In part 1 of this series I prospectively took credit for the delusional presentation of a characterization of the year 2016, a year defined by the mid point of the calendar year; the summer solstice. The year June 21, 2015 to June 20, 2016 will, as presented, include a tragic earthquake, great national and social disintegration and war. In studying the past and projecting its repetition through methods WD Gann encoded into "The Tunnel Thru the Air" and other mechanisms (the WD Gann Memorial Triangle or GMT, the WD Gann Gravestone Geometry or GGG, the WD Gann Map of Time or MOT, "The Magic Word" and other materials), an ancillary result is the researcher (me) is becomes part of the story. The researcher's perspective is not independent of the result; the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. As we study a phenomenon (velocity of an object), our act of study changes the rule of measurement and, thus, the measure cannot be accurate. In my case, simply studying what happened in 1848 for projection to 2016 creates in me a bias which is reactionary to the character of those things that happened in 1848. And my projection is thereby so biased.
Mr. Gann presents two cameo appearances of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle in TTTTA. I have yet to find a character or event in TTTTA that is a 'throwaway.' Of course, I haven't investigated a fraction of what I believe is worthy; I've been at this level of research for only a year or so. The references to Mr. Doyle are anything but a throwaway. His fictional character, Sherlock Holmes, is the ideal researcher; he is a repository ("attic") of relevant information, he models of crime scenarios, he is the discerner of the relevant data for each case, and he is the synthesizer of the likely outcomes. Of course, we all recognize that when we eliminate the possible alternatives that which is left is the only possible outcome; however implausible that might otherwise seem. Sherlock Holmes refers to his art as the "science of deduction" and he was the only person in civilization that employed that science. He was the "court of last resort" for any person seeking an answer. He is what I am not; the unbiased researcher and, from time to time, I have to step back and review where I am. Any rendition of Sherlock Holmes other than the original work is fiction and hazardous. Doyle's Sherlock Holmes is the definition of the "science of deduction."
Part 1 of this series set forth the character of 2016 which I will modify having realized some inevitable errors. Oh, not much of a modification, but I haven't any doubt it will be modified still more as time corrects my errors. Errors are expected and tolerable. Sherlock would say, "It is not the gravity of the crime, it is the facts and the process of deduction that determines the attractiveness of the case." Frequently, the most grave cases are the least interesting and the most minor cases present the greatest challenge.
We are at a time and place that make the crime presently occurring very grave. I believe that is the reason Mr. Gann warned us of the "remarkable events" that would occur following the election of the 266th Pope (page 82 of TTTTA). It is a warning to our generation as Pope Francis, widely recognized as the 266th Pope, was elected in 2013.
So what are the processes of deduction that have been offered to infer the future?
History repeats. This is more a principle. We could call it a process. I woke up yesterday morning when the sun came up so the process predicts that'll happen again today. But that doesn't happen every day the same way so the process is flawed. I prefer to think of this great Biblical concept as the missing link in the physics of the future or the physics of four dimensions or the physics of special and general relativity.
From the perspective of a finite mathematician (a CPA), physics seems obsessed with the large and the small. One of the earliest proofs of Einstein relativity were Sir Arthur Eddington's study of light bending around the Sun during a lunar eclipse; a study of the smallest refraction of what was considered the ultimate measurement. A milestone proof was achieved as the result of Einstein's competition with David Hilbert in deriving the equations that modeled the already outlined general relativity. Einstein and Hilbert arrived at the same set of equations with Einstein having unveiled his thesis only days before that of Hilbert's was ready. And what was the proof of their solution? That mystery of a 44 second error in 100 years of Mercury's orbital pattern was solved. An immensely large period and distance was perfectly predicted; the immensely large and the incredibly small.
Physics is obsessed of when and where we get there in a scenario that is entirely irrelevant to our limited lifespan. What is the 'relativity' in the ordinary person's life in predicting how long and what astrophysical calculations must be made to get us from here to Vega?
What would be relative is if the physics of the fourth dimension could predict we would have an auto accident tomorrow morning. Physics hasn't any objective of predicting mundane future; it only seeks to predict the path of the quark or the effect of gravity of mass near the sun on the 44 second warping of Mercury's orbit.
So, the first principle, method or assumption will be that history repeats.
The physics of the fourth dimension. Einstein proposed special relativity in 1905 and general relativity in 1916. In my opinion, WD Gann was using special relativity to predict the stock market in 1908....and proved it in the "Ticker Interview." There isn't any other accounting for the record of stock winners in the month of trades or the specificity of time and price associated with the 1909 wheat call, both recounted in the "Ticker Interview." Did Albert Einstein predict even general outline of when the Great Depression would begin or end? WD Gan did on page 82/83 of TTTTA. Or WWI or WWII? WD Gann predicted the latter, again on page 82/83. And WDG predicted far more than general outlines of the future if you will re read the 6th and 7th Prophecies documented on this blog.
