THanks, will read tonight, I am running late this morning!
%^)
No sweat.
Someone asked me about where this ref was . . . here’s the 4 youtube videos. I’ve only watched and ref’d to the first one:
PT 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYZeakfTN_o
PT 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ol1bsdspxxs
PT 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXyjFWsKDv0&feature=related
PT 4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOOXRYvgxDo&feature=related
I’ve asked some of our END TIMES list math experts to assess his codes and not heard back yet.
My own sense after watching only part 1 is that he has a very valid code. I believe this as follows:
1. He doesn’t have one long code 30 characters or longer—which—last I checked, was the current minimum length for a code to be statistically greatly more likely to be significant—NOT due to chance.
2. The surface text key Scripture through which many of the code words pass through is very clearly related to the subject of the code cluster.
3. Many of the code words—a significant percentage—pass through the center of the key word in the surface text.
4. The code words are in a relatively tight cluster around the surface text keyword.
5. The code words are all common words in alternative news articles and MSM news articles about the New Madrid quake area. Some of those code words are interesting indeed.
6. Interestingly, I’ve long expected that sooner or later the KJV English Bible would yield some valid codes. It appears to me—this is such an example—the first I’ve seen, IIRC.
The bloke doing this on youtube is a sort of “Joe Plumber” kind of down-home folksy guy. That’s a kick. He’s not some expert or scholar. Just a guy who bought the Bible Code software and has been dinking around with it.
My contention is that given the state of the art of the science and art of the Bible Codes, such a sizable list of code words obviously related and obviously related in a highlighting kind of way to the keyword of the surface text—all that make this code a very statistically valid code even though each word by itself, would not normally do so.
That’s the issue I’d like some math whiz to affirm or disconfirm.