Jump to content

When does a coincidence, stop being a coincidence?


TimeTravelActivist
 Share

Recommended Posts

When does a coincidence, stop being a coincidence?

 

I have been asking my self this question for a long, long, trust me, VERY LONG TIME.

 

"A teacup doesn't break the same way twice." I once heard used to discredit coincidences. But that doesn't do it to me when the coincidences are too much and to parallel to each other.

 

Besides my own experiences this time, I wish to provide an example. I was reading over the coincidence of both President Lincoln and Kennedy.

 

I don't know if anyone has ever heard of them before, but they're pretty weird to think that their even coincidences. Take a look:

 

------------------------------------------------

 

President Kennedy and Lincoln Coincidences

 

Abraham Lincoln was elected to Congress in 1846.

 

John F. Kennedy was elected to Congress in 1946.

 

Abraham Lincoln was elected President in 1860.

 

John F. Kennedy was elected President in 1960.

 

The names Lincoln and Kennedy each contain seven letters.

 

Both were particularly concerned with civil rights.

 

Both wives lost their children while living in the White House.

 

Lincoln had 2 sons named Robert and Edward.

 

Kennedy had 2 brothers named Robert and Edward.

 

Both Presidents were shot on a Friday.

 

Both were shot in the head.

 

Lincoln's secretary was named Kennedy.

 

Kennedy's secretary was named Lincoln.

 

Both were assassinated by Southerners.

 

Both were succeeded by Southerners.

 

Both successors were named Johnson.

 

Andrew Johnson, who succeeded Lincoln, was born in 1808.

 

Lyndon Johnson, who succeeded Kennedy, was born in 1908.

 

John Wilkes Booth, who assassinated Lincoln, was born in 1839.

 

Lee Harvey Oswald, who assassinated Kennedy, was born in 1939.

 

Both assassins were known by their three names.

 

Both names comprise fifteen letters.

 

Booth ran from a theater and was caught in a warehouse.

 

Oswald ran from a warehouse and was caught in a theater.

 

Booth and Oswald were assassinated before their trials.

 

A week before Lincoln was shot he was in Monroe, Maryland.

 

A week before Kennedy was shot he was in Marilyn Monroe.

 

-----------------------------------------

 

Well besides the last that might have been a joke I'm not sure, the rest are true.

 

When you read something like this, what does it say to you? Isn't it weird how all of this could happen?

 

Please post what you think... Thanks.

 

Javier C.

 

------------------

 

"Is a dreamers dream, but a reality within a dream, which in response to that realities dream, is our reality?" --Javier Cortez--

 

"Life and existence are never the same thing. Cause only one of them you deny your self."

 

--Javier Cortez--

 

"When the vast powers of delusion and illusion combine, making false truths and realities far beyond our comprehension to understand, that is what we call humanity." --Javier Cortez--

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 47
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Very interesting indeed, I have a remote recall of hearing this before, but it is so far back in my memory, that I would not have remembered it, had you not brought it to my attention (Thank You.)

 

This is rather unusual, and goes to show, that there is a systematic, sequential order of certain events, beyond our ordinary way of thinking here.

 

I think that events like these should be examined with more scrutiny. I would not doubt in the least that events like these would lead us to a trail of clues directly linked to secret organizations like "Freemasons" "Bilderbergers" or other secret orders as such, some of which have been around since the ancient "Nights of the Templers" during King Solomon's regime.

 

------------------

 

"Everything you know,...is Wrong!

 

soon we shall all discover the truth."

 

p)'i4q4

 

<This message has been edited by Time02112 (edited 06 July 2000).>

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would not the list of dis-simularities be much longer? Lets say that the list of dis-simularities is always infinite. You could use a ratio of simularities over infinity to come up with a gee-wizz number to measure the intensity of coincidence.

 

If dis-simularities are less than infinite, say in a more simple situation like two Mountain Dew cans showing up at the same time for no good reason....well maybe it should be DISSIMULARTIES/SIMULARITIES. Any math freaks out there care to bite?

 

It still begs the question "how much coincidence is too much?"

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, all of the date-related coincidences are just artifacts of our number system. If we had four digits on each hand, we'd find separations of 64 years weirdly coincidental. It doesn't really mean anything; the two men lived about 100 years apart, so they were bound to have some line-ups in that area.

 

As for the rest, I'm sure you could find a list like that for any two people. As Shadow said, the dissimilarities must far outweigh the coincidences.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Janus... Can you not see what is in plain view? Are you so not unwilling to accept what you see? Do you really believe that the coincidences between these 2 presidents are nothing more then random? WHY? Show me how you got to this conclusion. Cause I sure would like to know.

