PDA

View Full Version : My Unique Theory On Alien Intervention...



Jimbee68
2010-Jan-30, 05:04 AM
Well, I have been sharing this theory (and story) of mine for, oh, close to 8 years by now. I have chosen various ways to share it (including old-fashioned "snail mail" oddly enough). And now I choose to share it in this forum. Please bear with me. It has been a little while since I shared on a forum. (And I think you will all see why I chose to share this on the Conspiracy Theories forum.) Please read:

The theory put forth in this essay is partly inspired by Fermi's Paradox, partly by my own weird experiences. But is it possible that some advanced alien race (or beings from earth's future) HAS had some contact of sorts with us, but instead of making their presence known directly, they are manipulating things on earth covertly. Because frankly I think some signs of this might already be around us. And believe me, all you have to do is look around you, LITERALLY

Just look to supposed "random" things around us and in our collective human history to see if you can find deviations from the statistical norm. For example, every United States president starting with Pres. Harrison (and apparently ending with Pres. Reagan and George W Bush) that was elected in a year ending in zero died in office. EVERYONE! (That's 7 altogether you know--way far beyond mere chance.) Plus look to seemingly "UNEXPLAINED" phenomenon. For example, in 1917, the "Blessed Virgin Mary" is said to have appeared to 3 peasant children in Fatima, Portugal. Finally a miracle is said to have appeared there, witnessed by thousands of people, where the sun seemed to spin in the sky and plommet to earth. Indeed many photographs of the event still exist. And BTW I also believe things like ghost phenomenon is caused by them.

But don't just look to extraordinary examples like the ones above, look to the more mundane things too. What numbers come up more frequently when dealing with supposedly random events? And what letters? It sounds strange, but may yield some interesting results.

Now, I want to make a couple of other things clear here too. I do not believe in UFO's or aliens visiting earth. Sorry. But this leaves me with one question: Is there anyone anywhere else who shares my beliefs?

And it shouldn't be necessary to say this, but I want to make another point clear here too. I believe this advanced alien (or time traveler) is using their fantastically advanced technology to do this. It is not by spirits or magic or something like that. And as I've said, I don't think they have necessarily visited us. Their amazing technology is somehow doing this all from a distance! Astounding, no?

I have been sharing this story in various ways for a couple of years now. But it is not clear to me how well people are responding to my theory. As I've said, I have had some even weirder experiences of my own. But I choose to just offer you all this theory for now--thank you for understanding that:). I do feel confidant other people can see what I am talking about, though, and that there is at least a working hypothesis to be made here. Thank you very much for your time:).

Well, that's it. Now, I open the floor to questions...

Weltraum
2010-Jan-30, 05:29 AM
Well, I have been sharing this theory (and story) of mine for, oh, close to 8 years by now. I have chosen various ways to share it (including old-fashioned "snail mail" oddly enough). And now I choose to share it in this forum. Please bear with me. It has been a little while since I shared on a forum. (And I think you will all see why I chose to share this on the Conspiracy Theories forum.) Please read:

The theory put forth in this essay is partly inspired by Fermi's Paradox, partly by my own weird experiences. But is it possible that some advanced alien race (or beings from earth's future) HAS had some contact of sorts with us, but instead of making their presence known directly, they are manipulating things on earth covertly. Because frankly I think some signs of this might already be around us. And believe me, all you have to do is look around you, LITERALLY

Just look to supposed "random" things around us and in our collective human history to see if you can find deviations from the statistical norm. For example, every United States president starting with Pres. Harrison (and apparently ending with Pres. Reagan and George W Bush) that was elected in a year ending in zero died in office. EVERYONE! (That's 7 altogether you know--way far beyond mere chance.) Plus look to seemingly "UNEXPLAINED" phenomenon. For example, in 1917, the "Blessed Virgin Mary" is said to have appeared to 3 peasant children in Fatima, Portugal. Finally a miracle is said to have appeared there, witnessed by thousands of people, where the sun seemed to spin in the sky and plommet to earth. Indeed many photographs of the event still exist. And BTW I also believe things like ghost phenomenon is caused by them.

But don't just look to extraordinary examples like the ones above, look to the more mundane things too. What numbers come up more frequently when dealing with supposedly random events? And what letters? It sounds strange, but may yield some interesting results.

Now, I want to make a couple of other things clear here too. I do not believe in UFO's or aliens visiting earth. Sorry. But this leaves me with one question: Is there anyone anywhere else who shares my beliefs?

And it shouldn't be necessary to say this, but I want to make another point clear here too. I believe this advanced alien (or time traveler) is using their fantastically advanced technology to do this. It is not by spirits or magic or something like that. And as I've said, I don't think they have necessarily visited us. Their amazing technology is somehow doing this all from a distance! Astounding, no?

I have been sharing this story in various ways for a couple of years now. But it is not clear to me how well people are responding to my theory. As I've said, I have had some even weirder experiences of my own. But I choose to just offer you all this theory for now--thank you for understanding that:). I do feel confidant other people can see what I am talking about, though, and that there is at least a working hypothesis to be made here. Thank you very much for your time:).

Well, that's it. Now, I open the floor to questions...

Greetings Jimbee. I'd like to welcome you to BAUT. No doubt you'll receive the same from many others.

A first concern of mine is the assumptions that go into this theory (what can be viewed as truly random vs what must be in some way the result of manipulation) and the fact that this theory is rather difficult to test and ultimately prove or disprove.

Regarding the seven presidents you've mentioned dying in office: accepting what you've said at face value (I'm not familiar with which presidents died when), I don't know why this must be something non-random. I think it's more extraordinary when someone manages to win the lottery. One must match up six individual numbers for Power Ball, for example, and I could never imagine winning such a game, but people do manage it on occasion. Would you say some aliens from far away manipulated the game for those people to win?

It's an awfully hard judgment to make without a point of reference. That is, how can you compare any statistics without a control group to be sure? And one of the unfortunate realities of our existence would appear to be that there is no sure measurement of the results of apparent randomness! We simply do not and cannot know all of the factors influencing a given outcome. Just think of the Butterfly Effect. Think of quantum mechanics. Chaos Theory. There is so much about existence that falls beyond our ability to observe and predict.

So, simply stated, I don't believe it's possible to make any conclusive judgment about whether any force, be it God or an alien race, is in any way influencing our existence or not. We simply lack the data necessary to draw conclusions.

Thoughts?

Gillianren
2010-Jan-30, 05:33 AM
The thing the "Presidents elected in years ending in 0" thing overlooks is that several of them were first elected in other years or died in a term for which they were elected in other years. Most famously, of course, you have Abraham Lincoln, elected in 1860. And assassinated in 1865, a term to which he was elected in 1864. It's also hardly surprising that one of the many, many assassination plots succeeded, given the poor state of Lincoln's security.

Or, alternately, the poor state of Franklin Roosevelt's health, even before he was elected in 1932. Far more surprising is that he was elected for four terms, dying in the fourth, to which he was elected in 1944.

Jimbee68
2010-Jan-30, 05:40 AM
Yes, you both definitely bring up good points. I am esp. drawn to Weltraum's point that it would be hard to test my theory. I guess that is part of the reason why I present my theory: to have people question their own views of the earth, and question why things happen a certain way. I am not saying everyone will come to the same conclusions I did (as I've said, I've had even weirder experiences I chose not to share). Anyways, if anyone has a different reason why these coincidences came about, I am open to the suggestions:).

Van Rijn
2010-Jan-30, 05:45 AM
But don't just look to extraordinary examples like the ones above, look to the more mundane things too. What numbers come up more frequently when dealing with supposedly random events? And what letters? It sounds strange, but may yield some interesting results.


Welcome to BAUT. What numbers and letters do you think come up more frequently in random events? How do you decide what is supposed to be random? And, I assume you take things like letter frequency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_frequency) into account?

Jimbee68
2010-Jan-30, 05:55 AM
Welcome to BAUT. What numbers and letters do you think come up more frequently in random events? How do you decide what supposed to be random? And, I assume you take things like letter frequency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_frequency) into account?

I haven't the foggiest what numbers or letters come up more frequently than others:). I actually do hope some day someone invents a computer program or something that can look into this. I really think something may come up if people just look closer. Letter frequency. Yes, you do bring up a good point. Some letter will just naturally just come up more frequent. Anyways, in my life especially, it has always been the numbers that come up in extraordinary ways that are coincidental I think. I assume it is the same on larger scale events.

Sticks
2010-Jan-30, 06:29 AM
Jimbee68 you had two identical posts in moderation, I have approved one and deleted the other. If a post of your disappears in moderation please contact a moderator. After a number of posts this will not be an issue

Van Rijn
2010-Jan-30, 07:25 AM
I haven't the foggiest what numbers or letters come up more frequently than others:).


Ah. I thought you were making a claim about the frequency of numbers and letters in "random" events.

