** **“History” tells us the story about the development of our systems of weights and measures. Accordingly, we are told that they evolved from the use of seeds, peas, and grains as measures of weight. These natural *units* together in various amounts came to be called by a variety of names in places of commerce throughout the ancient world. By the 13^{th} century, one measure emerged above all others. It was the combined weight of 480 *grains* and came to be known as the “troy ounce”. It is a fundamental measure of weight to this day.

** **Toward the end of the 17^{th} century and culminating with the French revolution a hundred years later, we are told by history that French scientists had developed the *metric system* of weights and measures. Now, the “gram” superseded the “grain” of the troy ounce. What was once an even 480 *grains* is now, in this new system, a not so even 31.1034768. . . *grams*.

Today, if we wanted to construct a system of weights and measures, we would want this system to be based on some *natural fundamental unit* as opposed to one arbitrarily decreed by man. We understand from history that the French scientists pioneering the introduction of the base ten metric systems chose the distance from the North Pole to the equator, which was divided into ten million parts, to constitute their *meter*. That was their *natural fundamental unit*. It was* geodetic*, a physical earth-based measurement. This was special, an actual measure repeatedly subdivided by ten creating a ruler as the basis for all measurements. Contrast the much older troy ounce arbitrarily assigned 480 *grains*, as opposed to say 450, by decree alone.

The rest is “history”, as they say, . . . or is it? Can it be possible that the historians had got it wrong? Not so much that *they* misled us, but that they, the historians of their time *themselves* were misled (not unlike journalists and historians in our time). For when the following simple *geometry of form* is understood, no one can argue that at the least a serious inquiry into the veracity of our historical mythology is called into question.

** **A Natural System of Weights and Measures Inherent to the Geometry of Form

** **** ** At the heart of any system of weights and measures there must be a fundamental unit. In this *geometric*-based system, where *weight* is the sought after measure, geometry uses the *volume* unit in its most efficiently packaged form, that of a prefect sphere. This “spherical” volume-one unit is this system’s base-unit of weight.

“One, one what?”, one might ask. “One” whatever you want to call it. . . . one pound, one ounce, one whatever. *It is just a name*. And within the sphere, what substance, *gold, silver, water*? Whatever you like, it doesn’t matter. What matters is the sphere, and that its content represents 1.0 unit of weight. Now just for fun, lets name this fundamental unit of weight the gram.

Of course, you can’t have a system with only one of these base units. A system based on *grains*, like the troy ounce, is not a system if you have only one grain. Visualize a plate with grains of wheat on a tabletop and next to it another plate containing pea- size perfect spheres. In the first plate of wheat, each “unit” is called a *grain*. We can call the perfect spheres in the second plate *grams*. Both assortments can give rise to a system.

In the world of geometry this base-unit of weight has a size. Since its volume is 1.0 *unit*, its surface area measures 4.835975862…square units, or *areal* units. We will call this areal measure our gram-unit’s “face-value”. Now it appears that when “they” constructed our monetary systems those “enlightened ones” behind the scenes designed a second weight-unit that is equal to the combined face-values of two spherical gram units. This new package is in the form of a regular tetrahedron. Its surface area or “face-value” is 2 X 4.835975862… or 9.671951724… And its volume is 1.5551203024…grams.

** **The Money Particle

** **** ** We now have the building blocks of both the English and American monetary systems. This tetrahedron I jokingly call the “money particle” (the reason will soon be obvious). But to be consistent with the 1.0 spherical “gram” units from which it derives and is equal to in “face-value”, we should properly call it by its real name: the “*pence*”, or “*pennyweight*”. Here are just some of the reasons for this name.

The historical definition of a *pence* or a *pennyweight* is “the 1/20 part of a troy ounce”. When you do the math, you will calculate that 20 times our tetrahedron’s 1.5551203024 grams equals 31.10240604…grams and mimics the 31.10347680…grams defining a troy ounce to an astounding 0.99996… fineness in degree of perfection.

As the “money particle”, this *pence* or *pennyweight* built the coinage on both sides of the Atlantic. In England by the end of the thirteenth century it was well established that twelve of these weights equaled one “shilling”, twenty shillings made a “pound”. Of course, at that time, the “gram” did *not* historically exist and the unit of measure was the “grain”. Precisely 24 grains equaled one pence. Our *geometrically derived pence*, at 1.5551203024…grams equals 23.999173…grains and *did exist*, not only way back then, but * eternally* as an ideal geometric form. And its weight

*24 grains, at least to the previous 0.*

__is__**9999**6… fineness in degree of perfection.

Five hundred years later, in 1792, the newly established American states passed their Coinage Act. It was extremely precise in defining each coin and its composition. And it is equally obscure as to the actual reasoning for arriving at one ratio and weights of metals or another. Again, there is some history, but is it the real story?

What is undisputed is that “grains” were the base-unit of weight measures at that time and that in this Coinage Act only the *cent* and ½ *cent* coins were not delineated by grains. They were to be respectively eleven, and five and one-half *pennyweights* of pure copper. Congress soon reduced the size of the cent and in 1796 it dropped from the mandated 11/20 troy oz. to 7/20 troy oz., or seven pennyweights. In 1856 the cent was further reduced in size to 3/20 troy oz. and once more in 1864 to 2/20 troy oz. in weight (3.1103…grams). This size one cent coin remained America’s standard until 1982 with the introduction of the “imitation” zinc cent piece now weighing 2.5 grams.

The important point here, is that from America’s conception, its one cent piece has emerged through its first four manifestations every time being a creature of some whole number increments of 1/20 part of the troy ounce. One *pence*, one *pennyweight*. Each of these coins can be constructed with our *geometric pence*, again to a 0.**9999**6… degree of accuracy.

