# Thread: Thoughts and Findings related to the Maranatha "Key" Pt. II

1. Originally Posted by hayward
Apologies everyone- I think I have overlooked the obvious and thought that basic geometry was common knowledge. It his helps start us off on a good course for discussion, please let me know when we can pick up the conversation. (cute!)

So if you look at the video- starting with the triangle for example, there is no single point from which it is better to begin making your shape. Since the shape is continuous (meaning all lines meet at shared points) you can start anywhere you like!!!

2. Expert Twelever Sapphire
Join Date
Aug 2006
Location
UK
Posts
1,661
Originally Posted by hayward
I already have J- its in the statement you quoted. I've been fair and objective with everyone, if you can't reciprocate, fine. I asked you to look at the image and compare the points of the lines with features on the original. It is self-explanatory.

It is like a salad. Do I need to give you instructions about how to make the salad when you can look at it and it holds its own information about what to do? "Is that a cucumber cut with a knife at a thickness of 3cm?" Then you're like; "What should I do with the cucumber that needs to be cut by a knife at a thickness of 3cm, can you show me the method?"

You have the ingredients, you can see what do to next. Do I need to post an elementary school video on drawing lines between points to make 2D shapes? Is it really that complicated?

So there is no single "method" when the method itself is self-descriptive and self-explanatory. As I stated here, I had merely used the "R" as a way to simplify an explanation in the text It is obviously not the only way to begin constructing the image. It is precisely the center of the circle as well as the center of the hexagram. Do you see the points where the radius of the circle intersect? Do you see the points between which lines are drawn? Do you see how the ends of those lines define both points of the hexagram as well as the radius of the circle? No? Ok we can't have a conversation then.
No, drawing shapes is very simple. That's the point. I can draw straight lines, circles, triangles, squares, hexagrams....loads of things (but only in crayon as that's all they let me use) - but that isn't the issue is it? The problem is not in the shape, but in your assertion that the shape is embedded in a parchment that is largely made of text. As far as I can see, to show that the image is embedded, you need reference points that you can show are definitely meant to be used in the images construction. My argument was that the points you are using are arbitrary - ie there is no method in how you select them. You keep on insisting that they're not arbitrary.

What I find so odd haywayd, is that if you had used a method/plan/system to select the points in the construction, it would take you no time to explain. Easy. But you don't - you simply make ad hominem attacks. All of which just makes me think even more that the points are arbitrary. You say the method is self explanatory - so if it is so simple - what method/plan/system did you use to select the R for the centre of the circle?

3. Originally Posted by jlockest
No, drawing shapes is very simple. That's the point. I can draw straight lines, circles, triangles, squares, hexagrams....loads of things (but only in crayon as that's all they let me use) - but that isn't the issue is it? The problem is not in the shape, but in your assertion that the shape is embedded in a parchment that is largely made of text. As far as I can see, to show that the image is embedded, you need reference points that you can show are definitely meant to be used in the images construction. My argument was that the points you are using are arbitrary - ie there is no method in how you select them. You keep on insisting that they're not arbitrary.

What I find so odd haywayd, is that if you had used a method/plan/system to select the points in the construction, it would take you no time to explain. Easy. But you don't - you simply make ad hominem attacks. All of which just makes me think even more that the points are arbitrary. You say the method is self explanatory - so if it is so simple - what method/plan/system did you use to select the R for the centre of the circle?

No, I am simply addressing your position, which is one that seems confirming denial because you don't want to look at the materials yourself-- because if you did you would then become involved with confirming what is there for yourself. It is more of a privilege for you to sit there, read what other people are working on and then just argue about how it isn't possible.

My only point here is that, if you really want to know how to make it, I think you should look at the materials yourself. I have faith in anyone being able to pick it up and see what it was I saw. Its all there. Every point of confirmation is in the parchment and is indicated by the lines drawn in the image I've provided.

So if you're not going to know the method its because you don't want to look at the two images and see what it actually there. The points are not arbitrary. If you think they are, its because you're not looking close enough. Its there, held by points in the parchment. If you compare the two images and see to exactly where the lines go you will see what I am talking about. But if you don't look for yourself, you're not going to find it. It doesn't matter if I tell you to start here or start there.

But I've already said that too.

4. Originally Posted by jlockest
you need reference points that you can show are definitely meant to be used in the images construction. My argument was that the points you are using are arbitrary - ie there is no method in how you select them. You keep on insisting that they're not arbitrary.....The problem is not in the shape, but in your assertion that the shape is embedded in a parchment that is largely made of text. As far as I can see, to show that the image is embedded, you need reference points that you can show are definitely meant to be used in the images construction.
.. isn't this not unlike the image below?.. where "construction" is not necessarily needed.. and therefore a "starting point" per se isn't required for logic to still be applicable..