Van Rijn
2010-Jan-30, 07:35 AM
Just look to supposed "random" things around us and in our collective human history to see if you can find deviations from the statistical norm. For example, every United States president starting with Pres. Harrison (and apparently ending with Pres. Reagan and George W Bush) that was elected in a year ending in zero died in office. EVERYONE! (That's 7 altogether you know--way far beyond mere chance.)


Could you explain why you think this is "way far beyond mere chance"?

cjameshuff
2010-Jan-30, 07:40 AM
http://www.random.org/integers/

Look for patterns. You'll find quite a few, if you're any good at pattern matching, but not a single one has any meaning...the numbers are purely random.

Random sequences of events will include runs, clumps, and improbable occurrences. A series of numbers/pattern of dots/etc that looks more random to a human is actually less random, with patterns that catch the eye forbidden even though they should be as likely as any other possibility.

Jimbee68
2010-Jan-30, 08:10 AM
Could you explain why you think this is "way far beyond mere chance" [Presidents' dying in a yr. ending in zero]?
Well, for one thing you will note that it starts at one point, there is no exception to the rule, and then it suddenly ends at Reagan. I don't know statistics, but that seems quite a coincidence if that is all it is, no? BTW, people often refer to it as the Tecumseh Curse partly because Pres. Harrison was the first victim and he fought Tecumseh. Isn't it strange the ways people find explanations for extraordinary events?

Gillianren
2010-Jan-30, 09:30 AM
Well, for one thing you will note that it starts at one point, there is no exception to the rule, and then it suddenly ends at Reagan. I don't know statistics, but that seems quite a coincidence if that is all it is, no? BTW, people often refer to it as the Tecumseh Curse partly because Pres. Harrison was the first victim and he fought Tecumseh. Isn't it strange the ways people find explanations for extraordinary events?

Or try to look for correlations when there are none.

Paul Beardsley
2010-Jan-30, 10:35 AM
And may I add my welcome, Jimbee. I hope you stay around for a while.


Well, for one thing you will note that it starts at one point, there is no exception to the rule, and then it suddenly ends at Reagan.
So there are no exceptions until the exception (Reagan) which is followed by another exception (Bush)? Even without Gillian's point about Lincoln and F. Roosevelt having more than one "go", this really doesn't look as extraordinary as you are trying to claim.


I don't know statistics, but that seems quite a coincidence if that is all it is, no?
There is a strong correlation between people who don't know statistics and people who attribute supernatural* explanations to coincidences.

I'd strongly recommend you do a short course in statistics. It's not as boring as it sounds and it does give a real understanding of what is likely and what is unlikely.


Isn't it strange the ways people find explanations for extraordinary events?
You're trying to wag the dog here. The events you're describing are not very extraordinary, and the explanations fit rather well. It's infinitely more strange to invoke aliens or time travellers to account for events that are scarecely more remarkable than a run of sixes in a series of dice throws.

*In the broadest sense.

captain swoop
2010-Jan-30, 12:02 PM
Why would aliens or time travellers want to subtly influence things like this?

Selenite
2010-Jan-30, 01:47 PM
Finally a miracle is said to have appeared there, witnessed by thousands of people, where the sun seemed to spin in the sky and plommet to earth. Indeed many photographs of the event still exist. And BTW I also believe things like ghost phenomenon is caused by them.

How can an object like the sun which is unbearably bright to stare at for even a moment and which has no easily visible reference marks be seen to spin? Plus, could you point me to these photographs which you say still exist? I'm a bit wary of the idea that cameras were as prevalent in rural 1917 Portugal as they are today. Plus, what does an event like that manipulate for these aliens one way of the other? Unlike knocking off presidents based on an arbitrary pattern I don't see a one-time illusion of sun-spinning influences history for ill or good.

Paul Beardsley
2010-Jan-30, 01:57 PM
Plus, what does an event like that manipulate for these aliens one way of the other? Unlike knocking off presidents based on an arbitrary pattern I don't see a one-time illusion of sun-spinning influences history for ill or good.
For some it prompted a strengthening of faith. ("For those that believe, no explanation is necessary. For those that don't believe, no explanation is possible." Quoting from memory.)

One could argue that the aliens were manipulating history by raising faith. Not that I would make such an argument.

vonmazur
2010-Jan-30, 04:28 PM
Welcome to the Board, I believe that this is not a Unique Theory, in the strict sense, as this has been posited before...IIRC; this was mentioned in the 1950's or even earlier...The other members have pointed out, and they are correct in my opinion, humans see patterns in random events, and draw unwarranted conclusions therefrom....

Dale

Garrison
2010-Jan-30, 04:48 PM
And may I add my welcome, Jimbee. I hope you stay around for a while.


So there are no exceptions until the exception (Reagan) which is followed by another exception (Bush)? Even without Gillian's point about Lincoln and F. Roosevelt having more than one "go", this really doesn't look as extraordinary as you are trying to claim.




Not to mention those presidents not elected in a '0' year who survived attempted assassinations, FDR for one, who would have thoroughly wrecked the pattern had those attempts succeeded, and it was usually chance that made the difference between life and death

Gobligok
2010-Jan-30, 04:48 PM
The theory put forth in this essay is partly inspired by Fermi's Paradox, partly by my own weird experiences. But is it possible that some advanced alien race (or beings from earth's future) HAS had some contact of sorts with us, but instead of making their presence known directly, they are manipulating things on earth covertly. Because frankly I think some signs of this might already be around us. And believe me, all you have to do is look around you, LITERALLY

Ontologically, "aliens" as a concept is a floating abstraction. It has no demonstrable connection to anything in reality. You might just easily say uillomanagratty, siutfosh or Gobligok. A series of vocal sounds without a reference in reality has no explanatory power.



I believe this advanced alien (or time traveler) is using their fantastically advanced technology to do this. It is not by spirits or magic or something like that. And as I've said, I don't think they have necessarily visited us. Their amazing technology is somehow doing this all from a distance!

Given the nature of your proposal, it might as well be spirits or magic.

LaurelHS
2010-Jan-30, 06:34 PM
Not to mention those presidents not elected in a '0' year who survived attempted assassinations, FDR for one, who would have thoroughly wrecked the pattern had those attempts succeeded, and it was usually chance that made the difference between life and death
Zachary Taylor was elected in 1848 and he died in 1850. That also interferes with the pattern.
http://www.snopes.com/history/american/curse.asp

kleindoofy
2010-Jan-30, 08:47 PM
The gobblygoop about years, dates, letters, etc. has extreme weaks points on its own merits.

For a so-called "zero" year to have a transcendent meaning, one has to assume at least two things:

1) that the Gregorian calender has universal validity, and I mean universal as "in the entire universe,"

2) that the decimal system is also universal.

Their are numerous calender systems around here on Earth: the Chinese, the Muslim, the Jewish, the Mayan (extinct), the Gregorian (1582), etc.. Why should we assume that the Gregorian calender is so special?

Our decimal based zero years are meaningless if one uses a 16-base counting system, or any other.

And what about letters? Errr, does that include phonetical symbols, letters from non-Roman alphabets or syllabic/pictographic systems?

Just because most of us assume our (present) system is so universal doesn't mean the phantastical long distant, super duper ET does.

And who really cares about Presidents? What about other people?

I bet if we used base-13 on the Mayan calender we could find out that Julius Caesar was stabbed to death on some special date.

So what?

Sorry folks, the whole thing is based far too much on a modern western cultural scope.

Not to even mention the alien bit.

R.A.F.
2010-Jan-30, 08:51 PM
I don't know statistics, but that seems quite a coincidence if that is all it is, no?

Do you have evidence to present that would eliminate coincidence as an explanation?

You may not know statistics, but you sure seem familiar with numerology. Unless you have actual evidence to the contrary, that is all this is.

Gillianren
2010-Jan-30, 09:12 PM
Zachary Taylor was elected in 1848 and he died in 1850. That also interferes with the pattern.
http://www.snopes.com/history/american/curse.asp

But--but--1850 ends in 0!

Yeah, even the most basic study of the lives--and deaths--of Presidents shows the serious flaw in the "coincidence" claim. I mean, Sam Byck wanted to fly a plane into the White House to kill Nixon; had he chosen a better plan or carried out the one he went with better, Nixon (elected 1968 and 1972) would have thrown the pattern.

kleindoofy
2010-Jan-30, 09:16 PM
... had he chosen a better plan or carried out the one he went with better, Nixon (elected 1968 and 1972) would have thrown the pattern.
I think that's Jimbee68's point:

The aliens are running the show, so they made sure Byck's plan failed.

Patterns are there to be maintained, not mussed up by pesky Earthlings.

Gillianren
2010-Jan-30, 09:44 PM
Oy vey.

Strange
2010-Jan-30, 09:57 PM
There is a strong correlation between people who don't know statistics and people who attribute supernatural* explanations to coincidences.

I like it. Got any statistics for that?


I'd strongly recommend you do a short course in statistics. It's not as boring as it sounds and it does give a real understanding of what is likely and what is unlikely.

