Proof Three: Shootings Exist in Endless Sets of Three Forming Straight Lines
The same Dispersal Pattern Studies method applied by government researchers to UFO sightings reveals Mass Shootings do something UFO sightings allegedly do not: form repetitive patterns with GPS accuracy, doorway-to-doorway-to-doorway.
Are there any patterns in mass shootings?
copyright © 2014, all rights reserved. Permission to repost hereby granted provided entire post with all links in tact, including this notice and byline, are included. Please comment any such repost to original posting.
Do mass shootings form straight lines of three?
What you will learn reading this post of the posting series…• that mass shootings defy randomness in their placement to form countless lines; • that the lines enjoy GPS accuracy doorway-to-doorway-to-doorway; • that they are revealed by scientific methods — including control groups.
Are mass shootings by intelligent design?
Proof Three: Shootings Exist in Endless Sets of Three Forming Straight Lines
While in the USAF, I worked as volunteer taking care of the Base Photo Lab, which meant after-hours clean up and helping the uninitiated. Late one night, the Base Security Officer made me let him in for a rush job to process a roll of film taken of a remarkable UFO sighting. We spent some time analyzing the resulting images for signs of trick photography and the like. We concluded the images not only genuine, but perhaps the most startling and revealing images ever known to be taken of daytime UFOs… as close and as detailed as if taking pictures of aircraft on the ready line from one of the hangars.
In dialogs with the Officer, I learned there was a particular scientific method applied to the study of UFO sightings to determine if they were random events or if they somehow exhibited traits of intentional intelligent design; patterns in location, time, distances, angles, or other event details. It seems that such studies had been undertaken by Governments (typically the military) in South America and Europe, but had reportedly NEVER found any three UFO sightings formed so much as a straight line or any other detectible pattern.
Unstated was if there had been such a study in America (there has), or the findings (which were quite different), but THAT is another topic, for another day. The point is, the method employed by government is one which can be applied to mass shootings equally well: Dispersal Pattern Studies. Such studies are normally used in naturally occurring events such as animal migrations to reveal natural patterns, but can also be applied to other random events seeking signs of intelligent design, as in the UFO example.
In the 60’s and earlier, when such studies were employed with UFO sightings, the methodology required use of global coordinates with navigational computations common to flight planning by pilots. You can’t simply plot them on a map and draw lines (a common mistake by amateurs) because there are many kinds of map projections, each of which thwarts either distance, angular relationships, or course computations. No kind of map projection correctly depicts a spherical surface which in turn also correctly renders distance, visual angle, and course. Moreover, navigational computations were required to determine the course heading of any two sightings and, more importantly, seeing if any third or additional sightings lay along that same course. These methods also allowed determining distance between sightings with useful accuracy.
But accuracy still remained an issue; the nature of UFO sightings is such that location data might refer to the location of the observer, rather than the UFO, or vice-versa, or perhaps only the nearest city or landmark. The location to be plotted often had to be determined based on extrapolation of other details such as angle of view, apparent object size, other eye witness vantage points, and so forth. A plus/minus error of several miles or more was not uncommon. And yet, in thousands of sightings, they found no lines in at least two continents worth. KEEP THAT IN MIND.
Can patterns be found in mass shootings plotted in Google Earth?
Google Earth saves the day
Fortunately, these mapping problems are no longer relevant. Google Earth incorporates such calculations as it renders the Earth at any given detail level one requires. While it has its own tolerance or error issues, it is far more accurate than any map projection despite the resulting ‘flat view’ on a computer screen. Better, it does afford useful course, angle, and distance measurement. It even considers magnetic declination, a fact we will come to appreciate.
Google Earth accuracy is generally well within civilian GPS accuracy; roughly 50 feet. When drawing a line over rugged terrain of dramatically varied altitude, one may see visual aberrations in the line which imply inaccuracy, but the heading and distance calculations do not suffer the same errors, unless, perhaps, taking the readings at the point of aberration. These visual flaws are not real, but reflect the differences a dramatically higher altitudes of the Earth’s surface has upon rendering a sphere on a flat screen. Since we don’t see mass shootings take place on mountain tops, we thankfully need not take measurements at such points.
