The first image provided consists the last two sheets of the first chapter of the Liber L manuscript, along with the first three sheets of the second chapter. The group is created when all of the sheets in the manuscript are pasted from right to left and top to bottom in a 5 x 13 pattern as instructed in verse III:73.
There are well-defined contours shared between the interior edges of the sheets that prove they were conjoined at the paper mill before being cut apart. The outer edges of the two outer sheets in the group have smooth edges, which proves they were not cut, but formed by the machine that made the sheets; from this, the conclusion follows that the sheets were cut into the same 5 x 13 pattern at the mill, and the author of the Book of the Law was aware of that fact.
Thanks to the wonderful new software at Lashtal, a file that shows all of the sheets pasted together can also be provided for examination:
There is a literary source that states the Fourdrinier machines used at the Stoneywood paper mill were upgraded in 1892 to allow them to cut paper sheets automatically; this all but proves the sheets were cut automatically into the 5 x 13 configuration at the mill. The row of sheets that contains the first sheet of the last chapter, not only shows a stain on that page, but shows several other drips that appear on other sheets within the row; this suggests the sheets were cut with a vertical pass, and then with a horizontal pass; while the horizontal pass was being made, the machinery sprang a hydraulic fluid leak, and stained the sheets.
The next image was created show the positions of the watermarks on the sheets, which are hard to see without extensive enhancement. The only portion of the watermarks shown is the shield, which has been enlarged for effect:
Clearly, the watermarks on the first 22 sheets are right side up, while those on the remaining 43 sheets are upside down. There are two factors that can explain the inverted watermarks. After the hydraulic leak developed, the sheets were gathered by hand into two stacks: one with 22 sheets that were not inverted-- those that consist of the first chapter of the manuscript--and another stack with the remaining 43 sheets, the sheets that comprise the last two chapters. When the second stack was moved, it had to be inverted 180-degrees before the watermarks were added to the sheets. In the diagram that shows the watermarks, those on the first thirteen sheets appear in the lower bout of the pages, while next five appear in the upper bout: this proves the watermarks were not applied to sheets all at once, but in small groups, which means the sheets were broken down into smaller stacks before being watermarked.
The remarkable aspect of the inversion of the last 43 sheets, is it should have had no effect on orientation of the watermarks; a blank sheet is a blank sheet, so even if it was inverted prior to receiving its watermark, the watermark would still be oriented in the same direction as those on the rest of the sheets, as would be expected of an automated process. Accordingly, the only explanation for the inverted watermarks as shown when the sheets are pasted, is the last 43 sheets had to be inverted a second time, after the sheets were purchased and the first chapter of the manuscript was written, but before the second chapter was started.
In order for Aleister Crowley to have known about any of the qualities seen in the sheets, which the author of the manuscript obviously did based on the instruction to paste the sheets, Crowley would have had to purchase the blanks sheets and paste them in the 5 x 13 pattern before ever writing on them, and in the process of doing he so, he would have also had to invert the last 43 sheets as stack before adding them to the arrangement. By not taking those two actions, none of the qualities in the sheets are readily apparent. There is simply no explanation why Crowley or anyone else would take such actions. The author of the manuscript also had design the chapter lengths around the 22 sheets that were not inverted at the mill, which places him at the mill when the sheets were created, otherwise he would have had no way of knowing about them.
So there you have it: physical evidence that the author of Liber L vel Legis had inexplicable knowledge of the sheets that no human being could have possessed, thus proving the metaphysical origins of text.
12 . 02 . 2019
Timothy Moss
Maybe i am missing something, but wouldn't flipping over a sheet or set of sheets produce the inverted watermarks?
wouldn't flipping over a sheet or set of sheets produce the inverted watermarks?
Considering the mountains of reams of paper I have printed, mimeographed, copied, typed, and scribbled upon, I hereby certify that absolutely anything can flip or invert a page or pages of paper, especially when handing a large or small stack of the stuff.
@Timothy Moss
93
Thank you for this contribution to the watermark question, which is very interesting.
However, I think you have misunderstood the watermarking process in the papermaking industry and confused it with the embossing process - which leaves a raised area that can be felt with the fingers and is done as a separate manufacturing process, using dry paper. Watermarks cannot be felt but can be seen by transmitted light.
Watermarks are applied to paper while the paper is still wet on the wire of the m/c. The watermark is produced by a raised impression of the design located on a cylinder that the wet paper web is fed into after it leaves the fourdrinier wire. This compresses the paper fibres, effectively making that area of the sheet translucent. The paper web is then coated with a chalk based writing surface, dried using heated rollers and is finaly rolled up into large rolls and taken off at the end of the m/c.
On cylinder m/c's the watermark impression is on the cyinder wire and watermarks the wet paper web before the paper is couched off.