Even a good popular book will give you a better idea of the, often counterintuitive, nature of statistics. For example, how many people need to be in a room for better than even odds that at least two share a birthday? (It's a lot less than most people imagine.) The "Monty Hall problem" is another good example that confuses a lot of people.

And then there are those things like confirmation bias, where we see events that fit a pattern and ignore the ones that don't. For example, the way that you think/dream about a friend you haven't seen for years and the next day you get a letter/phonecall/email from them. Amazing. Forgetting all the thousands of times you have thought about an old friend and the next day ... nothing.

Strange
2010-Jan-30, 09:59 PM
I haven't the foggiest what numbers or letters come up more frequently than others:). I actually do hope some day someone invents a computer program or something that can look into this. I really think something may come up if people just look closer.

What makes you think people haven't looked. Many people (gamblers, in particular) have spent (wasted) a lot of time trying to find patterns in random events.

Orion's Fan
2010-Jan-30, 10:22 PM
In order for something to be scientifically considered to be a theory, it must have a test for wrongness. This speculation is certainly not a theory.

Paul Beardsley
2010-Jan-30, 10:31 PM
This speculation is certainly not a theory.
Let alone unique!

Orion's Fan
2010-Jan-30, 10:55 PM
Let alone unique!

Well, there's that, too.

Torch2k
2010-Jan-31, 01:24 AM
Anyways, if anyone has a different reason why these coincidences came about, I am open to the suggestions:).

Ummm ... because they're coincidences? Last time I checked, that's what coincidences are. To suggest anything else, you have to show why you think they're significant. Really. It's your responsibility.

Tom Servo
2010-Jan-31, 05:22 AM
Just look to supposed "random" things around us and in our collective human history to see if you can find deviations from the statistical norm. For example, every United States president starting with Pres. Harrison (and apparently ending with Pres. Reagan and George W Bush) that was elected in a year ending in zero died in office. EVERYONE! (That's 7 altogether you know--way far beyond mere chance.)

Plus look to seemingly "UNEXPLAINED" phenomenon. For example, in 1917, the "Blessed Virgin Mary" is said to have appeared to 3 peasant children in Fatima, Portugal. Finally a miracle is said to have appeared there, witnessed by thousands of people, where the sun seemed to spin in the sky and plommet to earth. Indeed many photographs of the event still exist. And BTW I also believe things like ghost phenomenon is caused by them.

But don't just look to extraordinary examples like the ones above, look to the more mundane things too. What numbers come up more frequently when dealing with supposedly random events? And what letters? It sounds strange, but may yield some interesting results. ...


First Welcome to the BAUT.

I have a few points I would like to comment on.
Probably the strongest example you give is the President assasinations. This has already been discussed by others as being not entirely out of the possibility of randomness. I would agree with them that this is something that can randomly happen.
My question for you would be. Why would a very advanced alien race decide that rather than making there presence known to the earthlings it would be a better Idea to sit back and assasinate United states presidents in a somewhat pattern requiring them to be elected in years ending with 0s?

I could perhaps entertain the thought that they may want to help assasinate a president or two that they thought would benifit either the earthlings or the aliens plans. But why would they decide to make it a point of doing it on an obscure pattern which requires them to be elected on years ending with earth calendar 0s?

(If I was the advanced alien race that stumbled upon the earthlings I would certainly have no need at all to devote that much time, energy, resources, man power, alien power, or evan advanced mind control technology to accomplish this pattern for my own amusement) Is this pattern benifiting anyone be it man or alien. I cant see why it would.

Now.

Lets say hypotheticaly you were the advanced alien race. If you were, it would still be an increadable discovery to find any other life in the universe other than your own. This would also require an increadable amount of devotion, resources, time, equiptment, life support systems, ect, ect, ect to even reach the humans.

Now lets say after all that you decided to go to see the humans but not let them see you. It would be increadably pointless to get here and do strange obscure number games and letter games with them that seem to have no benifit to them at all. No benifit or if you were evil these seem to not really harm us either. (except for the poor now dead US presidents) America seems to be Ok now despite the dead presidents. (some may argue differently but I say I'm doing ok at least living in America.)

Please give us some more examples of random events that may actually not be random at all.


Please let me know what your opinions are on my theory.

Halcyon Dayz
2010-Jan-31, 05:26 AM
Ontologically, "aliens" as a concept is a floating abstraction. It has no demonstrable connection to anything in reality. You might just easily say uillomanagratty, siutfosh or Gobligok. A series of vocal sounds without a reference in reality has no explanatory power.
You are going to like the writings of JayUtah.

He keeps hammering exactly that point. Though he likes the word Nargles. :)

Jimbee68
2010-Feb-01, 05:29 AM
My question for you would be. Why would a very advanced alien race decide that rather than making there presence known to the earthlings it would be a better Idea to sit back and assasinate United states presidents in a somewhat pattern requiring them to be elected in years ending with 0s?

I could perhaps entertain the thought that they may want to help assasinate a president or two that they thought would benifit either the earthlings or the aliens plans. But why would they decide to make it a point of doing it on an obscure pattern which requires them to be elected on years ending with earth calendar 0s?


Please let me know what your opinions are on my theory.
Oh, I am open to all theories and opinions. But I still honestly think I've got something here. (As I've said, I've had weirder experiences of my own, but choose not to go into that, in this thread at least:).)

cjameshuff
2010-Feb-01, 06:14 AM
Oh, I am open to all theories and opinions. But I still honestly think I've got something here. (As I've said, I've had weirder experiences of my own, but choose not to go into that, in this thread at least:).)

Did you look at any batches of numbers from the random.org link in my earlier post? Do you think aliens are influencing atmospheric noise in just the right way to produce numerical patterns after being measured and processed by their system and condensed into a list to your specifications?

In any random data set, there are almost certain to be runs, coincidences, and apparent patterns. They are expected, not unusual. Given that simple coincidence is a perfectly reasonable explanation, what reason do you have to suspect the patterns you've picked out are due to aliens with strange numerical obsessions manipulating events?

Paul Beardsley
2010-Feb-01, 07:35 AM
Oh, I am open to all theories and opinions. But I still honestly think I've got something here.
The fact that you haven't responded to the counter-arguments and yet you persist with this absurd belief suggests to me that you're not very open at all right now.


(As I've said, I've had weirder experiences of my own, but choose not to go into that, in this thread at least:).)
When people keep talking about things they are not going to talk about, I believe the polite response is, "Put up or shut up!"

Wannabe detective: "I believe the victim died of spontaneous combustion."

Actual detective: "The victim was stabbed. We found the murder weapon and the murderer confessed. There are no burns on the body whatsoever."

Wannabe detective: "I still honestly think I've got something here."

Jimbee68
2010-Feb-01, 07:40 AM
Given that simple coincidence is a perfectly reasonable explanation, what reason do you have to suspect the patterns you've picked out are due to aliens with strange numerical obsessions manipulating events?
Well, for one thing, some coincidences like the "zero curse" are surprisingly specific. They only affect presidents who get elected on a certain date. And again I have to emphasize, for 7 presidents in a row, it happened without exception. Okay, maybe I am relying partly on my own hunch, and partly on my own weird experiences. But I just can't dismiss these as statistical glitches.

As to what an advanced alien would want to accomplish by doing such things. I still don't know that part of it yet. But if they ever tell me, I will relate it asap;).

Paul Beardsley
2010-Feb-01, 07:59 AM
Well, for one thing, some coincidences like the "zero curse" are surprisingly specific. They only affect presidents who get elected on a certain date. And again I have to emphasize, for 7 presidents in a row, it happened without exception.
If by "a certain date" you meant something like "17 April" and elections that could take place any day of the year, then yes, it would be remarkable. But no, by "a certain date" you mean a year that ends in 0.

I take it you are aware that one in every ten years ends in a 0?

And as has been pointed out more than once, some presidents had more than one go.


But I just can't dismiss these as statistical glitches.
Maybe you can't. But people who know a bit about statistics can. What does that say to you?

Jens
2010-Feb-01, 08:19 AM
Well, for one thing, some coincidences like the "zero curse" are surprisingly specific. They only affect presidents who get elected on a certain date.

The thing, though, is that it is such an absurd idea. What would be the possible purpose of doing such a thing? Suppose that we were watching another inhabited planet. Do you think we would just choose some country there and spend a hundred years arranging for the murder of their leaders elected in a certain combination of years? We could also do something equally absurd, and knock down every building in a certain town with the number 10 or something. But why? If you want people to know you're there, you can announce it. If you don't want them to know you're there, you hide. You don't put out strange clues unless it's some kind of a sick game. Are you thinking that maybe aliens are having a betting game on when they'll get caught?

Gillianren
2010-Feb-01, 08:53 AM
I take it you are aware that one in every ten years ends in a 0?

And, as far as the relevant elections, one in five.


And as has been pointed out more than once, some presidents had more than one go.

If you just look at the year in which the President was elected to the term in which he died--and include Zachary Taylor!--it's a little less specific-looking. To whit, 1840, 1848, 1864, 1880, 1900, 1920, 1944, and 1960. Yes, five of them end in zero. But then let's look at the year in which those men were first elected. 1840, 1848, 1860, 1880, 1896, 1920, 1932, and 1960. Still five--but not exactly the same five! Significant, or just coincidence? I know which I'm voting for.

