Hackpen Hill’s cube formation
This brilliant formation has stunned people in amazement for its most superb design and quality in the way that it was made. It is what we call the obvious Grand Final for the crop circle season at the year of years 2012. Precise analysis reveal even much more brilliancy then seen at first glance, which, by the way, is characteristic for a lot of crop formations.
In main terms we speak of a cube surrounded by a ring. The cube looks like being constructed with the use of multiple little cubes. At the outlines of the major cube we find the little cubes are open, and thus showing their framework. The cube seems to float on a circular background which is beautifully textured by woven bunches of golden crop. Looking at the ring, it seems broad and is cut by a most delicate fine and sharp circle. This fine circle lays just enough out of centre to connect the inside with the outside of the broad ring.
As we will see, the Hackpen Hill formation has an abundance of numbers to it. Besides the very basic numbers 6, 8 and 12 that a normal cube delivers, (6 sides, 8 corners and 12 edges) this Hackpen cube offers us many more numbers due to the use of little cubes while all derived from as well a two-dimensional perspective as from an imaginary three-dimensional perspective. The ambivalence between 2-D and 3-D will play a crucial role in this study. Talking about numbers, from the two-dimensional perspective we should, at least to make a start, think in terms of squares or diamonds that can be counted. Of course, counting is also possible while seeing the figure as a three-dimensional object, only than we speak in terms of little cubes or blocks.
Noteworthy is a difference between opened and closed surfaces. This distinct from each other seems meaningful and according a certain order. To be concrete; opened surfaces seem to belong to blocks that define the outside edges of the total cube.
Although the overall sight of the large cube looks perfectly well, a closer inspection will reveal that 13 of the little open cubes are somehow “impossible” in terms of perspective. They seem by the shape of their inner construct, to be misplaced in the greater context of the actual large cube. They seem to be false cubes or impossible cubes. To say it in judgemental words; they are wrong!
But wait a minute! Would we take the outside cubes away (outside only according 2D perspective), than it becomes possible to look at this picture as if we are looking at a top corner inside a room or box. In other words; we see ourselves confronted with an interior. In my opinion, there’s nothing wrong with that. It only turns out there’s a conflict between the inside and the outside.
Considering the artwork a masterpiece as seldom seen before, this conflict will most likely be intended. There are various indications telling us so.
When, for example, we compare the outer ring with the strange cube, we find again a twist in the perspective. It seems like the ring is inverted. As if the backside is turned in such way that it is partly showed at front. Just as the little 13 cubes seem to do, it is turned inside out. This “inside out” or “inversion” correspondence is only just the first indication that underlines my thesis of intended impossibilities.
Besides an inversion correspondence, we also find a correspondence in sizes. As the right diagram shows, the ring seems almost like an invitation for expending the cubic construct. At the same time, we notice the small cubical unit as presented for the demonstration, sliced in a particular way. I guess we can say that’s all part of dualistic involvement. Still, it leaves us with plenty new directions for contemplation.
For now, I stick with the search for another indication of intended impossibilities. As we might have experienced while looking at the diagrams related to counting, a severe case of short-circuiting in the head is possible when it comes to placing the central little cube. We can not be sure if we are looking at a real cube or an interior or elements of neighbouring blocks. Or even elements of neighbouring blocks of neighbouring blocks!
In an attempt to wrap the head around it anyhow, one of several options will be to compare the single isolated cube with a cluster of 8 little cubes. What becomes evident than, is that our central cube turns out to be a clear impossibility.
Would we insist on a central cube in 3-D reality, the cluster of 8 blocks would have to offer some space, making them incomplete cubes. I hope the above diagrams demonstrate clearly enough what I’m trying to tell. However, it is fact that compound cubes with rows of an even number of blocks can under no circumstance contain a central block.
Having extrapolated on this so-called central cube, we seem to have reached another indication for expressing an intended impossibility. This time the impossibility turns out only impossible in the context of a false premise. There was only the assumption of a little cube at the centre!
As we have discovered there’s the potential for expansion, and also, as we have followed stages or steps of growth, we find that with each growing stage, there appears “a conflict” between the existence and non-existence of a little centre unit. I mean to say, that in case of rows made of an úneven number of blocks, a centre stone is possible after all… To continue with the thread of related numbers: The complete rows of 13 open cubes seem to function as an exaggeration of the illusion the three central lines create in usual depictions of a cube. We have imagined two sets of 13 open cubes. One at the front and one at the back. And now it’s going to get really fascinating…
On the day the formation got reported, that was August 26, I awoke that morning with a subtle voice telling me; “twenty-six”. Somehow I knew the Grand Final had arrived and that this number would be a key to it. Intuitively I felt there would be more to 26 than only just the date of reporting.