Though a bit of a diversion, it is worth noting at this point that the name “pence” comes to us from combining two older words: penta, meaning five, from Greek; and, centum from Latin meaning one-hundred. The “pence” is *five-cents* and is what the American “nickel” should be properly called. The word “penny” is a *diminutive* term meaning “little pence” since a penny is a 1/5^{th} sub-division of the pence. And with the pence being by definition 1/20 of a troy oz., the troy ounce itself is seen to be naturally sub-divided into one-hundred “cents”. Furthermore, “5-ness” is embodied in the very form and weight of this special geometric unit. For example its “face-value” or surface-area is equal to exactly 5 times it height measure. And its weight should be seen as equal to 1.0 gram *plus *5-tenths gram, plus 5-hundredths gram, plus 5-thousandths gram. This “money particle” shouts out its 5-ness!

** **The American System of Silver Coinage And the Occult Geometry to Which It Was Designed

** **** **When we now look at the American *silver* coinage, we can see the same geometric principle employed in its design as that which was initially used regarding our two “gram” units. Here again, the concept of equal “face-values” was used to create the dollar coin and later fractional coins. The geometry about to be introduced to you here *is* the pattern or blueprint that the architects of the American monetary system strove to achieve; and they did, finally! As the history shows, there was unquestionably a “hidden hand” at work in and amongst the hallowed halls of the U.S. Congress guiding each of the four coinage or monetary acts toward the realization of the following geometric ideals.

Remember, we started our geometry based system of weight with two spherical “gram” units. They each are 1.0 gram, but it is more descriptive to depict them each being 10/10 gram since “grams” are inherently base-ten. Next, we created the “money particle”, the tetrahedronal package scaled to be equal in surface area to the combined surfaces of the two gram units. They have equal “face-values”, an important concept at the heart of the geometry. An equally important concept is that this tetrahedron is born from two other geometric units which *together* weigh 20/10 grams. So when we found that “20” of these “money particles” or “pence” equaled *one troy ounce* we know that this increment of “20” was built into the system from the beginning. From twenty-tenths grams comes this new accounting unit, which in aggregations of twenty, forms the next whole accounting unit, the troy ounce.

The system of American silver coinage began with the troy ounce. Again*, the enlightened ones* behind the scenes employed the concept of equal “face values” from the onset, but this time it was in relation to the troy ounce (itself a derivative of the combined face-value of two spherical gram units). Here’s the geometry they were finally able to achieve, through it took them until The Coinage Act of 1873 to do so.

** **They started with the troy ounce, and like previously with the gram, package it in geometry’s most economical form, as a sphere. Since we are dealing with silver coins, let’s say we have one troy ounce of pure silver in the form of a perfect sphere. That’s exactly what the monetary architects started with. From here a “cube” of silver is constructed equal in surface area, that is to say equal in “face-value” to the spherical troy ounce of pure silver. Now we have a sphere of pure silver and a cube of pure silver with *identical* “face-values”. We know the sphere is one troy ounce and when we do the calculations we discover the cube contains 0.723601255… troy ounce of silver; which is 22.506514 *grams*. The amount of pure silver in the American fractional dollar coins from 1873 until they stopped minting them in 1964 is 22.50 grams. The silver content of the whole American dollar coin is *this 22.50 gram cube of silver plus one “money particle”*, that unit initially born from the “gram” itself. Combined, there is a total silver content equal to 0.7733900 troy ounce. Since the 1792 Coinage Act, American whole silver dollar coins contain **371.25** grains of pure silver which is 0.7734375 troy ounce. The two methods yield identical silver amounts to a 0.9999 degree of fineness.

** **Questioning the Veracity of The Historical Record

** **** ** By the time the British colonies in the Americas won their independence from England, the silver Spanish coins known as “pieces of eight” had long been in use as the colonial “dollar”. By 1792 it had been through many transformations, scaling its gross weight and silver content downward over the previous century. The history shows that America’s founders used the Spanish coin which was in use at the time as model of the new American “dollar” unit. In fact the 1792 Coinage Act *mandates* that the new American dollar “*be of the value of a Spanish milled dollar as the same as is now current*”.

The Continental Congress back in the 1780’s commissioned a scientific study to determine just what this Spanish “reale” contained. Afterward, the 1786 Congressional Board of Treasury recommended that 375.64 grains of pure silver be contained in the American dollar coin. So in light of this study, and the clear mandate within Congress’ 1792 Coinage Act to create a coin of *equal value* as the Spanish coin, why did they *with purpose and intent* specify only **371.25** grains of pure silver in that very same Coinage Act?

I contend the answer was their target of replicating specific geometric ideals and numerical proportions that, *in their minds*, imbues some sort of mystical *power* into their creations which would otherwise go untapped. America’s founders were infected with persons affiliated with secret societies that coveted and hid certain knowledge from the rest of the world. For example, someone in one of those cabals probably knows the real reason the Washington Monument is 55 feet square at its base and 555 feet tall. These numbers mean something very specific but we, the rest of the world, don’t have the faintest clue. Do you know the intended significance of these numbers? Could this monument be not so much to glorify President Washington but to pay homage to an equally formative “unit” rooted in the numbers .555… such as the “money particle”? I honestly don’t know. But I do know something about the significance of this geometric *fundamental unit* (see more in appendix) and would not be surprised if this was in fact at least part of the answer.

