Language. Subliminal Influence. Caution: This may alter the way you think.

Originally posted by TheBorg

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
Are you asking me what your truth is, because you have never known it?

No, I'm asking you what your truth is, so that I might understand your angle a bit better, that's all. And just so we're clear, I'm wanting to know what you're definition of pro-death is.

TheBorg

At the core of my consciousness i found my truth. And my truth is i want people to consider going to the core of thier consciousness. Why? sorry, the answer to that question is the truth we seek. And the truth of that is that sometimes the truth must be experienced, or else one has no basis for comparison throughout all your experiences, and no tools to judge that truth accordingly.

As for my definition of "pro death". there is no death, therefore i can not offer you a definition. but, pro means "for", or in favor of. this is not my definition, but rather the definition of the language i was born into. my opinion does not decipher truth, opinions only cloud the truth. of course, this may only be my opinion, so take it for what it's worth. disregard it if you wish.

Do these words rhyme:

Pawn
Wun ?

Why don't these words ryme:

PONDER
WONDER

why doesn't the "ONDER" sound the same in each?

Cain = Inca
Abel = Bela

I Abel = Beila
Cain Nod = Do Incan

Male [mirror] Elam
LAM [mirror] Mal ('bad' in spanish')

How about

Wander
Pander

Why don't they sound the same in their 'ander'?

thanks for sharing truth NJE777!

MY HOLY is the same as: MI HOLE

M I H O L E [mirror] E L O H I M !!!!!!!!!!!!!

holy of holies?

sigh (si)
lie (li)
con (con)

sigh, lie, con

silicon [mirror] nocilis

knows i lies

no kill lies

knock i'll eyes

silucon [mirror] n o c u l i s

know cool lies

[edit on 11-12-2006 by Esoteric Teacher]

could the concept i am trying to convey have a subconscious affect that influences an entire ethnicity? Or rather, could a word subconsciously effect how others' opinions are influenced concerning other people? In your view, is this plausible or even possible?

RAGE IN

RAGE

take away the "E" that makes no sound in the word whatsoever .....

RAG IN

R A G I N [mirror] N I G A R

just a thought.



[edit on 12-12-2006 by Esoteric Teacher]

Okay, as promised, here I am in the more appropriate thread for this particular discussion.

First and foremost, regarding the "wagering your life if you're wrong" thing...

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher

Originally posted by thelibra

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
either way, i will glady wager and willingly forfiet my life if there is no truth in what it is i am trying to share.

Oh, no, man, you aren't laying that kind of baggage on me.

You go with what you need to believe to get you to sleep at night, but when you wake up in the morning, don't be afraid to confront everything you believe in and be prepared to throw it all away if it crumbles in the face of reason.

If I have a willingness to wager my life that there is truth in it, doesn't that show some level of resolve with regards to nat allowing myself to be defined by the fears of others? I am not afraid to confront everything i believe in. But then again, everything i believe in is rooted in what i have learned through the observations of others.

No, like I said. I'm not accepting that kind of a wager because it encourages exactly the opposite of what I'm all about. I don't want anyone to ever be that convinced of a belief. Killing, even onesself, over the alleged "truth" of a belief system, is not logical, rational, or even sane thought. That's not to say there aren't some jim-dandy reasons to kill out there, but killing over something like whether or not you were wrong is just downright absurd and displays such a heinous lack of enlightenment I'm surprised you can use the self-appellate "teacher" without grimacing. I have nothing to learn from any teacher who would so witlessly throw away the life they were given, because they were so opposed to the idea that they could be wrong.


Now... on to your actual subject matter.

ET, I think you've found a nifty trick, and a rather contrived one at that. To be perfectly honest, it's the sort of thing stoners come up with while sitting around talking, and then they chuckle about it for a while and maybe remember it as a cool party trick later.

