Haiku
Jedi Master
First, this is a completely speculative evaluation of this crop circle. Any and all information presented here could be inaccurate. If there are others that have done any work here and can pass their knowledge along, it would be most appreciated.
The preface: An individual in 6th density sends a message to us, drawn in a field as folded over or bent crop blades. The type of crop that is used may have some clue to an origin of the maker(s) and their alignment, STO vs STS. The C’s have given us a macro explanation of this CC as ‘Us’ and ‘Human Race’. (This is from The Cassiopaean Experiment - Crop Circles web page.)
I would expect a macro-level message to be sent to us. By this I mean, a message of high-level knowledge. Something that souls at this level would state to others lower than themselves.
If you were someone at this level and you were wanting a simplistic image of what the human race shows on this planet, in this reality, was to others so they could quickly view the image and know what you were stating in a highly efficient manner. Lets, think of it another way. You, in 3D, are viewing an ant hill, lower density entities, and all of the ant souls in it. And you wanted a diagram to represent all of the casts in this ant hill. I would be looking at quantifying the amount of each cast in a chart, maybe a pie-chart showing percentages of each cast.
What we are possibly looking at here is a higher density pie-chart in this CC. A simple and complete overview of what the souls are here in this reality. Like we would easily know that our pie-chart is a pie-chart, they would immediately know that this is their version of one. There would be characteristics of this being a pie-chart rather than a view of a planet, to say. A higher density soul would instantly visualize and comprehend a CC of this type, instantly.
You would want to know who is in this human-race groupings, it is obviously segregated for a purpose. Who is in what alignment and what stage they are in, what density exists here at a macro level.
What density is presented in this CC. Now this is pure speculation, but I believe that a CC that has a large centre with no halo rings is a 3rd density representation. The next CC in this listing is a planet that has a halo which I believe is representing a 4th density planet. 2-halo’s would be a 5th density planet. I have not been looking deeply for this, but a 3-halo planet would be a 6th density in this speculation. That means we may be looking at a 3rd density representation here, using this logic.
Who is here is a good question? In the representation there is the main centre with four smaller centre’s around the main centre, symmetrically separated and directly connected to the main centre. I will address the lines later in this CC, I have a speculative idea on them also. These separated centre’s are representing four distinct groups. As I continue my speculation, these centre’s have a connection to STO vs STS alignment. Since there are four of them, I would propose an equal number centre’s to each side with two for the STO alignment and two for the STS alignment with the main centre being a mix of those souls that are going nowhere in this reality.
These five centre’s would be the population of souls in this representation as a whole. Let us look at the representation.
This is the diagram mounted up in my CAD program. I made a large circle and sized and aligned it to the greater centre. The diagram is rough and hand sketched. I could only get one line to align, as shown. I am going to assume that it was intended to be symmetrical on these four lines for the remainder of this lesson.
I modeled the centre’s to get a geometric percentage in each one. Centre 7 on the diagram looked to me to be damaged and I have modeled it to curvature found in the obtuse shape.
Here are the percentages on this examination.
Table A shows totals of the inner centre’s and their percentage to the whole. Table B, center 6, is a sub-centre of centre 2 and shows a typical percentage pertaining to it. And the same for table C and center 7.
As I continue, table A, centre 2 is only a quarter of a percent of the whole and the sub-centre is posing only a fifth of that. If I take a total population of 8,000,000,000 and do the math on it, I get about 4.4 million souls in that smaller group in centre 6. For chart 3, I get about 1.65 million souls in center 7 (that is about 38% of centre 6).
Now my numbers may be off by a percentage but I expect that this examination may dissolve other secrets.
