Part 1- July 2010 TimeWave Zero Graph
If you go here below and launch TimeWave Calculator for the King Wen- Sheliak, it starts it decent ~ July 11th, 2010
Note: the Sheliak version is based on a revision from physicist John Sheliak, this version is the one which McKenna himself was the most
To further add, we can all see that the BIG drop in novelty begins ~ July 9th-July 11th using the Sheliak version.
Whether this TimeWave is accurate in predicting big events whatever it may be is pretty inconclusive in my opinion, but it is interesting nevertheless
that the drop begins right at the July 11th timeframe due to other numerous things lining up.
Again, the the Sheliak TimeWave Zero analysis is the correct one to use. Other people are saying it drops in Oct./Nov. 2010 timeframe, which is does
ONLY using the Kelley Timewave version. That is the original and outdated model. The Sheliak is the most accurate and Terence McKenna agrees as stated
"Simultaneous announcements made November 1, 1997 from Albuquerque and Honaunau and documents posted on the WWW have confirmed what Novelty Theory
insiders have speculated for months. Novelty Theory has been given a mathematical new look by mathematician and nuclear fusion expert John Sheliak.
Sheliak, when he first encountered Terence McKenna and the Novelty Theory of which he is the inventor, was challenged by McKenna to "check the
premises of the theory" using vector analysis, Sheliak's specialty. Some years passed and when Sheliak returned to the problem he found McKenna and
Novelty Theory reeling from the mathematical deconstruction of McKenna's work put forth by Matthew Watkins, a British mathematician. Watkins showed
conclusively that a procedural error in McKenna's method had produced a result which was inconsistent with McKennas's intent. This discovery lead
Watkins to dismiss the entire edifice of Novelty Theory. However Watkins did not examine the impact of McKenna's error on the values generated by the
Sheliak, in carrying out his analysis of the Timewave has confirmed Watkins' findings of a procedural error and has corrected that error. His work
reveals that the difference between the two versions of the Timewave differ only slightly in many cases.
Reached at his home in Hawaii for comment McKenna had this to say: "I owe a real debt of gratitude to both Watkins and John Sheliak, but especially
John. His work now makes explicit every stage in the construction of the timewave, any interested mathematician can now satisfy him or herself as to
the precise details of the construction of the timewave. What is exciting to me and what makes me very confident of the new formulation is the fact
that we are now getting a better fit of the Novelty graphs to historical data in a number of key areas where before, with the old version, we had some
problems. Just to mention two examples. The new wave, which we are calling Timewave 1, to distinguish it from Timewave 0, the new wave gives a much
better picture of the ebb and flow of Novelty during the Second World War and during the century of the birth of Islam, than did the old wave. These
are exciting times for Novelty Theory. I am happy to admit my error in the construction of the wave. Novelty Theory can now mature into a genuine
intellectual discipline in which we can hope to see the contributions made by many people exploring the field. Many exciting discoveries now lie