What you have actually unwittingly stumbled upon is the same sort of mathmatical anomoly that makes "The Bible Code" convincing to anyone who hasn't really looked into it. There's only 26 letters to our alphabet. Of those, here's the frequency that they are used in the English language.

from Ask Oxford.com

E 11.1607% 56.88 M 3.0129% 15.36
A 8.4966% 43.31 - H 3.0034% 15.31
R 7.5809% 38.64 - G 2.4705% 12.59
I 7.5448% 38.45 - B 2.0720% 10.56
O 7.1635% 36.51 - F 1.8121% 9.24
T 6.9509% 35.43 - Y 1.7779% 9.06
N 6.6544% 33.92 - W 1.2899% 6.57
S 5.7351% 29.23 - K 1.1016% 5.61
L 5.4893% 27.98 - V 1.0074% 5.13
C 4.5388% 23.13 - X 0.2902% 1.48
U 3.6308% 18.51 - Z 0.2722% 1.39
D 3.3844% 17.25 - J 0.1965% 1.00
P 3.1671% 16.14 - Q 0.1962% (1)

The third column represents proportions, taking the least common letter (q) as equal to 1. The letter E is over 56 times more common than Q in forming individual English words.

So, the vast majority of the English Language is just a rearrangement of the same letters, over and over. There's a reason that word find and anagram puzzles are so popular; it's because it's real easy to create words out of random assortments of letters.

If one is even marginally intelligent, you can rearrange words into anagrams. Especially if you get to use a third word as a phonetic intermediary and allow for grave mispellings, which frankly, is the intellectual equivolent of putting training wheels on a bicycle when working with cyphers. Put with it the ability to completely ignore most any other word in a sentence that DOESN'T give the desire result, and your formula has the credibility of a tricycle with little pink tassels.

I'm sorry, ET, but this trick isn't even on the same mathematically nifty scale as the "Rule of 9" (which is, anything you multiply by 9, can have it's digits added up to 9). It's sorta two or three steps below it, actually, because you don't even have to fudge the numbers to prove the rule of 9. I hate to be the one to break it to you, man, but seeing you do this for the last several months has been like watching a child grab the same rubber ducky over and over and realizing that it squeaks and then running up to show that it squeaks. Yeah, it squeaks. The laws of math are almost entirely in favor of it squeaking, and sure enough, it squeaked. Neat. It's time to move on to deeper things, man.

Originally posted by thelibra
Okay, as promised, here I am in the more appropriate thread for this particular discussion.

thank you.

First and foremost, regarding the "wagering your life if you're wrong" thing...

( shortened quote, please review thelibra's last post )

No, like I said. I'm not accepting that kind of a wager because it encourages exactly the opposite of what I'm all about. I don't want anyone to ever be that convinced of a belief. Killing, even onesself, over the alleged "truth" of a belief system, is not logical, rational, or even sane thought. That's not to say there aren't some jim-dandy reasons to kill out there, but killing over something like whether or not you were wrong is just downright absurd and displays such a heinous lack of enlightenment I'm surprised you can use the self-appellate "teacher" without grimacing. I have nothing to learn from any teacher who would so witlessly throw away the life they were given, because they were so opposed to the idea that they could be wrong.

I'm not sure what you think you read, but no where did i say i would kill anyone else, nor did i say anywhere that i would kill myself. As for:
"witlessly throwing away the life i was given", perhaps you should chat with the one who gave me that life before you judge my opposition, for it is not my opposition to the one who gave me that life that i am in opposition to.




Now... on to your actual subject matter.

ET, I think you've found a nifty trick, and a rather contrived one at that. To be perfectly honest, it's the sort of thing stoners come up with while sitting around talking, and then they chuckle about it for a while and maybe remember it as a cool party trick later.

I fail to see how the above statement offers any substance to discredit or address the cause of the coincidences laid out in this thread. It appears to be more of a belittling character assasination attempt. Perhaps a defense mechanism to protect your overvalued "opinion". Are you consciously aware of what formulates your opinion?

There's only 26 letters to our alphabet. Of those, here's the frequency that they are used in the English language.