The jumbo roll of paper is taken to another m/c to be converted to sheets of dimensions specified by the customer(s). This is achieved by slitting the roll vertically, followed by a chop using a guillotine after each separate mini-roll is taken off. The sheets are then stacked. Having already been watermarked, there is no need for a separate watermarking process which would in any case be impossible as the sheet is now dry.
It is entirely possible that packs of converted sheets were shuffled together by a bored operative at the gullotine in such a way as you describe, without any divine intervention.
To prove the reception story one way or the other we need a date on the watermark. A date after 1904 would support Cole's case in Liber Bogus - a date before would support Crowley's story. The evidence was supposed to have been included in an Appendix to Liber Bogus, but Cole has not yet published it.
I have always hoped that something from Rose Kelly, perhaps a magickal diary or her own Book of Results would surface and throw light on the question of the Reception of the Book. After all, she was there.
Johnny
The process you describe reflects the most recent techniques used. In 1904, the embossing process--the creation of a mark of the paper while damp, was, and still is referred to as a watermark.
The evidence was supposed to have been included in an Appendix to Liber Bogus, but Cole has not yet published it.
And that is the Heart of the Matter, as many folks buy (cautiously) into the New Aeon project.
herupakraath: "Clearly, the watermarks on the first 22 sheets are right side up, while those on the remaining 43 sheets are upside down."
A fact which indicates the possibility that AC's The Book of the Law can heve been written over at least two sittings, one sitting using papers from a stack of papers with watermarks the right side up, and one sitting using papers from a stack of papers with watermarks upside down.
herupakraath: "So there you have it: physical evidence that the author of Liber L vel Legis had inexplicable knowledge of the sheets that no human being could have possessed, thus proving the metaphysical origins of text."
If this to you is the is the best evidence, for your just quoted claim, do you have any evidence that is at the top of second best evidence for said claim? Also, do you expect more evidence for said claim, to be found in the future?
A fact which indicates the possibility that AC's The Book of the Law can heve been written over at least two sittings, one sitting using papers from a stack of papers with watermarks the right side up, and one sitting using papers from a stack of papers with watermarks upside down.
As I pointed out, the last 43 sheets had to be inverted as a stack a second time after they were purchased; the logical conclusion is this happened after the first chapter was written, but before the second chapter was started. What is more important, is the same stack of sheets was inverted first at the paper mill, after the sheets were cut, but before that watermarks were applied. The author of the Book of the Law had to know this, and had to know the 43 sheets needed to be inverted a second time, otherwise there would be nothing to see when the sheets are pasted together as instructed in verse III:73. There is no explanation as to how Crowley or anyone else could have known about the first inversion of the sheets without being at the paper mill when it happened.
Not if the sheets had no watermarks when they were inverted the first time, which has to be the case, otherwise, pasting the sheets in the 5 x 13 pattern would not re-create the pattern the sheets were cut into at the mill: they would look equally upside down as the watermarks do. The key to understanding my conclusion, relies on looking at the pasted sheets and seeing the edges fit together similar to a jigsaw puzzle.
the logical conclusion is this happened after the first chapter was written
"Logical conclusion?" Absolutely Anything (A.'.A.'.) could logically conclude at least 23 other ways the watermarks could have been inverted inverted. If asked to name them, I will confess to exaggeration, but 5 could be identified, and praeterhuman fiddling is not one of them.
There is no explanation
Sure there is. The butler or maid did it.
herupakraath (quoted from OP): "... the only explanation for the inverted watermarks as shown when the sheets are pasted, is the last 43 sheets had to be inverted a second time, after the sheets were purchased and the first chapter of the manuscript was written, but before the second chapter was started."
Can the one who purchased the juste mentioned sheets, have caused the said "second time invertion" of the last 43 sheets?
herupakraath, with respect to what you argue in this thread, it appear that some peculiarities with the paper AC used when he wrote his The Book of the Law, serves as a basis for your suggested solution to the following cryptic instruction in AC's The Book of the Law, III:73: "Paste the sheets from right to left and from top to bottom: then behold!"
The key to understanding my conclusion, relies on looking at the pasted sheets and seeing the edges fit together similar to a jigsaw puzzle.
You have a point. The paper may have been made by hand however, and also trimmed by hand. Using hand made, watermarked writing paper would have been Crowley's style. He may had time to prepare for the Reception, getting writing paper and implements, as Rose Kelly had forewarned him
The key to understanding my conclusion, relies on looking at the pasted sheets and seeing the edges fit together similar to a jigsaw puzzle.
You have a point. The paper may have been made by hand however, and also trimmed by hand. Using hand made, watermarked writing paper would have been Crowley's style. He may had time to prepare for the Reception, getting writing paper and implements, as Rose Kelly had forewarned him
Part of the watermark contains the words, Standard Typewriting, so it was definitely not made by hand. The pattern formed by the sheets also conforms to the mass production process the Fourdrinier machines were used for.
