Part 2: The Pinpoint Matrix
Take a look at the matrix report and small matrix view below. Immediately below the Hebrew term is -- more or less -- the grammatical translation. Below that is the "English Rendering." This is predicated upon the context of the array, and not on the cited term alone. The little "(wrp)" notation means that the term exists ONLY in a Wrapped Torah Search.
I have subtitled the terms "Historical," and "Theological." This is sometimes a blurred distinction; but I did this to illustrate that PinPoint has a tendency to mix these appellations together -- a trait that I find interesting. The theological terms do not necessarily apply to the array as being historically verifiable; but they are interesting to ponder.
You don't have to be a rocket scientist to see problems with the PinPoint concept. Just as with other patterns, proof that PinPoint will deliver the truth is subjective at best right now. (webmaster note: a theory, but one that can be proven or disproven over time).
PinPoint's merit is topically related content. BTW, in this example I have illustrated a group of terms that appear to be connected, as they have names, dates and events that mirror those of Josephus' account.
There is the potential for this method to be abused. I think that the model that I have illustrated is more confining and restrictive than most. Therefore -- in PinPoint's favor -- I maintain that it is difficult to manipulate PinPoint and produce a matrix of many terms -- following these guidelines -- that ONLY yields the operator's preconceived notions.
I will also note that this matrix is crisscrossed with a myriad of ELS terms (not included). It is my view that they belong in the codes -- but not in this particular array. I believe that it is possible to subjectively analyze a PinPoint array (at least to a limited degree) and hone in on potential clues pertaining to its authenticity:
It bingoed (fit the structure and parameters of PinPoint). But to figure the odds of getting that bingo, you would have to start with a 1 in 8 probability, and then figure the odds that its extension would share a letter with the PinPoint phrase in a Wrapped Search. Then you would have to figure that the extension would say something applicable to the array. In my view, it did; but there is no way to prove that, and therefore it is categorized as "Theological."
In PinPoint you like to see tilted odds for plug-ins that bingo under the parameters of same. If this can be shown, it gives the individual PinPoint array credibility, and the PinPoint system credibility as well.
In this array I knew I needed: Israel, 8 Elul, year 3880, good descriptions of events, and a good proper name for one of the big players. I think the dates are pretty good in that they are all part of messages that can be related to the theme of the array. A date by itself is not a bingo (without a related message), regardless of skip or position. There is also redundancy in that regard -- two with the year, and two with the month and day.
The example above ("beasts two") is only important to me, as it is not verifiable under the original parameters of this article (although it makes this effort worthwhile, as I am using that one for something else).
In the case of this matrix -- as an example (historical event) of how PinPoint can display related terms, I will assert the following:
Concerning "big players" in the 70 AD siege -- the only name that I plugged in was "Titus." The way it is spelled, you know that it's not going to clog your screen. As it did apply itself to the Pinpoint parameters, it behooves me to cite it for the "PinPoint Advocate" position:
Titus should occur 1.76 times at that range in a wrapped Torah. With less than two terms expected, you have to figure the odds that one would extend through the PinPoint phrase. Then you have to figure into your equation the chance that you will come up with a term applicable to your array. I was glad when "Titus" bingoed. After that, I felt that the matrix would fall into place. Plus, that term (# 7) is, in my view, one of the best ones of the array. So . . . go figure. Indeed, form your own opinions as to the potential merits of PinPoint. Look at the report for yourself, as there are many issues that I didn't bring up. I mentioned above my reasoning for briefness. Also of note is the fact that all the renderings are roots that can be found in the Torah. As a result, some may not still be in use.
I would like to end this article with a quote:
3D construction will, I believe, become a more important use of these matrixes. We must think on more dimensions than 2D. In my visions, interpretation of events are more and more based on 3D. It is almost as if God has given you a starting point to truly understanding His message to humanity, but you are missing several pieces of the puzzle. Ronald Arnnow April 11, 2001.
The patterns on a 2D screen are not representative of the true patterns of the codes. Terms that would be parallel in 3D might not appear that way as represented in a 2D display. The importance of PinPoint -- and coding verifiable events -- may not be understood until 3D display is realized. If a pattern can be shown -- coding verifiable facts -- then we could be on our way to programming software with the ability to "spit out" various patterns for our snooping perusal. Walter York
Webmaster note: Walter welcomes feedback on his Pinpoint Matrix article, and especially by those proficient in Hebrew who would like to discuss Hebrew usage and translations. Some of the above terms can easily be interpreted differently when translated to English, while still remaining on topic. Currently, the only codes software that can do toroidal codes searches is CodeFinder: Millennium Edition. E-mail Walter at: firstname.lastname@example.org