Apparently it has happened quite a few times. A search on the library of congress newspaper archives gives over 200 hits. First one was in 1850 (on that search).
A lot of those are false positives. Searching for "Rothschild" and "arrested" turns up many irrelevant hits where someone else's arrest was mentioned on a page which also happened to mention the Rothschilds. Actual Rothschild arrests are few and far between - and a ransom only happened once.
I did not look through all of the reports; however, the search parameters limit the search to "Rothschild" and "arrested" being within 5 words of each other.
I looked at 4 at random, and they were 4 for 4 relating to a Rothschild arrest; so not "false positives." I may have "gotten lucky" but it does indicate they aren't all false positives.
Suggesting "a lot" in such a circumstance, without some actual measurement (as I did, with 4/4 but perhaps on a larger scale to get a better statistic) is not really saying anything at all, even though it suggests... well, "a lot."
I didn't say they were all false positives. I just don't think there's been over 200 Rothschild arrests since 1850. From the ones I clicked on (about half a dozen or so), half or more were unrelated. I don't have time to dig through and check all 12 pages of the search results to give you a proper measurement of exactly how many are relevant and how many aren't. I was just pointing that out for yours and others' benefit.
I appreciate what you were saying. I was pointing out your characterization of "a lot" was in no way meaningful, but still highly suggestive. We have two very small samples, mine was 4/4 and yours was (by your report) 3/6. Perhaps the real measure is then the average of those two samplings, which would be 75%. That would put your statement of "a lot," while not untrue, as very misleading.
I'm not trying to chastise you. I use such rhetoric all the time myself, though I am training myself not to. It is exactly such misleading estimates, based on quick judgements of poor measurements, that create the beliefs we have that have so little to do with the truth, that they become lies of context. It is lies of context that create the division, the echo chambers, that keep us locked in The Matrix. It is lies of context that the media has been using for forever to create The Matrix and keep us there.
Apparently it has happened quite a few times. A search on the library of congress newspaper archives gives over 200 hits. First one was in 1850 (on that search).
A lot of those are false positives. Searching for "Rothschild" and "arrested" turns up many irrelevant hits where someone else's arrest was mentioned on a page which also happened to mention the Rothschilds. Actual Rothschild arrests are few and far between - and a ransom only happened once.
I did not look through all of the reports; however, the search parameters limit the search to "Rothschild" and "arrested" being within 5 words of each other.
I looked at 4 at random, and they were 4 for 4 relating to a Rothschild arrest; so not "false positives." I may have "gotten lucky" but it does indicate they aren't all false positives.
Suggesting "a lot" in such a circumstance, without some actual measurement (as I did, with 4/4 but perhaps on a larger scale to get a better statistic) is not really saying anything at all, even though it suggests... well, "a lot."
I didn't say they were all false positives. I just don't think there's been over 200 Rothschild arrests since 1850. From the ones I clicked on (about half a dozen or so), half or more were unrelated. I don't have time to dig through and check all 12 pages of the search results to give you a proper measurement of exactly how many are relevant and how many aren't. I was just pointing that out for yours and others' benefit.
I appreciate what you were saying. I was pointing out your characterization of "a lot" was in no way meaningful, but still highly suggestive. We have two very small samples, mine was 4/4 and yours was (by your report) 3/6. Perhaps the real measure is then the average of those two samplings, which would be 75%. That would put your statement of "a lot," while not untrue, as very misleading.
I'm not trying to chastise you. I use such rhetoric all the time myself, though I am training myself not to. It is exactly such misleading estimates, based on quick judgements of poor measurements, that create the beliefs we have that have so little to do with the truth, that they become lies of context. It is lies of context that create the division, the echo chambers, that keep us locked in The Matrix. It is lies of context that the media has been using for forever to create The Matrix and keep us there.