Getting back to the American silver coinage, it has already been shown that the 22.50 gram silver content of the fractional dollar coins, as a single cube of silver, has the same “face value” (surface area) as a troy ounce of silver in the form of a sphere. To those who will say that’s just a coincidence, then is it coincidence that the pure silver content of the whole dollar coin (.7734375 troy ounce) is just as easily expressed as exactly 99/128 troy ounce? In the 1792 Coinage Act the founders specified **371.25** grains pure, or 416 grains of “standard silver. There too, standard silver is also defined: 1485 parts pure, 169 parts alloy. Why no mention of the simpler ratio 99/128? And why does this simple ratio never appear in any literature, both historical and contemporary? It’s certainly not *hidden* knowledge. Maybe it is out there and I just missed it. And again, if that’s just coincidence, then is 110/128 troy ounce, or exactly **412.5** grains, *which is the gross weight of the whole silver dollar*, is that by design or coincidence too? Even the Trade Dollar, minted in 1876 for export trade only, at 420 grains gross weight can otherwise be scaled at 112/128 troy ounce. Why is there no apparent mention of these ratios anywhere in our history? What is the significance of dividing the troy ounce into 128/128 sub-units? Is it related to standard silvers’ 1664 parts total and that 13 X 128 = 1664? Of course, 4 X 416(grains, weight of 1792 dollar) equals 1664 too.

To question the veracity of our historical record one should have some sort of clue or evidence. Even circumstantial evidence tends to throw the accepted paradigm into question. For example, *it’s a fact* that the monetary weights of the silver Anglo-American coinage *can be* derived from geometry beginning with two spherical *gram* units. We’ve just seen this earlier in this essay. Both of these monetary systems are based on the troy ounce which (according to history) pre-dates by a millennium or more the relatively recent introduction of the metric and gram based units. So the apparent contradiction of my suggesting the gram being progenitor of the troy ounce, with history relating the opposite narrative, makes it easy for one to dismiss this notion as nonsense. Nonetheless, at the same time, one still must admit that this weight system is at the least “reflected” in geometry.

But once again, what if the historical record has been *purposely* distorted more by *omissions* than commissions of outright falsehoods? Its probably true that the metric system, along with its gram-based weight, *was* introduced to the world’s masses in the 1790s. But that’s not to say *or prove* it was “unknown” a thousand, or thousand of years earlier. After all, the inch goes back at least to the pyramids. And the “gram” of the metric system, as was demonstrated, seems to be rooted in the timeless forms of the geometric ideals available to anyone with an inclination to look. And so too can we find the metric system’s fundamental unit of *length* rooted in those same simple eternal geometric forms.

** **The Millimeter and Inch-measure Inherent to the Geometry of Form

** **** ** In fact, the two systems of measuring length that have been the most influential in the history of the western world, the inch-based and the meter-based systems, together arise from and give scale to solid geometry’s most fundamental transformation. This is when a single spherical volume unit divides its mass between two new equal spherical volume units.

Beginning with a perfect idealized sphere, geometric properties of volume, surface area, and length are established. The distance from any point on the sphere’s surface running through its center to the opposite side is its *diameter*. This is its fundamental unit of length. When the sphere divides into two new smaller spheres their diameters form the next natural unit of length. A comparison of these two measures

**1.0/0.793700**

** **exposes the metric and inch systems. What follows is a brief explanation.

The *meter* is the metric systems base unit; the *centimeter* is one-hundredth, and the *millimeter* is one-thousandth that base unit. Likewise, beginning with a *yard*, which is about the length of a meter, we subdivide it into three *feet*. The *foot* further subdivides into twelve *inches*; which inch unit then breaks down into halves, quarters, eighths, sixteenths, and thirty-seconds. From the start, different countries had slightly different equivalencies for how many millimeters were contained in an inch. For example, the old *imperial inch* was 25.399956… millimeters. By the time Britain and the United States adopted 25.4 millimeters __exact__ as the standard in 1958 the rest of the world had long since arrived at this measure, also *by decree*.

These two systems of measurement were not originally designed to be commensurate, having evolved from two completely different sets of initial conditions. Yet at the length of an inch, it was clearly seen that 32 thirty-seconds of an inch, or 32 im (*inch-measures*) were uncannily close to 25.4 *millimeters*. And so it was decreed. Therefore,

**32im/25.4mm = 1.0im/0.79375mm **

and can be read as: 32 inch measures per 25.4 millimeters *is the same as* 1.0 inch measure per 0.79375 millimeter. And this ratio

** ****1.0/0.79375**

is the same ratio as the sphere diameters above to a 0.9999 degree of perfection. In fact if you consider that prior to the 1958 decree, all of the “calculated” measures were slightly less than the mandated 25.4mm, then the geometrically derived measure is even to a higher degree of perfection.

Now, in the example above, a sphere was used to illustrate the underlying geometric principle at work whenever a particular mass divides equally between two new units of identical shape as the original. This principle and specific lineal relationship extends to literally *any* shape, but if a cube is used as an example for the original unit, the mathematics are a little simpler than a sphere: 1.0 volume unit in the form of a cube has an edge length equal to 1.0. It divides its volume into two cubes *each* having a volume equal to 0.5. Therefore the edge length of each of the two new cubes is equal to the “cube root” (or volumetric root) of 0.5 which is 0.793700526… revealing the same ratio as when dividing the sphere. Again, regardless of how irregular the original form is dividing its volume into two new *identically shaped* forms this 1.0/0.793700 lineal relationship is inviolate.

** **Simply stated, what we clearly find in the geometry is that the *millimeter* is the lineal measure of the original form, and the *inch* measure (1/32”) the corresponding lineal unit of each of the two new forms after the original’s division.

