@MyLordMySaviour The ac­tu­al num­ber~666~name of the #Beast ac­cord­ing to the #Revelation is ex­plained herehttps://t.co/tT5NqBcJy5 pic.twitter.com/Row04aPQSY

— As­troTime (@Astro_Time) 16 gennaio 2017

A­nat­o­my of the name-num­ber 666 i.e.: BERGOGLIO

Not for me to ac­cuse or judge, but only dis­solve the e­nig­ma of e­nig­mas, be­cause the time has come.
There was no con­nec­tion be­tween the num­ber and a name so far, and here it is; but at the pre­sent time the key can­not per­tain the Ro­man lan­guage, nei­ther Greek nor He­brew, but it must be world­wide, re­leased from lo­cal roots: first math­e­mat­i­cal, then com­pu­ter sci­ence:

Let this be just the u­nique, un­re­peat­a­ble an­swer to the dis­tant call of John, dic­tated by Je­sus.
Who owns oth­ers, set­ting out !

This is ac­tu­al­ly the log­ic that led to the dig­i­tal com­pu­ter code from the u­ni­ver­sal bi­na­ry, in which there are only 0 and 1, the one that gave birth to the mark, to its ap­pli­ca­tion and a match­ing name in due course.
What I want to em­pha­size is that we are fac­ing an ob­jec­tive lan­guage, in time and in space (not only plan­e­tary), un­like the sub­jec­tive com­bi­na­tion of what­so­ev­er lan­guage. And that there­fore the in­vi­ta­tion more u­nique than rare, placed ex­plic­it­ly in the in­ter­dimensional dic­ta­tion to John by Je­sus Christ - af­ter his as­cent to the Heav­en­ly Peaks - rat­i­fied the es­sen­tials con­nec­tion be­tween the hu­man in­tel­li­gence and the met­a­phys­i­cal.
An ex­traor­di­nary in­vi­ta­tion, that pierces the scenes stormy of a most­ly im­pen­e­tra­ble a­poc­a­lyp­tic sce­nar­io, of too much in­ten­si­ty and sym­bol­ism, for to pro­vide a ray of light which will make the man in­volved, and ren­ders him the ac­tor to fore­head of the great­est dan­ger to be faced by his own a­ware­ness.

A log­ic un­known at that time, but in­trin­si­cal­ly con­nect­ed to what in es­sence de­fines this mark, its us­age and pur­pose of con­trol.
The com­pu­ter does not know al­pha-nu­mer­ic char­ac­ters and sym­bols of any kind, but just num­bers: it is the out­put that con­verts them into signs hav­ing mean­ing for our eyes.
A­mong the 256 char­ac­ters that can be con­tained in a dig­it [num­ber] called byte of 8-bit (oc­tet), i.e. [11111111]=28 – that is to say, each re­presented in a dis­tinct man­ner – af­ter the first 32 con­trol cha­ractes for the use of the sys­tems, and the 32 ba­sic sym­bols and num­bers, there are the let­ters: A with val­ue 65, B=66, and so on up to 90=Z.
The bi­na­ry rep­re­sen­ta­tion of [A] would there­fore be {01000001} = 65 [A], that is: 2^62^0 1286432168421 sum of the 7th and the 1st pos­i­tive bit. 01000001 In prac­tice, the 1st bit add­ed to 1, af­ter the first two se­ries of 32, i.e. 1 + the po­si­tion [~quan­ti­ty] 64.
We are now ready to ex­am­ine how bi­na­ry cod­ing ap­pli­es to the an­nounced NAME, each let­ter (cap­i­tal­ized) of which is re­pres­en­ted by an AS­CII val­ue that adds the num­ber of its po­si­tion in the wes­tern al­pha­bet of 25 let­ters, to 64; which means 9 × 64 = 576 (5+7+6=18), which add­ed to the to­tal of 90, of the or­di­nal val­ues of the let­ters, be­comes 666.