"As I pointed out, the last 43 sheets had to be inverted as a stack a second time after they were purchased; the logical conclusion is this happened after the first chapter was written, but before the second chapter was started. What is more important, is the same stack of sheets was inverted first at the paper mill, after the sheets were cut, but before that watermarks were applied. ..."
How can you know that " the same stack" (= the last 43 sheet (of one handwritten manuscript of AC's The Book of the Law)), "was inverted first at the paper mill before that watermarks were applied"???
That is, what other details than the said watermarks, can serve as evidence, or at least an indication, that these 43 sheets were "inverted first at the paper mill, after the sheets were cut, but before that watermarks were applied. ..."???
Also, how can you be sure that the first stack of 22 sheets of one handwritten manuscript of AC's The Book of the Law, and the remaining stack of 43 sheets of the same one handwritten manuscript of AC's The Book of the Law, are both from the same production batch produced at the same time at the same paper mill???
That is, can the possibility that AC wrote the said one handwritten manuscript of his The Book of the Law, using papers from one production batch produced at the same time at one particular paper mill, for the 22 first sheets of said manuscript, and later on also using papers from a diffrent production batch, for the remaining sheets of said manuscript, be disproven, or be ruled out???
As far as i can understand what herupakraath is saying here, i think his theory is based on the idea that watermarks are applied to cut sheets of paper? If so, i think this is incorrect, and that watermarks are applied prior to the cutting of paper into sheets.
In any case, i still do not understand what the significance of the inverted watermarks is supposed to be, or why the many obvious quotidian explanations for how some sheets of paper in a stack might be inverted can't explain whatever pattern exists.
I believe his argument is that the leaves of paper used for the manuscript came from a singular 5x13 sheet, and Aiwass's command to paste the sheets in the 5x13 pattern was meant to show the pages fit together -- thus evincing their original state and supposedly 'proving' that Aiwass had preternatural knowledge of the paper. The debacle over the watermarks is supposed to show the reader that Crowley couldn't have known the pages would fit together, because the watermarks, being inverted or fucked up as may be more apropos, would have lied to him about it.
As some esteemed members of the forum have pointed out, knowing pages fit together and watermarks don't matter doesn't take superhuman knowledge. I have, more diplomatically, made the point that even if his argument were 'correct' no one would believe it, and would just make up whatever counter-argument they need to maintain their current, non-Thelemic worldview; such as the tried-and-true, "his subconscious did it." As usual, for all my nicety I was called an intellectual poseur, and maybe I am but you shouldn't say it anyway.
What I find to be really ridiculous is the implication that Aiwass's command to paste the pages wasn't intended to demonstrate his qabalistic knowledge to some adept down the road, which would have undoubtedly had some magical value, but simply to show off his pedantic understanding of a few sheets of paper. This is of no more magical value than what you'd learn on an episode of How It's Made, and the purpose could only be to prove that he exists as an intelligence separate to AC, and not necessarily a greater one. Personally, I have never spoken to anyone and said to myself, "I need to make sure this fellow understands that I exist."
As far as i can understand what herupakraath is saying here, i think his theory is based on the idea that watermarks are applied to cut sheets of paper? If so, i think this is incorrect, and that watermarks are applied prior to the cutting of paper into sheets.
In any case, i still do not understand what the significance of the inverted watermarks is supposed to be, or why the many obvious quotidian explanations for how some sheets of paper in a stack might be inverted can't explain whatever pattern exists.
If the watermarks had been applied all at once, it would have happened before the sheets were cut; in that case, none of the watermarks would be upside down, and they would all occupy the same position on each sheet of paper, neither of which is true. I reiterate: the only way the sheets can fit together like they do when pasted, and the last 43 watermarks be upside down, is if the last 43 sheets were inverted as a stack before having the watermarks added to them; this is not a theory on my part, it's a physical fact born out by an examination of the sheets.
Even though the last 43 sheets were inverted before having watermarks imprinted on them, all of the watermarks should have been oriented in the same direction when the manufacturing process was complete; thus the only way the watermarks can appear upside down as they do when pasted together, is if the last 43 sheets were inverted a second time, after the first chapter of the manuscript was written, but before the second chapter was started.
If I had just happened to paste the sheets together of my own volition, without being instructed to do so in verse III:73, the claim could be made that both inversions of the sheets is simply a remarkable coincidence, but based on the instruction, the author of Liber Legis had know what would be seen when the sheets are pasted together, which means he had to know about both inversions of the sheets. Crowley could not have known about the first inversion of the sheets at the paper mill without first arranging the blank sheets in a 5 x 13 pattern, and inverting the last 43 sheets before placing them in the configuration, which creates the pattern seen in the pasted sheets. If Crowley did not take those actions, he can't be the author of verse III:73.
in that case, none of the watermarks would be upside down
I have found this discussion very interesting. What is not clear to me is how a sheet of blank notepaper can be deemed to be upside-down.