An interesting consideration if it isn't coincidence is what role Robert Todd Lincoln played in the aliens' plans. After 1900, he refused to meet Presidents again.

Van Rijn
2010-Feb-01, 09:49 AM
Well, for one thing, some coincidences like the "zero curse" are surprisingly specific. They only affect presidents who get elected on a certain date.


How are you defining "date"? And, how is it specific?



And again I have to emphasize, for 7 presidents in a row, it happened without exception.


So what? Why does this require any extraordinary explanation?

As already discussed in thread, it's a weak rule: If, for instance, the requirement was that a president be elected (not reelected) in a year ending with zero and die in the same term, there would be repeated exceptions.

By the way, are you claiming some special significance to the number seven?

tnjrp
2010-Feb-01, 11:48 AM
What would be the possible purpose of doing such a thing?That is a rather good question and one wouldn't like to receive an answer amounting to "God... erm, excuse me, aliens work in mysterious (yet highly circumscribed) ways". One might assume the so-called pattern would have some signifigance to them, of course, but that is rather a non-answer too.

Strange
2010-Feb-01, 12:43 PM
This is such a good characterization of most ATM/CT contributers, that I think it is worth repeating.


Wannabe detective: "I believe the victim died of spontaneous combustion."

Actual detective: "The victim was stabbed. We found the murder weapon and the murderer confessed. There are no burns on the body whatsoever."

Wannabe detective: "I still honestly think I've got something here."

Further, the Wannabe Detective is likely to also say that they know nothing about detection, forensics, standards of evidence, etc. And when they say "victim" or "combustion" what they really mean is ... (some concept of their own invention).

MartianMarvin
2010-Feb-01, 04:25 PM
Jimbee68, would you consider that every U.S. President who has ever died in office was elected in an even year an impossible coincidence as well?

Garrison
2010-Feb-01, 08:26 PM
I remember watching an experiment on TV a while back where one group of people created a genuinely random set of numbers by rolling dice and another group created them just by writing down numbers. They then demonstrated that an expert could tell the two apart rather easily, why? because the people making up the numbers lists themselves didn't include enough patterns of numbers.
The point of the experiment was of course that many people just don't get the idea that patterns can and will emerge out of randomness, which this thread seems to further illustrate.

Swift
2010-Feb-01, 08:36 PM
The point of the experiment was of course that many people just don't get the idea that patterns can and will emerge out of randomness, which this thread seems to further illustrate.
This experimental design software I used to use (EChip) used to have the following on its boot-up screen:


"Randomness comes in bunches"

;)

Weltraum
2010-Feb-01, 09:11 PM
Yeah, I think there's an inherent flaw in judging a given random set as showing a pattern: It's the assumption that something random will never produce what appears to be a pattern. If you're looking for patterns in random data, you'll probably find something eventually, in at least some part of that random data. The mind has a capacity for doing this.

If you want such a "discovery" to have any scientific merit, you need formulate some hypothesis to explain the apparent pattern and find a way to test this hypothesis. Otherwise, it remains an untested, unproven hypothesis. And what worth does that have?

AstroRockHunter
2010-Feb-02, 12:18 AM
OK, I went to Wikipedia for this.

The presidents of the U.S. who were first elected in a year ending in '0' are:
Thomas Jefferson 2 terms Did not die in office.
William Harrison 1 term Died in office (complications from a cold)
Abraham Lincoln 2 terms Died in office (assassinated in 2nd term)
James Garfield 1 term Died in office (assassinated)
John Kennedy 1 term Died in office (assassinated)
Ronald Reagan 2 terms Did not die in office
George W. Bush 2 terms Did not die in office.

Franklin Roosevelt was elected in 1932, 1936, 1940, and 1944. He died in office in 1945 of natural causes.

FDR can be considered one of those aberrant data points that we can toss out. He was the only person to be elected to more than two terms.

While Abraham Lincoln was first elected in 1860, he was re-elected in 1864 and was assassinated in 1865.

This leaves 6 who were first elected in a year ending with '0', three of which died in office and three who did not.

I don't think that this is supportive of the presented OP.

pzkpfw
2010-Feb-02, 12:27 AM
Yeah, I think there's an inherent flaw in judging a given random set as showing a pattern: It's the assumption that something random will never produce what appears to be a pattern. If you're looking for patterns in random data, you'll probably find something eventually, in at least some part of that random data. The mind has a capacity for doing this.

Best example of this I've seen was in a book where an experiment was reported, in a chapter on this subject...

Two pictures:
(a) one of randomly placed dots.
(b) one of randomly placed dots, but where no dot was placed within distance x of a previously placed dot.

The majority of people surveyed thought picture (b) was "more random". The minimum distance rule made the dots in picture (b) spread out "more evenly" - but actually made it less random. The clumping visible in picture (a) made people mistakenly think it was the less random one.

cjameshuff
2010-Feb-02, 12:33 AM
Well, for one thing, some coincidences like the "zero curse" are surprisingly specific. They only affect presidents who get elected on a certain date. And again I have to emphasize, for 7 presidents in a row, it happened without exception. Okay, maybe I am relying partly on my own hunch, and partly on my own weird experiences. But I just can't dismiss these as statistical glitches.

However "specific" they are, it is expected that some sort of pattern will be found if you look hard enough, so why shouldn't they be dismissed as such? There aren't nearly enough examples to give any reason to think it's something more than simple coincidence.

Presidents can be elected in years ending in 0, 2, 4, 6, and 8. 5 possibilities. Go to random.org's integer generation page, select a range from 0 to 4, and look for runs and clusters. On my very first run, I got a horizontal and vertical run of 4 2's and a 2x2 box of them...11 adjacent 2's. You don't care about presidents serving multiple terms in your sequence, so how about requiring more than 2 numbers to break a run...I got 8 zeros in a run broken only by a 3 and a 4. I didn't spot a 0-1-2-3-4, but I did spot 0-1-2-4...aside from the zero that started it off, each number is twice the previous one. What a coincidence! Could it be aliens?

I didn't even bother to look at diagonals. There's many potential patterns you can match in any data set, and you can always ignore the patterns that don't match, and add more rules or cherry-pick different sets of data if you don't find enough. Take any set of random numbers and start applying equally random rules, and you'll get matches...very "specific" matches...that have absolutely no meaning. The existence of such is certainly not evidence of extraterrestrial influence.

Also relevant to the subject at hand:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthday_problem

cjameshuff
2010-Feb-02, 12:59 AM
Best example of this I've seen was in a book where an experiment was reported, in a chapter on this subject...

Two pictures:
(a) one of randomly placed dots.
(b) one of randomly placed dots, but where no dot was placed within distance x of a previously placed dot.

The majority of people surveyed thought picture (b) was "more random". The minimum distance rule made the dots in picture (b) spread out "more evenly" - but actually made it less random. The clumping visible in picture (a) made people mistakenly think it was the less random one.

To illustrate (requires JavaScript and a browser supporting the <canvas> tag, like Firefox or Safari):
http://tmp.arklyffe.com/randomdots.html

Jimbee68
2010-Feb-02, 03:14 AM
By the way, are you claiming some special significance to the number seven?
Actually, I have wondered about this very topic. Why seven? After all, seven was consider to be a number of completeness to the ancients (which in retrospect was rather silly--it is based on the seven then-known visible objects in the heavens, the sun, the moon, and the five known planets at the time). But I have studied some other coincidences. And seven does sometimes come up.

BTW, in your debates, you have barely mentioned the other points I made: Fatima and ghosts. I am sorry I don't have any pictures of Fatima at this moment (but if someone else has any, feel free to provide the link). But credible witnesses did say the Sun seemed to spin in the sky and plommet to earth. Then people who were soaked with rain became suddenly dry. Ghosts are also interesting. Some stories of ghosts, again from some very credible witnesses, are quite striking. Also interesting about ghosts is that the very-skeptical Carl Sagan once said he thought ghosts could be ET's. I wonder if he was referring to what I am talking about...

Gillianren
2010-Feb-02, 03:53 AM
I haven't said anything about ghosts because, well, we have evidence that Presidents have died. Ghosts, not so much.

eburacum45
2010-Feb-02, 04:01 AM
The Fatima events were most probably caused by too much staring at the Sun. This also happens at Knock, in Ireland, where pilgrims stare at the Sun in hope of a similar 'miracle'.

From here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8390184.stm

Dr Eamonn O'Donoghue, a consultant ophthalmologist surgeon told the Irish Times that the hospital would usually see one case of solar retinopathy "at most" per year.
However, there have been five such cases so far this year, all of them linked to events at Knock.
...
While he was unaware how the events were organised, he said, it would be "profoundly irresponsible" for anyone to encourage people to stare at the sun.
A crowd of about 7,000 people gathered at the shrine of the Virgin Mary on Saturday 31 October.
At this and at another event on 11 October, some people claimed to have seen the sun "dancing in the sky".


