This is my therapy; explain the mystery, my ongoing investigation and emerging theories to my few imaginary readers (for I'll never meet them or know the extent of their interest, if at all).

Many months ago I asserted in an essay still posted on this site (as are all the good ones and stupid ones) that the following is the greatest mystery posed by WD Gann in the Foreword of "The Tunnel Thru the Air:"

The mystery of death...the ability to read the future like an open book... The detective will know when the mystery is solved for he will understand "why Jesus rose on the third day and rested on the seventh day." At that time, the seven days of Robert Gordon will no longer be a mystery.

**We have the mystery. Can any mystery be greater than understanding that which is after death or the means of reading the future like an open book?**We have the means; gather wisdom or actionable factual data in my estimation. It would seem, first ,like Sherlock Holmes gathering relevant data and throwing out the irrelevant data for his "attic." And with that getting of the relevant and factual, you draw inference to arrive at getting understanding. We do that with imagination, theories and testing. Again from the "Silver Blaze:"

"Where is he then?" The 'he' is a missing champion race horse and Holmes determined they'd find the tracks of the horse by finding the line to the theorized destination of the horse; at some point, the tracks of the horse would intersect that line as it meanders the moors. Not a solution to the greater mystery, a murder mystery, but one step closer to that end. Imagine the end and act upon it.

What facts can be gathered from the paragraph that describes the "Greatest Mystery?" We've already identified the need for wisdom or actionable data, but, are there facts in that one paragraph? Yes; the mystery of death is on the level of Jesus haven risen on the third day and rested on the seventh. Its a literal fact that Jesus did not rest on the seventh day, God rested. Jesus, God and the Spirit are one but not the same, a distention made often from the pulpit. Quite literally, though, God worked and completed his work in six days and rested on the seventh day in Genesis, the first book of the Bible; not Jesus. Mr. Gann knew that, so I can only surmise the inaccuracy is pointing to a fact. Remember,

**rise on 3 and completion after the 6th.**Another inaccuracy that might be a clue pointing to a fact; the chronology of the rose on the third day rested on the seventh. Its backwards from the Biblical account. The account of the world's creation is presented in the first book of the Old Testament and Jesus rose in the New Testament. Mr. Gann inverted the chronology. Remember the

**"inversion."**Now to find more facts that, many which I have placed in my attic in previous months. They are both expressed with the agony of turning them over in my mind and expressing them, imperfectly as they are, in the essays of this blog. But, as Holmes tells Watson in the first insert of this essay, nothing clears up a case better than the expression of it to another. Let's reprise what I'm considering as containing relevant facts with my imagination presently; Robert Gordon's 7 days and the WD Gann Memorial Triangle.

**. Robert Gordon circumnavigated the earth at about the 41st parallel (roughly, the latitude of New York City) in 6 days and rested on the 7th. RG left NYC at 7am traveling east and making 22 stops to destroy buildings or return thanks to the allies of the US. RG completed the circumnavigation just after sunrise on the 7th day when he anchored over Montreal. Since Montreal is very slightly east of NYC, the circumnavigation was complete in exactly 6 days. From there, he sailed south to NYC and arrived there just before noon on the 7th day. From this information and the details of the 22 stops in the trip I derived several measurements. Here's one of the latest iterations of the spreadsheet that computed and double checked these measurements:**

__Robert Gordon's 7 days__First, a measurement of mileage at about the 41st parallel. Robert Gordon traveled 34K miles, as the crow flies. However, if you use the Haversine method to parse the mileage he traveled from east to west, then he traveled 18K miles. Eureka, that's the circumference of the earth at that latitude! And, if you compute the absolute value of the mileage traveled north/south measured from the latitude of NYC, he traveled 18K miles. Interesting,

*east/west mileage equals north/south mileage*. Is that a clue? Also interesting, imagining these three measurement as comprising a triangle, we have

*an isosceles triangle with two angles of 19 degrees and one of 142 degrees.*Hmmm, very appealing, an isosceles triangle.

Second, a measurement of mileage at the equator. Of course, the crow flies distance remains the same at 33K miles and the east/west mileage remains the same....it is a matter of mathematics. But the north/south absolute distance is greatly increased to 47K miles. With great disappointment, I found sides of 18K, 33K and 47K give me a very awkward and meaningless triangle with angles of 33, 130 and 17. And then I recalled a set of extraneous details on pages 400 and 401; a height of 60 miles and an anchoring height 100 feet. Sixty and one hundred or 60 divided by 100 or 100 divided by 60. Either .6000 or its inverse 1.6666. Low and behold, when I reduced the 47K north/south miles by (1-.60) or divided by 1.6666, I could see a near right triangle having sides of 34, 18 and 29:

One last observation. RG traveled east, the same direction as the rotation of the earth. In the 6 days which elapsed in New York City, the earth turned on its axis 6 times. RG, traveling in the same direction, saw the sun rise only 5 times.