The day before, I had been working on a chapter about segments in crop circles formed by tramlines. Of course, I could not resist counting the segments in this flabbergasting late summer present too. It turned out with staggering results! The outer ring consisted of 26 segments. More precisely, two times 13 segments! In order to find the segments we have to involve the tramlines that cut the various elements of the design. The picture below will show what I mean.
So, we have an outer ring of 13 segments at the front and another 13 at the backside made visible by the special inversed twist, to be compared with 13 inversed little cubes at the front of the large cube… Does it take much fantasy to imagine that another 13 little cubes can be found at the back of the large cube? No matter how these hidden little cubes at the backside would look like, the 2 times 13 plús 2 times 13 is ways to coincidental to be called coincidence here! Also this striking find is a clear indication that the inverted cubes are no mistake, but intended!
Another clue concerning 26 in related to the formation is that the number represents the sum of all the basic numbers of a cube. So, 6 sides plus 8 lines plus 12 corners, these taken together make 26.
When counting the segments in the interior of the cube we find a wall of 27 segments. Another wall of 28 segments and funny enough, a wall containing 27 ór 28 segments.
Although I am not sure about the significance of these numbers, they nevertheless appeal somehow.
Maybe, it is worth mentioning about Red Collies reflection on this formation. He stated that at each side 20 open cubes can be counted. In his vision these little open cubes represent square roots of 2. That means 20 times square root of 2, makes 20 times 1,414 is same as 28,28. That’s an intriguing number after having found two times 28. Or have we not found?
I remember a huge crop formation at the same Hackpen Field, in 2008 it was, that used only one standing stalk in its centre to represent a whole segment!
Whatever is the case, when square rooting is involved, it means that there’s something going on with diagonals. Searching in that direction leads us to another fascinating reflection. It was given by Bnktop Mahbko (don’t let me pronounce) who demonstrated how the three days earlier formation at Oxleaze Copse would match with each side of our cubic system.
Another view on the Hackpen formation is delivered to us by Bert Janssen. Under the title of “the thin circle mystery”, Bert explains that the diagram (part 1) is showing the formation with “squaring the circle” superimposed on it. The diagram (part 2) shows the circle shifted to the right. Notice how it exactly overlaps the thin circle. The thin circle in the formation is part of a hidden “squaring the circle”!
Would one think it is all the information that can be gained from the formation, then let me share with you again another way of looking at the thin circle.
Separating the two crescents formed by the thin circle cutting the broad ring, we can easily speak of “moon crescents”. Curious enough the formation appeared in a month that had two times a full moon. The second full moon is called a blue moon. That was on Friday 31. It is, as the saying “once in a blue moon” indicates, a rare occasion when that happens. Of course this blue moon phenomenon can only occur in our Gregorian calendar. Would we have a much more natural calendar such as the Mayan Tzolkin calendar, no months could have twice a full moon, as there would be 13 months of 28 days.
In my opinion it is, when talking about the Tzolkin calendar, which is a calendar based on moon cycles, intriguing to find these numbers 13 and 28 popping up again! Almost from the beginning that I saw the pictures of the formation, I had a feeling that another phase could happen. The cube as a whole could be more open and therefore less solid. It would become even more beautiful than it already was. I posted a few suggestions in that direction, quietly hoping that maybe a second stage would happen, but it didn’t. At least, not anything dramatic. It was while having found these numbers 27, 28 and a doubtful 27 or 28, that I thought a change in the night between 27 and 28 of august would be very much possible. As just stated, no real difference was the case. Or was it, after all? A little grapeshot was reported by Andrew Pyrka at the edge of the field at the date of 28! Such a phase was not as spectacular as I hoped, but nevertheless, additions like these can hold important clues.
In this case there is a relation between the formation, the grapeshot and the surrounding landscape. It seems about similarity in bends. One bend (of the road) top hill, the other bend (of the formation) down below. So, a “slight turn” can be recognised together with the duality of up and down. A duality we can add to the earlier found inside and outside, or front side and backside.
The idea of turning the structure, or the ability for turning, adds new perspectives for interpretation of course. Earlier in the 2012 season, I was highly fascinated by a formation close to Liddington, that seems to relates a lot to the Hackpen Hill formation. It also speaks about cube, perspective and turning.