## Why the Regular Tetrahedron is a Perfect Model for the “Pence”

**(See Chapter on “The Great Metric Hoax” ****for detailed Illustrations of the Following Presentation)**

** **Let us assume for a moment that in fact, the unit of weight measure known as the “pence” *was* consciously constructed from combining the surfaces of two **1.0** “gram” units in the form of perfect spheres into one regular tetrahedronal form as the *pence*. At some point the question must be asked: “why the tetrahedron rather than a cube, or another sphere, or some other form all together?”

At least part of the answer can be found in the unique properties of this form. The “illuminated” among the ancients probably knew what Dr. R. Buckminster Fuller re-discovered last century: that a regular tetrahedron is *naturally* subdivided into **24** equal volume irregular tetrahedra. Fuller called these A-Quanta Modules and they come in right and left hand pairs, 12 each per tetrahedron. If you visualize the four equal-angular triangular faces of the regular tetrahedron, and imagine each one to be the base of another tetrahedron within, when pulled apart, each is one-quarter of the original tetrahedron. These quarter tetrahedra each naturally subdivide again, first into thirds, and then each third divides again into right and left hand modules (these are illustrated in a later chapter titled “The Great Metric Hoax”).

So we find that our “Money Particle”, the tetrahedronal “pence” unit of weight measure, contains *a natural geometrical sub-division* of exactly **24** identically volumed, irregular, long pointy tetrahedrons. In fact, loose and in numbers, their physical appearance closely resemble “grains” of wheat or barley. And of course, as was pointed out in an earlier section, the *pence* unit of weight, being 1/20^{th} of a *troy* ounce, also contains **24** *grains*.

Whoever constructed the *pence* from the combined surfaces of two **1.0** *gram* units in the form of two spheres, also knew that *perfect spheres* of uniform size and weight were far superior to grains of wheat or barley for use as fundamental units from which a *system* of weights is built. No matter how close in weight and size cereal “grains” could never even approach the perfect uniformity of *idealized geometric spheres*. And of course the geometers of old were also well aware that the sphere was geometry’s choice for the most efficient packaging of volume, since it contains the most volume using the least surface area than any other geometric form.

They also knew the geometry at work in a bushel full of cereal grains compared to one full of equal sized uniform spheres. By connecting with lines the centers of mass of each unit, grains in one bushel and spheres in the other, two very different geometries are revealed. The cereal grains create an irregular, and in places chaotic matrix. In contrast, in the bushel of spheres, each is surrounded by and perfectly tangent to 12 other spheres. Connecting the centers of the spheres creates what Dr. Fuller called an “isotropic vector matrix”, i.e. vectors or lines *everywhere the same length*. Around any point within that matrix, geometry accommodates one vertex from exactly eight tetrahedra and six octahedra. The unobstructed spatial domains, created within the individual confines of line sets, create these two commensurate regular geometric solids. They both have identical face triangles but the octahedron is four times the volume of the tetrahedron.

*Geometrically* speaking, the entire bushel can be viewed as being full of nothing but tetrahedrons and octahedrons with no voids in between. The eight individual triangular faces of each octahedron is in turn one face of each of eight adjacent tetrahedrons. For every eight tetrahedrons there are three octahedrons occupying any given space. The entire bushel within, indeed all of space itself, could be filled completely using volume units in the shape of these two regular polyhedrons.

But this natural geometric sub-dividing of space itself does not end here, but comes full circle back to the original tetrahedronal form of the pence and its composition of 24 “grain”-like “A Quanta Modules”. If these be the sub-divisioning within the tetrahedra of an isotropic vector matrix, then the octahedra face triangles can likewise each accommodate one of these ¼ tetrahedra subdivided into “A Quanta Modules”. Another way of looking at this is by imagining each of the tetrahedra being incased by another ¼ tetrahedron on each of its four faces creating convex clusters of 48 A Quanta Modules. What is left remaining within each octahedron is a concave cluster of 48 (what Dr. Fuller called) “B Quanta Modules”.

These “A” and “B” Quanta Modules are of identical volume, i.e. equal to one “grain” of the tetrahedronal “pence” derived from the surfaces (or “face value”) of two spherical “gram” units. That they are of equal volumes is easy to demonstrate. Divide the octahedron into eighths by cleaving it through its three square equatorial planes. Since the octahedron is four times the volume of the tetrahedron each 1/8^{th} octahedron equals ½ a tetrahedron’s volume. If we remove the ¼ tetrahedron from the base of the 1/8^{th} octahedron we are left with a volume equal to the ¼ tetrahedron but in the form of six “B Quanta Modules”.

Looking into the bushel now, the geometer sees nothing but neatly arranged clusters of 48 identically volumed modules. They are of two types: convex tetrahedra and concave octahedra. Interwoven like a three dimensional fabric they can fill all of space leaving no voids. But once separated into individual weight-unit-clusters their unusual complementary geometries do not lend to repacking very easily. For this the geometers chose another arrangement of these “grain”-like modules forming geometric clusters containing **480** each. Archimedes called this shape the “cuboctahedron” and later Buckminster Fuller coined the “vector-equilibrium”. I am suggesting the geometers chose this for their unit of weight measure and it has come down to us through the ages as the “Troy Ounce” of **480** “grains”.