 

Or tell me what your afraid of? Your afraid to believe aren't you? To admit it to your self...

 

Despite what you may know about reason and logic, it can't give you an explanation of something you don't understand.

 

Or do you truly understand coincidences...? Oh, of course you don't, I remember now... You don't have personal experiences like most of us here do. So you wouldn't know how it feels to be in a coincidence for your whole life.

 

Coincidences operate on a different level of reasoning. And I don't think your the authority to be saying exactly what it is. How could you define it, and say with petty words that it's so simple to understand? Especially if you never experienced it for your self, how do you know?

 

You may have not said it in those exact words, but your meaning was clear to everyone and me.

 

Finding so many coincidences like these between 2 very important people doing the same kind of job I would say is almost impossible. It's like winning the lottery, the odds that you would be the one with all correct numbers, and someone else having the same numbers the same night, is close to impossible. Haven't you ever looked at the odds for these things? Since you so like numbers, I'm surprised you didn't. Why didn't you take that into consideration, HA =)?

 

All your speculation, all your scientific arrogance (I see you still haven't changed)... Tell me something; do you even think it's all right? Is your explanation even accurate, to you, to everyone? Or are you just describing it from a point of view of a confined individual, who is lost in his own solitude of reason and can't do anything else, but see through the eyes of a lonely man.

 

Poor Janus... Haven't you ever had any faith in what you can't see and feel? Like the faith of a child.

 

You remember being a child once right? Think about that for a moment, before you choose to reply.

 

Truly,

 

Javier C.

 

------------------

 

"I know you want to change. Why don't you embrace it, feel it inside your soul? Feel without touching, without your body and mind telling you what it is. Let your soul guide you to the light of truth. Listen, with your heart, bring your soul to peace for once. And there, you will find me with open arms, and I will say to thee. You made it, my old friend..." Javier C.S.

 

<This message has been edited by TimeTravelActivist (edited 07 July 2000).>

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, TTA, I remember now why I stopped bothering to reply to your posts. Your bickering, insulting attitude to anyone who contradicts your own beliefs is both counterproductive and unnecessary. You preach open-mindedness, and yet fail to even consider points of view different to your own. When unable to create a convincing argument against something, you resort to personal insults and name-calling. You even resort to the egotistical act of quoting yourself in your sig, as if it proves something. I see you haven't changed.

I didn't want to dissect your post originally, as I had run into the same document about a year ago, and I know that it was constructed solely as a lead-in to the final joke - Kennedy being 'in' Marilyn Monroe. However, as you seem to take the whole thing so seriously, I'll go over all the points, to state my case fully.

As I said before, we can dismiss all the date-related points as figments of our number system. The number 100 is not that important in and of itself, but as it's central to our number system, people often imbue it with special meaning where none is due.

"The names Lincoln and Kennedy each contain seven letters."
So does my last name - most (North American) last names fall between four and eight letters. 25% odds are pretty good that this will have happened to some presidents.

"Both were particularly concerned with civil rights."
Yeah, so are many presidents. This point's really weak.

"Both wives lost their children while living in the White House."
The stress of first ladyship must be horrible for a pregnant woman. How many other pregnant first ladies lost kids? Mostly nowadays they don't have kids while in office.

"Lincoln had 2 sons named Robert and Edward.
Kennedy had 2 brothers named Robert and Edward."
Weak point; if Lincoln had had a cousin named Leroy, and Kennedy's father were named Leroy, would you consider this a coincidence? Robert and Edward are pretty common names, it's not unusual that they might be related to people with those names.

"Both Presidents were shot on a Friday.
Both were shot in the head."
Random chance of both being assasinated on a Friday: ~14% probably more, because they'd tend to not make public appearences on weekends...
And the head is a pretty good place to shoot to kill. Pretty much the only other place is the chest. odds: 50%

"Lincoln's secretary was named Kennedy.
Kennedy's secretary was named Lincoln."
Interesting, but this alone does not make the case.

"Both were assassinated by Southerners.
Both were succeeded by Southerners."
Southerners make up half the country. odds: 50%

"Both successors were named Johnson."
Yet another common name. Albeit a rarer event, but not nearly out of the realm of probability.

"Both assassins were known by their three names.
Both names comprise fifteen letters."
Being know by 3 names is not prohibitively uncommon. Nor is having a 15-letter name. By astonishing coincidence, my full name is also 15 letters long. Am I eerily connected to all this?

