+ Reply to Thread
Page 41 of 42 FirstFirst ... 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 LastLast
Results 401 to 410 of 411

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

  1. #401
    hayward's Avatar
    hayward is offline Good Twelever Aquamarine hayward is an unknown quantity at this point
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    934

    Default

    *addendum*

    In the Dagobert demonstration above:

    Image 7 was omitted:


    -and-

    Image 17 was omitted:

  2. #402
    jlockest is offline Expert Twelever Sapphire jlockest is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hayward View Post
    1. Virgin of the Rocks is actually at 45 degrees exactly. Flip your compass horizontally. As per the idea presented through the meno square, the hexagram can be produced from either set of opposing angles of the square so I find this to be perfectly acceptable.
    OK. But if you do that how do you justify the lines touching the finger tips? As the 45 degree line would show the centre of the construct - and that doesn't coincide with the pointing'

    Quote Originally Posted by hayward
    2. The Dagobert parchment hexagram is 2 degrees off of 45 degrees. Schellenberger and Andrews claimed that the hexagram was 1-1/2 degrees off. (I will demonstrate the full results of this in the next post). After straightening out the parchment as accurately as possible to the horizontal plane, I have found the most accurate result is approximately 2 degrees. Originally I had used a horizontally-aligned square with 45 degree lines drawn through each corner as the proof for the angle. Now that I have also downloaded a "screen ruler" I can make more accurate measurements. Duncan referred to his "key" as being based on the components of 681. Another researcher, Paul Karren, who talks about a "681 Armature" also refers to a geometric form on the parchment here and you can see in the final image of that article that he had marked the points of the hexagram around the perimeter of the circle.
    I thought you'd said - Geometry is not approximate. You seem to think it is. 42, 43, 44, 46, 47 degrees are not 45 degrees - or else where do you stop. 60 degrees?

    Quote Originally Posted by hayward
    3. Duncan himself had claimed that there was a tilted hexagram in Poussin's second Self-Portrait in his Time Monk Project article. Whether I drew exactly what he was talking about is another issue. The drawing I presented was drawn a couple years ago. Looking at it again now, I see that it does not address using "a stretch of fabric across his shoulders. Using this one can discover why Poussin painted the ring on his finger so that it faced the ‘on-looker’ and not where it would actually sit on the top of his finger."
    Whoa - whoa - whoa. Can't you see what you're doing? Are you that blinded by your own theory? If you're saying you're wrong - but you justified your construct - then doesn't that show what I've been saying all along? The points are arbitrary. As If you have got it wrong, then there are other points on that image that are 'right'. But you still publish 'your' construct.
    Didn't D also say about the Poussin:
    '.....For further confirmation, Poussin also used the ‘key’ in his second self-portrait. A line can be drawn
    that passes through the eye of the female character depicted in the painting on the left of Poussin.
    This line passes through her eye and then through the eye on the crown she wears, extending up to
    cut the frame of the painting above. Then, using the right-angled corner of the larger frame on
    Poussin’s right, it is possible to produce a line of 45° for the key.....'


    45 degrees. Not 44. Not 43..... Remember geometry is not approximate.

    Quote Originally Posted by hayward
    4. Duncan has often referred to the hexagram as "key". The idea that the "key" was meant to unlock a "lock" is another idea commonly expressed. The fact that D had presented the key in his article with reference to its meaning being relevant to the degrees of Freemasonry support the idea that the artists might have used it in their paintings to "hold(s) a message of the painter’s initiation to an understanding." It would seem in retrospect that Duncan's entire idea is based on these components of Freemasonry, in addition to the Platonic Solids, which was also an idea explored on his Humble Mason site.
    Irrespective of masonry, D presented the tilted hexagram's angle as 45 degrees. He said:
    '....This will produce a line of exactly 45° from the base of the painting...'
    '....This would produce a perfectly proportioned equilateral triangle tilted at 45°....'
    '....From that location a complete and perfect hexagram, tilted to 45° can be formed....'
    '....The line that produced the first 45° angle....'


    ...shall I continue with how important the 45 degrees appeared to be to D?

  3. #403
    jlockest is offline Expert Twelever Sapphire jlockest is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hayward View Post

    Image no. 1 shows the parchment slightly off alignment with a perpendicular grid.


    Image no. 2 shows the correction of the parchment to align better with the grid.


    Image no. 3 shows the result of laying a straight edge over the line pointing towards the text and seeing it cross over the "+" sign in the text.


    Image no. 4 shows taking the straight edge and laying over the two "+" signs in the right areas of the text.


    Image no. 5 shows the alignment of the image to a horizontal line to thus measure the angle produced by the two lines.


    Image no. 6 shows the measurement of this angle to be exactly 60degrees. Considering the common knowledge that an equilateral triangle produces 3 interior angles of 60 degrees, finding such a measurement in the parchment is at least enough to establish reason to test the theory that one might be revealed in the document.


    Image no. 7 shows the result of laying a straight edge over the last "+" sign and back to the origin of the first line, using the interior angle of the "device" there. The measurement of the angles produced here are 90 degrees and 30 degrees, OR, exactly one-half of an equilateral triangle. If an equilateral triangle was not being suggested thus far by the maker of the document, then they had gone to great lengths to unwittingly make one available in the document this way.


