# Proof Five: Shapes in Turn Form Complementary ‘Magical’ Clusters

It defies odds that perfect shapes should cluster together in ways which share overlapping lines or corners, and be generally both aligned and mirrored in additional symbolism.

*Are there any patterns in mass shootings? *

*by H. Michael Sweeney proparanoid.wordpress.com proparanoidpress.com proparanoid.net *

*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.*

*Is there any proof mass shootings are not random?*

*What you will learn reading this post of the posting series…*

*• that the triangle shapes defy randomness in their placement to form aligned clusters;*

*• that their count in groupings is again a magical number;*• that there is Masonic/satanic symbolism present which can be deciphered.

*Are mass shootings by intelligent design?*

**Proof Five: Shapes in Turn Form Complementary ‘Magical’ Clusters**

Is there a mass shooting conspiracy?

In the prior post we found perfect angular relationships in a series of interconnected shooting lines to form parallels and perpendiculars, each line created by three or more mass shootings located in a row with doorway-to-doorway-to-doorway accuracy at GPS levels. That alone defied the odds of random chance, but to again do so in the magical count of 18, and to further form right triangles and non right triangles in groups of 18 as well, would be impossible by chance. It had to be by intelligent design.

In this post we look at additional magic taking place with the same original lines used to create the prior array, and learn even more remarkable and scary things yet await us. Those lines I refer to as red foundation lines, those 75 shooting lines seen in the very first image of the prior proof. That’s a good word to employ…

Those same lines, which I interpret to be akin to a Mason’s blueprint for an architectural structure, indeed seems to represent a foundation/framework for a much more complex superstructure, one built only from Isosceles triangles — where two sides are of the same length. These triangles not only have specific relationships to the prior shapes, but to each other in two distinctly different clusters, doing so in a way which implies two different architects competing with each other but following the same general guidelines, with slightly different interpretations and strategic goals in mind.

What we will see is impossible for random lines to achieve; to create like shapes which cluster together in ways which see them share common lines or corners, and conform to a general patterns based on specific rule sets, ONLY. That roughly 55,000 line intersects should only produce Isosceles triangles in a manner which conform to these rules is simply not going to happen except by intelligent design. But that is exactly what takes place in ‘random’ mass shootings.

This is easy to reveal visually, if done in stepwise fashion, but there is also likely secreted coded information which further study might reveal, such that it is perhaps the most important post thus far in terms of study. That will add some descriptive complexity. Ergo, the more you read in this post, the more you will tend to agree more such study is warranted.

What patterns result if you plot mass shootings on a map?

### Overlaping and shared lines and shooting points create mirrored clusters.

**The West Coast:** The series of images below reveal the impossible. For some reason, all these perfect triangles share common lines and/or shooting event locations among themselves to form one huge cluster spanning the greater Western Seaboard. The actual triangles formed will be displayed in yellow, as in the prior post, as will any key parallel/perpendicular lines from the prior post being used to reveal a relationship. Any other anchoring lines will be shown in red if deemed useful.

EVERY SINGLE triangle is anchored either directly to the foundation lines by sharing one or more sides with the foundation, or its corner rest on a foundation line shooting, or one or more sides might reside on a line which itself intersects with such a shooting. We are again talking about the same 75 original shooting lines used to create the foundation in the first place. In other words, it is one integral complex of shapes created with great care. Moreover, we will see the magic numbers 18 and 9 again and again in the process.

Note: Very few such lines will be shown, only referenced, else it can become visually and verbally confusing. The final example will show all such lines as it happened to afford a simpler visual, and that will allow you to fully understand the ‘rules of design’ all Isosceles stubbornly obey, as based on the foundation. Also know that while it may appear some of the depicted triangles are not equilateral, or that their lines are not straight, this is an illusion, a function of point of view of such lines upon a sphere. This may cause some to appear as if they are not Isoscoles. Rest assured, all of them are.

For the purpose of allowing a triangle to be seen as legal and intended, two sides must be equal in length to within an acceptable accuracy which considers known issues with Google Earth. Each of the two converging sides could be as much as .1 degree off in opposite directions (.2 total error), and a like error in the base line could additionally increase the chance of sides not quite being the same. They were therefor not allowed to exceed .5 miles difference, especially where greater distances was involved, But readings were found to be as small as .01 mile in lesser triangles, or where accuracy issues were less prevalent.

Fig. 5

Here we have a set four Isosceles triangles which all have one thing in common; they are all derived from one of the perpendicular lines from the prior proof (which lies along their common base lines). The third smaller triangle between the two larger ones is NOT counted; it does not have equal sides, though visually it may so seem. The fourth is actually nested within the third, both pointing in the opposite direction. While its base is not on the same line as the others, it shares both sides in common with one which does, and is therefore included in this set.

Fig. 6

This set of three Isosceles also all rely upon sharing the same baseline with one of the key most perpendicular/parallel lines from the prior proof, as shown.