Visualize it this way. A few paragraphs back, when looking into the bushel with the matrix of connected sphere centers we saw a frame work isolating individual tetrahedronal and octahedronal spatial domains. When these were again subdivided into grain-like modules with each equal in volume to every other and a spatial domain unto itself, we can see another arrangement emerging from these clusters of 48 A and B Quanta modules. Remember, around every sphere center is a vertex from eight tetrahedra and six octahedra. The octahedra are naturally *cleaved in half* by the planes of the B Quanta modules of which it is composed within. Thus around any given vertex or sphere center a natural unit is formed out of the eight tetrahedra and six “one-half” octahedra. The resulting shape is a cube with its eight corners truncated (cleaved) from the mid-points of its edges. The entirety of the space within can be filled with these cuboctahedronal blocks with each containing **480** A and B Quanta Modules (336 A, and 144 B).

The parallels above between the natural “geometry of form” and the actual systems of weights and measures conform to a 0.**9999**6 fineness. In terms of “models”, the tetrahedron with its **24** natural subdivisions, and the cuboctahedron made from these tetrahedra and composed of **480** identical units, are both perfect models for the “pence” and “troy ounce” respectively.

## UNEQUIVOCABLE EVIDENCE OF A HIDDEN HAND GUIDING THE COMPOSITION OF

## AMERICA’S SYSTEM OF GOLD AND SILVER COINAGE

** **Pictures of the Morgan silver dollar usually are accompanied by the following description:

Diameter: 38.1 millimeters: Weight: 26.73 grams

Composition: .900 silver, .100 copper

Net Weight: .77344 ounce pure silver

It is almost like somebody is *purposely* trying to confuse us and to steer us away from discovering *their* system. For example, these specifications for the silver dollar are *typical* regardless of where one finds the information. The gross weight is most often expressed in *grams* while its pure silver content is given in a decimal equivalent to a *troy ounce*. These are two *different* systems of account; and when used together like these are far less informative than if one or the other was used for *both* weights. At least then one will be comparing “apples with apples” so to speak, or “oranges with oranges”. When expressed as 26.72955 *grams* gross weight and 24.05659 *grams* pure silver; or, .859375 *troy* *ounce* gross weight, .7734375 *troy* *ounce* pure silver, clear evaluation of these quantities is possible. And even far more informative than these is the system the Congress used in the 1792 Coinage Act: 416 grains gross weight (reduced to **412.5** *grains* with the *1837 Mint Act *); 371.25 grains pure silver content. But the true architects of this coin had another system in mind altogether and have, to the best of my research, successfully concealed it from the rest of world.*

***** The architects would have used this weight originally in 1792 if they thought they could get away with it. Because the Spanish milled dollar was the coin most prevalent in the colonies Congress wanted to make the new American dollar to be of the same “value”. Despite this mandate being written into the 1792 act, the coin they created was nevertheless slightly lighter than the Spanish coin even at 416 grains. So they had to wait and incrementally guide the slight changes to the coins over the years with new Congresses and new excuses for the changes. All the while, that they were creating, what was to them, mystical coins with magical properties was thoroughly concealed from the rest of humanity.

## The Coinage Code

The “historical record” tells us that the Coinage Act of 1792 brought into existence essentially two coins as the basis of the new American monetary system. The same historical record right up to the present day experts, also agree that the **371.25 **grains of pure silver in the dollar coin was a quantity arrived at by assaying Spanish silver coins in circulation at the time. This is because* they were mandated by the Act* to create a coin “of the same value as the Spanish milled dollar”. The **247.5 **grains of pure gold in the $10 eagle was supposedly determined by the current 15 to 1 (again *alleged*) global exchange rate.

History records that a thousand coins were gathered from the market place and a scientific body was charged with determining their silver content. This was done first in 1786, and a recommendation was made to the then “Continental Congress” that the coin contain 375.64 grains pure silver. But a second assay was allegedly made after Washington became president in 1789 from which it was determined that **371.25** grains would be the amount of silver in the new U.S. coin. Today, the foremost authority on the American coinage system, Dr. Edwin Vieira, at 19:00–22:00 minutes into his lecture “What is Constitutional Money?” says that if the same coins were assayed today, with today’s high technology they would most certainly arrive at a different figure. He concludes that this figure of **371.25** grains *was subjectively arrived at through comparatively crude analysis and is therefore purely “arbitrary”.*

Because of my 35 years of independent research into the “geometry of form”, I am able to see what “They” thought none of “us” would ever, ever see. Here is the recipe for their “coinage code”, despite what “history” insists on telling us (**note that one Troy oz. = 480 **grains):

### ( **66 **) / **6**(.**666**…) ( (one *Troy oz*. / (1/.0**666**…) ) = **247.5** grains pure gold / (one Troy oz.)

### (** 99 **) / **6**(.**666**…) ( (one *Troy oz*. / (1/.0**666**…) ) = **371.25** grains pure silver / (one Troy oz.)

Pretty *cool*, huh? But as clever as they were, the architects behind the scenes reveled in being even more clever, and secretive. They not only designed their coins to be based on the troy ounce of **480** grains, *and their secret recipe*, but unknown to the whole world until now, *they fashioned these same coins using the avoirdupois ounce*, our common marketplace ounce of **437.5** grains. This is especially significant because “historically” precious metals were rarely measured in any but *troy* units of measure. Not to worry, the *illuminous* architects knew better:

### ( **99** ) / **6**( (one *Av. oz.* /(1/.0**666**…) ) = **247.5** __grains pure gold__ / 437.5 grains (one* Av. oz*.)

### ( **66+99 **) / **6**( (one* Av. oz*./(1/.0**666**…) ) = **412.5** __grains pure silver__ / 437.5 grains (one *Av. oz*.)

### ( **69+99 **) / **6**((one *Av. oz*./(1/.0**666**…)) = **420** __grains (____Trade Dollar)__ / 437.5 grains (one* Av. oz*.)

Again, this is pretty *cool* don’t you agree?