I thank you for the information.

If one is even marginally intelligent, you can rearrange words into anagrams.

Anagrams? this is not what i have done.

Especially if you get to use a third word as a phonetic intermediary and allow for grave mispellings, which frankly, is the intellectual equivolent of putting training wheels on a bicycle when working with cyphers. Put with it the ability to completely ignore most any other word in a sentence that DOESN'T give the desire result, and your formula has the credibility of a tricycle with little pink tassels.

My Formula? The formula that you say is mine was adopted by me from a book that existed thousands of years before i was born. I've stated this numerous times already in this thread. When one applies the rules of the bible to the words in the bible, truth is revealed. When you apply the rules of the bible to any words in any language, truth is revealed. Your actions and your behaviors are influenced greatly by how your mind integrates language, but many are not consciously willing to accept who they are, how their opinions are formed, nor even how their own subconscious mind works. And somehow it is your contention that it is somehow my shortcoming for trying to bring this to your attention. Perhaps there is a subconscious mechanism that prevents your from knowing your own thoughts, but in order to counter this arguement it seems that a healthy pre-requisite would be to know your own thoughts.

I fail to see how the above statement offers any substance to discredit or address the cause of the coincidences laid out in this thread. It appears to be more of a belittling character assasination attempt. Perhaps a defense mechanism to protect your overvalued "opinion". Are you consciously aware of what formulates your opinion?

I'm sorry, ET, but this trick isn't even on the same mathematically nifty scale as the "Rule of 9" (which is, anything you multiply by 9, can have it's digits added up to 9). It's sorta two or three steps below it, actually, because you don't even have to fudge the numbers to prove the rule of 9. I hate to be the one to break it to you, man, but seeing you do this for the last several months has been like watching a child grab the same rubber ducky over and over and realizing that it squeaks and then running up to show that it squeaks. Yeah, it squeaks. The laws of math are almost entirely in favor of it squeaking, and sure enough, it squeaked. Neat. It's time to move on to deeper things, man.

I'm not attempting to prove that this is of substance. My only intentions with this thread is to introduce the possibility that the ducky does make a neat noise. But perhaps you are right as well. Perhaps communications has no bearing on peoples actions or behaviors?

It's time to move on to deeper things, man.

Why? It when it possibly makes it so simple to accuratley predict human behavior, as well as future events by applying the rules of the bible to the words and languages of mankind. What deeper things are there than knowing the truth, past, present, and future?

Incidently, here is a 2,000 year old text from outside the bible. An apocrypha text that the early christians chose to leave out of the bible due to it's content. It is an exerpt from the Acts of Peter, just prior/during his crucifixion, talking about sacred knowledge concerning the kingdom of heaven (the word (s)):

XXXVIII. ..... .. . Concerning which the Lord saith in a mystery: Unless ye make the things of the right hand as those of the left, and those of the left as those of the right, and those that are above as those below, and those that are behind as those that are before, ye shall not have knowedge of the kingdom.

Source/Link:
www.earlychristianwritings.com...

Again:
I'm not attempting to present overwhelming supportive evidence that peoples actions and behaviors, and intentions, are influenced by the way the larger part of their minds (the part they are not aware of) are integrating language. Perhaps, just perhaps, i'm trying to get you to accept the possibility of it. Because perhaps some day you will be presented with overwhelming uncontravertable evidence to the contrary of what your opinion tells you.

Are you consciously aware of what formulates your opinion?

Thank you for that link, beloved -

I've been MEANING to get to reading it...so many mysteries, you know how it goes...

I already know there is more than enough documentation over the last 3,000 years to support my persistance, while it would seem that it is only people's opinions, and no external substantiation, that prevents people from discounting it as possible.