One of the first things any astronomer should tell you is 'never look directly at the Sun with the naked eye.' Events like this encourage people to do just that.

LaurelHS
2010-Feb-02, 04:07 AM
A similar thing happened in India.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7292981.stm

Van Rijn
2010-Feb-02, 04:15 AM
Actually, I have wondered about this very topic. Why seven? After all, seven was consider to be a number of completeness to the ancients (which in retrospect was rather silly--it is based on the seven then-known visible objects in the heavens, the sun, the moon, and the five known planets at the time). But I have studied some other coincidences. And seven does sometimes come up.


Sorry, this still isn't clear - are you making some special claim about the number "7"?



BTW, in your debates, you have barely mentioned the other points I made: Fatima and ghosts.


There are a couple of reasons I haven't mentioned them. First, you mentioned them along with the presidential coincidence, but you haven't made clear what the connection (if any) is supposed to be. Just what is the connection in your view?

Second, even if you aren't claiming religious significance, Fatima, especially, gets into what many would consider religious territory, so given the board rules (which I assume you read), discussion of that here requires some care.

Ghosts aren't exactly a space or astronomy topic either, so generally aren't discussed here. And, again, it isn't clear to me exactly what your point is. But, if you're going to argue that ghosts exist, you'll need to present the evidence. And, if you are claiming they are aliens or time travelers, you'd need to present the evidence for that as well.

NorthGuy
2010-Feb-02, 04:31 AM
OK, I went to Wikipedia for this.

The presidents of the U.S. who were first elected in a year ending in '0' are:
Thomas Jefferson 2 terms Did not die in office.
William Harrison 1 term Died in office (complications from a cold)
Abraham Lincoln 2 terms Died in office (assassinated in 2nd term)
James Garfield 1 term Died in office (assassinated)
John Kennedy 1 term Died in office (assassinated)
Ronald Reagan 2 terms Did not die in office
George W. Bush 2 terms Did not die in office.

Franklin Roosevelt was elected in 1932, 1936, 1940, and 1944. He died in office in 1945 of natural causes.

FDR can be considered one of those aberrant data points that we can toss out. He was the only person to be elected to more than two terms.

While Abraham Lincoln was first elected in 1860, he was re-elected in 1864 and was assassinated in 1865.

This leaves 6 who were first elected in a year ending with '0', three of which died in office and three who did not.

I don't think that this is supportive of the presented OP.

Just to complete your data:
James Madison was elected in 1816 and 1820; did not die in office.
William McKinley was elected in 1896 and 1900; assassinated in 1901.

The only other president to die in office was Zachary Taylor: elected to his only term in 1848 and died of illness in 1950.

All in all, there's no pattern here.

Torch2k
2010-Feb-02, 04:31 AM
Also interesting about ghosts is that the very-skeptical Carl Sagan once said he thought ghosts could be ET's. I wonder if he was referring to what I am talking about...

Mmmhmm! And skeptical me would love to see a source for this quote. To my knowledge, Carl Sagan didn't believe there was compelling evidence for either. Maybe a read through Demon-Haunted World would clear this up for you.

Jens
2010-Feb-02, 04:34 AM
BTW, in your debates, you have barely mentioned the other points I made: Fatima and ghosts. I am sorry I don't have any pictures of Fatima at this moment (but if someone else has any, feel free to provide the link). But credible witnesses did say the Sun seemed to spin in the sky and plommet to earth.

That was supposed to have happened in 1917. There are still people alive who were alive at that time. If the sun has plummeted to earth, the earth would have been obliterated and we would no longer be here. But the same question applies: why on earth would aliens want to do such a thing? Why not do something constructive like fix those Toyota pedals? :)

Geo Kaplan
2010-Feb-02, 04:50 AM
That was supposed to have happened in 1917. There are still people alive who were alive at that time. If the sun has plummeted to earth, the earth would have been obliterated and we would no longer be here. But the same question applies: why on earth would aliens want to do such a thing? Why not do something constructive like fix those Toyota pedals? :)

You got that all wrong. The aliens caused the Toyota problem, but only for vehicles with license plate numbers ending in zero. Or so I've heard.

Jimbee68
2010-Feb-02, 05:36 AM
(There are alot of posts here with questions. But I will answer Van Rijn because his is typical.)

Sorry, this still isn't clear - are you making some special claim about the number "7"?
I am sorry if I haven't made that clear. But as I've said, I am still not sure about that one. So I will leave it at that:).


There are a couple of reasons I haven't mentioned them. First, you mentioned them along with the presidential coincidence, but you haven't made clear what the connection (if any) is supposed to be. Just what is the connection in your view?
Well, they are two pieces of the same puzzle to me. But as you've said, the two events certainly aren't connected of course.


Second, even if you aren't claiming religious significance, Fatima, especially, gets into what many would consider religious territory, so given the board rules (which I assume you read), discussion of that here requires some care.
No, it isn't religious territory per se. It is an illusion created by an advanced alien entity (to me at least). Ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs are strictly speaking a product of a religion. Does that mean we are not allowed to talk about this:)?

Anyways, some of you have insisted we haven't completed the discussion on the coincidences yet. So I am certainly game for that. But realize the subject is such a conundrum for me, how and why this alien entity would chose such a thing, I am at a loss for words to explain it too. And as I've said, I am partly going by intuition too, when I conclude these things (and partly my own weird experiences--I may discuss that in another thread:)).

Jens
2010-Feb-02, 06:01 AM
But realize the subject is such a conundrum for me, how and why this alien entity would chose such a thing, I am at a loss for words to explain it too. And as I've said, I am partly going by intuition too, when I conclude these things (and partly my own weird experiences--I may discuss that in another thread:)).

Of course you're at a loss, because there just isn't any good reason. I have nothing against intuition. It can be helpful in discovering things. Suppose that you hear on the radio that three jets have crashed around the world at precisely the same moment. Your intuition tells you rightly that there is likely a connection between the three, most probably terrorism. But to conclude from that that it is probably because Venus just passed in front of Sirius would be ludicrous, because there is no logical reason why Venus passing in front of Sirius would cause three random jets to crash. Similarly, there's no plausible reason to think that aliens would have arranged for the assassinations of presidents in an odd order or arranged for some children to have had visions of Mary.

LaurelHS
2010-Feb-02, 06:23 AM
And as I've said, I am partly going by intuition too, when I conclude these things (and partly my own weird experiences--I may discuss that in another thread:)).
You keep mentioning weird experiences in this thread, why not discuss them here?

tnjrp
2010-Feb-02, 06:41 AM
No, it isn't religious territory per se. It is an illusion created by an advanced alien entity (to me at least). Ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs are strictly speaking a product of a religion. Does that mean we are not allowed to talk about this?While a large number of hierogplyhs do deal with religious subjects, and I'm personally game for discussing the Fatima event, it's ultimately the call of the admins to demarkate between "religion" and "mythology". This distinction is of course quite vague, but I'd guess they would see a discussion of what many Christians think of as a divine miracle as belonging under the former. OTOH if a believer in the reality and divinity of the Egyptian pantheon came around to discuss his/her views then it would definitely be a religious discussion as well, in my view.

Ghosts can be viewed as a religious phenomenon of course, but I'm sure the admins will be more lenient there, especially if you present a little more evidence than something Carl Sagan may (or may not, as the case may be) have said sometime towards them being space aliens/time travellers/incorporeal entities from other "dimensions"/whathaveyou.


Anyways, some of you have insisted we haven't completed the discussion on the coincidences yet. So I am certainly game for that. But realize the subject is such a conundrum for me, how and why this alien entity would chose such a thing, I am at a loss for words to explain it too.:hand:
For me, this does conclude that part of discussion. The coincidence mentioned doesn't seem so remarkable as to require a massively remarkable explanation, especially since you don't even have any hypothesis/proposition/guess as to why the "advanced alien entities" see fit to kill presidents inaugurated on certain years. Obviously if you have more compelling coincidences to represent then it's another kettle of fish.

Strange
2010-Feb-02, 07:49 AM
But I have studied some other coincidences. And seven does sometimes come up.

As do 0, 1, 2 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, ... sometimes.

Strange
2010-Feb-02, 07:56 AM
Anyways, some of you have insisted we haven't completed the discussion on the coincidences yet.

No, I think everyine here is pretty convinced it is (a) a false correlation (b) a coincidence and (c) meaningless.



But realize the subject is such a conundrum for me, how and why this alien entity would chose such a thing, I am at a loss for words to explain it too.

How about accepting the common sense view?


And as I've said, I am partly going by intuition too, when I conclude these things

Did you read Paul Beardsley's post (http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-theories/100087-my-unique-theory-alien-intervention-2.html#post1671764)?

Gobligok
2010-Feb-02, 07:59 AM
It is an illusion created by an advanced alien entity (to me at least).

What is an "advanced alien entity," and how does one distinguish it from imagination?



But realize the subject is such a conundrum for me, how and why this alien entity would chose such a thing...