The Liddington formation presents a construction that will hardly be recognised as cubic, but with closer observation we dó find a little cube around its centre. As it seems part of multiple little cubes, we somehow must accept this centre has basically the same construct features as the Hackpenn center. Only here the little cubes fade away in a perspective warp (or stretch if you like).
Interesting about the Liddington centre is that the three paths just sort of miss the exact centre point. We seem to be able to speak of a subtle twist or a flipping point. At the centre of the Hackpen Hill formation a “twist” or “flip” idea is expressed by a typical “swirl”.
Sometimes the events that matter jump in while writing… Straight after having supposedly finished this part of the article by having concentrated on the possible dynamics involved at the centre, new material reaches me from Brigitte Williams who had just revisited the formation. She had found two extra swirls added to the centre! To me this event is confirming my idea about a “turning point or a flip switch”. It shows a “before” and an “after” the actual turn. As we see, there’s always synchronicity stuff involved in the continuum.
The main theme of this formation can be thought of as “the cube”. At least the main impression of the formation remains a cube, even if, as we have discovered, it turns out an optical illusion. A cube in general represents a state of perfection. The highest reachable cultivation of “the ball”. It can be considered the solid of all solids. A mind-construct or projection about evolutionary completion. The cube could also represent the universe or heaven.
To me, the formation seems a product of the same school that was responsible for the formation that depicted a Penrose Triangle in 2005 at Waden Hill. The Penrose triangle represents “impossibility in its purest form”. There are many features in both crop formations that match, although they are under the surface of superficial observation. Also the formation at Sugar Hill has the same excellence as these two and reveals the same problem of impossibility.
The way the cube is depicted at the Hackpen formation makes it obvious to talk of a construct, as it seems build up by multiple little cubes. Also, some of these cubes are opened so that frames are visible. It is funny how the cube as a whole adapts the idea of a framework as well. “The frame of mind”, springs into my frame of mind here, as well as “open mindedness”. Is it curious to notice a bunch of these little cubes depicted in the Sugar Hill formation?
The crop circle cube, because it is build up by little cubes, has a lot in common with the famous “Rubic’s Cube”. It is certainly worthwhile to over think Rubic’s brilliant invention in all its aspects, as it can provide us a better understanding of certain idea’s behind the formation, such as “balancing between rolling (or turning) and blocking”.
The clear impression of a Rubik’s cube has made me associate with a very interesting event that took place in Hong Kong 3th of June 2013. It was the moment that Edward Snowden would hand over enormous amounts of secret information from America’s National Security Agency to journalist Glenn Greenwald and film-maker Laura Poitras. Snowden would make himself recognisable by walking with a Rubik’s Cube in his hand. This event can easily be considered a key-moment for modern history. It shows how the act of a single person can be of major importance to millions of people’s rights for democracy, freedom of speech and privacy.
Grand Final formations often give me the feeling as if they share a hint about things that are very important for the time-zone in which they appear or the period that is near. As if they are markers in time that point to a specific theme that play or will play a major role for the world or the human race. In this case it might be possible to understand the formation as a precursor to the Snowden revelations.
With or without the association of a Rubik’s cube, the interpretation has to deal with a structure containing multiple little cubes. We see multiple little cubes versus one overall cube being the sum of all the little ones. This idea can easily be transposed onto, for example, the structure of society. In other words; “the system”. Many individuals organised together, form a massive overall structure that mirrors, more or less, each individual. Another example could be the living cells of an organism forming an organ or the organism as a whole.
As far as the little cubes are concerned, I like to stick for a while with the idea of understanding them as mind-concepts or character-structures. Our frameworks or constructs of the mind. The conditioned mind-sets from which we operate through life. It becomes apparent that these individual constructs are made out of influences or experiences from something much bigger than we are. At the same time, we create a much bigger construct on the base of our individual choices. Unfortunately, we don’t always oversee the consequences of our creative force. Maybe, the formation stimulates our ability to view wider skies.
Interpreting the cubes as mind-constructs should in my opinion not get confused with seeing them as human beings. It might be useful to understand that people can change their minds, or tune in on existing mind-constructs. Therefore, thinking in terms of mind-constructs is one level closer to the source of things. Crop formations, in my understanding, usually tend to lead us to source information, automatically making multiple interpretations possible.
I won’t question what it is, that our minds are aiming for. Consequently, I won’t preach about the conditions of our poor little minds. So, no answers are available here concerning luck, control, knowledge, love, lust, power or what else is there we can be puzzled with.