{01000010} = 66 [B] |  2
{01000101} = 69 [E] |  5
{01010010} = 82 [R] | 18
{01000111} = 71 [G] |  7
{01001111} = 79 [O] | 15
{01000111} = 71 [G] |  7
{01001100} = 76 [L] | 12
{01001001} = 73 [I] |  9
{01001111} = 79 [O] | 15
tot. AS­CII = 666    | 90 {al­pha­bet­i­cal to­tal}
It can now be ver­i­fied eas­i­ly: the pos­i­tive bits [1] of each let­ter, ex­cept for the val­ue 64, nat­u­ral­ly re­pres­ent the or­di­nal val­ue of the let­ter it­self (in i­tal­ics in the ta­ble).
It is worth not­ing that 90 is also the code of the let­ter Z, as a goal and lim­it of eve­ry­thing that can be re­presented; and that the av­er­age of the val­ues of those 9 let­ters is 10, which is 1 and 0 al­most to e­voke the trace­a­bil­i­ty to the bi­na­ry.
It is ev­i­dent that no pre­vi­ous lan­guage, or ex­tra­ne­ous to the 0­/1 sys­tem, could have as­pired with a more than kab­balistic con­sist­en­cy to such a re­sult; Ge­matria in­clud­ed, in all its var­i­ants.
Of pure cu­ri­os­i­ty, the 6+5 char­ac­ter A, for the nu­mer­ol­o­gy is worth 11, a fac­tor of a new be­gin­ning af­ter the first ten [in this case, the be­gin­ning of the al­pha­bet].
There are no let­ters [A] in the name ex­am­ined, whose first two let­ters [BE], con­stant in the trans­la­tions of the voice "Beast" in many lan­guages, seem to seal the whole mys­tery of that name, in a con­struct that is like the com­bi­na­tion to a safe.
It starts from [B], whose first pos­i­tive bit – as well as its po­si­tion in the al­pha­bet – is worth 2 (sym­bol of du­al­ism and there­fore sep­a­ra­tion); and 2 are also the pos­i­tive bits of the dec­i­mal 66 (see green ta­ble); where in the nu­mer­i­cal val­ue 69 of [E] the dig­it 9, be­sides de­limiting the in­i­tial 666 of the o­ver­all se­quence, in­di­cates the num­ber of cap­i­tal let­ters mak­ing up the name, whose sin­gle dig­its in the code are 18, that is 3 times 6 !
And if the 9 closes the se­ries of sim­ple num­bers, and is there­fore a sym­bol of ful­fill­ment, com­plete­ness and po­ten­tial per­fec­tion (from the 9 LET­TERS of CHRIST to the nine tri­an­gles that form the Sri Chak­ra, u­ni­ver­sal sym­bol of Cre­a­tion), it can be not­ed that the [ B] could not be fol­lowed by any oth­er vow­el, since an [A] would have es­tab­lished a name of 5 let­ters, in­suf­fi­cient to to­tal 666, and a [I], like any oth­er let­ter af­ter E, would not have re­solved the in­i­tial three 6.

The only pat­tern there­fore, ca­pa­ble of mark­ing by it­self the very name, with an ir­re­place­a­ble log­ic.
The only scheme, therefore, capable of marking the name itself, according to an irreplaceable logic.
By way of example, the name SEBASTIAN = {83, 69, 66, 65, 83, 84, 73, 65, 78} is also 666; but the sequence, even of 9 prescribed letters, begins with 836, and is not worth the mark.
Valid instead BENEDETTO = {66, 69, 78, 69, 68, 69, 84, 84, 79}, which although not as indicative as a secular name (sur­name), it is still the name adopted by at least fifteen popes, including right the penultimate, the first pope in the pres­ence of the bi­na­ry lan­guage al­most to un­der­line a pre­cise an­tic­i­pa­tion (note the rarity of the case), and yet not that one des­ig­nat­ed to the RFID mark, whose real name i.e. birth name, is what dis­tin­guish­es it.
It should also be taken into account the association “man's num­ber” that is the “number of his name”, which is expressly to indicate a specific personal name and not a generic and im­per­son­al pseudonym, such as the one just mentioned; the last proof that the surname is the real answer with no alternatives lies in the fact that while a name can be translated into various languages, such as Fran­cesco [660], Fran­cisco [664], Fran­cescu [666]… this does not apply in any way to the surname.