Own it animal eye

*phonetically (like the mind of a child, simple)

own = own
it = it
animal = animul
eye = i

own it animal eye = own it animul i

ownitanimuli

O W N I T A N I M U L I [mirror] I L U M I N A T I N W O

ILUMINATINWO

ILLUMINATI NWO

Illuminati's N.W.O.

seed dna eth bride

perhaps that "h" would be silent, since it is on the other side of the "t".

seed et dna bride

seed eth dna bride

remove the silent "e", since it makes no sound anyways ....

seed eth dna brid

seed eth dna brid [mirror] bird and the bees

Has anyone else ever taught you about the "bird and the bees"?

bird and the bees [mirror] see death dna bride or seed et dna bride,

or: see death seed et ache (h) dna bride.

hmm.

You have voted Esoteric Teacher for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.


Very nice post! enjoyed reading it .

AlBeMeT

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
I'm not sure what you think you read, but no where did i say i would kill anyone else, nor did i say anywhere that i would kill myself.

You don't recall saying this?

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
either way, i will glady wager and willingly forfiet my life if there is no truth in what it is i am trying to share.

Do you remember now? I mean, jeez, I even had it quote-nested conveniently in the previous post for reference sake.

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
As for: "witlessly throwing away the life i was given", perhaps you should chat with the one who gave me that life before you judge my opposition, for it is not my opposition to the one who gave me that life that i am in opposition to.

I'm not talking about your parents, which I'm assuming is what you're implying, or your god, I was referring to your wanting to "forfeit your life" if there was no truth in what you were trying to share. That would be a witless throwing away of your life.

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher

ET, I think you've found a nifty trick, and a rather contrived one at that. To be perfectly honest, it's the sort of thing stoners come up with while sitting around talking, and then they chuckle about it for a while and maybe remember it as a cool party trick later.

I fail to see how the above statement offers any substance to discredit or address the cause of the coincidences laid out in this thread.

Actually, I'm pretty sure I laid out the math for you in the next few words, with handy little table that tells the frequency of the letters appearing and their relative appearance as compared to other letters. If that is a failure to produce substance, then perhaps you should explain what you consider substance.

Would you prefer instead I use your little word games to spell it out? Would that have more credibility?

How about this:

FULL OF IT
If you reverse it, you get TIFOLLUF
TIF O LLUF
or said phonetically, and conveniently mispelled:
Tiff of Love

So when I'm saying you're full of it, I'm actually trying, out of love, to argue a point to get you off these word games so you can be taken seriously. There's no magic to it. There's no mystery. Look, I'll do it again...

MATHEMATICAL COINCIDENCE

Ma Them Atic Al

Ma, like a child says Mother, Them, Atic or Attic, All...

Mother them all in the attic? It's the plot of Mummy Dearest!

Coin Cid Dence

Coin Seed Dense?

A penny is a coin, and saving it is a seed that will make it dense.

In other words, it is a mathematical coincidence that "A Penny Saved Is a Penny Earned, Mummy Dearest".

Hmmm... the sort of obvious words that would be spoken by a child.

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
It appears to be more of a belittling character assasination attempt. Perhaps a defense mechanism to protect your overvalued "opinion". Are you consciously aware of what formulates your opinion?

Okay first, it's not a character assassination attempt. If anything, I'm trying to salvage your character from your own destruction of it, and rapidly beginning to wish I'd just kept my mouth shut, because it's like kicking a puppy. You're not a bad person, and you're not a stupid person. I've read some extremely thought-provoking and insightful posts from you that I walked away from feeling better off for reading. Your word-game posts are not among those, however.

Second, yes, I'm extremely aware of what formulates my opinion. The systematic reviewing and destruction and rebuilding of everything I believe, on a daily basis. The weak ideas crumble under the weight of logic, reason, or compassion, and the strong ones withstand the attacks I put upon them. I am not married to any belief system or any delusion that I've found a higher truth worth dying for, except, possibly, the love of my wife, which I still hold far from infallible.

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
Anagrams? this is not what i have done.

Ummm... yeah. It is. When you rearrange letters in words to get different words, that's called an anagram. Except it doesn't even qualify as a true anagram, because you allow for mispellings and phonetic equivolents.