True, it doesn't make any sense. There's a reason for that, methinks.

Swift
2010-Feb-02, 02:09 PM
What is an "advanced alien entity," and how does one distinguish it from imagination?

And how do you know it was an "advanced alien entity" or a time traveler, and not an angel or a nymph or Zeus or Professor Xavier's mutants?

And no, I'm not making a joke. If we assume these things are not coincidence (I think they are, but I'll put that point aside for the moment), what evidence do you have that your alien entity is doing these things and not something else?

Garrison
2010-Feb-02, 07:44 PM
Actually, I have wondered about this very topic. Why seven? After all, seven was consider to be a number of completeness to the ancients (which in retrospect was rather silly--it is based on the seven then-known visible objects in the heavens, the sun, the moon, and the five known planets at the time). But I have studied some other coincidences. And seven does sometimes come up.

BTW, in your debates, you have barely mentioned the other points I made: Fatima and ghosts. I am sorry I don't have any pictures of Fatima at this moment (but if someone else has any, feel free to provide the link). But credible witnesses did say the Sun seemed to spin in the sky and plommet to earth. Then people who were soaked with rain became suddenly dry. Ghosts are also interesting. Some stories of ghosts, again from some very credible witnesses, are quite striking. Also interesting about ghosts is that the very-skeptical Carl Sagan once said he thought ghosts could be ET's. I wonder if he was referring to what I am talking about...

Well the credibility of eyewitnesses without any supporting evidence has been discussed here before, and frankly they are not worth much. Especially if you throw in a little religious hysteria and expectation of what they should see.

kleindoofy
2010-Feb-02, 08:03 PM
... Why seven? After all, seven was consider to be a number of completeness to the ancients (which in retrospect was rather silly--it is based on the seven then-known visible objects in the heavens, the sun, the moon, and the five known planets at the time). ...
Saying "the ancients" and "at that time" certainly does throw a large number of civilizations and milleniums into one small bowl.

Whatever, the lucky number seven also has to do with something that ruins your zero year system, i.e. your dependence on the decimal system.

The sense of completeness is often achieved by saying "all + 1." Hence "1000 + 1 nights," "eternity and a day," "everybody and his brother."

Many "ancients" and a few current cultures use(d) a mixed sexagesimal and base-6 counting system. 7 was 6+1, i.e. a complete count + 1: a lucky number.

The same goes for 13. In some cultures it is 6+6+1, i.e. two completes + 1, and is a lucky number.

In our culture 13 is the "odd ball," i.e. the round dozen* plus one too many: an unlucky number.



*The dozen is a remnant of the oriental sexagesimal system which we inherited in the middle ages. Another remnant is our compass of 360. There are others.

MartianMarvin
2010-Feb-02, 08:17 PM
The only other president to die in office was Zachary Taylor: elected to his only term in 1848 and died of illness in 1950.

All in all, there's no pattern here.

Holy smokes! I'll take his illness any day. ;)

CJSF
2010-Feb-02, 10:41 PM
I'm doing this more for an exercise in clarity, for me:

It boils down to: What happened to Presidents elected in a year ending in "0"

1800: Thomas Jefferson - died 1826 at age 83 (term ended in 1809)

1820: James Monroe - (2nd term) died 1831 at age 73 (term ended in 1825)

1840: William Henry Harrison - died 1841, age 68 of pneumonia after 1 month in office

1860: Abraham Lincoln - died 1865, age 56, assassinated

1880: James A. Garfield - died 1881, age 50, assassinated

1900: William McKinley - (2nd term) died 1901, age 58, assassinated

1920: Warren G. Harding - died 1923, age 58, heart attack while in office

1940: Franklin D. Roosevelt - (3rd term) died 1945, age 63, during 4th term, cerebral hemmorhage

1960: John F. Kennedy - died 1963, age 36, assassinated

1980: Ronald Reagan - died 2004, age 93 (term ended 1989), altzhimers/pneumonia (survived assassination attempt in 1981)

2000: George W. Bush - alive, term ended in 2009

So there is a string of presidents who died in office, who were elected in a "0" year from 1840 to 1960. This is disregarding whether that election was that president's first term or not, and if they died in that "0" year term or not.

Looks interesting on the surface, but I don't see why it's really unusual or improbable, especially given the combination of security and political situations in the 19th century.

CJSF

Tom Servo
2010-Feb-02, 11:08 PM
. For example, in 1917, the "Blessed Virgin Mary" is said to have appeared to 3 peasant children in Fatima, Portugal. Finally a miracle is said to have appeared there, witnessed by thousands of people, where the sun seemed to spin in the sky and plommet to earth. Indeed many photographs of the event still exist. And BTW I also believe things like ghost phenomenon is caused by them...

...

As for ghosts being reported in 1917.
It is very hard to look at very obscure undocumented stories as proof of ghosts.

I would say that in order to answer any question abouts Ghosts we need some kind of deffinition of what exactly a ghost is. There are literally thousands of different kinds written about throughout history. Each time they seem to have varying differences. These differences can be subtle or can completely contradict any previous deffinition of a ghost that has come before it.

When I think of a ghost I think of hollywoods steriotypical Scary floating white mist in a kinda human shape with scary fangs that floats through walls to scare or kill people for no good reason at all.

This type of ghost is free from the restrictions of the laws of Physics or any basic laws of anything. If gravity doesnt aply and they can go through walls then they must not have any mass. If this is the case what the heck is keeping them here on earth and not being swiftly passed by as the earth rotates and continues on its yearly journey around the sun.

Of coarse now you can say Well perhaps its a different type of ghost that does exist and obeys the basic laws of physics.
Allright well then what is a ghost or what can be a ghost.
If only people can be a ghost than statisticaly speaking there should be billions and billions of them roaming around. Seeing as how billions and billions of people have died.

Now again I know that there are thousand of different theories on what makes you stay around earth to haunt the place some examples if you are murdered or have unfinished business. (Ok Ok well still there should be billions of people that have died this way just read any history book)

Do animals become ghosts? Add several Billion more ghosts to the earth if they do.

Then ask what is the evidence of these ghosts existing? A few very poorly documented stories from random (often not credible) people. ( I know that the argument will be made that some credible people whitnessed them. then by all means please provide the links)

What about the billions of security cameras around the world that surely are capturing them on their monitors. Ive searched the internet for this stuff before and I cant seem to find anything convincing about their existance. Please post a link if you have one showing me otherwise.

My point is there simply isnt enough hard tangible evidence that they even do exist. Many many many people have tried. And so far it hasnt been able to examined scientificaly.

Spoons
2010-Feb-03, 12:33 AM
Jimbee68: It may do you some good to have a look at two books, if you are interested in coincidences.

Beyond Coincidence by Martin Plimmer and Brian King. The name is more of a hook, it actually is more of a compendium of bizarre coindicences. What it does well is highlight how far coincidences can go without calling on conspiracy or the supernatural.

In the Amazon review of the above book another is mentioned that I have not read but sounds like it would be quite illuminating for you. Coincidences, Chaos, and All That Math Jazz by Edward Burger and Michael Starbird. It's probably worth looking up - I will be keeping an eye out for it myself.

I hope this does not come off as condescending, I just think it may help to remove the mystery while not destroying the wonder of such observations.

Statistics, and mathematics in general, can throw up some interesting results.

slang
2010-Feb-03, 12:42 AM
Holy smokes! I'll take his illness any day. ;)

Any day? Your wish is granted. You get his illness in 1908.

(*tries to remember the F&G thread...*)

ETA: (*remembers finally (http://www.bautforum.com/fun-n-games/78312-corupted-wishes.html)*)

Swift
2010-Feb-03, 04:03 AM
Any day? Your wish is granted. You get his illness in 1908.

(*tries to remember the F&G thread...*)

ETA: (*remembers finally (http://www.bautforum.com/fun-n-games/78312-corupted-wishes.html)*)
Its like the old joke about the restaurant that serves breakfast "any time". So I ordered French Toast during the Renaissance.

Jens
2010-Feb-03, 04:32 AM
1800: Thomas Jefferson - died 1826 at age 83 (term ended in 1809)
1820: James Monroe - (2nd term) died 1831 at age 73 (term ended in 1825)
1840: William Henry Harrison - died 1841, age 68 of pneumonia after 1 month in office
1860: Abraham Lincoln - died 1865, age 56, assassinated
1880: James A. Garfield - died 1881, age 50, assassinated
1900: William McKinley - (2nd term) died 1901, age 58, assassinated
1920: Warren G. Harding - died 1923, age 58, heart attack while in office
1940: Franklin D. Roosevelt - (3rd term) died 1945, age 63, during 4th term, cerebral hemmorhage
1960: John F. Kennedy - died 1963, age 36, assassinated
1980: Ronald Reagan - died 2004, age 93 (term ended 1989), altzhimers/pneumonia (survived assassination attempt in 1981)
2000: George W. Bush - alive, term ended in 2009


Holy smokes. All the presidents elected in 0 years except for one are dead. I'll definitely avoid getting elected on one of those years! :)

Selenite
2010-Feb-03, 04:51 AM
Holy smokes. All the presidents elected in 0 years except for one are dead. I'll definitely avoid getting elected on one of those years! :)

And look. They're all men too. What a bizarre coincidence.