"Booth ran from a theater and was caught in a warehouse.
Oswald ran from a warehouse and was caught in a theater."
Warehouses are common, theatres are also relatively so. It's a slightly interesting parallel, but nothing to base a case on.

"Booth and Oswald were assassinated before their trials."
They were hated men. They killed presidents, for Ni's sake. They may have been put to death anyway.

There are many, many, in fact probably infinite, areas in which they differed. Their wives' names were different. They looked different. They were different heights. They had different favorite foods. They had different agendas. Their first names had different numbers of letters. This list could continue infinitely.
And with so many areas where they could have coincided, having 16 or so where they did is not at all statistically unlikely.

Statistical analysis is the core of much of modern science. Many things that seem to be coincidental are well within the range of normal random fluctuation. To give an example, what would you say the odds are that, in a group of 40 people, two would have the same birthday? Not that likely, you'll probably say. But, in fact, the odds are roughly one in 9. That is, one out of every 9 groups of 40 people will likely have at least two people sharing a birthday. Your example of picking the same lottery numbers is roughly the same. Given 1 million possible combos (for example) and 500,000 ticket-buyers, odds are about 50% that at least two tickets will have the same number. Those tickets winning, well, the odds of that are the same as any other ticket winning - 1 in 1 million. Or do you consider the fact that anyone wins the lottery at all amazing?

"You don't have personal experiences like most of us here do."
What, I haven't had coincidences? Of course I have. Everyone has. But I don't naively attribute them to paranormal activity, or whatever. They're just random occurences.

"Or tell me what your afraid of?"
I don't need to be afraid of anything to disagree with you. Really, now. I just hold an opposing viewpoint.

"Coincidences operate on a different level of reasoning."
You don't know anything about statistical analysis, do you?

"How could you define it, and say with petty words that it's so simple to understand?"
See above. But you seem to be taking my opposition of the Kennedy-Lincoln thing as if I were attacking you personally. I'm not.

"You remember being a child once right?"
Yes. As a child I remember believing in Santa Claus, and thinking that if I stepped on a crack it'd break my mother's back. There are valuable lessons to be learned from children, but they must be tempered by acquired knowledge and wisdom. If you look at everything from a completely childlike perspective, then you can never truly appreciate the complexity and beauty of the Universe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Janus,

 

You keep showing numbers and statistics of how all of this can be... Completely not looking at the whole picture, only piece by piece. So instead of telling you again what I said and taking it the wrong way. Let me ask you 2 simple questions.

 

What will make it the case?

 

And would that still be to you provable under statistical analysis?

 

And it wasn't like if I was telling you to be superstitious, how you assumed that's what my meaning to you was. Just to feel it. How does it feel? Again, you wouldn't know that. You don't let your self know. You know in a way that blocks that away.

 

And about me attacking you... Excuse me for pointing out your arrogance, but it's pretty obvious if you ask me. It wasn't anything I made up, you know that =).

 

-Javier C.

 

P.S. post more later, I gotta go.

 

<This message has been edited by TimeTravelActivist (edited 08 July 2000).>

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TTA, I recommend that you spend a bit of time and learn some of the basics of statistical analysis. You would learn that big phenomena are made up of a multitude of little ones, and that one must examine the little ones to fully understand the whole.

 

"What will make it the case?"

 

You mean, what evidence would convince me that some strange connection does exist, rather than just an explainable random concurrence? Something really unlikely. Or, so many similarities that it is inconceiveable that they are random. This paltry list for Lincoln and Kennedy is much too small to convince any statistician. The two men could have agreed in so many more ways, it's actually likely that they would agree in a few. And yes, this kind of connection would show up under statistical analysis. Stats just separate the marginally unlikely from the truly bizarre.

 

"And it wasn't like if I was telling you to be superstitious, <...> Just to feel it."

 

Superstition, spirituality, 'just feel it', same difference.

 

Truly I do not understand why you perceive everything I say to be infused with 'scientific arrogance'. I become arrogant when faced with insults and mockery, but if you look back carefully, you'll see that I rarely begin posting arrogantly on a thread. My first post is usually very civil, as it was in this thread. But, you perceive me as some kind of science bogeyman, here to try to destroy you, and this clouds your interpretation of my posts.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are trying to draw a line between pattern and coincidence, order and chaos, respectivily. Janus you like to percieve pattern as chance where TTA tends to see chance as containing pattern. The argument is, how do you really tell which is which.