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
My Formula? The formula that you say is mine was adopted by me from a book that existed thousands of years before i was born. I've stated this numerous times already in this thread. When one applies the rules of the bible to the words in the bible, truth is revealed.

Here's the kicker. The same exact "truth" applies to Moby Dick and any other piece of literature (including the phone book). This isn't some divine truth, it's not some hidden message, it's just how things work when you draw from such a small set of data and then formulate all language from it, and then condense large amounts of seemingly random data onto a page. It's just math. There's nothing special or even particularly exciting about it. If you didn't know what you were looking for, you wouldn't be able to find it. You couldn't, for instance, predict 9/11 with the Bible Code, because you'd have had to know what words you were looking for in the first place. But if you knew to look for references to it, you would almost certainly find it in any large book you tried.

You could also find a reference to teletubbies, yard gnomes, and monkeys, because in any collection of thousands upon thousands of letters, it's mathematically improbable that you WOULDN'T find references to them. That doesn't mean there's any sort of special spiritual or religious significance to it, however. It just means what any five year old could tell you, words recycle letters.

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
I'm not attempting to prove that this is of substance. My only intentions with this thread is to introduce the possibility that the ducky does make a neat noise.

Which you've repeatedly demonstrated quite well, I must say. But we get it. The ducky makes a noise. It's a cool noise, and bravo for figuring it out...

But does it really merit post, after post, after post, after post? You're a smart guy...or gal...or whatever... I've seen your other work. You can do so much better than proving the ducky makes a noise post after post. I would much rather see a well thought out argument with supporting evidence arriving at a lucid conclusion... and instead I see post after post of stuff like "traffic = see i fart" It kills me to see someone as bright as you so stuck on a parlor trick.

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
But perhaps you are right as well. Perhaps communications has no bearing on peoples actions or behaviors?

I never stated such a thing, and I'd be the first to say that's an absurd argument. Of course communication has a bearing on actions and behaviors. I just don't see any relevence to making weak phonetic mispelled anagrams out of words and then claiming it as some sort of profound link between the two.

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher

It's time to move on to deeper things, man.

Why? It when it possibly makes it so simple to accuratley predict human behavior, as well as future events by applying the rules of the bible to the words and languages of mankind.

Because, frankly, you're not predicting Jack S--t. All you're doing is rearranging words to create very poor connections linked by nothing more than the letters they are composed of. That's not profound, it's not even surprising. And it contributes nothing of value to the information needed.

Wow... I mean, you found a way to somehow tie something with the word "eye" into the Illuminati NWO... what was predicted? What was there that you and the rest of the world on ATS wasn't already aware of?

Nothing. That's the problem with what your little parlor trick does. It can't reveal anything new because the only way to get something new out of a word is to be looking for the result you want in the first place, and then manipulate the data and tweak it to make it show the result you wanted.

That's just bad science.

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
Perhaps, just perhaps, i'm trying to get you to accept the possibility of it. Because perhaps some day you will be presented with overwhelming uncontravertable evidence to the contrary of what your opinion tells you.

I leave myself open to any possibilities, but the problem I have isn't with the idea you are presenting, but the way in which you are trying to "prove it".

If I were trying to demonstrate a connection between a frog and a rosebush, and the way I demonsrate that, rather than through careful math, genetic research, or historical analysis, was just to cut the frog open, stretch it out, and shape it to LOOK like a rosebush, and then claim a connection, that's just bad form.

There might very well be a very real connection between the frog and the rosebush, but using the method I described would not convince anyone but the most daft and desperate to believe the connection existed in the first place.

Originally posted by thelibra

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
I'm not sure what you think you read, but no where did i say i would kill anyone else, nor did i say anywhere that i would kill myself.

You don't recall saying this?

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
either way, i will glady wager and willingly forfiet my life if there is no truth in what it is i am trying to share.

Do you remember now? I mean, jeez, I even had it quote-nested conveniently in the previous post for reference sake.