"... the only way the sheets can fit together like they do when pasted, and the last 43 watermarks be upside down, is if the last 43 sheets were inverted as a stack before having the watermarks added to them ..."
"... the claim could be made that both inversions of the sheets is simply a remarkable coincidence ..."
To reiterate, slowley, and in short:
So the physical fact(-s) born out by an examination of the total number of sheets of paper used in one particular handwritten manuscript of AC's The Book of the Law, demonstrates that the last 43 sheets out of a total of 65 such sheets (that is, first 22 sheets + last 43 sheets = 65 sheets (in total)), were inverted twice, before they all ended up as the sheets of papers constituting one particular handwritten manuscript of AC's The Book of the Law?
Which means that, THE FIRST INVERTION occured when the said last 43 sheets were produced, just before having the watermarks added to them, and THE SECOND INVERTION occured at some moment during the time it took for AC to write one particular handwritten manuscript of his The Book of the Law?
And your claim herupakraath (based on your interpretation of AC's The Book of the Law), is that the real author of one particular handwritten manuscript of said book, had prior knowledge about how THE TWO SAID INVERTIONS would affect the configuration(s) of all the said paper sheets arranged in a 5 x 13 pattern?
One thing I don't get is, what physical fact bears out, or what physical facts bear out, that the said TWO INVERTIONS occured, and that there was not ONLY ONE INVERTION occuring during the time it took for AC to write one particular handwritten manuscript of his The Book of the Law?
This is an incredibly confusing discussion.
So the claim is that pages in the some portion of the manuscript were inverted twice? Doesn't this result in them being in the same position they were initially in?
- Why does it matter which way the watermarks face on which pages? and
- Why can't the pages with inverted watermarks not be the result of a) turning the pile of blank paper upside down (perhaps it was dusty), or b) picking it up and then replacing it such that the end that was facing north, eg, is now facing south, in between manuscript writing sessions?
in that case, none of the watermarks would be upside down
I have found this discussion very interesting. What is not clear to me is how a sheet of blank notepaper can be deemed to be upside-down.
The process that created sheets began with a large reel of wet material. The leading edge of the material was fed into a roller assembly that consisted of both an upper and lower roller which pulled the material forward into the machine. There were a series of these sets of rollers which continued to pull the material through machine, while squeezing the water out of it, thus forming a long continuous sheet. The width of the continuous sheet was 40 inches, which is the width of five of the manuscript sheets placed side by side. At the end of the process, a length of the material that was 130 inches long, and 40 inches wide, was automatically cut into 65 sheets after emerging from the last set of rollers; presumably this occurred on a table of some sort. The pasted sheets as shown in the graphic image provided, is what the sheets looked like after being cut, but before being removed from the table. The question that emerges when looking at the sheets, is why are the watermarks on the last 43 sheets upside down, and first 22 not? The only answer is the last 43 sheets were inverted 180-degrees as a stack, before the watermarks were applied to them, while the first 22 sheets were not.
You're observation is correct: a blank sheet of paper can't be upside down, which means the inversion of the last 43 sheets at the paper mill should have had no affect on the orientation of the watermarks on the sheets; all of the watermarks were right side up when the sheets were packaged and shipped. Accordingly, the only reason the watermarks on the last 43 sheets appear upside down within the pasted configuration, is because they were inverted as a stack a second time, after the first chapter of the manuscript was written, but before the second was started. The reason the author of verse III:73 instructs readers to paste the sheets, is to alert them of the fact that he not only knew of both inversions of the sheets, but caused them.
How can you possibly know what direction the stacks of paper were facing when watermarked ("the first inversion"), and why does it matter that the stack of blank paper may have been moved or flipped over after the first chapter was written? So what?
I can't understand either what you are claiming as evidence, or why you think it proves anything.
herupakraath: "... all of the watermarks were right side up when the sheets were packaged and shipped. Accordingly, the only reason the watermarks on the last 43 sheets appear upside down within the pasted configuration, is because they were inverted as a stack a second time ..."
It appears that your above quoted statement does not make sense:
You state that all of the watermarks were right side up when the sheets were packaged and shipped, and before being used in one particular handwritten manuscript of AC's The Book of the Law, in which the last 43 of the said sheets finally ended up upside down. How do you prove or demonstrate that this shape or condition of said manuscript, requires that the pages or sheets of paper in some portion of this manuscript were inverted twice, and not only once?
This is an incredibly confusing discussion.
It's the Choronzon Factor; increasing mental activity ... when the overall goal is to "Stop Thinking - Get Out."
Not that I want to discourage research that might save the planet.
Why does it matter which way the watermarks face on which pages?