This in­tro­duc­tion serves to un­der­line the ab­so­lute val­ue of the no­ta­tion which, be­yond any more sought-af­ter syn­cre­tism, is be­ing re­vealed here.

It will be bet­ter an­a­lyzed, af­ter hav­ing watched in what de­fin­i­tive way the fig­ure 666 in­ter­acts with barcodes, long in use in the world mar­ket, but des­tined – and al­ready ap­plied – to mark peo­ple too.
The ways of cod­ing and rec­og­ni­tion are var­i­ous, but in the con­text an in­dic­a­tive idea will suf­fice; I en­large a sam­ple of an ISBN num­ber I de­vel­oped years ago, for a trea­tise of my pub­li­ca­tion. Each num­ber in the scanned graph­ic is re­presented by cor­re­spond­ing par­al­lel lines and spaces of var­i­a­ble thick­ness. As you can see, the num­ber 6 is re­presented by the ac­tive and se­quen­tial bit­/val­ues 4 + 2 {00000110} and pre­cise­ly by two thin lines.
In the most com­mon sys­tems it ap­pears 3 times: at the be­gin­ning, mid­dle and end of each code, high­light­ed by pairs of long­er de­scend­ing lines.
Cer­tain de­bates a­bout the fact that these fig­ures are hid­den in the code seem to me com­plete­ly ir­rel­e­vant: the three de­scend­ing legs (red­dish) do not sup­port any num­ber since they are not part of the sin­gle code, but de­fine it by in­cor­po­rat­ing it, as frames of a dou­ble win­dow. They are like the scaf­fold­ing, or the con­tain­er of each in­di­vid­u­al cod­ing, since they de­fine the be­gin­ning, the end and the two parts, al­low­ing their read­ing-ver­i­fi­cation by scan­ning; also called 'sen­ti­nel bars', they tell the scan­ner when to start, sec­tion and end the ac­qui­si­tion.
If in­side the code a val­ue 6 ap­pears (tur­quoise in fig.), that num­ber 6 will be read­a­ble un­der the two rel­a­tive lines, which ob­vi­ous­ly will be of e­qual length to those of the oth­er num­bers and there­fore e­qual­ly vis­i­ble, but al­ways leav­ing room for num­ber­ing (which must be leg­i­ble in the e­vent of a de­vice mal­func­tion.
“It is in­ter­est­ing to note that the Greek word trans­lated mark is charagma , de­riving from the lem­ma cha­rax, which means 'a pal­i­sade, like a fence'.
When one re­al­izes that this spe­cif­ic word was used back in the first cen­tu­ry, and we see to­day the use of the com­pu­ter-re­lat­ed bar code, we find the pos­si­bilities be­com­ing more than a re­al­i­ty in our day and age.”
(Ro­bert Van Kampen, “the Sign”, 1992, p. 231)
Ba­si­cal­ly: one of the mean­ings of the Greek root-word for charagma (trans­lated "mark"), ie cha­rax, e­vokes the con­cept of 'poles', that is to say 'like ver­ti­cal lines'.
The ‘idea’ is that the ra­tio for which John used the greek word charagma ra­ther than stig­ma etc., is be­cause he was in­tro­duc­ing a mark pro­vid­ed with ver­ti­cal lines-sep­a­ra­tors – a "barcode".
This term caragma , high­light­ed in vers. Al­es­sandrina at the be­gin­ning of the ar­ti­cle, ap­pears e­qual­ly in the oth­er four ver­sions shown at the link.

