Page 529

[Alexandr Korol]

Here’s something I want to show as an example. Look at the first image. What kind of matrix is this? This matrix is almost the same as my original one from Volume Two of “Alternative History”, where I deciphered everything — but not quite. That is, my original matrix is a black cube — you can see it. And in this black cube, you see a black rhombus — what I had was an eight- pointed star, let’s say. The rhombus didn’t go beyond the boundaries of my cube, and so I had just one black cube, inside which was a black rhombus, which formed due to the cross-sections — and there were two tetrahedrons that generated one Merkabah inside the cube. And then, around those triangles — the tetrahedrons — I drew wheels, and it turned into a Flower of Life. I got one element of the matrix, from which I was supposed to build a whole lot more — a larger matrix — but that was before. And now, what I’m showing, you see, is that I added a blue inverted cube — see, it clearly protrudes. There’s the black cube standing upright, and then another one just like it, but rotated as if by 45 degrees. When I did that, it was as if I added to my... Well, inside the black cube I already had a Merkabah. And when I added this other cube, like an eight-pointed star, I ended up with another Merkabah, and I added wheels to that one too, and it turned out beautifully — you see, very similar to an icon. Maybe this is it. Maybe that’s what the eight- pointed star really is. Maybe the eight-pointed star that is often shown with God is actually a cube within a cube — but a cube within a cube can’t be made symmetrical, because it has six faces, not four. But if you take a cube, duplicate it, and rotate the second one on the same plane by 45 degrees, and then look at it from above, it looks like an eight-pointed star — a cube within a cube, viewed in the plane. And after all, everything on icons is shown in the plane — icons aren’t volumetric. Maybe that star, the one of the main God, is exactly that — a cube within a cube — not a cube inside a rhombus, or a rhombus in a cube, but precisely a cube in a cube. Maybe. It’s a question. I don’t know. And maybe that’s exactly what’s correct — because when I make a cube within a cube, I originally had two tetrahedrons inside one cube. And now, by adding another cube, that’s another two tetrahedrons — so I end up with four tetrahedrons. And thanks to those four tetrahedrons, I get two Merkabahs — as if a Merkabah inside a Merkabah.