It has been assumed that paper sheets are intended to lay down straight and not be inverted or (gasp) turned upside down. In this case, "upside down" means the front face has been turned over and the "back" of the page is now "up" and ready to write on. Of course, this would "reverse" the watermark, so that it was backward-reading (use a mirror!). In modern paper, the "front" is always smooth, while the "back" is rougher; this can be easily determined by brushing the paper across one's lips. But I don't know if this applies to paper made around the turn of the previous century.
north, eg, is now facing south, in between manuscript writing sessions?
Exactly. Or at the mill, or when the butler first placed the pile on the desk, or when Aiwass purposely certain pages to provide "proof" of praeterhuman intervention. (The last option is the key to understanding - or denying - this thread).
I can't understand either what you are claiming as evidence, or why you think it proves anything.
If proven, it demonstrates supernatural fiddling in order to impress us humans. If unproven, it demonstrates excessive mental agitation
[Clarifying changes added by me in bold:]
You state that all of the watermarks were right side up when the sheets were packaged and shipped, and before being used in one particular handwritten manuscript of AC's The Book of the Law, in which the last 43 of the said sheets finally ended up upside down. How do you prove or demonstrate that this shape or condition of said manuscript, requires that the pages or sheets of paper(s) in some portion of this manuscript were turned upside down twice, and not turned upside down only once?
The group is created when all of the sheets in the manuscript are pasted from right to left and top to bottom in a 5 x 13 pattern as instructed in verse III:73.
There are well-defined contours shared between the interior edges of the sheets that prove they were conjoined at the paper mill before being cut apart. The outer edges of the two outer sheets in the group have smooth edges, which proves they were not cut, but formed by the machine that made the sheets; from this, the conclusion follows that the sheets were cut into the same 5 x 13 pattern at the mill, and the author of the Book of the Law was aware of that fact.
I apologize for not mentioning this earlier, but it has only just occurred to me that verse III:73 does not command the sheets be pasted in a 5 X 13 pattern, only that they be pasted right to left and from top to bottom.
Paste the sheets from right to left and from top to bottom: then behold!
The absolutely, exquisite, forensic analysis of paper and marks and edges in this thread is reminiscent of How many Angels can Dance on a Pinhead?, and Which Came First, the Hen or the Egg?
We are looking for continual video surveillance of said paper, and its handling, from the Mill to the Scribble. Too bad it was not available in those ancient days before Big Brother got his cameras in place.
How can you possibly know what direction the stacks of paper were facing when watermarked ("the first inversion"), and why does it matter that the stack of blank paper may have been moved or flipped over after the first chapter was written? So what?
I can't understand either what you are claiming as evidence, or why you think it proves anything.
If you're not willing to download the images provided into a graphics program and look at them, it will be hard understand what I'm talking about. To help, I'm providing a simpler graphic below that demonstrates the issue:
The full sheet on the right consists of the last sheet of chapter one of Liber L vel Legis, while the full sheet on the left consists of the first sheet of chapter two. The areas that are circled highlight edges of the sheets that show they were one large piece of material before being cut into sheets. The shield on each of the sheets has been traced over to demonstrate its position. The only way the edges of the sheets can have matching contours, which they do, and the watermark on the left sheet appear upside down, is if the sheet on the left was rotated 180-degrees after being cut, but before the watermark was applied to it. Once that happened, the watermarks should have both been right side up, and the edges of the sheets should not have had matching edges when packaged at the mill. The fact that the edges do match, and the watermarks do not, proves the sheet on the left was rotated a second time, after the first chapter of the manuscript was written, but before the second chapter was started. Now go back and reread my other posts, and look at the large graphic that shows all of the sheets pasted together; I'm tired of repeating myself.
herupakraath: "... If you're not willing to download the images provided into a graphics program and look at them, it will be hard understand what I'm talking about. To help, I'm providing a simpler graphic below that demonstrates the issue: ..."
To help, you could provide a detailed animation that demonstrates the said issue, as proof of what you believe to be the true metaphysical origins of AC's The Book of the Law.
I wonder if a detailed demonstration of the a following issue, will prove one way or the other, about if AC's The Book of the Law originated in a metaphysical way or not:
There is a solution to the 'cipher'.
The solution is simple and requires no 'qabalistic noodling'.
The solution is self-evidently what was intended by AC/Aiwass. It requires no fiddling with verse numbers. All it needs is a scan of the original manuscript of Liber
Legis, a photograph of the stele and a 1904 map of Cairo.
'Nuff said." (Source: 'AC and Egypt' book. - - - https://www.lashtal.com/forums/thelema/ac-and-egypt-book/ )
To help, you could provide a detailed animation that demonstrates the said issue, as proof of what you believe to be the true metaphysical origins of AC's The Book of the Law.
I second that motion.