After having been through all the technical aspects of part 1 together with the association I made about Edward Snowdens Rubik’s cube, I am happy with the general description of the cube as “a state of perfection”. From there we can see how it the idea gets challenged in several ways. The Hackpen Hill formation seems willing to say that the very idea of “a state of perfection” or “the system” as a global structure designed to rule humanity will turn out an illusion. If we take a closer look to the Oxleaze Copse formation and how it seemed to perfectly fit into the geometry of the cube, we see the idea of the formation representing “the system” becoming more and more real. Why? First we need to discover how the Oxleaze Copse formation contains “the key of Baphomet”. The key of Baphomet is a magic key that plays a crucial role in the practises of the Free Masons. The fact alone gives it away already I suppose.
When we project the formation onto the other sides of the (2D) cube as well, we find three times the key of Baphomet in place. Characteristic for the key is that it has 11 crosses. Three of these keys make therefore number 33.
The number 33 is generally known as a very significant esoteric number. In masonry it represents the highest official in their hierarchy, the Sovereign Grand Commander. The Free Masons have based this symbolic number on king Salomon’s Temple.
The formation seem to emphasize the illusionary aspects of “the system”. The construct is mainly a beautiful illusion of the mind. Yet, we have seen how the construct relates to the Masons by means of the fitting Baphomet keys. We also have seen how at the centre of it, only a subtle twist causes the complete construct to turn over. At least that’s what seems suggested. I can’t help it to think of Edward Snowdens move to expose the NSA’s control state methods as an example of such a revolutionary act at the centre of “the system”.
Very essential to the design of the formation is the troubling 13 inversed or illusionary cubes. It seems that, if there’s a message to be read here, it would be about distorted harmonics.
The message would be about the meaning and the influence of the 13 impossible frameworks towards the bigger picture. These misconstructs or misconcepts challenge the viewer most probably on an almost emotional level. They don’t fit in our sub-conscious feel for harmony. It could even occur to us, there’s the big “Y” or “WHY” question at stake.
Still, we have found out, it is all a matter of perception. The 13 can be viewed as serving the logics of expressing an interior. In that perspective it makes the 30 outside cubes the disharmonic misfits.
So, in other words, unless both directions of perception want to be perceived, one or the other will be considered “negative”. Thus, it might as well be the case that the Hackpen cosmogram communicates about the vital question; “why do we have to deal with disharmony?” It seems to me, a great part of the answer has just been given. We perceive things in the way we want to perceive them. “Positive” and “negative” are just labels we prefer to use for subjective reasons.
Although, things do not seem to fit with each other, at the same time they co-exist next to each other in some logical order. We have seen that there are certain functions to the opposing directions. Also, it seems as if the number 13 functions here as the ultimate transformer of the whole problem. (I consider the central cube being the thirteenth of the inverted group.)
Towards the centre, it is the “order” of 13 that we see ourselves confronted with. A statement like this can easily remind us to the teachings of Jesus Christ and his 12 apostles. Related to this idea, there’s the general accepted association with number 13 as being the number of death. The number that superstitious people prefer to avoid as it stands for serious misfortune. It was Jesus taking in the 13th position enabling him to teach the resurrection.
Accepting the central little cube as our number 13, it seems as if we are facing the heart of all illusions. It is a non-existing cube looking like an existing one. In terms of character-building, it calls for self-sacrifice. Let me state that the art of self-sacrifice should not get confused with suicide in the most direct sense. It is much more appropriate to think in terms of dying multiple deaths during a complete lifetime. Self-reservation is maybe another useful term here. In this context, the thirteenth speaks of a certain death and also the illusion of death followed by the overcoming of death. (or should I say the overcoming of illusion?)
Concentrating on cube 13, we could even think of an “anti-Christ” in case we look at it from an inverted point of view. It could be a massive black hole, a heart of darkness as a cosmic necessity that needs to oppose the light for the sake of creations diversity. In that case we perceive the little cube as a little liar, while the total formation exposes the centre of all conflict.
Whatever it might represent, it is exposed to the light of at least crop circle enthusiasts and will certainly find its ways to greater amounts of people. Instead of “constructors” we find “obstructers” possessing a centre of organisation and this, as pointed out, the other way around as well, simply depending on what we hope to find or try to realise! Transfer this onto the continuing conflict between the so-called “believers” and the so-called “debunkers” that the crop circle community seems so rich of, and maybe one day we might overcome this tragic stupidity…
Another idea that is also deeply installed in the collective subconscious, and that carries a number of 12 grouped around a most important centre, is that of the 12 star signs, the zodiac, spinning around the earth, or the sun. Maybe, the abstract expression of the formation has it to embrace both idea’s? I mean, the Christ between his disciples ánd the earth/sun surrounded by the star signs?