LaurelHS
2010-Feb-03, 04:58 AM
And they all lived at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue for a while. These coincidences are eerie.

eburacum45
2010-Feb-03, 05:08 AM
I am sorry I don't have any pictures of Fatima at this moment (but if someone else has any, feel free to provide the link).

I think you will be disappointed. There are no convincing photos of the Fatima event.
Take this for example;
http://www.tarxienparish.org/FatimaSun_13Oct1917.jpg

I'm not sure what that is supposed to be, but it doesn't convince me.

Here are some pictures of the crowd:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Newspaper_fatima.jpg

as I suspected, they are looking directly at the Sun without protection, an act which is not recommended if you wish to make accurate observations.

Jimbee68
2010-Feb-03, 05:56 AM
And how do you know it was an "advanced alien entity" or a time traveler, and not an angel or a nymph or Zeus or Professor Xavier's mutants?

And no, I'm not making a joke. If we assume these things are not coincidence (I think they are, but I'll put that point aside for the moment), what evidence do you have that your alien entity is doing these things and not something else?
I know you all had alot of posts to add. But I had to respond to this one. I don't believe it's Zeus, Prof. Xavier's mutants, etc. because you see I am a very skeptical man. I do still believe in God (or whatever you chose to call It). But I don't believe in a whole lot else. And that is why I suspect this advanced alien entity has chosen me to reveal itself. Anyways, I offer so little evidence, usu. people don't believe me anyways. So I do have to even wonder about this...

tnjrp
2010-Feb-03, 06:09 AM
I do still believe in God (or whatever you chose to call It). But I don't believe in a whole lot else. And that is why I suspect this advanced alien entity has chosen me to reveal itselfWalking on veeery thin ice here, but your phrasing might seem to indicate that God (assuming the Christian one) is in fact your "advanced alien entity"... Please clarify if this is so since if it is, I don't think I'm willing to continue discussing anything pertaining to your "revelations" as per "no religion" rule of the board.

Jimbee68
2010-Feb-03, 06:45 AM
Walking on veeery thin ice here, but your phrasing might seem to indicate that God (assuming the Christian one) is in fact your "advanced alien entity"... Please clarify if this is so since if it is, I don't think I'm willing to continue discussing anything pertaining to your "revelations" as per "no religion" rule of the board.
No, I definitely don't believe my advanced alien entity is God. And I didn't mean to bring up God and religion needlessly. I was just responding to that one post (and pointing out what a skeptic I actually am...)...

Paul Beardsley
2010-Feb-03, 06:57 AM
I really don't think this thread is going anywhere. The OP has completely failed to engage in any kind of discussion - he just repeats or builds on his nonsensical assertions without any regard to the numerous posts which have thoroughly debunked them.

Gobligok
2010-Feb-03, 07:09 AM
I know you all had alot of posts to add. But I had to respond to this one. I don't believe it's Zeus, Prof. Xavier's mutants, etc. because you see I am a very skeptical man. I do still believe in God (or whatever you chose to call It). But I don't believe in a whole lot else. And that is why I suspect this advanced alien entity has chosen me to reveal itself. Anyways, I offer so little evidence, usu. people don't believe me anyways. So I do have to even wonder about this...

You still haven't told me what an "advanced alien entity" is. See what I wrote on page 1, post #19.

This isn't about what you believe. Rather, your proposal, whether you realize it or not, is fundamentally no different than an appeal to Zeus, Xavier's mutants, magic, ghosts, pixies, leprechauns, smishenfloop, banoranosnogrog or the incorporeal Gobligok.

Jimbee68
2010-Feb-03, 08:29 AM
You still haven't told me what an "advanced alien entity" is. See what I wrote on page 1, post #19.

This isn't about what you believe. Rather, your proposal, whether you realize it or not, is fundamentally no different than an appeal to Zeus, Xavier's mutants, magic, ghosts, pixies, leprechauns, smishenfloop, banoranosnogrog or the incorporeal Gobligok.
I don't know. The only thing I can add, is I know more about what they can do than what they are. And what they can do, is clearly amazing (as in my example, just think of the logistics involved in making those coincidences take place). But no, I don't know who they are yet. BTW, I do realize I may not approach an argument the same way some of you "real" skeptics do. But I do still think I have alot to offer to these boards. I mean, sure skeptics rarely go by intuition. But that is why my approach to science, etc. is so unique, I think:).

Spoons
2010-Feb-03, 08:32 AM
If that's all your approach is based on then it's not science at all. So far you haven't shown much scientific thinking.

Van Rijn
2010-Feb-03, 08:45 AM
And what they can do, is clearly amazing (as in my example, just think of the logistics involved in making those coincidences take place).


How is it "clearly amazing"?

You didn't demonstrate that any logistics were required.



BTW, I do realize I may not approach an argument the same way some of you "real" skeptics do. But I do still think I have alot to offer to these boards. I mean, sure skeptics rarely go by intuition.


I consider myself a skeptic, and I use informed intuition all the time, but I verify my intuition with evidence.

Gobligok
2010-Feb-03, 08:55 AM
I don't know. The only thing I can add, is I know more about what they can do than what they are. And what they can do, is clearly amazing (as in my example, just think of the logistics involved in making those coincidences take place). But no, I don't know who they are yet. BTW, I do realize I may not approach an argument the same way some of you "real" skeptics do. But I do still think I have alot to offer to these boards. I mean, sure skeptics rarely go by intuition. But that is why my approach to science, etc. is so unique, I think:).

So it doesn't bother you to explain phenomena with concepts that no one can distinguish from your imagination? If you invoke an entity that is ontologically interchangeable with smishenfloop and banoranosnogrog, not to mention being utterly unfalsifiable, how does that even remotely qualify as "science?"

Do you acknowledge any objective criteria for evaluating reality, or do you consider your "intuition" to override things like logic and testable evidence? If the latter, why?

Also, "unique" is one thing. "Effective" is something else.

tnjrp
2010-Feb-03, 09:12 AM
The only thing I can add, is I know more about what they can do than what they are. And what they can do, is clearly amazing (as in my example, just think of the logistics involved in making those coincidences take place)I'd like to reiterate my call for more convincing coincidences. Also, I would like to point out that you seem to have landed on a pretty conclusive theory as to the nature of what causes these purported events despite not having any idea as to the nature of the cause or why would it act in the way you surmise it does. What were the "viable" causes according to you again -- either space aliens or it's time travelers, right?


I have alot to offer to these boards. I mean, sure skeptics rarely go by intuitionI sometimes hear this claim made (I was in fact recently ofhandedly put down for "not even understanding the word" because I'm a skeptic -- well, something of a skeptic in any case) and I suppose it's true in a way. Skeptics don't usually appreciate other means of gaining information (in the widest possible sense of that word) than empirism, including but not limited to intuition.

This tends to be because very few people have been able to present any commonly acceptable means of gauging the veracity of claims gleaned via these other means, despite being able to often critisise empirism for being "limited", "crude" or at the very least "equally unreliable as any other means".

Strange
2010-Feb-03, 11:15 AM
I am a very skeptical man.

You have shown as much evidence for that statement as you have for your mysterious aliens manipulating events; i.e. zero.

Your ability to believe in something completely unsupported by any evidence (and just to be clear that we are staying within the rules here, I do mean your "aliens") makes it clear that you are the pretty much the exact opposite of a skeptic.

Swift
2010-Feb-03, 02:53 PM
I don't know. The only thing I can add, is I know more about what they can do than what they are. And what they can do, is clearly amazing (as in my example, just think of the logistics involved in making those coincidences take place). But no, I don't know who they are yet. BTW, I do realize I may not approach an argument the same way some of you "real" skeptics do. But I do still think I have alot to offer to these boards. I mean, sure skeptics rarely go by intuition. But that is why my approach to science, etc. is so unique, I think:).
Jimbee,

Are you familiar with the idea known as Occam's Razor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor)? One way of expressing it is: "the simplest explanation or strategy tends to be the best one".

In this case, the simplest explanation is that these are coincidences, nothing more. In my mind, that makes more sense than a very complex explanation, without proof, that time-traveling aliens are killing off a president every 20 years.

JayUtah
2010-Feb-03, 05:42 PM
Well, for one thing, some coincidences like the "zero curse" are surprisingly specific.

What you call "specific" I call "cherry-picked." You can manufacture or suppress any correlation in any data set simply by sampling inappropriately from it. When I give my failure-analysis lecture I call this the "Challenger Effect" because it's the root-cause for why Thiokol was not able to convince NASA to halt the fatal Challenger launch. The erosion v. temperature data that Thiokol presented to NASA failed to show a correlation that supported Thiokol's claims. Later when statisticians such as Tufte presented the material more accurately, Thiokol's claims were amply vindicated. Because Thiokol inadvertently cherry-picked the data, they erased a correlation that was both statistically and physically valid.

