Author of the Month

A Tale of Two Synchronicities (cont.)
By Mark Grant


Click to expand

On the morning of my 50th birthday, I woke up in a state of Grace.

The hangover I deserved was a small fraction of what it should have been. I adjourned to the living room, where my wife brought me a cup of coffee and turned on the TV.

Just as the screen came into view I heard a sports broadcaster say that the most dramatic day in the history of the English Premier League had just concluded.

Now, since this is an international board, it would be helpful to set things up. In Premier League soccer there are no playoffs. This means that the team that finishes the ‘regular season’ with the most points is declared champion.

In the case of the 2011-12 season, Manchester City and Manchester United entered the final day tied for first place. As is the custom, the two teams played each other twice during the regular season, which included a very unusual first game at United’s home field, where the hosts were trounced at Old Trafford by a score of 6-1.

It was United’s worst home loss in several decades – which makes the outcome a true statistical rarity, as was the fact that two goals were scored in extra time. And we note these things because, when it comes to macro syncs, we presume that the ‘designer’ often speaks to us through the improbable.

Because ‘City’ had a better goal differential going into the final day of the season, all they had to do, practically speaking, was match ‘United’s’ performance: if both teams lost, tied or won, City would take the title.

The only way United could take the title if both teams won, would be if they outscored their opponent, Sunderland, by nine or more goals more than City would in their game against Queens Park Rangers (QPR). So, the table was set for City, in a way that evokes association with that very unusual game played at Old Trafford in late October, making it historically significant, and therefore prominent, in terms of the 2011-12 Premier League season.

And so they played. With the entire Premier League season on the line, fans across Great Britain and around the world tuned in.

Apparently the lead changed hands several times. Since the press hailed this as nothing less than the most dramatic final day in Premier League history, one can imagine the multitudes watching intently at home or in pubs, craning their heads from one television to another as if Andy Murray and Roger Federer were slugging it out at Wimbledon.

United finished their business with Sunderland, winning that game by a goal.

This meant that City had to win theirs.

But by the time the United-Sunderland game was over, City and QPR were very nearly done their match, with the Rangers ahead by one goal going into extra time.

This was very bad news for City Fan. As anyone remotely familiar with soccer knows, it is extremely unlikely that two goals would be scored by the same team in extra time. And this was exactly what City had to do, for as we have noted, it wouldn’t be enough to draw with QPR.

Yet this is exactly what happened.

After tying the game a couple of minutes into extra time, the Citizens scored another goal. That earned them the Premier League title.

Now before going into an analysis of this goal, I will state my working hypothesis, which is that the ‘designer’ targets some monumental moments, encoding them with design in much the same way that growing numbers of people believe that certain prominent ancient monuments are also discreetly encoded, like the Great Pyramid of Egypt.

So, first we must ask, was the final goal of the 2011-12 Premier League season ‘monumental’?

The answer is yes, unequivocally, on two grounds.

In the technical sense its prominence is clearly established through the fact that it was the deciding goal of the deciding match of the entire season of the world’s most watched professional soccer league.

In the emotional sense, it was truly sensational, and anointed accordingly as we have noted by the British press.

Now, like I said earlier, when I first learned of this I was less than two weeks away from finishing my book, which was largely concerned with the same subject: monumental moments in the world of sports.

I might not have bothered to look any closer, but that all changed when I heard the sportscaster mention that the final goal was also the 1066th goal of the Premier League season – a new record.

That got me thinking that the final outcome was designed, because 1066 is a number that practically SHOUTS England, through its association to the Battle of Hastings. It is a number that resonates with the English identity in much the same way that 1776 does the same with Americans.

To many historians, 1066 marks the beginning of English culture as it is known today.

Now, when it comes to discreet interventions, one never knows if the result is due to chance or design. With that qualification in mind, my rule of thumb is to say, “If this is design, then...”

In this case, such a statement could be reasonably completed by saying, “...then the designer is demonstrating the ability and the willingness to speak to English culture by determining the exact number of goals scored in the Premier League season.”

This may sound like a far-fetched (unconventional) way of thinking. But in fact, a similar thing happened in relation to the most recent monumental moment in modern Olympic history.

The aforementioned Golden Goal that ended the Vancouver Games (mentioned earlier) produced the 99th win for Canada in the history of the Winter Olympics, by way of a goal manufactured by players 12 and 87. “If that is design”, then the designer is essentially doing the same thing, from a slightly different angle.

Conventional thinking says this is just pattern creation. That may be true. But can the statement actually be backed up, consistently, with equally hard evidence?

If not, then the Golden Goal of 2010 can be regarded as a kind of design precedent. This makes the 1066 interpretation I have just proposed more plausible.

As I have learned, it can pay to look deeper when it comes to sensational outcomes that appear to be designed.

So, I decided to look further. Since macro syncs must be prominent, the final goal of the City-QPR game was the most logical place to start looking.

I learned that the player who scored the crowning goal was an Argentinean chap named Sergio Augero. Turning to Wikipedia, I then learned that Mr. Augero was born on June 2nd.

