TIME Magazine cover - September 8, 1997…Just a few more 'Coincidences'...👇👇👇
(media.greatawakening.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (27)
sorted by:
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.
Interesting. I think I've never really reflected much on the personal benefits I've gained from Q. I've always been more focused and interested in the larger macro impact, how populations and the world is waking up, plus also the quality of the interactions that the Q operation generated between like-mindeds and patriots online.
In terms of personal benefits, I guess understanding the need and importance of doing due diligence when information comes across my bows might be one...