What we are looking for is something practical that helps us survive (more easily), or gives a practical method for transcendence of this Valley of tears and Fears, and we will even accept proof of praeterhuman entities. Please excuse me for speaking for all the readers, but I think I'm on the right track. Or was it the left track?
@Shiva – “I second that motion.” Can I third the motion?
Speaking as one with a firm conviction that Crowley originally included the riddle specifically for himself to solve (though circumstances compelled a revision to this plan), I would certainly appreciate “... a solution to the 'cipher' [...] simple and requires no 'qabalistic noodling' [...] self-evidently what was intended by AC/Aiwass. It requires no fiddling with verse numbers. All it needs is a scan of the original manuscript of Liber Legis, a photograph of the stele and a 1904 map of Cairo. 'Nuff said’.”
@lashtal – The riddle is a hugely significant piece in the AL enigma. If you are in possession of a definitive solution then, please, tell. Heck, release it as a grossly overpriced pamphlet! I’d buy a copy, as would many others. If nothing else, it would prevent further, and increasingly Pythonesque, speculation on Aiwass’ Scottish Leaf Shuffle. So... It’s just a turn to the left, then a twist to the right...
herupakraath has undertaken a very interesting, detailed and original analysis of the watermarks in the paper upon which Liber Al vel Legis was recorded. Rather than dismissing it in your characteristic, cavalier manner I suggest that you try and follow the argument rather than going off-topic
@frater_anubis – “You can ask, but i'm not going to tell you” – So, nothing of note, then. Yes, herupakraath’s theory is quite something. Based on a misunderstanding of the paper-making process (as noted on the thread) and concluding with a notion that Aiwass took a tour of the Pirie paper-mill just so he/she/it could subsequently demonstrate how clever he/she/it was.
As for “going off-topic.” The Webmaster of this site is in possession of clear solution to the riddle (as written on the paper in question). I, for one, am far happier dealing with realities (which may clarify matters), rather than speculation about possible praeterhuman paper-pushing (which will clarify nothing). Again, I request that @lashtal reproduce his solution.
Again, I request that @lashtal reproduce his solution.
So now you must know how it all feels then, Richard!? Savour that sensation! The biter bit, the hunter hunted, sauce for goose ganderfied, & all that schmazz...
As I recall it, @lashtal was petitioned for some more info on this some years ago when it was first declared, and then playfully went very (in fact totally) quiet on the subject evermore afterwards. I would be very surprised (though also pleased) if he were to choose to expound further on it now so that the mystery & solution were satisfactorily revealed & resolved. Particularly in this very thread, too!
Deviantly offtopickally yours,
Norma N Joy Conquest
@jamiejbarter – “As I recall it, @lashtal was petitioned for some more info on this some years ago when it was first declared, and then playfully went very (in fact totally) quiet on the subject evermore afterwards. I would be very surprised (though also pleased) if he were to choose to expound further on it now.” - I sensed a great disturbance in the Force, and suspected your fowl presence, with sauce... 😉 I remember it well. Though still ask, ‘Why?’ To what end does this solution remain shrouded? Is our esteemed Webmaster himself a Black Brother, withholding his Babalon Cup for some nefarious purpose? Should we consult @Shiva? Let us ask again, nicely, that @lashtal reveal his inner sanctum. After three...
The standard definition of the Yiddish word "chutzpah" is "murdering your parents and then throwing yourself on the court's mercy as an orphan".
However, @RTC's recent "Show us the evidence!" calls in this thread, and the main "Horus Toy" thread, threaten to set a new standard of chutzpah.
threaten to set a new standard of chutzpah.
Pay no attention to those men mumbling beside the curtain!
I, and I alone, have discovered the secret secret of secrets. It is so simple that anyone can understand it and apply its merits to change reality ... multiple times, until you get it right.
There is not any paper involved, and any watermarks are invisible. Praetors make no appearance, and guilt is a thing of the past. There is no Qabalistic fiddling, because the true, eternal QBL is limited to a single, two-digit (2.3 Mb disk space) number: a six an'a one.
I would gladly disclose this amazing remedy to you, but nothing prevents me from revealing it, lest you use it to kill me.
I've often seen it asserted that LAShTAL "is not an occult website," but we do seem to be tripping over ourselves trying to catch a glimpse of so many little secrets, don't we?
I would also like to hear lashtal's ideas on the cipher, even if they weren't coherent enough to see print. The notion that the stele has some role in the solution seems sensible enough, considering its hieroglyphic was written right-to-left (save the description of Ankh-ef-en-Khonsu, which faces the same direction as its subject, and this is normal) like the sheets were pasted. The significance of a 1904 map of Cairo lays beyond my ability to speculate, however.
I doubt we'll see much success tracking down a five-year-old glimmering of an idea, but annoying someone new over this long campaign of wild goose chasing sounds more fun than playing who's on first with Doctor Watermark.