That caught my attention immediately, because over here in Canada there has been much discussion about this being the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee year. This is a celebration that is based on Queen Elizabeth’s coronation in 1953.

Somehow I had known (or had been discreetly informed in advance) that Her Majesty’s coronation had also been on June 2.

What this meant, according to the designer interpretation, was that this monumental moment was a macro sync with a convergence level of two – that being the number of meaningful synchronistic associations tied to it.

As syncs are often tied to the improbable, brief mention should be made of the fact that the chance correlation between the Queen’s coronation and Augero’s birthday. The likelihood that both would occur on the same date is about 1 in 365 – around halfway between a straight and a full house.

While we can’t pin down the likelihood that an entire Premier League would end with 1066 goals, ranges can be established. If, for example, we are to presume that variance in the Premier League goals is 100 goals when all seasons are considered, we would expect to see a 1066er once every one hundred seasons.

Taken together, this means we would expect to see a Premier League season end with 1066 goals off of the foot of a man born on the Queen’s coronation once every 36,500 seasons (100 x 365).

More reasonable ranges can almost certainly be established. But the truly significant point is made clear, and one doesn’t need to an exact number to know this to be true: what took place in relation to that final goal was very, very rare.

Yet it such an outcome just happened to occur during the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee year, when England, the Commonwealth of Nations, and many other countries around the world are celebrating Queen Elizabeth’s coronation.

And it took place in a game involving Queen’s Park Rangers, on Mother’s Day.

By my reckoning, these elements increase the convergence level to five...

As such, it seemed to me that the designer was saying Tally Ho! symbolically, in a way that acknowledged what is, in fact, an extremely special year for England.

It is also very convenient that the Battle of Hastings of 1066 centered around a William and Harry.

This certainly makes one think of the current William and Harry.

Perhaps the designer was trying to say, “I have been overseeing your evolution since the beginning, as I do today.” Under these terms the use of ‘1066’ is a very clever selection.

Likewise there is another curious feature about June 2, the date of the Queen’s coronation.

The Anglican Church regards English monarchs as Defenders of the (Anglican) Faith. If I understand correctly – and I might not – a coronation is regarded as a kind of act of sanctification, a blessing bestowed upon the new monarch and, by extension, the faithful.

Here it becomes potentially relevant that June 2 was the 153rd day of 1953. This number evokes association with the biblical story found in John 21.

In that narrative Jesus instructs Peter to assume the role as first leader of the Christian church.

Now, within the Christian community there are many denominations, one of which is the Anglican faith. Perhaps the June 2–153 correlation is a discreet way of acknowledging how John 21 relates to the Anglican faith, through a more localized application of this universally Christian story.

In closing, I wish to point out that this is one ‘hand’ of several I have uncovered in the course of my research. The case I make is very much like a ‘fixed’ card game. One needs to sit down at the proverbial table for a while in order to see why intervention appears to be going on. One hand can much more easily be attributed to chance.

It remains to be seen if the skeptics can consistently produce the results I have found.

However, if this one ‘hand’ is actually the result of design, then how superbly articulated it is, being delivered on some of the most archetypal English soil, a soccer pitch, in the very land where the world’s favorite game was first introduced, in the late 1800s.

Thinking in global terms puts us in a position to consider one more thing, another discreet fact which may be intended to extend the overall message beyond English and Christian associations to something more universal.

Turning to the hero of this crowning moment one last time, we find that Sergio Augero last name means 'omen' in Spanish.

Not bad for what was dubbed “the most dramatic final day in Premier League history”.

Click to watch video

In my opinion this monumental moment makes a fine example of ‘self-referencing’ design – a choreographed outcome that speaks to the moment itself, on multiple levels, symbolically, against a very low chance likelihood.

But the final result contains strong evidence of relational design, elements that tie it to other events.

I have found in the course of my research these last few years that the numbers 44 and 89 often show up in relation to what seem to be designed events. This is certainly true in the English case of Man v. Man.

With their two victories on the final day of the season, City and United finished the season with 89 points each.

It was City’s first title in 44 years, and since the club was 132 (or 3 x 44) years old at the time, this meant City was in its 88th (44 x 2) season when they last took the title.

When the wider design is considered, I wonder if 89 is intended to be viewed as a symbol that represents the Fibonacci sequence. This sequence is given much attention by scientists, mathematicians and mystics.

89’s inverse, 1/89, when expressed in decimal form, produces a recurring 44-digit sequence.

It’s first six numbers, 011235, are the first six digits of the Fibonacci sequence.

Returning to our poker table one last time, this correlation appears against chance odds of exactly 1 in 1 million. This means the correlation is about 1.5 times less likely than being dealt a royal flush.

Incidentally, there is evidence that suggests Man v. Man may have been designed to evoke association with a UFO sighting that was seen live recently, on national television in the United States. I will present that information at my new web site soon. If you wish to be informed when this article comes up, follow me on twitter, and I will let you know when it’s up.

PreviousPage 1Page 2Page 3Page 4

Site design by Amazing Internet Ltd, maintenance by Synchronicity. G+. Site privacy policy. Contact us.

Dedicated Servers and Cloud Servers by Gigenet. Invert Colour Scheme / Default