Keep in mind, right now I’m the *only* “regular” human on earth who knows about this aside from the *contemporary* custodians of this secret. They’re probably lurking within the confines of one or another of those supposedly *secret* *societies*, such as are branded “illuminati” and other related ilk. Now *you* too, dear reader, know about their well kept secret. And this is just the tip of *an* *Iceberg* *of* *mind* *blowing* *examples*, from numerical to 3-D geometry that I’ve discovered regarding the money system, and beyond, that turns accepted history upside down. And I can support it all by mathematical truth as clear as those examples above.

## INSIDE THE MIND

## BEHIND THE HIDDEN HAND

By the time of the Coinage Act of 1792 both the Troy and Avoirdupois systems of measure were firmly established standards throughout Europe as well as the new American states. So in the secret traditions of the money masters, when designing the new American coins, they first divided *both* the Troy ounce and the common Avoirdupois ounce into 15 parts. They divided them into 15 parts because 1/15^{th} equals .0**666**, and .**666** is one of the most important ratios in all of *geometry* and *nature*. Next, they allotted 4/15ths of the Troy ounce to arrive at their *Troy** coefficient* (128), and 6/15ths of the Avoirdupois ounce to arrive at their *Avoirdupois coefficient* (175). Again in this 4 to 6 proportioning is found the .**666** ratio. Once having established their secret *allotment coefficients* they proceeded in the following manner to construct these various coins in 1792

__$10.00 Gold Eagle__:

**66/128** Troy ounce pure gold content (**247.5 **grains)

**6/128** Troy ounce alloy (**22.5** grains)

**72/128** Troy ounce gross weight (**270** grains)

At the same time, this *same* coin is:

**99/175** Av. ounce pure gold content (**247.5** grains)

**9****9/175** Avoirdupois ounce alloy (**22.5** grains)

**108/175** Avoirdupois ounce gross weight (**270** grains)

__$1.00 Silver Coins__:

**99/128** Troy oz. pure silver content (**371.25** grains)

**11/128** Troy ounce alloy (**41.25** grains)

**10/128** Troy ounce gross weight (**412.5** grains)

And the 1873 “Trade Dollar” is

**112/128** Troy ounce gross weight (**420** grains)

At the same time, these *same* two coins are:

**165/175** Av. oz. gross wt silver dollar (**412.5** grains)

And the 1873 “Trade Dollar” is

**168/175** Avoirdupois ounce gross weight (**420** grains)

There is no doubt that these “allotment coefficients” of 128 and 175 were purposely chosen. Just look at the data above and any chance that this is coincidental is obliterated. Besides, comparing 1/175^{th} *Avoirdupois* ounce (2.5 grains) with 1/128^{th} *Troy* ounce (3.75 grains) and here again is the 2/3 ratio.

2.5 grains/ 3.75 grains = 0.**666**

These very specific and unique proportions give rise to some surprising monetary relationships. For example regarding the $10.00 gold *Eagle*, every 128 coins contain *exactly* **66** Troy ounces pure gold; or, every 175 coins contain *exactly* **99** Avoirdupois ounces pure gold. (One cannot but notice the continually repeating juxtaposition between the quantities **66** and **99**, which relate as 2 to 3 again revealing the ratio .**666**.) And with respect to the **412.5** grain gross weight Silver dollar there is **99** *troy* ounces pure silver for every 128 of these coins.

It is essential to understand that one grain, or part of one grain difference from those numbers specified by the monetary architects for each coin, and there would be none of the afore mentioned relationships. Just as important is an appreciation for their clandestine use of the *Avoirdupois* ounce, and the understanding that it was rarely if ever used for precious metals. So when we see the $10 *Eagle*, what we don’t see is that *conscious* *intent* to bind this coin to __both__ systems of measure (just as we will see with the contemporary “bitcoin” architecture in a later chapter).

They used the Troy ounce divided into 128 parts and created a coin with a 72/128 Troy ounce gross weight. These 72 parts were divided between alloy and pure gold in a **6**/**66 **ratio. At the same time, with this same coin, using the Avoirdupois ounce divided into 175 parts, the gross weight of the Eagle is seen to be comprised of 108 of these parts. This makes the alloy to pure gold ratio (with respect to the Avoirdupois ounce) a **9**/**99** portioning.

It’s important to note, that historically it is the silver “dollar” coin that was established as “the unit” in the *1792 Coinage Act. The value of the gold coins followed based on their decreeing a 15 to 1 exchange rate. Thus starting with 371.25 grains of pure silver constituting the “unit”, and with each grain of gold the equivalent of 15 grains of silver, meant that each silver dollar was worth 24.75 grains of gold (i.e., 371.25 / 15 = 24.75). Therefore, a ten dollar gold coin must contain 247.5 grains of gold.*

## A Brief Insight Into The 1^{st} Debasing of “Fractional” Silver Coins

(1853 – 1873)

** ** At the beginning of our nation’s monetary system ten silver dimes contained *exactly* the same amount of pure silver as did a single dollar coin. But in 1853, the Illuminati’s *agents* (behind the scenes) convinced Congress to debase the nation’s fractional silver coins. For the next twenty years, any combination of silver coins minted totaling one dollar, contained **.72** *troy* ounce pure silver instead of their originally mandated **.7734375** *troy* ounce.

Some of the occulted mathematical and geometrical relationships that the monetary architects were invoking are based on the ratio **297 / 412.5 **, which is equal to **.72** . Of these two quantities, **412.5** (the gross weight in grains of the American silver dollar coin) is by now familiar to readers of this manuscript. But the other quantity, **297**. . . *overtly* less familiar, yet is easily *unveiled*.