Yes, herupakraath’s theory is quite something. Based on a misunderstanding of the paper-making process (as noted on the thread) and concluding with a notion that Aiwass took a tour of the Pirie paper-mill just so he/she/it could subsequently demonstrate how clever he/she/it was.
There is no misunderstanding of the 1904 process on my part; the first watermark ever trademarked was done so by Pirie in the mid-nineteenth century; it was pressed on to a damp sheet using a dandy roller, and was certainly known as a watermark. The process described by Frater Anubis is the modern process. Now try answering the question instead of ignoring it: how can the 65 pasted sheets form the same pattern they did when cut at the mill, and the watermarks on the last 43 sheets be upside down? My observations and analysis are correct, not that facts and genuine evidence mean anything to you.
As for “going off-topic.” The Webmaster of this site is in possession of clear solution to the riddle (as written on the paper in question). I, for one, am far happier dealing with realities (which may clarify matters), rather than speculation about possible praeterhuman paper-pushing (which will clarify nothing). Again, I request that @lashtal reproduce his solution.
The solution to verse III:47 of Liber L requires no map, no stele, nothing but the correct magical alphabet and the person that knows how to use it, as you will soon learn. 😀
Yours truly, Doctor Watermark.
Doesn't your claim depend on watermarks being applied to individual cut sheets of paper, which is not how watermarks are/were applied? They are applied in the rolling out of sheets of paper in the process of squeezing out water (thus the name), not to cut and dried sheets aof paper.
Further, isn't your claim fundamentally about the way that tiny deviations in the edges of the pages fit together, allegedly proving that they were cut from whole sheets, and originally fit together (pre-cut), in a certain way?
But isn't it nearly certain that the cuts into sheets were in dead straight lines in an early 20th century factory, and that any tiny deviations in the edges of the pages are the result of eg water damage, differential aging etc. in the 115 years since? And that any apparent "lining up" of these edges between sheets is just coincidence/confirmation bias?
To the extent i can understand what you think you have found in the ms., i still cannot for the life of me understand why you think it proves anything at all, let alone anything extraordinary.
I've often seen it asserted that LAShTAL "is not an occult website," but we do seem to be tripping over ourselves trying to catch a glimpse of so many little secrets, don't we?
This is all true. We have put this "occult" term into the masher, the grinder, the mill, and the press many times on many threads ... leading to the conclusion that this is not the place for folks to find hidden secrets.
LAShTAL is (also) not a "teaching" site. This means people should not expect anyone here to enroll them in any course of training, or expect to have their progress monitored or corrected.
LAShTAL is (also) not a "Thelemic" site.
Yes, we all know that "occult" stuff is mentioned, but it's more of an "unveiling" that goes on here. As in, openly revealing any so-called "hidden" secrets in order to render them "non-occult" or "no longer hidden." This is why posters who claim knowledge of secrets or solutions, but refuse to reveal them are reviled as fakirs.
As said "occult secrets" are revealed, and thus dismissed as hogwash or bovine excrement, anyone who reads said exposure(s) is obviously going to "learn" something, but it's not because they've been "taught."
Loud screams of agony and despair have been heard in reference to this citadel in cyberspace not being "Thelemic." But such a motive would be "exclusive." There is all manner of reference to Tibetan, Buddhist, Hindu, Taoist, and (assorted) Western spiritual concepts and practices.
Don't get caught in nit-picking anal-ysis of specific words. It won't work. This is the Home of The Aleister Crowley Society. All threads are supposed to be relative to said Crowley, his associates, assigns, and heirs (plus his reincarnations), and his history and interests.
In reality, one will find occult, teaching, and Thelemic stuff all over the place. this is due to the "inclusive" mentality of the owner/moderator, who allows a wide range of anything remotely related to Crowley, plus a certain latitude in going off-topic. Excessive deviation is usually first called out by some other poster. Sometimes people get stubborn ("resist authority") and continue to go crazy, roam off-topic, or post too much copyrighted material. They usually get warned once ... before their account gets deleted/closed after a continuation of defiance.
The solution to verse III:47 of Liber L requires no map, no stele, nothing but the correct magical alphabet and the person that knows how to use it, as you will soon learn.
This "soon learn" is another Osiris reference to the future. There are so many people here (right now in real space-time-Terra), dangling worms, carrots, and glittering coins that will lead to liberation in the future, that one must wonder, wtf?, and then struggle to regain a practical perspective in the here-and-now.
Dangling carrots or worms would be a great topic for review when the next version of The Guidelines is contemplated.
"Dangling carrots or worms" is sometimes used as a method for catching fish.
Perhaps this is the source of the term "fishy" for those who keep dangling, but never seem to deliver.
eep dangling, but never seem to deliver.
