## Sunday, September 4, 2016

### 16 30 33 44 93 | Wisconsin upsets LSU, September 3, 2016, after first game in 33-years played at Lambeau

Get that, the first game in 33-years for Wisconsin at Lambeau, where the NFL Green Bay Packers player.  There's a connection between 'green' and '33'.

The opponent Wisconsin was hosting, also had the '33' connection, the LSU 'Tigers'.

Notice that Wisconsin defeated the 11.5 favorites, 16-14, for a total of 30-points, on Saturday, September 3.

The sum of '30' connects back to 'Saturn', just like the date the game was played.

Saturn = 1/10+1+2+3+9+5 = 21/30
Saturn = 19+1+20+21+18+14 = 93

Saturday, Saturnsday.

http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2016/09/what_time_tv_channel_is_lsu_vs.html

LSU was ranked #5, Wisconsin was unranked.

It was the first time in 44-years that two top 5 teams lost in the same week of college football, the other to lose was Oklahoma, who had the bizarre earthquake.  Oklahoma lost to Houston and Wisconsin was lead by first time starting QB Bart Houston.

The Super Bowl will be played in Houston February 5, 2017, a date with '44' numerology.

2/5/2017 = 2+5+20+17 = 44

Recall the story from July 23, 2016, where three college kickers were in car wreck, and two died, the only survivor, played for LSU, who just lost in Wisconsin, where this supposed car wreck took place. Read about that here:  http://freetofindtruth.blogspot.com/2016/07/26-33-46-97-deaths-of-college-kickers.html

The story had much 'Houston' coding.  Notice the story came 1-month 12-days prior.  Houston = 112

Or, it was 42-days earlier, or a total span of 43-days.  Champion = 43

The other two teams involved in the wreck were Michigan State and Nebraska, who both won.

1. Regarding the comment included above by KingPimpyMax...people shouldn't talk about stuff they know nothing about. He says the NFL rigged Green Bay's schedule.

FYI - EVERY SINGLE GAME of the schedule is based on a simple cycle of playing the different divisions. Each team plays its own division twice, one AFC division, and one NFC. The remaining two games are based on their record. If you finish 1st in your division, next year you play the other division winners in your conference.

So STFU about rigging schedules. It makes us look stupid.

1. Indeed. Props on calling that out.

2. Just want to clarify my stance on this..

Like you said, The schedules themselves aren't rigged for "easier" teams to play, BUT, teams ARE built to look they way they are (good or bad) probably much time in advance, with divisions in mind for a reason. Because along with the outcome of the game, the order in which they play each of those specific teams they have to play in that cycle, ON THE DATE they matched them up, is decided and rigged (so to speak) by date numerology, numerology, gematria, for the purpose of the riddles they play out. I do think the word rigged is thrown around a little too much, so in this case I would agree with you.

2. Right. The first game of the year, Denver vs. Carolina, is most definitely the first game on Thurs night for a reason...to play up the rematch, great ratings, etc. But these two teams were always going to play each other this season no matter what. Most NFL fans don't even understand this very simple concept of how the schedule works.

But to your point, it's possible these two teams being picked to play each other in last year's SB had something to do with the fact that they were scheduled to play each other the following year. Or maybe it's just a nice bonus that it worked out that way. I'm not sure

3. if outcomes, scores and season records are scripted does it not stand to reason that the following season, based upon the previous season's results, is also scripted from a scheduling perspective?

1. Only two games are based on prior season results. That's it.

2. right on so the scripted outcomes all season long are based on random match ups, then?

of course not. the schedules are planned out several years in advance, right? as in, you don't play random divisions year to year, right? there's a cyclical, repetitive pattern, right? right.