For example, with the advent of the Civil War came the issuance of the first United States notes (“paper” *money* backed only by the government’s promise). These were the old “large” notes, and were printed 32 notes per full sheet of paper; four across and eight down. This *four across measure* was **29.7** inches, or equally, **2.475** *feet*. And as the 1792 Coinage Act demanded, there is **247.5** *grains* of pure gold in the original $10 *eagle* coin. What was known in Roman times as a standard measure of volume (usually of stone or brick) and later became known as a “masons perch” is **24.75** *cubic* *feet*. A *length *of **24.75** feet is 1/12^{th} **297** feet. That same Coinage Act called for **371.25** grains of pure silver (which is **.7734375** troy ounce) to be in every dollar coin. And, **8.0** times **371.25** is **2970**. Later in this manuscript, readers will come to realize that it is no *coincidence* that **1.0 ***cubic foot* contains **297**,000 *grams* of pure silver (this is to a **99.99**% correspondence).

It can not be emphasized enough, that the *measures* which we have been told were arrived at *arbitrarily* by our ancestors, are in fact *quantities inherent* to the composition of *geometry*, and then by extension to *nature* herself. One doesn’t have to *believe* this is true because geometry will show us that *this must be true*. When history tells us that the *avoirdupois ounce* in use today (which contains **437.5** grains) was simply a “creature” of an English king’s *decree*, it is *concealing* this quantity’s kinship in geometry to a **2475** unit quantity. For geometry clearly shows us that a *cube* having this volume has the *exact* same edge-length as a *tetrahedron *so scaled that the sum of its’ edges equals that of a *cube* with a volume of (**437.5** / √2). And if a cube’s volume is (**371.25** / √2) it will have the *exact same* edge-length-sum as a tetrahedron with a volume of **247.5**; and a tetrahedron with a volume of (**412.5** / √2) has an edge-length equal to the edge-length of *that* cube with a volume of **2475**. And what an “inexplicable” discovery (if following accepted *beliefs*) that **371.25** *barrel oil* just happens to also be equal to **247.5** *barrel fluid*.

But the Congress in 1853, doctors, lawyer, farmers, merchants . . . , was in all probability more interested in *why* they were *asked* to “debase” our fractional silver coins in the first place rather than *why* one particular quantity was chosen over another. But one thing we know with certainty: none of the information provided above was disclosed to these persons, or any others outside the cabal of the *illuminated*.

## GEOMETRIC MODELABILITY AND THE AMERICAN GOLD AND SILVER DOLLAR COINS

Who would have imagined in 1837, or for that matter in this day and age, that the **412.5** grain gross weight silver dollar coin, with its **371.25** grain pure silver content, was in fact *purposefully patterned on specific geometric models*?

For example, take two lines that are exactly equal in length. With the first line divided into six equal parts, construct a perfect regular *tetrahedron*. Using the second line divided into twelve equal parts, construct a perfect *cube*. These two geometric forms are “equal” in the sense *that the sum of their edge lengths *is the same. They are *equal* forms with respect to geometry’s 1^{st} dimension.

We can now impart *scale* to these two forms by stipulating that the tetrahedron be comprised of one **412.5** grain American silver dollar coin, and that the cube be comprised of the same metallic composition. When we weigh this cube, or do the mathematics, we find it contains **437.5**223207… grains. Of course, **437.5** grains is otherwise known as *one avoirdupois ounce*. As we can see below, the *silver* *dollar* *coin* and the *avoirdupois* *ounce* conform to this geometric model to better than **99.99**% perfection!

**437.5 / 437.5**(223207…) **= 0.9999**(48983…)

** ** To any who would attribute to *coincidence* this intimate tie to the fundamental unit of the *avoirdupois system* of weight should take a closer look at that tetrahedron comprised of the silver dollar coin. Its edge length is 15.18320306 (grain length units*); that is, *each* of its six edges are this measure. And since the cube is from the same length line as the tetrahedron, and has twice as many edges, each edge must be one-half the length of an individual tetrahedron edge.

Now construct a *second* cube having each of its individual edge lengths equal to that of the tetrahedron, i.e. 15.18320306. It too is imagined to be comprised of the same metal as the other two forms. The weight of this cube in grains is found by simply “cubing” its edge length. It is 3500.178566… grains, and 3500 grains is one-half *avoirdupois pound*. Again, as we can see on the next page, this model is also better than **99.99**% perfect!

*__Grain length Unit__: since the volumes of these geometric forms are expressed in *grains* the units of length and surface are likewise derived from the *grain*. A cube containing 1000 grains has an edge length of 10 (grain length units) and easily subdivides into 1000 small cubes of one grain each. Thus a single grain modeled as a cube has an edge length of *1 grain length unit* and a surface area (or face value) of 6 *grain surface units*. Keep in mind that whatever the *grain* is composed of in one form (gold, silver, copper, etc) must be the same identical material as is in any of the other forms for comparison. For example, 100 grains of gold and 100 grains of silver, though they weigh the same, will form different sized geometric forms.

** **** 3500 / 3500.(178566…) =** **0.9999(48983…)**

** **** **What has just been demonstrated can be summarized in the following manner: If you transform the American silver dollar coin into a perfect tetrahedron, then the “cube” of any one of its edges weighs (if made of the same metal) ½ an Av. pound; and the cube made from the sum of its edges, 1/16 an Av. pound (or one Av. ounce).