It would seem your mindset/opinion only permits you to see one of two options. Your perception permits you to integrate what i have written to mean that i am willing to kill someone else, or myself, if there is no truth in what it is that i am attempting to convey. Perhaps if i stated it another way:

I have one dollar ($1) left, and it is all i own.

I will gladly wager and willingly forfiet my last dollar if there is no truth in what it is i am trying to share.

thelibra,

Why does this have to mean i want to lose my last $1?

Why does this have to mean i want to take someone else's $1?

Is it concrete that there is only 1 of the above 2 options available to me after having said what i said?


::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
another example:

Go Spell ......... Gospell.

go spell?

What about tonal languages then Esoteric Teacher. Seeing as the majority of the planet speaks a tonal language as thier mother tongue how does that affect your "findings" ? The tone of a word is a high-low pitch pattern permanently associated with it. A change of tone alters the word as much as a change in its consonants or vowels.

Here's an example:
The following word Ma Pronounced like in the English Mack has 5 different meanings in Thai. Add that a large majority of Thai speakers also speak Lao the meanings goto about 7.

Ma can mean in Thai: Horse, Pot-Noodle, Dog, Mother, not

Why 5 different meanings ? Because in Standard Thai, every word has one of five associated contours: high even, middle even, low even, rising, or falling.

So using your contrivance, in MOST human languages through loose associations in meaning, anagramtic like stylizing, loose definition and tonal qualification.....

ANY WORD CAN MEAN 100's of different things. If we then take the step and translate the spelling into another convienent language. Any word can mean absolutly anything. I am really not seeing anything about your "findings" that are the least bit deductive.

ESOTERIC= CIRE TOSE
Cire= Glazed Tose=It Clips (in Portugese)
A little verbose symantics gives us
Sugared (glazed) cutter (It clips) = Baker
Ba= Crazy (Thai) Ker=Bad Blood (in Greek)
So there you go...
ESOTERIC= CRAZY BAD BLOOD

Originally posted by Ulster
What about tonal languages then Esoteric Teacher. Seeing as the majority of the planet speaks a tonal language as thier mother tongue how does that affect your "findings" ?

When i am finished learning all words in all languages, i'll get back to you with an answer that will suit your request.

Perhaps you can find me a culture or race on this planet who does not learn new information by attaching it to pre-accepted information. I might be assuming here, but perhaps the human mind works the same way no matter who you are. Perhaps we all learn through the process of the "Law of Association".

I am really not seeing anything about your "findings" that are the least bit deductive.

Whether you are seeing it or not does not discredit what it is i have put forth. Your deductive reasoning has not discredited any of my examples, only denies them credibility from your viewpoint. You feel there is no commonality between what i have produced, and the sample. Yet you fail to show fault in the technique, and haven't even addressed the technique i used.

ESOTERIC= CIRE TOSE
Cire= Glazed Tose=It Clips (in Portugese)
A little verbose symantics gives us
Sugared (glazed) cutter (It clips) = Baker
Ba= Crazy (Thai) Ker=Bad Blood (in Greek)
So there you go...
ESOTERIC= CRAZY BAD BLOOD

Ah, yes. because this is exaclty what i have been doing in this thread???

But i'll keep in mind that perhaps i should not devulge my screen name to any Greek speaking Portugese people while in Thailand, or they will think i'm crazy bad blood.


[edit on 16-12-2006 by Esoteric Teacher]

Hey Teach,interesting play on the words..........now my brain starting to hurt

I elected to open another thread which deals with the initial reasoning behind why I began this thread in the first place. I believe this additional thread will further justify why it is I am doing what I am doing in this thread. The following thread will provide support for my claims, and offer substantial information that is consistant with my claim that what I am proposing is not new, nor is it arbetrary in nature.

www.abovetopsecret.com...'

If you still believe there is absolutley no purpose for me sharing the ideas presented in this thread, please feel free to address some of the claims in this sister thread.

Thanks,
john