To further illustrate the remarkable accuracy, let’s use Sandy Hook and just a few of the many lines which are cojoined with this shooting. In the image, we see two lines precisely (for all practical purposes), bisecting at the doorway area window allegedly shot out by Adam Lanza to gain entry. Each endpoint of a given line is ALWAYS placed at this level of accuracy. It is the MIDDLE shooting points where we want to be careful how we determine accuracy. Here, we see such a point in a line from a shooting at the Anniston Postal event in Georgia to a Lottery Worker office shooting event elsewhere in Connecticut, which passes through Sandy Hook some 56 feet (rounded up) from said entrance point (the yellow measurement line). This figure is divided by two to find the actual accuracy of 23 feet (per Google Earth); because we could move the line that far to find the center point between all three shootings and still enjoy the same 23 foot measurement at all three. Thats about 7-10 footsteps for most people.
This plot point itself, to restate, is based on using the known (or where not concretely known, the most logical) entrance to the shooting area, or if an outdoor area, the entrance to the area (e.g., driveway or walkway at the property border). This represents the point of first violation, a key element of importance to both the crime as well as to magical considerations of value to Satanic or Illuminati thinking (which is sociopathic; ‘violation’ is a favorite pastime). Thus we find consistency in results based on our primary postulation (NWO design), as well as forensic facts of a given shooting.
The general method for finding such lines is simple:
a) plot all shooting event locations;
b) Draw a line from any given event to every other event, and extend far enough to encompass any events further away along the same path;
c) determine if the resulting line bisects any additional plots to make three or more using the above accuracy determinations.
d) take note of any which are discovered to qualify by this means and keep the line, and discard those which do not.
Where it does bisect within accuracy limits, you have established a pattern; a straight line — something which, according to European and South American UFO studies, does not happen with random events even when using a broad error allowances of several miles. Shootings, however, prove to be quite another matter altogether, as we see. So perhaps there is indeed a cover up in UFOs?
As stated in the prior Post, when first attempting this method using only the 76 shooting events media wanted to talk about, plus about a dozen more from my own knowledge (shootings earlier considered by me as indicative of mind control operations), I did find some very interesting lines (image immediately below), though barely suggestive of ‘patterns,’ as such. The question remained, given the UFO study results, was this coincidental, or truly evidence of intelligent design. I wanted to know for certain. The only way to be sure, was to establish a control group.
Can dispersal pattern studies be applied in mass shootings?
Control Group Study
One thing I noticed when looking at the plots is that there were clusters of events, some of which were scattered along a given heading, more like an elongated oval than a circular grouping. At continent view altitudes, the illusion is that many more shootings are on the line than really are. Some of these seemed to be logically along population corridors, while others did not. Almost all of these clusters contained several of the more recent and best known shootings being given day-by-day news coverage. Note also, that there are hardly any clusters at actual high-density population centers, save San Francisco and, perhaps, Miami and LA. Nothing in NY or Chicago, or elsewhere.
So one thing I was mindful of when trying to establish a control group, was to see what the role of population corridors and centers might play in grouping: a truly random set of events should closely resemble the clustering of any control group which took population into account. But would they mirror in a general way the shooting clusters?
If truly random, the answer should at the least be depicted with a ‘resemblance.’ Mass shootings take place where people are drawn together, and while some portion of them should reasonably take place on farms and other outlying properties, the bulk should be taking place in cities. The bigger the city, the more shootings should be taking place, by and large.
Additionally, I felt the control group should have some similar social context which was at least symbiotic in relationship to mass shootings. A control group based on, say, businesses using the word Acme in their name, for instance, would have no such relationship to shootings, but would relate to population centers. On the other hand, if I plotted gun shops, there would be a relationship both to shootings (access to guns equates to access to gun shops, which affords the means to shoot someone) and to population centers (gun shops tend to open where customers can be found in quantity).