Gen­er­al­ly, by the first three dig­its of the barcode is pos­si­ble to de­duce the or­i­gin (na­tion­al­i­ty) of the prod­uct to which it is affixed. We see for ex­am­ple: 640-649 Fin­land, Chi­na 690-695 ... 800-839 It­a­ly.
The first two let­ters of the name lead the val­ues 66 69, i.e. the nu­mer­al, and the num­ber 9 of the char­ac­ters o­ver­all, the com­ponents of that name rep­re­sent­ing the nu­mer­al it­self! 9 also closes the whole se­ries:

where­as it closes the nat­u­ral or­der of sin­gle num­bers, of which only two are mis­sing in the string: 4 and 5 (4+5 = 9).

But that's not all: you can eas­i­ly no­tice how the num­ber 9 in­volves scan­ning the string of 18 num­bers al­most like the 6 in a barcode, sep­a­rat­ing ex­act­ly from the cen­ter 7 on the right and 8 on the left; how­ev­er, in the left side, in­stead of oc­cupying the ex­treme, takes on the side­line the in­com­ing fig­ure 666, as if if it had to dis­tin­guish that from oth­ers, high­light or sim­ply de­lim­it its i­den­ti­fy­ing func­tion - see. the na­tion­al­i­ty-or­i­gin - at the en­trance of the name-num­ber: and thus, con­sist­ent with any per­spec­tive of ex­am­i­na­tion.
If it is not done on pur­pose, I must say that there is very close.

Want to for­ward us with a fur­thest cu­ri­os­i­ty? the fol­low­ing will not add all that much to the data now cer­tain, but it de­serves:

666982 1+591+5 61+79

Two sets pal­in­drome of three num­bers, sym­met­ri­cal to the cen­tral 9, have nu­mer­ol­ogical sum of 6, which com­ple­ments the 6 fol­low­ing the se­cond, giv­ing rise to a fur­ther se­ries 666; and even, the last for­ma­tion of 3 num­bers, be­fore the 9 clos­ing, even pal­in­drome, with only the cen­tral val­ue dif­fer­ent from the oth­ers for +2 u­nits, pres­ents a sum­ma­tion of 8, sym­met­ri­cal to the in­i­tial 8, a­long­side the o­pen­ing 9. It re­mains un­cov­ered  like a sym­bol­ic in­di­ca­tor only the num­ber 2, al­ready com­mented.
All this may also not tell us an­y­thing, but I can not help but no­tice that the se­quence once a­gain pal­in­drome 8·2·8, is ob­tained by add­ing 111 (the num­ber of the popes, so far) to 717; and that it to­tal­izes in turn 18, which is worth 3 × 6; and there is noth­ing left as un­cov­ered!
A name~num­ber to­talizing more com­bi­na­tions than char­ac­ters: as far as in­sig­nif­i­cant, you will have to ad­mit strange con­nec­tions, since all lead to 666. By the way, while the word­ing of the fig­ure on the ac­tu­al plan is six hun­dred six­ty-six, on the ‘ab­stract’ lev­el it is 6·6·6 (six, six, six).
Some­one there, has in­deed been able to do....

Well, [9] it is also the nu­mer­ol­ogical sum of 6+6+6 = 18, from which 1+8 = 9. And here's one more strict ev­i­dence of how both the 9 and the 18 set­ting out such as DNA  of the name~num­ber 666. To put it bet­ter, at this point it seems to de­ci­pher a kind of pol­y­phon­ic sheet mu­sic on var­i­ous lev­els, so that to for­get an­y­thing it would be more a chal­leng­ing rhet­o­ric than a sen­si­ble op­tion: the name in low­er case - which are en­cod­ed 7 bytes af­ter Z - would be 954 [ 9+[5+4]= 9 ], of which the sum of the dig­its is the to­tal 18 ie al­ways 3 times 6! I will be brief: if they were en­cod­ed in dif­fer­ent po­si­tion, also the to­tal would be dif­fer­ent.

More ex­clu­sive than that ?!

Com­plete I­tal­ian Ver­sion.
Vuoi tradurre l´ar­ticolo ?
contatta |A­T at AstroTime.org|

© The Watch Pub­lish­er, 2013-20
To help others to be aware, please, share this through any channel …