    Image no. 8 labels the 30 degree angle and orients the image back to the horizontal plane.


    Image no. 9 demonstrates what occurs when one duplicates the first 30-60-90 triangle and flips it horizontally to produce an equilateral 60-60-60 degree triangle.


    With knowledge of equilateral triangular geometry present, while taking one's straight edge and bisecting the opposite 60 angle and making it perpendicular with its opposite side, it is noted in image 10 that it overlaps a dot next to a letter in the lower left.


    Image no. 11 shows the line produced by these two points.


    Image 12 shows the angle measurements that have been produced so far, but also shows how the center point of the triangle is produced.


    While testing the accuracy of this new center point, in Image 13 we train the point of compass on the intersection near the "R" and the pencil point on the "+" sign where the first angle was produced.


    Image 14 shows the line created by laying the straight edge over the center point of the triangle and circle and the lower point of the triangle.


    Image 15 shows the extension of line which produced the first 90 degree angle to extend past the circle (which I should have done earlier)


    mage 16 shows connecting the right side points at the intersections with the circle.


    Image 17 shows connecting the top point and lower left point at their intersections at the circle. Also is an arrow showing how this last line crosses through the remaining "+" sign in the parchment.


    Image 18 shows the connection of the last two points.
    You still ignore the questions.
    How did you chose the points? What method or plan? You simply tell people to start somewhere and draw a geometric construct. No reason why. You draw a line to a + using the lines on another symbol, BUT you totally ignore the lines on the + itself - so you follow 'lines' in some cases and ignore them in others. Why? Why draw a line from the top left symbol? Why not draw a circle?
    Why then also ignore the two other lines that can be projected from the same symbol?

    Even if you take you line as 'right' - who decides the points? The symbol (top left) has enough 'scope' for the projected line to either hit or miss the + sign - and who says where on the + sign it should connect? The middle? The top of the upper arm? The tip of the left most arm....the questions are endless.

  4. #404
    hayward's Avatar
    hayward is offline Good Twelever Aquamarine hayward is an unknown quantity at this point
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    934

    Default

    I think I have shown enough to establish the reasoning behind the work I've shown.

    As far as I see it, from my point of view, there is no longer a point of continued discussion about it. All of the information is laid bare, all of the references to where the "key" was mentioned have been introduced. Based on these points, anyone can decide for themselves.

  5. #405
    jlockest is offline Expert Twelever Sapphire jlockest is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hayward View Post
    I think I have shown enough to establish the reasoning behind the work I've shown.

    As far as I see it, from my point of view, there is no longer a point of continued discussion about it. All of the information is laid bare, all of the references to where the "key" was mentioned have been introduced. Based on these points, anyone can decide for themselves.
    Everyone who draws 'sacred geometry' has a reason for what they draw. So when people draw different hexagrams (or other shapes) on the same paintings/artefacts, they also justify them - and then make a show over the points they touch on the underlying artwork as being in some way 'special'.

    There's no point in discussing it, as you have refused to answer why/how the points that you touch were selected.
    You want to see other people's constructions as 'wrong' - and yours as 'right', but you now even admit that your construct may be wrong (in the case of the self portrait by Poussin) - BUT it can't be 'wrong' can it, as you've justified the points it touches....bit of a catch 22 if the points aren't arbitrary - as the 'true' 45 degree tilted hexagram will touch other points.
    So even though you have no plan or method in the selection of the 'significant' points, you still argue that the 'significant' points aren't arbitrary.
    Even worse, you seem to take someone else's work that stresses the significance of a 45 degree tilt in the construction of the hexagram, and then change that tilt to some arbitrary angle - but still persist in saying your constructions are 'right'.

  6. #406
    hayward's Avatar
    hayward is offline Good Twelever Aquamarine hayward is an unknown quantity at this point
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    934

    Default






    The teacher of Thibault knew the measure of man.

    A Point Within a Circle from which a Mason Cannot Err.


  7. #407
    hayward's Avatar
    hayward is offline Good Twelever Aquamarine hayward is an unknown quantity at this point
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    934

    Default

    The four elements


  8. #408
    hayward's Avatar
    hayward is offline Good Twelever Aquamarine hayward is an unknown quantity at this point
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    934

    Default


  9. #409
    hayward's Avatar
    hayward is offline Good Twelever Aquamarine hayward is an unknown quantity at this point
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    934

    Default

    Via Giordano Bruno's "De triplici minimo et mensura"








  10. #410
    pws111's Avatar
    pws111 is offline Master Twelever Ruby pws111 is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    2,114

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hayward View Post
    *addendum*

    In the Dagobert demonstration above:

    Image 7 was omitted:


    -and-

    Image 17 was omitted:
    Beautiful work Hayward. Your explanation and logic is very clear.

    Did you know the same figure can be constructed on the Declaration of Independence? I found it years ago on a very large blow up of the Declaration I had made and laminated so I could use a grease pencil to play around with constructions. I have not documented the it yet though. It is amazing how this same figure, at the same angle, can be found in so many places.

    "Quidquid Latine Dictum Sit Altum Videtur
    "

    To see what is written, look not through shaded eyes.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 41 of 42 FirstFirst ... 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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