Here is another related example. In addition to a silver dollar coin there was also a gold ten dollar coin that was created with the 1792 Coinage Act. It was called the “eagle” and was equivalent *in value* to ten silver dollar coins. This ten dollar *value* and the one dollar silver coin are united in one perfect geometric cube which again derives directly from the *avoirdupois* ounce. In this example, it is the weight of the silver dollar coin’s *pure silver content*, its **371.25** grains of pure silver, which is at the root of this model:

Begin with an *avoirdupois* ounce of pure silver, this time in the form of a regular tetrahedron. Its individual edge length measures 15.48420173… Next to this tetrahedron is a cube of pure silver also with a 15.48420173… individual edge length. Its weight is **3,712.3**10602… grains and **3,712.5** grains is the pure silver content of ten one dollar coins. The conformance of the actual coinage to the ideal geometry is seen in the equation below:

**3,712.3**10602… **/ 3,712.5 = 0.9999**48984…

** **showing once again a better than **99.99**% approach to perfection.

Briefly in review: On the one hand, coming from the Av. Oz. in the form of a cube is a commensurate tetrahedron (having the same edge-length sum) equal to the **412.5** grain *gross weigh*t of the American silver dollar coin. And on the other hand, coming from the Av. Oz. in the form of a regular tetrahedron, is a commensurate cube equal in weight to the *pure silver content* of ten silver dollar coins. So the straight forward geometric modeling of the avoirdupois ounce gives rise to *both* the coin’s gross weight and pure silver content.

Note that in the first example on the previous page, with the cube and tetrahedron deriving from the same line it is the dollar coin’s **412.5** grain gross weight that was assigned to the tetrahedron. This resulted in the larger cube’s weight in the same metal becoming the 3500.178568… grain ½ avoirdupois pound. In the second example immediately above, using the same two forms but this time giving the tetrahedron the value of the **437.5** grain avoirdupois ounce, results in the cube containing the **3,712.3**10601… grains.

There is still more to this cube of **3,712.3**10601… grains. Its natural subdivision is into eight smaller cubes of 464.0388253… grains each. This is significant when one realizes that when the gold content of the “eagle” was reduced with the 1834 Coinage Act the coins then each contained 232 grains of pure gold. Two such coins contained 464 grains of pure gold. Therefore, this *same* cube of **3,712.3**10601… grains, deriving directly from the geometric modeling of the Av. Oz. represents the pure metal content of *both* the silver *and* the gold coins!

The photographs below show these forms and the relationships described above. When the five forms are considered to be of the same substance the relative weights (in grains) flows naturally from the geometry.

.

And here is another geometric model involving the **371.25** grain pure silver content of the dollar coin and the **437.5** grain Avoirdupois ounce. These two weights relate as

**437.5 / 371.25 = 1.1784**51178** / 1.0**.

To the monetary architects who knew how to read and interpret these quantities “geometrically”, *this equation depicts the following images*: On the left hand side is an *avoirdupois* *ounce* of pure silver compared to the *pure* *silver* *content* of the dollar coin. And on the right hand side *they* see the *total weight* of *ten* regular tetrahedrons of pure silver (each weighing **.11785**1130… grain), and having individual edge-lengths measuring **1.0** unit, being compared to one perfect cube having a pure silver content of **1.0** grain and edge lengths, like the tetrahedrons, of **1.0** unit.

This model is beautiful and elegant in both its simplicity and accuracy. There are eleven geometric forms in all, ten tetrahedrons and one cube, all with edge lengths equal to **1.0**. Moreover, if we change the scale and assign a value of **371.25** grains to the cube then the ten tetrahedrons together have a value of **437.5**22320….grains, or one avoirdupois ounce.

How closely does this coin conform to these geometric ideals? Once again, it is to better than **99.99**%

In the last example, the pure silver content of the dollar coin was compared to the *avoirdupois* *ounce*. This revealed a system of geometric modeling rooted in *unity* (tetrahedra with edge = **1.0**; a cube with volume and weight = **1.0**). Now compare the *gross weight* of the dollar coin to the *avoirdupois* ounce:

**437.5 / 412.5 = 1.0606**0606… **/ 1.0 **

** **** **Once again, there is a geometric structure underlying these proportions and it is reflected in the fundamental proportions of the regular tetrahedron. When the height of an equilateral triangle forming any one of a tetrahedron’s four faces is compared to the height of the tetrahedron itself, the *ratio* between the *avoirdupois* *ounce* and the *dollar* *coin’s* gross weight is revealed in the resulting equation:

**Ht. Triangle / Ht. Tetrahedron = 1.0606**601… **/ 1.0**

** ** The above equation involves *lineal *relations inherent to the three dimensional tetrahedronal form. But this same geometric constant appears again when the volumes of the cube and tetrahedron *having equal edge lengths* are compared. The cube will always be 8.485281374… times the volume of the tetrahedron, which can also be written as 8 X **1.0606**601… Readers familiar with Buckminster Fuller’s *Synergetics* will also recognize this number as a *synergetic constant.* And just how closely does the *coinage* and the *avoirdupois* *ounce* conform to the geometry? For this, look to the equation below:

**1.060606… / 1.0606601… = 0.9999(48983…)**

** **Again, the very same approach to perfection (**99.99**%) as the other geometric models presented thus far.

Additional models will show unequivocally that the portions **480** (one *troy* oz.)** , 437.5 **(one

*av.*oz.)

**(gross wt. $1 coin)**

*,*412.5**(silver wt. $1 coin)**

*,*371.25**(wt. $10 gold coin 1792)**

*,*247.5**and**

*,***232**(gold wt. $10 coin 1834)

*derive from the fundamental compositions of geometry*and can be seen on the following pages.

**(CONTINUE ON TO: The Simple Geometry Uniting The Silver Dollar Coin ****And The Avoirdupois Pound of 7000 grains)**