Looking at the 5 centre’s in table A. Centre 1 is the main population in this reality. As that is mostly 50/50 split STS and STO alignments, I expect that this percentage is fairly accurate. They are the ones that are not going forward or back, just stuck in this limbo where you are pressed with hard life lessons. And as I stated earlier, the 4 outer centre’s may be split 2 for STO and 2 for STS. Centre 6 is directly connected to centre 2, so I figure that it is of the same alignment. The same with centre 7 and centre 3. Centre’s 4 & 5 are interesting as they do not have a sub-centre attached. They are of a similar size and very much could be the exact same in size, so whatever they are they look to be balanced, like balancing forces to the greater centre. It is like centre’s 4 & 5 are incoming/control connected to the greater center while centre’s 2 & 3 are going in an opposing flow outward from the greater center from their respective attached centre’s outboard of them. I cannot seem to identify which of the centre’s belong to which alignment from what we covered so far. There has to be more …
I have to turn to the lines in this representation. What is the line? So far, I can identify it as a link, an association, a connection, a relation, a coupling or a linkage to another object. This would not define a direction of flow to or from the greater centre. But their usage should. Looking at centre’s 4 & 5 their link is bi-directional. And I suspect that this is similar on any two centre’s that are attached by a single line with no other lines. Part of this is how the line is attached to the centre. A line that is perpendicular to the surface has a different significance than that a line the does not. Centre’s 4 & 5 are connected to the greater centre by perpendicular lines which denotes a bidirectional link, possibly a control link, but not a link that any could use.
Now the line used to connect centre’s 6 & 7 is different. It has a connection that is angled toward a specific direction. We will look at centre’s 2 & 6 connection. The outer connection starts at the quadrant defined by the axis of the link between the greater centre to centre 2. It then goes at an specific angle from the quadrant, denoting a different link in use here. I suspect that this is a uni-directional link and this one is going outward. The direction of pointing may be an identification of alignment, I suspect. But I still do not know which one is which.
There is another line on the lower side and this one is troubling me. It is perpendicular from the surface but at an angle to the axis defined before. And it has no connection as that might conclude that the opposing connection is to nothing or something less than a centre. I will continue on this one later.
The line length is the next topic. Why have a longer line linking the centre’s together, must have a significance. The links to centre’s 4 & 5 look to be similar in length. This promotes a balanced situation, STO vs STS. Different lengths could mean an unbalanced situation and that may still be true here as they do look slightly different in length from each other. But that again may be the level of detail in the diagram. Knowing which side is which alignment would be nice but as long as they are balanced this does not really mater.
The links to centre’s 2 & 3 have a definable and visible difference. This was on purpose to clearly identify some pretense. Having a longer link could mean a longer path to follow. And we all know that the longer path is fraught with the possibility of more issues or difficulties in departing a density. A longer path is harder to follow. If we look at the STO vs STS requirements I find the more difficult life is more directed to the STS alignment and their need to be more STS to enter. This makes sense as the shorter path may represent the easier path, an STO alignment.
But we have one other feature that is the line attached to the longer linked centre. It is the line that ends abruptly. To me this represents a failed link. That is if you were to fail an alignment, it would be more likely be an STS alignment. What happens if you fail an STS alignment? I would say the punishment is to be pushed back, maybe as far as the primordial soup and start again. I am calling this one the ‘garbage chute’.
I do not see a need for a garbage chute in a STO alignment. If you fail you just keep working at it until you proceed forward.
Using the longer link and this garbage chute, I am defining this as the STS path and the shorter link as the STO path.
Using the angled line to define alignment is possible and I will use it to associate the control alignment. This means that centre’s 3, 4 & 7 are all of the STS alignment and Centre’s 2, 5 & 6 area all STO alignment. Centre’s 2 & 3 are working collections of souls that have a chance to go forward and centre’s 6 & 7 are the actual souls that are advancing.
And someone in a higher density just looks at this diagram and has an instant understanding of who and what is here in this reality, we - the human race. We – the human race are still working on the understanding of all this.
I would like to thank those that created and stored this diagram because if you didn’t, we would not be here trying to decipher it. Great thanks …
The real use will be to backward engineer this into other messages, try to decipher them in the same manor. Haiku …
The preface: An individual in 6th density sends a message to us, drawn in a field as folded over or bent crop blades. The type of crop that is used may have some clue to an origin of the maker(s) and their alignment, STO vs STS. The C’s have given us a macro explanation of this CC as ‘Us’ and ‘Human Race’. (This is from The Cassiopaean Experiment - Crop Circles web page.)
I would expect a macro-level message to be sent to us. By this I mean, a message of high-level knowledge. Something that souls at this level would state to others lower than themselves.
If you were someone at this level and you were wanting a simplistic image of what the human race shows on this planet, in this reality, was to others so they could quickly view the image and know what you were stating in a highly efficient manner. Lets, think of it another way. You, in 3D, are viewing an ant hill, lower density entities, and all of the ant souls in it. And you wanted a diagram to represent all of the casts in this ant hill. I would be looking at quantifying the amount of each cast in a chart, maybe a pie-chart showing percentages of each cast.
What we are possibly looking at here is a higher density pie-chart in this CC. A simple and complete overview of what the souls are here in this reality. Like we would easily know that our pie-chart is a pie-chart, they would immediately know that this is their version of one. There would be characteristics of this being a pie-chart rather than a view of a planet, to say. A higher density soul would instantly visualize and comprehend a CC of this type, instantly.
You would want to know who is in this human-race groupings, it is obviously segregated for a purpose. Who is in what alignment and what stage they are in, what density exists here at a macro level.
What density is presented in this CC. Now this is pure speculation, but I believe that a CC that has a large centre with no halo rings is a 3rd density representation. The next CC in this listing is a planet that has a halo which I believe is representing a 4th density planet. 2-halo’s would be a 5th density planet. I have not been looking deeply for this, but a 3-halo planet would be a 6th density in this speculation. That means we may be looking at a 3rd density representation here, using this logic.
Who is here is a good question? In the representation there is the main centre with four smaller centre’s around the main centre, symmetrically separated and directly connected to the main centre. I will address the lines later in this CC, I have a speculative idea on them also. These separated centre’s are representing four distinct groups. As I continue my speculation, these centre’s have a connection to STO vs STS alignment. Since there are four of them, I would propose an equal number centre’s to each side with two for the STO alignment and two for the STS alignment with the main centre being a mix of those souls that are going nowhere in this reality.
These five centre’s would be the population of souls in this representation as a whole. Let us look at the representation.
This is the diagram mounted up in my CAD program. I made a large circle and sized and aligned it to the greater centre. The diagram is rough and hand sketched. I could only get one line to align, as shown. I am going to assume that it was intended to be symmetrical on these four lines for the remainder of this lesson.
I modeled the centre’s to get a geometric percentage in each one. Centre 7 on the diagram looked to me to be damaged and I have modeled it to curvature found in the obtuse shape.
Here are the percentages on this examination.
A | CU.IN. | percentage | B | CU.IN. | percentage | C | CU.IN. | percentage | ||
1 | 2.112618 | 97.182238 | | 1 | | | | 1 | | |
2 | 0.005367 | 0.246888 | | 2 | 0.005367 | 100.000000 | | 2 | | |
3 | 0.03848 | 1.770126 | | 3 | | | | 3 | 0.03848 | 100.000000 |
4 | 0.008302 | 0.381891 | | 4 | | | | 4 | | |
5 | 0.009105 | 0.418858 | | 5 | | | | 5 | | |
| 2.173872 | 6 | 0.001194 | 22.252158 | 6 | |||||
| | 7 | 7 | 0.000449 | 1.167196 | |||||
| | 0.005367 | 0.03848 |
Table A shows totals of the inner centre’s and their percentage to the whole. Table B, center 6, is a sub-centre of centre 2 and shows a typical percentage pertaining to it. And the same for table C and center 7.
As I continue, table A, centre 2 is only a quarter of a percent of the whole and the sub-centre is posing only a fifth of that. If I take a total population of 8,000,000,000 and do the math on it, I get about 4.4 million souls in that smaller group in centre 6. For chart 3, I get about 1.65 million souls in center 7 (that is about 38% of centre 6).
Now my numbers may be off by a percentage but I expect that this examination may dissolve other secrets.
Looking at the 5 centre’s in table A. Centre 1 is the main population in this reality. As that is mostly 50/50 split STS and STO alignments, I expect that this percentage is fairly accurate. They are the ones that are not going forward or back, just stuck in this limbo where you are pressed with hard life lessons. And as I stated earlier, the 4 outer centre’s may be split 2 for STO and 2 for STS. Centre 6 is directly connected to centre 2, so I figure that it is of the same alignment. The same with centre 7 and centre 3. Centre’s 4 & 5 are interesting as they do not have a sub-centre attached. They are of a similar size and very much could be the exact same in size, so whatever they are they look to be balanced, like balancing forces to the greater centre. It is like centre’s 4 & 5 are incoming/control connected to the greater center while centre’s 2 & 3 are going in an opposing flow outward from the greater center from their respective attached centre’s outboard of them. I cannot seem to identify which of the centre’s belong to which alignment from what we covered so far. There has to be more …
I have to turn to the lines in this representation. What is the line? So far, I can identify it as a link, an association, a connection, a relation, a coupling or a linkage to another object. This would not define a direction of flow to or from the greater centre. But their usage should. Looking at centre’s 4 & 5 their link is bi-directional. And I suspect that this is similar on any two centre’s that are attached by a single line with no other lines. Part of this is how the line is attached to the centre. A line that is perpendicular to the surface has a different significance than that a line the does not. Centre’s 4 & 5 are connected to the greater centre by perpendicular lines which denotes a bidirectional link, possibly a control link, but not a link that any could use.
Now the line used to connect centre’s 6 & 7 is different. It has a connection that is angled toward a specific direction. We will look at centre’s 2 & 6 connection. The outer connection starts at the quadrant defined by the axis of the link between the greater centre to centre 2. It then goes at an specific angle from the quadrant, denoting a different link in use here. I suspect that this is a uni-directional link and this one is going outward. The direction of pointing may be an identification of alignment, I suspect. But I still do not know which one is which.
There is another line on the lower side and this one is troubling me. It is perpendicular from the surface but at an angle to the axis defined before. And it has no connection as that might conclude that the opposing connection is to nothing or something less than a centre. I will continue on this one later.
The line length is the next topic. Why have a longer line linking the centre’s together, must have a significance. The links to centre’s 4 & 5 look to be similar in length. This promotes a balanced situation, STO vs STS. Different lengths could mean an unbalanced situation and that may still be true here as they do look slightly different in length from each other. But that again may be the level of detail in the diagram. Knowing which side is which alignment would be nice but as long as they are balanced this does not really mater.
The links to centre’s 2 & 3 have a definable and visible difference. This was on purpose to clearly identify some pretense. Having a longer link could mean a longer path to follow. And we all know that the longer path is fraught with the possibility of more issues or difficulties in departing a density. A longer path is harder to follow. If we look at the STO vs STS requirements I find the more difficult life is more directed to the STS alignment and their need to be more STS to enter. This makes sense as the shorter path may represent the easier path, an STO alignment.
But we have one other feature that is the line attached to the longer linked centre. It is the line that ends abruptly. To me this represents a failed link. That is if you were to fail an alignment, it would be more likely be an STS alignment. What happens if you fail an STS alignment? I would say the punishment is to be pushed back, maybe as far as the primordial soup and start again. I am calling this one the ‘garbage chute’.
I do not see a need for a garbage chute in a STO alignment. If you fail you just keep working at it until you proceed forward.
Using the longer link and this garbage chute, I am defining this as the STS path and the shorter link as the STO path.
Using the angled line to define alignment is possible and I will use it to associate the control alignment. This means that centre’s 3, 4 & 7 are all of the STS alignment and Centre’s 2, 5 & 6 area all STO alignment. Centre’s 2 & 3 are working collections of souls that have a chance to go forward and centre’s 6 & 7 are the actual souls that are advancing.
And someone in a higher density just looks at this diagram and has an instant understanding of who and what is here in this reality, we - the human race. We – the human race are still working on the understanding of all this.
I would like to thank those that created and stored this diagram because if you didn’t, we would not be here trying to decipher it. Great thanks …
The real use will be to backward engineer this into other messages, try to decipher them in the same manor. Haiku …