TIME Magazine cover - September 8, 1997…Just a few more 'Coincidences'...👇👇👇
(media.greatawakening.win)
Comments (27)
sorted by:
25 years later (to the day), Queen Lizzie dies…
The first Q-post was 1776 days before Queen Lizzie died (10-28-17)…
Start of COVID (3-11-20) to Queen Lizzie dies = 911 days (Corona = Crown)
Phillip dies (4-9-21) 17 months before Queen Lizzie
How many coincidences until it is mathematically impossible?
Diana died on August 31st.
He's referring to the date the magazine was published: Sept. 8, 1997. Look in the upper right corner.
In that case, i don't get it. I'm sure you can find stuff published about Diana every day for weeks after she died. It'll line up with anything!
The numbers are certainly interesting but I never agreed with Q over the "mathematically impossible" thing. The numbers can be astronomical yet it can still happen.
For instance, where is everyone in the world right now? Let's divide the globe into one foot squares and see how many possibilities there are. Ignoring the oceans and rounding down somewhat, and making the numbers easier to visualise, let's assume that there are around 1,000,008,000,000,000 square feet of earth's surface and 8,000,000,000 people.
The chances of finding someone in a particular square foot is therefore:
1,000,008,000,000,000 : 1 against
Now think of two people. The odds become:
1,000,008,000,000,000 * 1,000,007,999,999,999 : 1 against. In round numbers that is over 1e30:1. With three people we get:
1,000,008,000,000,000 * 1,000,007,999,999,999 * 1,000,007,999,999,998 : 1 against.
Basically, we end up with a number with 1.5 billion zeroes after it. What are the chances of that? Well we know it happened because that is where we started.
Just because a statement contains math, some people will automatically think it's logical and correct.
But your statement of the problem itself is severely flawed....
Or:
And then some. X 100.
Perhaps if you pointed out those flaws I might be better able to respond.
Wait.... so you're telling me that you randomly picked a human you have no knowledge of and no information about, and you chose a random foot squared location, and you found that person on one guess?
Er.....
I kinda think you missed the point.
Think of it this way:
On a chess board you have 6 different-shaped objects of the same colour: king, queen, bishop, knight, rook and pawn. Now lets see how many ways we can line those up in a single row of the chess board.
Start with the king. We can place that in any of 8 squares. Now add the queen. We have 7 squares left so the number of ways we can arrange the king and queen on that row will be 56 (7 times 8). We can work through all the pieces like that and find that we have 87654*3=20160 ways in total of arranging those pieces.
Now lets us pick just one arrangement. What are the odds of that happening by chance? It is 1 in 20,160. All I did was arbitrarily divide the surface of the globe into one foot squares and see how many ways we could arrange the eight billion people. The odds of that happening by chance are astronomical. Did it happen? Yes!
The way you work out that number is the same for all problems of this type. There are 8 positions so think of all the numbers from 8 downwards that need to be multiplied together. Now we need to take into account the number of pieces. That is 6 so, in fact, we only need to multiply together the first 6 of those numbers.
So for the people problem we need to multiply all the numbers from 1,000,000,000,000,000 down to 1 together but, in fact, because there are only 8,000,000,000 people we only need to do that for the first 8 billion numbers. That is why I started from 1,000,008,000,000,000 to make the arithmetic look easier. The actual numbers are bigger than the ones I used so the result will have even more zeroes than I quoted.
But, not by chance. You arranged them.
Yes. But it didn't happen by chance. Your intent was the factor here. It would not have happened if you hadn't arranged the pieces. Even if your choice was arbitrary.
Try this. You have 6 different pieces. You have a board with 64 squares, sitting on a table 2 meters away from you. Now, from 2 meters away, throw the 6 different pieces in the direction of the board, all in one throw. What are the chances of the 6 pieces landing in ANY arrangement on the board, standing up, each positioned on 1 square each, not straddling two or more squares?
Not gonna happen. Ain't gonna happen. You can try to calculate the probability, but without direct intent, without you deliberately taking the pieces and positioning them on the board, it just ain't gonna happen.
So, throw a bunch of posts on 8 chan and 4 chan and 8 kun, and see how many can hit within 60 seconds of a tweet, BEFORE a tweet, by a president of the states united.
By chance, it ain't gonna happen again, and again and again.
(And in case you missed it, "how many until it is mathematically impossible" is in reference to the drops / tweet dynamic. Not the numbers Purkiss quoted. Also, read "realistically impossible" instead of "mathematically impossible".
Do you think the universe, the world you live in, and every event in your life is chance? Using your reasoning, it might be possible that a kazillion monkeys hitting a kazillion keyboards will eventually write the works of shakespeare, but um, no, it ain't gonna happen. And, if it ain't gonna happen, is it really 'possible'?
Thanks for the effort you've invested to try and make a point, but, no...
I was just trying to demonstrate that just because the odds against a particular event appear large or even astronomical it does not rule out it happening.
The point is that if you look hard enough you can find all kinds of links after the event.
Throwing chess pieces at the board just reinforces the point for me. There are not just 64 ways the pieces can land so the odds against any particular result are even greater - but it happened. So, there you are looking at a result that is so unlikely it could never have happened. See the problem?
To demonstrate causality and not just correlation you need to define a method as well. So, in the case of this post, you need to explain who was arranging those dates and differences before you could attribute anything other than pure chance to it.
Thanks. Not a mathematician. I've leave it there.
But if you are talking about the OP, yeah, personally, I don't find that sort of stuff convincing, on its own. All the juxtaposition of those dates. That sort of thing has a low level of convincibility for me. So maybe we're on the same page with that.
However, Q's credibility is a different matter, because of the corroborating data.
"that just because the odds against a particular event appear large or even astronomical it does not rule out it happening."
OK, then yeah, I accept that that is technically true. But then, it was never these things that primarily convinced me in my views re: Q.
We could be in danger of violently agreeing!
For me the value of Q was in causing me to investigate subjects that I would not have looked at otherwise and to see links that I would have otherwise missed.
But, when a long series of "mathematically impossible" things happen, what then? It would seem to me that the odds are against it being a coincidence when it keeps happening over and over.
Wow !! Wish I could come up with a better word ! Gobsmacked ?? Brilliant info as always , thank you
👍😁😉
A date in nazi history as well.
Also a day called Marriage to the Beast in satanic chronology.
Diane's remotely controlled car was crashed at the exact site of the ancient Temple of Diana which was built on a 'confluence' of leylines as streets, and the pyramid at the Louvre as it's center.
Did Diana uncover the truth about the her husband and his rather odd to say the least, sexual preferences? And the network employed by Palace butlers to escalate this matter. The deep state would have not allowed any damage to the Crown-nor London. Like so many others who got in their way, she had to go. What’s the best way to keep a secret between three people? Get rid of two of them!
She will have the last laugh from heaven!
Fellow white American. You probably should have edited out that stuff in the lower left corner.
Until next time!
Thanks, but that's not my info 😉 I actually found it just like that...😎