R may not have been "selected", but rather back-engineered to.. it reminds me of looking at a lock.. and looking at a selection of keys.. sometimes, just by looking at the keys, I have an idea of which keys would definitely not work and which ones might.. a step further would be.. if several of the keys fit into the lock, but only one unlocks it.. and each are labeled by a letter or picture.. which one is the "right" one might be deducible by the context of the lock and what it supposedly holds

"A crime has occurred, and forensics agents and black-suited government types swarm at the edges of the scene."

once the key turns the lock.. consider that any lock><key combination could have been used to simply achieve the "locking".. but then see if those particular tumblers.. or that bow, shoulder, cut and tip.. were chosen for a specific RESHON

5. Expert Twelever Sapphire
Join Date
Aug 2006
Location
UK
Posts
1,661
Originally Posted by HappyThoth
.. isn't this not unlike the image below?.. where "construction" is not necessarily needed.. and therefore a "starting point" per se isn't required for logic to still be applicable..
No, it does not appear to be the same at all. In Hayward's case the background is the start point.

Originally Posted by HappyThoth
R may not have been "selected", but rather back-engineered to.. it reminds me of looking at a lock.. and looking at a selection of keys.. sometimes, just by looking at the keys, I have an idea of which keys would definitely not work and which ones might.. a step further would be.. if several of the keys fit into the lock, but only one unlocks it.. and each are labeled by a letter or picture.. which one is the "right" one might be deducible by the context of the lock and what it supposedly holds
Did you read Hayward's article? The start point is the background. He tells the audience how to construct the image using certain points.
Talking about the tilted hexagram's construction, Hayward says:
Originally Posted by hayward_from_MW
The Dagobert Parchment of Rennes Le Chateau fame also contains a similar form.

The steps for finding this are as follows:

Starting with the raised “R” in the center of the document, use this point as the center point......
Again, this type of issue is why I was also trying to get Hayward to keep the conversation in one place. Splitting it just seems to lead to confusion.

6. Expert Twelever Sapphire
Join Date
Aug 2006
Location
UK
Posts
1,661
Originally Posted by hayward
No, I am simply addressing your position, which is one that seems confirming denial because you don't want to look at the materials yourself-- because if you did you would then become involved with confirming what is there for yourself. It is more of a privilege for you to sit there, read what other people are working on and then just argue about how it isn't possible.

My only point here is that, if you really want to know how to make it, I think you should look at the materials yourself. I have faith in anyone being able to pick it up and see what it was I saw. Its all there. Every point of confirmation is in the parchment and is indicated by the lines drawn in the image I've provided.

So if you're not going to know the method its because you don't want to look at the two images and see what it actually there. The points are not arbitrary. If you think they are, its because you're not looking close enough. Its there, held by points in the parchment. If you compare the two images and see to exactly where the lines go you will see what I am talking about. But if you don't look for yourself, you're not going to find it. It doesn't matter if I tell you to start here or start there.

But I've already said that too.
Hayward,
I am not saying that the image you're describing is not possible. Good grief - read your own article. You tell your audience how to construct the shape. It is YOU who says to start with the R. It is YOU who attributes importance to other parts of the text. All I have asked is why start with that R? I said the point appears to be arbirtatry - you retorted by saying it wasn't arbitrary. Well, if it isn't arbitrary, then what method/plan/system did you use for selecting it? As without a plan/method or system it is arbitrary isn't it? - as that is the definition of arbitrary.

The question has NOTHING to do with constructing a tilted hexagram - D has already shown that and it is on the web as well. The construction is not the issue is it? The issue I have is how you selected the points in the text. The reason being Hayward, is that if the points are arbitrary, then the image is not a product of the text. IE you could draw the image anywhere (I can draw it on blank paper, squared paper, page 1 of the Complete Works Of Shakespeare...anywhere - and I would always get some 'coincidence' of points that I can say confirm the shape).

So - just to humour me - and given you have stated that the points aren't arbitrary - what method/plan/system did you have for selecting your start point - ie the R - as you said in your article:
Originally Posted by hayward
'...The Dagobert Parchment of Rennes Le Chateau fame also contains a similar form.

The steps for finding this are as follows:

Starting with the raised “R” in the center of the document, use this point as the center point. ....'
YOU say to start there. Not me. You must have had some reason for starting there - ie the plan/system/method - so instead of all the posts saying how I need to draw the image myself, why not simply say wat that method/plan/system was?

7. Well, the thing is, Hayward was having runny eggs for breakfast while he looked at the parchment, and he thought, "It can't be just by chance that I am having runny eggs for breakfast at the same time that I am looking at the parchment, so I'll start with the letter R, for Runny Eggs!".

8. Expert Twelever Sapphire
Join Date
Aug 2006
Location
UK
Posts
1,661
OK - what is the difference between geometry and 'Sacred Geometry'?

What odds all those painters knowing this amazing secret? You know of the Vermeer link to all this, and I'm sure I read somewhere that the person who detected the 'tilted hexagram' in Vermeer had also seen it in various other artists' work. The original site has gone, but this archive is still available: Vermeer's Riddle Revealed - Priory of Sion paintings analyzed for the Grail Geometry.

So, wouldn't it be just as likely, that instead of being some amazing secret, that geometry used in art is being misread and geometric shapes 'perceived' (that were never intended) by the viewer from other geometric 'proportional' constructs that were used, and intended, by the various artists?