Statements such as "Hank Tweagel is the only right-handed pitcher in the American League ever to strike out four consecutive right-handed batters three games in a row in pre-season play," are examples of the kind of cherry-picking that produces completely useless "correlations" and "patterns" and "oddities." The human brain has an uncanny inability to judge properly whether something is ordinary or extraordinary, and hence real science relies on statistical probability (which is by no means an easy or intuitive science) to correct for those errors in casual judgment.

You consider only presidents who died in office, not all presidents (including those elected in "magical" years). You speculate about causation, but you do not respect causal distinctions in your evidence. You ignore other temporal distributions. Your definition of "elected in year" and "died in year" are loose. In other words, your selection criteria alternate between broad and narrow arbitrarily in order to create the "odd" impression you seek. You say your curious run of data happened "without exception," but that's because you simply hide the exceptions in your selection.

Most people have a very skewed sense of what constitutes a coincidence. That skew is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of number theory (i.e., an intuitive rather than mathematical approach to it) and a lack of introspection on what constitutes significance. Coincidence is highly affected by qualitative notions of salience and applicability. Too often "applicable" properties are chosen simply because they create the desired effect, not because they arise naturally out of the problem domain. Distinctions such as American League versus National League in baseball are entirely arbitrary. When Hank Tweagel's "feat" is salient only when that arbitrary distinction is applied, the it's not a useful discriminator.

As to what an advanced alien would want to accomplish by doing such things. I still don't know that part of it yet.

Right, and that's what makes you decidedly not a skeptic.

You have created an ad hoc statistical question. You beg the question that it can't be a coincidence. You propose a causation which has no prima facie plausibility, and in fact considerably less plausibility even in the speculative sense. At least in the UFO world, it makes sense (conditionally) to suppose that if aliens exist and are visiting Earth, they might produce observations that look like unexplained things flying around in the sky. There's no reason to suppose that if aliens exist, they'd be bumping off U.S. presidents periodically.

No, this is pretty much anti-skepticism.

Torch2k
2010-Feb-03, 06:58 PM
I don't know. The only thing I can add, is . . .

You added several things that point to the reasons you're having difficulty making any headway here with your ideas.

I know more about what they can do than what they are.

By proposing a cause without firmly establishing an effect, you're 'putting the cart before the horse', so to speak. There's no point speculating about some mysterious agent behind the events you've described unless you can prove that one is needed.

And what they can do, is clearly amazing (as in my example, just think of the logistics involved in making those coincidences take place).

I have thought about it, and my conclusion is that there are no logistics involved; by their very nature, coincidences take place all on their own. To suggest that events are being manipulated, you have to prove conclusively that these are NOT coincidences, and presidential mortality just doesn't cut it.

I do realize I may not approach an argument the same way some of you "real" skeptics do.

It's not about skepticism, it's about reasoning; and, the difference in you approach is that you're doing it backwards. You're suggesting a cause-and-effect relationship between some supposed agent(s) and curious patterns in historical events. Most here won't even entertain the notion of such a cause (as you've done), since there's no demonstrable proof of such an effect. You've claimed more than once to have more evidence. You'll need to present it if you hope to advance any further with your ideas.

I mean, sure skeptics rarely go by intuition. But that is why my approach to science, etc. is so unique, I think:).

Neither of these statements is strictly true. We all have intuitions -- those moments where we think to ourselves "Hmmm . . . that's odd!". Not all of us use them as the foundations of our arguments. And so far, the most unique aspect of your approach to science is that it's simply unscientific.

Gillianren
2010-Feb-03, 07:22 PM
You consider only presidents who died in office, not all presidents (including those elected in "magical" years).

And at that, he has consistently ignored poor Zachary Taylor.

AstroRockHunter
2010-Feb-03, 07:45 PM
And at that, he has consistently ignored poor Zachary Taylor.

And I have to ask, Why just U.S. presidents? What has the U.S. done to anger these aliens?

What about the British Monarchy? or France? or any other country on the planet?

cjameshuff
2010-Feb-03, 07:57 PM
I don't know. The only thing I can add, is I know more about what they can do than what they are. And what they can do, is clearly amazing (as in my example, just think of the logistics involved in making those coincidences take place).

Since "coincidences" like those are happening all the time, all "they" had to do was point them out to someone without much understanding of statistics and probability, and take credit for them...personally or on behalf of some invented outside force. This is far less impressive to people who do have a basic understanding of statistics and probability.

Fazor
2010-Feb-03, 08:11 PM
Okay, there's been a lot of these examples of "statistical 'creativity' " lately. I guess it's officially time for me to update my sig line again.

I had an opinion piece I wrote on the abuse of statistics that I thought was clever. But I'm biased. I don't feel like pulling it up now though. Maybe some other day.

agingjb
2010-Feb-03, 08:18 PM
What about the British (and English) monarchy indeed. Just take a look at the fates of Princes of Wales since Edward I bestowed that title on his son (and for that matter heirs to the throne who didn't even get that title).

It just has to be significant doesn't it? Time travelling aliens at the very least I'd say. Well, as significant as the presidents.

JayUtah
2010-Feb-03, 08:47 PM
And at that, he has consistently ignored poor Zachary Taylor.

Indeed. We consider the set of Presidents who died in office. We also consider the set of presidents who were elected to some term as President a year ending in zero. We then search for a correlation between them, in which case there might be be one. However, more than mere correlation has been asserted: an unbroken sequence of occurrences, which brings temporal issues into the problem. Mere correlation can tolerate outlying data, but allegedly mysterious sequences cannot. In any case, the correlational question relies upon whether selectors such as "died in office" and "elected in a zero year" actually mean anything important.

The Fallacy of Limited Scope cuts both ways. Here we see that we can create the illusion of correlation (or sequence) by means of biased or ad hoc selection. In the Challenger case the converse question arose. There was no significant statistical correlation between launch temperature and O-ring erosion. But that was for cases in which erosion was non-zero. At first glance that's not an inappropriate restriction. But if we include all launches -- not just those in which some erosion occurred -- there emerges a clear correlation between launch temperature and O-ring erosion. You can both create and erase evidence of covariance by asking the wrong questions.

kleindoofy
2010-Feb-03, 09:01 PM
... The Fallacy of Limited Scope cuts both ways. Here we see that we can create the illusion of correlation (or sequence) by means of biased or ad hoc selection. ... You can both create and erase evidence of covariance by asking the wrong questions.
Ahh, but the question is: is the super-duper-ET which has selected Jimbee68 as his vehicle aware of this? ;)

Spoons
2010-Feb-04, 01:35 AM
I know this whole dead presidents theory is built on a house of cards, but if the foundation had any basis wouldn't a slightly more sensible, or believable, idea be that rather than aliens, the Illuminati were behind it? Since we all know they are big fans of numerology and such.

Unless you go with the claim that the Illuminati are reptilian alien overlords. (Swift? Anything to say?)

I'm not suggesting this as a reasonable alternative, but why push a wacky theory even further with the alien involvement? Unless you started with alien involvement and track backwards, like a placemat maze in Denny's.

Paul Beardsley
2010-Feb-04, 06:47 AM
Yes Spoons, I think it's fair to say that a conspiracy theory that doesn't involve aliens is somewhat less ludicrous than one that does. Certainly in this case.

On reflection, I think this thread has proven interesting. Not for anything Jimbee has said - I've rarely seen so much wrongness in a BAUT post, from the idea itself to the misuse of the word "unique" - but many of the replies have been very illuminating. I particularly liked Gobligok's post (19).

tnjrp
2010-Feb-04, 06:58 AM
And I have to ask, Why just U.S. presidents? What has the U.S. done to anger these aliens?

What about the British Monarchy? or France? or any other country on the planet?You'll want to recall that these kind of issues are specifically speficied as unknowns in his "theory". You don't ask "why", you don't ask "how", you only ask "who".

kleindoofy
2010-Feb-04, 08:24 PM
... a conspiracy theory that doesn't involve aliens is somewhat less ludicrous than one that does. ...
In most of the cases floating around these days that's like saying "it's much easier for a man to carry an 8 ton sack of coal on his back than to carry a 9 ton sack of coal, it's less heavy." ;)

Paul Beardsley
2010-Feb-04, 08:30 PM
In most of the cases floating around these days that's like saying "it's much easier for a man to carry an 8 ton sack of coal on his back than to carry a 9 ton sack of coal, it's less heavy." ;)

Oh yes indeed. And a baby unicorn is much more likely to walk into your house if the door is open.

Spoons
2010-Feb-05, 02:35 AM
Oh, the joy rhetorical questions can generate!

Paul Beardsley
2010-Feb-05, 07:08 AM
Oh, the joy rhetorical questions can generate!

Rhetorical questions - where would we be without them?

Jens
2010-Feb-05, 07:18 AM
Rhetorical questions - where would we be without them?

Did you really ask that question?