In astrology, the 12 zodiac signs represent in essence 12 different illusions to overcome. I give it a fairly good chance, the idea of 12 apostles is based on exactly the same idea. Teachings to become master over 12 basic illusions. The number 13 has to be the absolute master over these illusions. He or she embodies all 12. It is the transformer for the 12. Also, the twelve edges or outside lines that a cube has, can refer to the same idea.
Until here, we have associated our cube of crop with a model of a perfect universe. We have associated it with earlier formations, depicting the impossibility in its purest form and the endlessness of a most impressive star fractal (Sugar Hill). We have thought of the cube as a frame of mind. We noted the similarity with the Rubik’s cube. We mentioned the system, the structure of society and natural organisation. Concentrating on the challenging 13, we associated with the teachings of Christ, with death as an illusion, and with disrupted harmony. Also, we associated with the centre point of the 12 zodiac-signs.
Having summed up these, there’s one more association I would like to extrapolate on. In fact the “model of the universe” that I started with, can be considered similar or close related to it. I’m talking about the Kaballa. One very essential direction in Kaballa is numerology. The way I have been reflecting about the most intriguing numbers of the Hackpen cube was already inspired by the Kaballa.
The mystical tree of life that embodies the tree of knowledge, has many angles and features to look at. Because of that, the Kaballa has many varieties in its schematic representations. Due to this multiple applicability, the following pictogram I found useful to tell about the basic order of light, dark and everything that’s in between these’s extremes.
On top we find a white sphere, in kaballistic terms called a “sephira”. As white contains all the colours of the light spectrum, it might as well represent the light itself. To the left there’s a black sephira that can, of course, be associated with darkness.
Between the light sphere and the dark sphere there’s another stage, the grey sephira. It won’t be difficult to understand that many different greys can be found due to the degree of shading.
It is with the many degrees of shading, something interesting takes place that is about the nature of colour. Colours are all based on the breaking of light. It all has to do with textures that create different shades. In essence, and as hard as it may be to understand, objectively spoken, in reality everything has only grey tones, due to the breaking of light. It is by the limitation of our senses, more in particular our vision, that we translate all the greyish superfine textures to a lovely illusion of colour. But it in essence it is said to be a psychic phenomenon.
Observation of colour is only just a psychic or psychological attribute. And in the context of this formation; so is observation of three dimensionality…
Speaking in metaphysical terms about stages between the light and the dark, I sense we get closer to the actual meaning of the formation. By experiencing the various sephiroth or walking the paths between them, one will evolve towards perfection, enlightenment or realisation as you wish. The system supports, provides or manipulates in that sense the human evolution.
As far as the free masonry is concerned, we can conclude that the secret organisation is into modelling the structure of society. They are not the only ones, but I believe their power should not be under-estimated. Now days, the structure of society or “the system”, seems, in its restless manifestation, to dominate all life forms here on earth, while it has all the characteristics of a holy skeleton. Holy in the eyes of bankers, directors of big companies and opportunistic politicians.
To my understanding, the Hackpen Hill formation can be considered a mind, heart and power expanding tool, mirroring basic universal cosmic relationships. From there, it can offer us possibilities in all sorts of directions. I see a suggestion towards growth, multiple universes, time space and space-time…
We can think of an alchemical stone of knowledge and wisdom suitable for all sorts of scientific or philosophical directions. On the more direct level of existing as a human individual, we can think of a concept that teaches or helps us orientate about who we essentially are, or where we actually stand in our cosmic mind.
In Buddhism, as well as in many other great sources of wisdom, it is often said that everything is an illusion. Maya. It seems to me, the fantastic Hackpen Hill formation underlines that idea. It helps us to get closer connected to the (super-)position of seeing through the world of illusions or “Sangsara”. By lifting us up to this position, it enables us to overcome great difficulties. It will help us to become master over our illusions. That also means liberating our selves fróm “the system”. By doing so, it offers us possibilities we hardly dare dreaming of. In my humbled opinion, this formation is therefore truly miraculous as well as for its super intelligent complexity without expressing that in a wilderness of artificial oddities. Sure a wonderful gift!
crop circle university
meaning of crop circles