Mr. Gann presents two cameo appearances of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle in TTTTA. I have yet to find a character or event in TTTTA that is a 'throwaway.' Of course, I haven't investigated a fraction of what I believe is worthy; I've been at this level of research for only a year or so. The references to Mr. Doyle are anything but a throwaway. His fictional character, Sherlock Holmes, is the ideal researcher; he is a repository ("attic") of relevant information, he models of crime scenarios, he is the discerner of the relevant data for each case, and he is the synthesizer of the likely outcomes. Of course, we all recognize that when we eliminate the possible alternatives that which is left is the only possible outcome; however implausible that might otherwise seem. Sherlock Holmes refers to his art as the "science of deduction" and he was the only person in civilization that employed that science. He was the "court of last resort" for any person seeking an answer. He is what I am not; the unbiased researcher and, from time to time, I have to step back and review where I am. Any rendition of Sherlock Holmes other than the original work is fiction and hazardous. Doyle's Sherlock Holmes is the definition of the "science of deduction."
Part 1 of this series set forth the character of 2016 which I will modify having realized some inevitable errors. Oh, not much of a modification, but I haven't any doubt it will be modified still more as time corrects my errors. Errors are expected and tolerable. Sherlock would say, "It is not the gravity of the crime, it is the facts and the process of deduction that determines the attractiveness of the case." Frequently, the most grave cases are the least interesting and the most minor cases present the greatest challenge.
We are at a time and place that make the crime presently occurring very grave. I believe that is the reason Mr. Gann warned us of the "remarkable events" that would occur following the election of the 266th Pope (page 82 of TTTTA). It is a warning to our generation as Pope Francis, widely recognized as the 266th Pope, was elected in 2013.
So what are the processes of deduction that have been offered to infer the future?
History repeats. This is more a principle. We could call it a process. I woke up yesterday morning when the sun came up so the process predicts that'll happen again today. But that doesn't happen every day the same way so the process is flawed. I prefer to think of this great Biblical concept as the missing link in the physics of the future or the physics of four dimensions or the physics of special and general relativity.
From the perspective of a finite mathematician (a CPA), physics seems obsessed with the large and the small. One of the earliest proofs of Einstein relativity were Sir Arthur Eddington's study of light bending around the Sun during a lunar eclipse; a study of the smallest refraction of what was considered the ultimate measurement. A milestone proof was achieved as the result of Einstein's competition with David Hilbert in deriving the equations that modeled the already outlined general relativity. Einstein and Hilbert arrived at the same set of equations with Einstein having unveiled his thesis only days before that of Hilbert's was ready. And what was the proof of their solution? That mystery of a 44 second error in 100 years of Mercury's orbital pattern was solved. An immensely large period and distance was perfectly predicted; the immensely large and the incredibly small.
Physics is obsessed of when and where we get there in a scenario that is entirely irrelevant to our limited lifespan. What is the 'relativity' in the ordinary person's life in predicting how long and what astrophysical calculations must be made to get us from here to Vega?
What would be relative is if the physics of the fourth dimension could predict we would have an auto accident tomorrow morning. Physics hasn't any objective of predicting mundane future; it only seeks to predict the path of the quark or the effect of gravity of mass near the sun on the 44 second warping of Mercury's orbit.
So, the first principle, method or assumption will be that history repeats.
The physics of the fourth dimension. Einstein proposed special relativity in 1905 and general relativity in 1916. In my opinion, WD Gann was using special relativity to predict the stock market in 1908....and proved it in the "Ticker Interview." There isn't any other accounting for the record of stock winners in the month of trades or the specificity of time and price associated with the 1909 wheat call, both recounted in the "Ticker Interview." Did Albert Einstein predict even general outline of when the Great Depression would begin or end? WD Gan did on page 82/83 of TTTTA. Or WWI or WWII? WD Gann predicted the latter, again on page 82/83. And WDG predicted far more than general outlines of the future if you will re read the 6th and 7th Prophecies documented on this blog.