Fig. 7

This set of FIVE all share their baseline with one of the original red lines used to create the perpendicular/parallel lines from the prior proof. Moreover, that line intersects with the perpendicular line used in Fig. 5, above. The fifth is very small at the very bottom, if you didn’t see it at first.

Fig. 8

This set of four share their base, or in the case of the smallest, one side, with a foundation red line which intersects at one end with a mid-point shooting on a another perpendicular.

Fig. 9

The smaller Isosceles shares of this pair has a common side with yet another perpendicular. Its other side is a foundation red line which intersects at a shooting shared by a different red foundation line used to form one a side of the larger Isosceles in the set. I probably should have included the ancillary lines to better illustrate. The shooting was a Standoff with Police in Canoga Park, Feb. 7, 2008.

It’s smaller Isosceles’ lower corner lies directly on one of California’s worst shootings, the Seal Beach Salon on Oct. 13, 2011, and is the endpoint for THREE different perpendiculars.

Fig. 10

This is what the West Coast collective looks like: 18 Isosceles triangles in all (any others which seem to exist do not measure out acceptably). The magic numbers continue: 9 of them rest directly on a foundation perpendicular or parallel with one or more sides, or a corner, and 9 share a side only on a red foundation line.

### Why Isosceles?

The Isosceles triangle is a very important shape to a Mason. The Masonic emblem typically implies four of them, two making up the Square, and two making up the Compass. There are three different basic architectural structures the Masons are commonly associated with, all of them relying upon the Isosceles. The best known is the Pyramid, most notably, perhaps, being the one on reverse of the Dollar Bill, aka The All Seeing Eye. The Egyptian style obelisk, such as the Washington Monument, is also well known, and uses two Isosceles in its formation. A lesser known has the most relevance to understanding the symbolism in play, and is the use believed to be intended, here.

That is the Frustrum, an early concrete ‘tank trap’ of sorts. Only tanks did not exist at the time. Instead, they had to worry about cannon, battering rams, and assorted apparatus to breach high ramparts, all of which could not get close enough for use if the ground they required for their use was occupied by collections of cement pyramids. Most frustrums (means ‘that which frustrates,’) had a flat top like the Dollar Bill — not a pointed peak. But their design still relied upon the Isosceles.

With that in mind, the above image seems to be largely pointing to the Eastern Seaboard, with a couple pointing in other select directions. Keep that in mind when we see what’s going on in the East Coast, where we will have more clues that they are intended to frustrate.

**The East Coast:** The basic rules of existence found in the West Coast triangles are also present in the East Coast sets. However, it quickly becomes clear the actual layout or theme is entirely different, and at a glance, implies no consistency. Yet we discover perfect consistency to the construction rules — though a completely different intention in the design. This, to me, strongly suggests two different designers, perhaps with two different strategic concerns which dictated how they applied the symbology. We will explore this more in closing review, as it does support the frustrum argument, which provides the missing consistency found in the West Coast collective.

Fig. 11

Here we have a set of four Isosceles sharing a common base line which is one of the red foundation lines. It will also be in common (next image) with several more triangles, one of which shares a side in common with a line which is both perpendicular and parallel from our prior proof. Note that none of this set’s lines are parallel, which dramatically increases the impossibility that this pattern should exist by chance.

Fig. 12

The prior set is shown for reference at the right, as it has a common base line with four more, making eight in all on one line. The blue (looks green on some monitors) line is in common with the singular triangle added in the next image, and is the one mentioned in the prior Fig. to be in common with a foundation perpendicular/parallel, as also noted in the next.

Fig. 13

One additional Isosceles added to make nine (Figs. 11, 12, 13) in all, and it overlays the smallest of the prior set and is indeed in common with a foundation parallel/perpendicular. Thus two of the nine have sides in common with a foundation perpendicular or parallel. Interestingly, these are the ONLY ones on the East Coast which do. All others are in common with red foundation lines, only.

Fig. 14

This odd set of FIVE Isosceles have obvious shared sides, only one not sharing two sides.

Fig. 15

Four more make up the final set. Here, I’ve added all the red lines and one of the foundation lines (yellow) which are used to validate them. Each red line shown is in common with a side of a triangle AND ends or interscts with a shooting either on another triangle or the foundation line. EVERY SINGLE ISOSCELES, East or West, does this, or is already sharing a line or shooting on a foundation line more directly. How is this possible if ‘random?’ NO SUCH TRIANGLES EXIST ELSEWHERE, which is to say, there is no other rule set in play.

Fig. 16

The sum total of all East Coast Isosceles is, just like the West Coast, 18. Also like the West Coast, they are divided into two groups of 9. However, this time, the division is 9 is between those which share immediate direct commonality of a single red foundation line and or a parallel/perpendicular line (Fig. 11, 12, 13), and 9 that don’t.