But I will deliver ... next week or shortly thereafter.
"The rule is, jam to-morrow and jam yesterday – but never jam to-day."
"It must come sometimes to 'jam to-day'," Alice objected.
"No, it can't," said the Queen. "It's jam every other day: to-day isn't any other day, you know."
"I don't understand you," said Alice. "It's dreadfully confusing! ["L. Carroll". 1871. Through the Looking Glass and What Alice Found There]
See also the 1911 anarchist labor song "The Preacher and The Slave" by Joe Hill: "You'll get pie in the sky when you die (That's a lie!)."
Doesn't your claim depend on watermarks being applied to individual cut sheets of paper, which is not how watermarks are/were applied?
The last image I provided proves that not to be the case--one of the watermarks is upside down (!) yet the sheets were clearly conjoined before being cut apart: it proves the watermarks were not applied to all of the sheets at once a you suggest, or even in rows of five sheets at once. Here's another example:
The two sheets were obviously part of one sheet before being cut apart--the edges match perfectly--but the watermarks are in different positions on the sheets: this would be impossible if the watermarks were applied simultaneously. Look at the drawing with the watermarks on it, it dispels any argument the watermarks were applied all at once.
Further, isn't your claim fundamentally about the way that tiny deviations in the edges of the pages fit together, allegedly proving that they were cut from whole sheets, and originally fit together (pre-cut), in a certain way?
The deviations as you describe them are edges that match on the sides, tops and bottoms of the sheets. Look at the most outer edges of the 65 sheets as a group--the edges are perfectly straight: that's because they were not cut, but molded with the Fourdrinier machine. Part of the argument is that in pasting the sheets, it recreates their positions immediately after they were cut at the mill: that in itself would be of no consequence, if it were not for the last 43 watermarks appearing upside down.
But isn't it nearly certain that the cuts into sheets were in dead straight lines in an early 20th century factory, and that any tiny deviations in the edges of the pages are the result of eg water damage, differential aging etc. in the 115 years since? And that any apparent "lining up" of these edges between sheets is just coincidence/confirmation bias?
Nearly certain? Baseless theorizing is no match for a pair of lying eyes--you can trust them!
To the extent i can understand what you think you have found in the ms., i still cannot for the life of me understand why you think it proves anything at all, let alone anything extraordinary.
I'm not surprised.
Doctor Watermarks
So you believe that paper was watermarked in individual sheets after cutting and drying? And your evidence that this was the process employed is that your theory wouldn't work if that wasn't how it was done? How do you explain the fact that all available evidence on paper manufacturing discusses watermarking before cutting into sheets? How would watermarking even be possible, with dry sheets?
Can you explain how you exclude the possibility that the uneven edges of sheets that you believe "match perfectly" are the result of water damage, differential aging etc. over 115 years?
Also, can you explain how you believe these wiggly edges were cut in the factory? Clearly not by any industrial methods, or wouldn't the cuts would be dead straight? Perhaps by small children with scissors?
Are you familiar with other current or historical examples of typing paper (which has to have pretty straight edges to feed through a manual typewriter) with uneven wiggly edges, similar to those you think you have found in the AL ms.? That would help convince us that those edges aren't the result of water damage/aging.
It is all very well to sneer at the deficient intellectual gifts of those who can't understand your claims, and think they make no sense, but you have yet to even convincingly demonstrate you have discovered an interesting, or even real, phenomenon, let alone that the things you imagine you see are meaningful, let alone that they are meaningful in the way you imagine they are.
Pertinent to this thread is a fact that, at an indeterminate time (likely at the Abbey of Thelema), Crowley re-backed each of the individual manuscript leaves with linen, then trimmed them to size (as described in the Big Blue Brick, somewhere near the back). So, all dimensions and all dimensional deviations supporting this theory were hand-crafted by Crowley, in Cefalu, not Pirie, in Scotland. Though, I am sure Aiwass was guiding his scissors.
@lashtal - I hear you getting ready to post your solution...
@lashtal - I hear you getting ready to post your solution...
Nope.
Owner and Editor
LAShTAL
Crowley re-backed each of the individual manuscript leaves with linen, then trimmed them to size
My joke as to the sheets' wiggly edges having been caused by cutting "by small children with scissors" was not so far off then.
So the "perfectly matched edges" some imagine were not caused by Aiwass guiding the workers of the Pirie paper factory to encrypyt His message as they hand-cut, and then watermarked, the individual sheets of typing paper.
Rather, Aiwass guided the Prophet's hand as he snipped snipped snipped, causing him to cut each sheet individually such that the edges match "perfectly".
Truly a proof of praeterhuman intervention of a much higher order than initially posited, if the "matches" are not an artifact of confirmation bias, aka wishful thinking.
Paul-
Why did you previously announce your knowledge of the solution and yet choose not to share, even after all this time?