Many astrologers will claim Mr. Gann did these things with astrology and Mr. Gann was a master astrologer. I haven't an issue with the ability of astrology to make predictions. I have not, in the last 45 years of varying exposure to stock market methods found an astrologer who has a record with any promise, mush less proof, they their methods could predict time and price as Mr. Gann did in that wheat prediction.... 'If it does not touch $1.20 by the close of the market [that day] it will prove that there is something wrong with my whole method of calculation." Astrology, to the extent of the expertness of the astrologer, works to a non granular extent because astronomy is driven by the same fourth dimensional natural laws as are the stock market. Its rigorous correlation analysis. Its the light of truth reflection on the wall of the cave....but not the actual truth. Failing to understand the fourth dimensional physics, I would be the better off to understand astrology. I'm twice the loser because I understand neither so please, astrologers, do not take my criticism of astrology as an affront. I'm simply down another path not inconsistent with the one which you have taken.
When listing physics as a method, like "history repeats," there's a qualification. Again, I can't "do it." I can intuit it having been done by Mr. Gann...but I can't do it. We hear his words, that the stock market is proof of the working out of the fourth dimension, that all there is in the universe are geometric points of force (Faraday). I list physics only because would be my ideal end game. That's where I want to be when this is all said and done. Unfortunately, I may never get there. I may be the one to whom Mr. Gann gave milk for my (our) being unable to accept meat.
The WD Gann Memorial Triangle. The GMT, comprised of three physical points in space (the Statue of Liberty, Mr. Gann's gravestone, and the fictional location of the 110-story Mammouth Building at 42nd and Broadway) and three points in time (associated with those forgoing three physical points), is a model that predicts a fourth point in 'spacetime.' That fourth point in spacetime is the World Trade Center in 2001. It is the 6th Prophecy that I have documented.
These same properties of the GMT will be used to demonstrate that Mr. Gann developed the GMT to provide those of us unable to understand his level of fourth dimensional physics, to, nevertheless, understand the general outline of the future. As a tangible result of the study of the GMT, there will be clear implication of the nature of the year 2016 (again, 2016 stretches from mid 2015 to mid 2016).
The WD Gann Map of Time. The MOT is created from the 15340 lines comprising TTTTA (including line spacing and vacant pages) doubled and redoubled (according to page 45 of TTTTA) to create the number of days in a 168 year period (15340 days X 2 X 2 divided by 365.242 days per year). That 168-year period is 1/15th of the Biblical "Great Year."
The 168-year period can be divided into at least two repeating periods of 84 years with a "right beginning" of the middle of the year on or near the last battle of TTTTA; the July 4, 1932 Battles of New York and Washington. From this date moving forward and up on the MOT you arrive at 2016 and moving back and up on the MOT you arrive at 1848.
The historical events of the left side of the MOT are mirrored on the right. Based on the end of WWI by the Treaty of Versailles, the end of WWII can be predicted. Based on the tactical surprise attacks waged by Captain Grierson on Confederate targets, history was repeated in 2001 with the surprise attacks on the WTC and Pentagon.
The MOT is a heuristic model for those of us unable to tolerate the meat of physics to sense the repetition of history. Like the GMT we cannot 'see' the granularity of the actual methods I believe Mr. Gann employed. But, by study of 1848, we will 'see' in 1848 the outline of what will occur in 2016.
The WD Gann Gravestone Geometry. Like the physics of the fourth dimension, I am not able to understand how the GGG is the model of time that might project the future with finer granularity than the GMT. I list it here because I believe it to be a "clock" of sorts that would perform that function and make predictions that are more specific than the MOT. It is a heuristic for those who cannot understand physics. Perhaps by keeping it on the forefront of this list it will become understood.
Clues. To lead us down the road of our investigation, Mr. Gann left objectives and clues; clues in the acrostic and telestic encoding of TTTTA, clues in the names of his characters (Dr. Descartes for example), clues in the events (the fictional battle), clues in the dates and durations (July 4, 1932 plus 69 years and 69 days to arrive at the 6th Prophecy of 9/11), clues in the simple wording (the 110-story Mammouth Building).... The clues will lead us to a characterization of the year 2016, but, more importantly, the clues will lead us to the methods that will make understanding the future possible.
* * * * *
I state that last sentence seemingly as a fact. It is, rather, what I 'know' today according to what I believe I have understood from Mr. Gann's work. A year from now I'll either be substantially right or wrong. But that doesn't mean Mr. Gann was wrong. It means my interpretation of his work was wrong. I won't be discouraged to the extent of my errors. Sherlock was right and he was wrong, and he was frustrated. But being right or wrong wasn't the important thing.
It was the method. Making the method better. Doyle's "science of deduction."
I'd planned on making this essay about the exact information that led me to provide the prediction of the nature of 2016 in part 1. I found myself unable to explain those predictions without first this summary of all those methods I have stumbled into finding in many imperfect essays presented in the this blog. I hope this inventory of concepts and methods will be the bridge between the work that I've done and the product of that work undertaken in the next essay.
Jim Ross