 

It is my speculation that complete randomness will consist of half disorder and half pattern. Take your pick, the argument will go on.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you Shadow, for shinning a ray of light in Janus's eyes. He doesn't seem to realize that what you said when he would post and attack my views =). He thinks his way, is the only way. In addition, that is what makes him arrogant. He even self admittedly stated it that he is. So, go figure…

 

-Javier C.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

tta&shadow-I don't believe most people would patronize this discussion of the supposed "similarities" Every now and then, when I'm in a grocery store checkout line, I happen to notice the Lincoln-Kennedy list in one of the tabloids. How far do we want to go? Both were males, both had ten fingers(8 fingers and 2 thumbs), both had darker hair, both liked dogs-somewhat.......the list goes on..........and on..........and on.......

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look, Shadow and TTA, if you're going to claim to be knowledgeable in a subject like this, and argue about it, then you need to have some knowledge in the field. Learn something about stat analysis. Maybe it'll change your minds. Take the example: to debate for or against Christianity, you need to read the Bible - Christian or not. You need to have some knowledge. Especially with stats - it's a confusing and counterintuitive realm of math.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Janus, I disagree. Stats are not the only way leading to understanding. Your way is not the only way things can be understood, you of all people should know that there 2 sides to an issue. Not just your arrogant view that all that exist, is your way.

 

And that is, what all this disagreement is about. So there. And if you don't like it, then you go suck on your thumb and pout in a quiet corner =). Cause the choice is yours when you decide to reply.

 

(No wait, now he's going to get all cerebral on me, and start justifing how he isn't an arrogant chump =)...

 

-Javier C.

 

<This message has been edited by TimeTravelActivist (edited 09 July 2000).>

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well gee excuse me for not being an expert but hey, you know what? I can read, and from that I know that some very expert people at the Stanford Research Institute have already done the "stats" and have proven the existance of nonrandom connections between classicly unrelated events.

 

C. G. Jung had a few things to say about pattern, causality, coincidence and sychronisity. But I guess he was just delivering a line of irrelavent unscientific crap too.

 

Janus you keep talking about "argue this, argue that" well not everybody is here to argue. Maybe some of us are here to put out and hear new ideas. And maybe you are here to stomp all over them....but that is is just my subjective impression. .

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shadow, I must admit that I am not very familiar with Jung or indeed much philosophy at all. If you could lead me to more of his works, I'd gladly read. And I have not yet heard of the Stanford Research Centre work on this particular topic. Do you have a link/reference to where you found this info?

 

What I do know well is basic stats. And I can tell you that coincidences like the Kennedy-Lincoln case are not by any means unusual. I don't believe one needs to call in higher philosophy to see that.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Janus, when you see for your self that coincidences can in fact exist without stats analysis being relevant. You do realize your generalization of saying that there isn't any other way to judge them, but by stats, will mean that you were wrong. Right?

 

Ok, with that said, why don't you give some thought to your future posts, and try and see that there might very well be 2 sides to an issue, not just your own.

 

-Javier C.

 

<This message has been edited by TimeTravelActivist (edited 10 July 2000).>

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

do you think in the parallel universes, there is te reason for the coinsidences, i mean this multiuniverse is conected o.k., now when you take a decision, infinite ways are opened in front of you, so you take one and this way had consecuences, o.k. now in your subconsience you are fileing all this consecuences so when you are in a decision choice again, you take the way that your subconscience take with all the experiences before taked for it, now the coinsidence is in the following path for your subconscience which are trying to save your skin, but if you travel in the multiverse your subconcience know all the other ways and chose the right one, even if you never were in a situaattion like that before. ok.

 

good bay.

 

------------------

 

Remember, put your minds to work.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

answer to Janus

 

Ingo Swan was a central charactor at SRI and if you will look through his extensive web site it will in around about way, introduce you to the rest of the gang.

 

http://www.biomindsuperpowers.com/

 

Doctor Jungs books are at the library in the psychology and biography section. You could even find his nine-thousand page work on anthropology and symbolism if dig a bit deeper.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shadow, thanks for the references. Mmm... psychic sexuality.

 

And, TTA, I wonder: Is the Kennedy-Lincoln 'link' still a meaningful coincidence if such a list can be drawn up for any two marginally similar historical figures? I'm willing to bet that just that could be done. That was the whole point of my numerical look at each of the points. If the event is not unlikely, it can't truly be called a coincidence, can it?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...