Ultimately, I employed both. Google Earth has a unique built-in search engine which randomly pulls up ten businesses at a time if you type in a category or keyword, pulling them from the pool of all such firms located within the map being depicted at the moment. If you zoom into a city, it will produce only local matches. If you zoom out to show the 48 States, it will produce almost exclusively random firms from the greater US. Therefore, I established two such Stateside control groups; Acme, and Gun Shops.
The Acme set employed 88 random Acme firms, the same number as shootings employed in my early search for patterns. Actually, there were not quite that many ‘Acme,’ firms which came up, but Google Earth, once running out of matching candidates, then offers names of firms it considers related, and I deemed to include some 20 of these as if actually named Acme, because they were still randomly acquired.
So the control group included was equal to the shooting events to which it is compared.
The Acme plots did manage, to my surprise, to establish 3 lines. However, all lines were entirely disassociated one from the other (no conjoined linkage). The ‘random’ shooting events, on the other hand, produced a total of 12 lines, many of which additionally shared common shooting events with other lines to form 3 groupings of such interconnected lines (linkages existed). Further, note in the image below the absence of lines along population corridors, and generally, a lack of multiple plots creating the appearance of ‘extra’ plots along any given line (just the three that make it up). It is nothing at all like the shooting lines, above. There is modest clustering at actual population centers, and even so, this is not terribly uniform: SF, LA, Houston, Miami and New York, but not Chicogo, Seattle, or New Orleans, etc.
This differences implied shootings were ‘too random’ and less associated with population centers compared to Acme, and yet, that really meant them more likely to be of intelligent design, than not. But you are right if you are thinking, ‘this is not yet proof.’ Were I to have stopped here, I would have concluded mass shootings were only suggestive of intelligent design. The big pusher to continue the study was, of course, the dramatic difference in number of lines and the fact that many were connected to each other, and starting to suggest a potential for the generation of shapes.
So I did not stop there. In the same time frame I discovered some 100 more shootings, about 180 in total. And, I had already determined that gun shops would make perhaps a more interesting control group of more relevant value to the research topic. So, I next established a control group of only gun shops, and that group was of a full 100. The results were not dramatically different, but regardless, made the case for intelligent design even stronger.
There were 4 lines formed out of 100 gun shops, and again, no interconnecting lines. Gun shops again matched Acme in terms of ignoring population corridors, but non-the-less forming small clusters at some, but not all actual mega population centers. Shootings remained, even using only 86 plots, quite indicative of intelligent design in ways which defy the odds of random coincidental occurance.
But by the time I had finished this effort, I had discovered nearly 400 shootings, and was still counting.
This is the work which has yet to be completed: the full computation of lines for all shootings. It is tedious work requiring a lot of manipulation of zoom and map movement controls within Google Earth, in order to maintain and test for the needed accuracy. Regardless, to date, of some 450 shootings (I stopped adding new ones just before December, 2013), I have managed to test several hundred of them for line formation, and have discovered thus far 440 lines where three or more shootings maintain the required accuracy. Some lines have as many as five shooting in a single line with all five maintaining the required accuracy.
Clearly, that MUST be by intelligent design.
Yes, you are free at this point to argue that the more plots you have, the more likely you are to create a line. The control groups imply that; an increase in plot points of about 14% did create one more line. But if generation of random lines was the end of it, I’d have no good answer for you. But reading further, you will learn that the lines are merely building blocks for something even more useful as proof… which are in turn building blocks for something even more useful… and on and on. The lines are nothing compared to what the resulting lines themselves are in turn able to reveal. Shapes, yes. Symbols, yes. But even more; the data points on the key-most lines include code. Those are future post topics. Keep reading, and do so with an open mind.
Go back to Introduction
Go back to Proof Two: Shootings Exist in Identical ‘Magical’ Categorical Clusters
Go to Proof Four: Straight Lines in Turn Form Complex and Perfect Shapes