There are many properties of Robert Gordon's 7 days worthy of their storage in my attic, but there are only a few I want to bring into my study for the moment. But, for the moment,

**I want to remember 1) east/west mileage (time) equalling north/south mileage, 2) the circumference of the earth at the 41st parallel is roughly 18K miles, 3) the isosceles triangle morphing into a right triangle triangle, 4) the .6000 and 1.6666 which morphs the triangles, and 5) RG experienced one fewer days than the six days person who did not leave New York City during the period of RG's trip.***. On my second visit to Mr. Gann's grave I stood at his gravestone facing, as was his gravestone, lower Wall Street and realized the Statue of Liberty (SOL) was maybe 20 degrees left of my line of sight and the fictional Mammouth Building at 42nd and Broadway was maybe 45 degrees to my left. I began to imagine a notable triangle comprised of the SOL, Times Square and Mr. Gann's grave. What a far fetched idea! And yet, when I reduced the points to a Google Earth representation, it was an imminently notable right triangle.*

__The "WD Gann Memorial Triangle" (GMT)__I say imminently notable because the side lengths (red lines above) display a unique relation. The Phythagorean triangle is a 3-4-5

*arithmetic progression*of sides. The Kepler triangle, the only triangle that can be used to 'square the circle,' is a

*geometric progression*of its sides according to Phi. I find that the GMT is an exponential progression of its sides:

Interesting, if the Kepler triangle is the only triangle that squares the circle, a two dimensional operation, then would the GMT exponential triangle square the cube? Just imagining, but that's where it all begins, does it not?

Aside from that, I see that number 1.6666 that was in RG's 7 days above. I see the total miles, 16.08 miles is 4^2 or 2^4. I see the sides of the triangle, denominated in years, is, in reality a straight line...not a triangle. Any two sides of a triangle must exceed the third side...that's law. The GMT has sides of 23, 46 and 69 and 23+46=69...hence, its not a triangle. Among the 3 points of the GMT there are defined the three red lines which have associated with them BOTH a distance (space) element and a time element.

If the time dimensions do not constitute a triangle, they are a line. They're a line that is formed of 3 subdivision of lengths 23, 46 and 69 totaling 138 years. From the date of the dedication of the SOL in 1886, through the 1932 Mammouth Building and ending with Mr. Gann's death in 1955; 1955 minus 1886 = 138. Its 23, 46, and 69.

But what kind of a line? Its a circle with a circumference of 138 years.

But here is where it gets, exponentially comes to mind, more complicated. When I first plotted the GMT in Google Earth I noticed a diamond (see HERE) of gravestones that pointed at Wall Street.

*They also pointed at the World Trade Center*. The 110-story Mammouth Building....the 110-story WTC. I imagined the WTC a 4th point.

But a 4th point in a triangle? There are only 3 points in a triangle. A 4th point would imply a four sided polygon? And with the 4th point within the other three creating a concave four-sided polygon? I don't think so.

No.... with the 4th point of the WTC, I

**imagine**we have a tetrahedron. The fly in that ointment is that the four component triangles do not 'appear' to be equilaterals. In space (distance) measurements, they are not according to the table above. Appearances are deceiving. If I were to measure the following 2 dimensional representation of a pyramid viewed from a slightly elevated position and along an edge, would I find the faces to be equilateral triangles? Not a chance.

Similarly, the GMT with the WTC 4th point within the confines of the other 3 points is a tetrahedron viewed from the western edge and from, perhaps several miles above the earth (however far up the satellite might be).

Here, then, are the pieces of furniture related to the GMT I want to remove for further examination;

**1) The side lengths of the GMT and the circumference of the circle that further identifies the GMT, 2) the recognition of the exponential progression of the side lengths implying a three dimensional object instead of a two-dimensional triangle, 3) the implication of the GMT being a tetrahedron viewed from far above the GMT and not directly overhead, and 4) the reappearance of the 1.6666 seen in RG's 7 days but within the GMT.***. The theory, then, is this; the GMT is a tetrahedron that Mr. Gann identified (because it exists independent of his ability to contrive) and used to predict the apex thereof...both in time and space. The apex is the WTC on 9/11/2001. If Mr. Gann used the mathematics and physics (special relativity) of 4 dimensional space to make that very specific prediction (within 1 minute of Muhammad Ata departing Logan Airport on 9/11/2001, see HERE) then we should be able to detect mathematic relationships between the space (distances) implicit in the GMT and the time surrounding the formation of the GMT. Time and space must be related for him to have reckoned from the three points in the GMT base triangle to the 4th point at the apex of the tetrahedron.*

__Formulation__And where might the great mystery stand? Quite prematurely and without the entirety of proof sought in the preceding paragraph I'll make an offer:

**He**began at the first point, moved to the second and upon reaching the third point,**He**ascended to the apex...the fourth point and apex of the tetrahedron.*AND, as a minimum of five equal tetrahedra (the days of work RG experienced) can be configured to create a cube having 6 equal square faces (the days of work judged by a stationary person)*

*:*

*After the fifth day, judged as being the sixth, and upon completing five tetrahedra together comprising the six sides of the cube,*

**He**rested on the seventh.One last thought on the formulation. As best I can recall, and I know there are people that have studied this, Mr. Gann referred to the fourth dimension only once in the Commodities Course:

How different might we approach measuring time and space in the markets if we were to substitute the the words "cube," "tetrahedron" and "sphere" for their 2 dimensional counterpart above?

Part 2 will attempt an examination of the relation of the components of the GMT formed by the 4th point in time and space with the expectation that time and space will vary inversely on an exponential basis. Perhaps I will not be able to identify the exact mathematic relation by which they vary, but I have already seen the inverse relation between time and space and certain other relations (1.6666) do recur.

The math is not completed at this point and I may never succeed. But I

*I will.*

**imagine**Jim Ross