two 3-4-5 triangles form part of another very important puzzle in the sonnets.

    3) The use of 3-4-5 triangles does not stand alone, but is backed up by counting of words and letters, and by a particular kind of Gematria which is taught in the puzzles. Many instances of this combination of principles are presented in the long version of my paper.

    These three points donít really address your objections do they? You are right that you are looking at the results of countless hours of trial and error. But a very interesting development has taken place in my research. It took me three years to identify the rules Bacon is playing by. This process involved countless hours of trial and error. But after the rules were identified, the character of my work changed dramatically. The last year I have several times noticed a couple of words or expressions in a Sonnet that has caught my interest, and it has only taken me an hour or so to uncover a complex structure of 3-4-5 triangles in that sonnet, since I now know the rules of this game.

    Given two letters in a sonnet, these two letters can theoretically combine with 12 other letters to make 12 different 3-4-5 triangles. I say 'theoretically', because given two letters, most of the 12 points that combined with the two letters make up a 3-4-5 triangle donít hit any letters (they lie outside the margins, between lines or between words). On average it is possible, given two letters, to construct two or three 3-4-5 triangles where the third vertex hits a third letter. Each page of Shakespeareís sonnets contains about 1200 letters. Given two letters, say the first letter in 'sire' and 'mother' above sonnet 9, only a few of the remaining letters will point out words which constitute a meaningful message when combined with 'sire' and 'mother'. The combinations 'sire', 'mother' and 'eye' or 'sire', mother' and 'eare' for instance, will not make much sense. Therefore, given two letters (like the first letters in 'sire' and 'mother') only two or three other letters (of about 1200) will make a 3-4-5 triangle when combined with these, and only a limited set of the about 1200 letters will will point out words which constitute a meaningful message when combined with 'sire' and 'mother'. In the long version of my paper I present 80 triangles (3-4-5) found on the page where we find sonnet 9. All of them point out words or expressions which make a meaningful contribution to the arguments that are being expressed.

    It is important to note that the 80 triangles are not made up of 240 different vertices. Most of the letters form part of several different 3-4-5 triangles. The numeral '9', for instance, is a vertex in 12 different 3-4-5 triangles. I think it is particularly telling when two letters are pointed out by different 3-4-5 triangles, and it afterwards turns out that these two letters can combine with other letters to form 3-4-5 triangles which are important for the argument.

    Thanks for reading my paper, and for your thoughtful criticism.

    Facterd
    Last edited by Facterd; 11-20-2011 at 05:04 PM.

  7. #37

    An example

    In my last posting I said that I find it telling when the construction of a 3-4-5 triangle is determined by other 3-4-5 triangles. I have attached a short pdf-document giving one example of this.

    Facterd
    Attached Images Attached Images

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    14,317
    Quote Originally Posted by Facterd View Post
    I think your objections are very much to the point, and I donít have a knock-down argument against them. Let me first list a couple of points which strengthens the hypothesis that what I have presented is a product of design and not chance

    1) What I have presented is not just a haphazard collection of 3-4-5 triangles. There is a tight connection between them, where my view is that the connections between them express intentionality, and arguments.

    2) An important part of the structure is that the first set of 3-4-5 triangles I present is meant to confirm the use of 3-4-5 triangles. They do that by connecting 3-4-5 triangles with a number that clearly can be associated with such 3-4-5 triangles (1609), and the historically most well known description of 3-4-5 triangles (by Plutarch). The two 3-4-5 triangles found on the title page are especially noteworthy, since they connect all the 6 periods found on the lower half of the title page. In the long version of the manuscript I show that these two 3-4-5 triangles form part of another very important puzzle in the sonnets.

    3) The use of 3-4-5 triangles does not stand alone, but is backed up by counting of words and letters, and by a particular kind of Gematria which is taught in the puzzles. Many instances of this combination of principles are presented in the long version of my paper.

    These three points donít really address your objections do they? You are right that you are looking at the results of countless hours of trial and error. But a very interesting development has taken place in my research. It took me three years to identify the rules Bacon is playing by. This process involved countless hours of trial and error. But after the rules were identified, the character of my work changed dramatically. The last year I have several times noticed a couple of words or expressions in a Sonnet that has caught my interest, and it has only taken me an hour or so to uncover a complex structure of 3-4-5 triangles in that sonnet, since I now know the rules of this game.
    Hey there Facterd,

    That's a good review of the salient points from your article. And it must have felt like a strong confirmation when you were able to discover patterns more quickly after learning the "rules." But you are correct, your response didn't really answer my objections, but our straightforward response is admirable and it shows you are a reasonable man.

    And there is one other objection I did not mention. So much of what you wrote seems like your own "private interpretation" without any means of confirmation. Suppose I gave 100 people the rules, the sonnets, and resizable 3-4-5 triangles to find patterns and locked them in separate rooms for a solid year. How much agreement would we find if we compared their intepretations? I have good reason to think "very little." This exemplifies how the results seem to me to be subjective and unconfirmable and therefore .... unbelievable. There are just too many ways the words and letters can be connected (remember how quickly factorials grow) and on top of that there is the wide variations of inerpretation that each person could give to each connection! It seems an insuperable task to establish any objective validity to the results you have presented. But hey! I could be wrong. I've only read you paper once and I could have missed some salient points. But I am giving you my honest opinion.

    So I don't think anything is going to "settle" this for me. It's just another mystery in this mysterious universe. So perhaps we should move past the "evidential" stage and you could tell me what you think it all means? Were all these codes devised by Francis Bacon merely to "astound" future generations when they finally were discovered? I would think a smart man like Bacon would have recognized the futility of such a tedious and unrewarding labour.

    It would be very interesting to know what you think it all means.

    Great chatting,

    Richard
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    258

    Hello Facterd

    I am finally about to have time to read your paper...sorry for the delay. I just read Richard's last post and I was curious also as to what your thoughts are of...if Bacon really did write the Shakespearean works (omitting what we both assume about his involvement in the 1611 KJV)...why did he do it under another person's name...and why was he encrypting things into the writings. I've heard of the theories of him being the bastard son of Queen Elizabeth, but that's about all I know that could contribute to potential motives.

    In regards to his involvement in the 1611 KJV, there are a few ideas (Richard, read "conspiracy theories" here) that I have been pondering, that I'd like to discuss with you further, because, I agree with Richard, and appreciate him pointing this out, that "shake" and "speare" had been sitting in Psalm 46 since at least 1560 (I haven't checked any earlier versions than the Geneva, but plan to for various reasons). But I do have an idea that makes a lot of sense and explains both points; our findings and Richard's objection...it's forming in my Illuminated mind as I type...
    Facing the East,
    Frater Rosae Crucis



    "It is only by the exercise of Reason, that man can discover God."
    ~ Thomas Paine

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    14,317
    Quote Originally Posted by RC Christian View Post
    ... (Richard, read "conspiracy theories" here) ...


    Dude! You got me pegged!
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 5 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 5 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •