[...]
Q: There could be many explanations. Now, we have a correspondent who wrote and asked a question. He said that he noticed there was promotion of Hoagland's idea about the 19.5 degree tetrahedral configuration at one point, and then another idea regarding the parallelogram business involving an 18 degree mark in another section. So, what is the difference between the 19.5 degree comments of Hoagland, and the 18 degree point of interest that you brought up? Are we talking about two different things here?
A: Well, if you do the math, you see that 18 degrees fits nicely with ninety. Maybe 19.5 is due to crustal slippages in some "land mark" event?!
Q: (A) But, in geometry, this 19.5 degrees is what you get when you try to put a tetrahedron into a sphere. That's how Hoagland got it, not because of observation.
A: Okay, that is good, too.
Q: How come you didn't know that?
A: We pointed it out in the first place.
Q: Is that why you put "landmark" in quotes? That 19.5 is where it touches. It is the mark of the point of contact. Is that it?
A: Clues, my dear, clues, and the eternal need not to abridge free will.
Q: But, if these tetrahedrons fit in a sphere, and they touch the sphere at 19.5 degrees, how do they relate to this effect that you have said manifests at 18 degrees?
A: Does 1.5 fit into 90? Does 90 fit into 180? Does 180 fit into 360? Ask yourself, "what does it mean?"
Q: We don't know. (A) The point is that the angle Hoagland is talking about is not 19.5, it is an approximation of point something, something, something.... So, if it is just 19.5, that's the difference between 19.5 and 18 - that is 1.5, which, in this case, is not exactly 1.5, it's one point something which does not fit into anything that we know.
A: Circumference.
Q: (A) Yes. 360 degrees. Is the circumference important?
A: It is important.
Q: (A) So, we can compute these two circumferences, and these will differ by some number, and this number will fit again into one of these circumferences, and the point is that it sould fit so that there is an integer number...
A: Yes.
Q: (A) But, there will then be many more angles. There will be not only 18 and 19.5...
A: Yes. All Hoagland has done is highlight a point at which magnetic lines converge using the tetrahedron model.
Q: If they converge at that point...
A: But the question is how does the tetrahedron model relate to trans-dimensional space?
Q: How does the tetrahedron model relate to trans-dimensional space?
A: A key which unlocks the door.
[...]
Q: Back to the tetrahedron. How is it a key to trans-dimensional space? Does one activate it in some way? Do you place machinery of some sort at these points?
A: No. Magnetism.
Q: Are you supposed to generate magnetism, or is it natural magnetism?
A: Natural.
Q: Are you supposed to do anything to it or with it?
A: Supposed???
Q: Is it useful to do something with it?
A: Can be.
Q: In what sense?
A: Travelling between dimensions.
Q: Is anybody at the present time utilizing it in this way?
A: Not terran STS 3rd density.
Q: That implies that 4th density STS IS doing this. Could one construct a scale model of a tetrahedron in a sphere, magnetize it, and open portals?
A: Yes.
Q: Would it require a lot of electrical current?
A: Yes.
Q: Is there anyway to travel between dimensions, in space time, or whatever, utilizing very little power, as such?
A: Off the point we told you before that all spheres of cosmic nature are windows.
Q: Going in a slightly different direction. I have been thinking about the nature of our reality, and I have been thinking that underneath it, or at the base of it, there is a 4th density reality similar to the Kaluza-Klein theory. Am I correct so far? Am I going somewhere here?
A: Pursue.
Q: Okay. And, beneath this 4th density reality, there is an etheric reality; and the etheric reality consists of 5th density. Okay? Beneath the 5th density reality, there is the 6th density reality which I am trying to describe in terms of geometry. That geometry is the underlying, essential thing about ideas, natures or aspects of concepts that come into being in our material world; that geometry is the essential nature of things. Am I getting there? But, beyond this geometry, from what does the geometry emanate? I know you are going to say something like "The One," or "Seventh Density," but I would really like to have a concept because I can't get beyond this. Even if it is inadequate, from what does geometry, which expresses as gravity, emerge?
A: Not in sync.
Q: What will get me "in synch?"
A: No "beneaths."
Q: Okay. Since there are no "beneaths," what term would be a suitable replacement?
A: Around.
Q: What is around this geometry?
A: For you to pursue.
Q: Can you give me a hint here?
A: We just did.
Q: Would it be safe to say that it is "nested?"
A: No, no, no. You still think in terms of a limited domain. When one goes out into space there is no above, below, up, down, left, right, beneath, etc. There is only around. In a spherical sense.
Q: Every point is the center?
A: Closer.
Q: Back to the tetrahedron, these points where this tetrahedron touches this sphere, and these are lines of magnetic convergence; how do these lines of magnetic convergence appear on this sphere; do they radiate out from the convergence points like spider webs? Or do they converge from the center to the outside of the sphere? Are they laid on the sphere like the grid of longitude and latitude?
A: Closer to latter.
Q: So, when you say they are lines of convergence, does that mean that a latitude line and longitude line, so to speak, converge at those points?
A: Think multi-dimensionally. No flat paper please.
[...]
, I'm fairly sure they exist though. I'll have to go through and find them all later.