**Summary:** My belief these are frustums is based on some observations beyond those thus far offered. An Isosceles triangle is a form of an arrow, and as such, tends to point. That many ‘point’ in various directions implies there are things to be pointed to which are objects of (something I presume to be negative). At first when I saw the West Coast pointed almost exclusively inward, and the first East couple of East Coast discoveries pointed inward as well, I imagined they would all do so, and represent thereby the intent to frustrate the power of America, and subjugate it to the will of the New World Order. Then the rest of the East Coast discoveries discounted that notion by pointing every which way.

So I then considered that some were long and thin and others fat and squat, and size of course, was varied. I wondered if the ratio of length to base and size could somehow be used to represent a distance the implied ‘arrow’ factor might be intending to point. So I took a handful of them and found the center of their baseline and ploted a central vertical through and beyond their peak to see if there were any logical destinations, and where they were might be. VERY interesting.

The large long Isosceles angling about 50 degrees in a Northeasterly direction leads somewhere interesting, a place both Masonic and governmental in nature, as does the one upward Isosceles in Fig. 12. There is a similarity in destinations, as both are Capital cities where a Masonic site can be found, and which represent a power center for a modern day ‘Illuminati’ and which relates to the National government, as well. They are shown below, with additional ‘illuminating’ commentary.

Do mass shooting patterns reveal Illuminati ties?

### The Pyramids know from whence Illuminati power is derived

The long Isosceles center line leads to the Louvre Pyramid, where startling ‘coincidences’ start to unfold. First, the line itself is on the same course heading as the entire property’s main axis. That line plot is drawn to within .1 degree of arc accuracy from the Isosceles which created it. The Louvre Pyramid is also on a centerline to the original French seat of power, the Palace, perpendicularly located just to the North.

The distance of the red plot line from the base of the Isosceles to the Pyramid is 4,540 miles (rounded with .001 accuracy), whereas the side of the Isosceles, times four (something considered potentially intended only because there are four fully independent Isosceles directly over the sides which share no lines or shootings), plus the base, = 4513 miles, short a difference of 26, yielding about a .5 accuracy. These errors are all within reason given Google Earth imposed limitations.

However, there is a fifth Isosceles which does share a side which measures 13 miles, and is itself enjoying two sides shared within its own set. Adding in 13 x 2 provides zero error. I admit it seems convoluted and ‘reaching,’ but I also find it potentially intended. One possible clue is that there are actually SIX pyramids at Louvre; four considerably smaller ones surround the one of fame, and one inverted and sunk into the ground — one for each Isosceles used in the calculation.

The second Isosceles points with like accuracy to this building in the Canadian Capitol of Ottowa which, while it was originally a government facility, is now, like the Louvre, used for the arts. Note again the course is aligned with the property’s liner aspects, and like the Louvre, bisects a glass pyramid (a roof skylight). Also like the Louvre, there are multiple pyramids on the property; one for each Isosceles used in the calculation. The building is named after a noted Canadian Prime Minister who was also a high Mason.

Here, the distance from the Isosceles base line is 467.8 miles. We can get the same distance by adding the side of the Isosceles with the sum of the shared portions of the four common baselines in the Isosceles set involved… to within 1 mile, or about .2 percent error. That sounds like an entirely different a method, but…

Amazingly: Both locations can actually be found by using one simple formula on the involved Isosceles triangles: Destination = the base of the pointing Isosceles + (the side of the pointing Isosceles x the number of independant Isosceles overlapping) + the length of any shared side or base with a nondependent Isosceles.

While I have not had time to review the remaining triangles, a superficial review implies that many of them end up pointing to the middle of nowhere. However, one of them points generally to the same neighborhood where, as we will see in a future proof, lives a suspect billionaire whose identity is implied thereby to be one of the designers. This may point to his corporate offices nearby, precise location as yet unknown.

But there are so many possible mathematical relationships/calculation rules which might additionally be in play, there is no way to know for certain short of an exhaustive study what all these Isosceles might secretly be indicating. One more reason I need help.

Another question which needs to be to be similarly explored by someone with manpower and funding is… are there numeric codes contained within triangle side lengths and angles, or relationships between such measurements among triangles of the same sets?

But even based on the minimal findings so far, I assert they support the notion of multiple competing designers, said competition being to determine which group of several such groups of Illuminati will have the dubious honor of having the Antichrist come from among their members, as well as who among their group. Therefore, to cast frustrums against European and Canadian Illuminati and their political power centers would make perfect sense.

More proofs follow…

**Go back to Introduction**

**Go back to Proof Four:** **Straight Lines in Turn Form Complex and Perfect Shapes**

**Go to Proof Six:** **Shootings Also Relate or Depict Masonic and Satanic symbols**

Posted on April 19, 2014, in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. Leave a comment.

## Leave a comment

## Comments 0