by Dave Thomas : nmsrdaveATswcp.com (Help fight SPAM!  Please replace the AT with an @ )

Dave Thomas, NMSR President, has been involved in a most interesting e-mail exchange with Eugene Faulstich regarding his proof of the Truth of the Bible, as revealed by patterns in the numbers of weeks between key historical events.

Here follows this ongoing exchange. Eugene Faulstich's letters and comments appear in RED,

and Dave Thomas' letters and comments appear in BLUE.

Click HERE to go to the Main Discussion Page

Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000
From: Eugene Faulstich <chri@ncn.net>
To: "Dave Thomas, NMSR" <det@rt66.com>
Subject: The Age of the Earth

Hi Dave,

Please tell me what you think about the web page

mashiach6000.org

What do you think about the two scientists' comment?

Have a good day,

Gene

Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000
From: "Dave Thomas, NMSR" <det@rt66.com>
To:Eugene Faulstich <chri@ncn.net>
Subject: The Age of the Earth

Hi Gene.

Your web site is VERY hard to read. The letters are too small, and the pages are too wide to be printed easily.

The math equations are gibberish.

In my 20+ years as a working mathematician, I have never seen equations as un-intelligible as the ones displayed on your appendix page in any professional (or even semi-professional) publication. Perhaps that's just an internet Browser problem, and might be fixed by using JPEG images for the equations.

However, the verbal explanations provided throughout were also very disorganized and very hard to follow.

If you re-do the web site so it tells a clearer story, let me know, and I will have another look.

It's not worth my time as it is now.

Regards from New Mexico,
Dave Thomas

PS: I saw nothing on the site that would make me reconsider my present view of the age of the earth. Some really powerful radiometric techniques, such as nuclear isochrons or concordia/discordia, provide extremely compelling evidence that the Earth is indeed over 4.5 billion years old.

Either G_d has created a massive and elaborate hoax to trick scientists into falsely believing the Earth is old, or maybe the Earth is in fact very, very old, as it appears to be.

My personal religious faith is that G_d is not a pathological psychotic who plays cruel mind games on mere humans.

Cheers, Dave T.

 

Date:Mon, 19 Jun 2000
From: Eugene Faulstich <chri@ncn.net>
To: "Dave Thomas, NMSR" <det@rt66.com>
Subject: The Age of the Earth

Thanks for your quick response Dave.

I am sending the document in PDF, and also another web site which should
be easy for you to read.

www.ncn.net/~chri

This second site includes a lot more information concerning chronology
and patterns in history, including a one degree geocentric planet
alignment which is claimed in the Biblical text. It also includes a
list of books I have written which have received good reviews in
scholarly circles.

I hope you will have the courage to challenge it to a greater extent
than to pass it off with a swipe of the hand.

The two men who made the mathematical comment are certainly qualified to
do so. Their credentials are given in the site. I asked them to
comment. They are not on my staff. These two scientists come from far
different schools, one is a Jewish scientist from Russia, and the second
a Christian scientist from America.

Evidence provided by "evolutionists" and "creation scientists" are
neither scientific nor truthful. Neither of their work is capable of
laboratory experiment, therefore they are not science in its simplest
form. This work is based on astronomy, an exact science. The study of
the patterns is based on probability, certainly a much more exact
science than any which claims to date the age of the universe under an
evolutionary time scale. The system of lottery never looses money
because of the laws of probability.

Have a good day,

Gene

Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000
From: "Dave Thomas, NMSR" <det@rt66.com>
To:Eugene Faulstich <chri@ncn.net>
Subject: The Age of the Earth

At 04:17 PM 6/19/00 +0100, you wrote:
>Thanks for your quick response Dave.
>

It'll take a while to examine the information on the PDF pages.

But, the equations are MUCH more intelligible! Thanks.

Before I jump into examining the statistics therein, I do have some preliminary questions which MUST be answered first. These are:

(1) How were the 13 "key events" on the "mileage chart" (Burning Bush, Exodus Passover, etc.) chosen? WHO DID THE CHOOSING OF THESE KEY EVENTS?

(2) How were the astronomical dates derived for the 13 key events (and or others studied). WHO DID THE CALCULATIONS?

(3) Most importantly, who developed the matrix of weeks for the 13 key events? Did this person have ANY SAY in what the key events and/or their assigned dates were?

(4) Of the 13 key events on the mileage chart, 10 are on Friday, and the remaining 3 on Saturday (according to my own astronomical calculations.) WHY WERE NO OTHER DAYS OF THE WEEK CHOSEN?

(5) On your page about the destruction of the First Temple in 588 B.C. : My calculations agree with yours regarding Julian Day 1506874 being August 6, -587 (Julian) and a Saturday. HOWEVER, on the chart beside this, for Julian Day 1567854, I get Tuesday (in agreement with your page), BUT I calculate this is July 20, -420 (Julian), NOT July 21st, -420 as you report. How do you explain this discrepancy?

In closing, you wrote
>I hope you will have the courage to challenge it to a greater extent
>than to pass it off with a swipe of the hand.
>

And also, you wrote
> This work is based on astronomy, an exact science. The study of
>the patterns is based on probability, certainly a much more exact
>science than any which claims to date the age of the universe under an
>evolutionary time scale. The system of lottery never looses money
>because of the laws of probability.

I submit that YOU are dismissing an entire field of science - radiometric dating - with a casual 'swipe of the hand.' This science is very connected to probability theory, which you seem to consider 'precise.' In a rock with uranium, we cannot predict exactly which atoms of U-238 will decay (eject an alpha particle) at any instant, but we CAN calculate very precisely how many atoms will decay in a given time interval, or how long it will take for half of the U238 in a smaple to decay, and etc. This is very similar to insurance actuaries, who cannot say precisely when John Q. Doe will die, but CAN with confidence say how many people that are the same age and health as John Q. Doe will be alive in, say, 30 years.

Brent Dalrymple's book _The Age of the Earth_ (Stanford U. Press, 1991) has on page 377 a list of known radioactive nuclides with a *measured* half-life of one million years or more. Of the 29 nuclides listed which are NOT continually produced by atomic processes, 18 have half-lives greater than 80 million years, and 11 have half-lives LESS than 80 million years. The really interesting thing is that NONE of the nuclides with half-lives less than 80 million years are found in nature - just as we would expect for a very OLD earth. Scientists think these short-lived nuclides WERE possibly present in the primordial earth (4.5 billion years ago), but that they have all decayed away in the long time since the formation of the earth. The long-lasting (> 80 million years) nuclides are all still present in measureable amounts, as geoscientists would expect.

If the earth were a mere 6,000 years old, then ALL of the short-lived nuclides should be present in measurable amounts. Consider a nuclide with the fastest possible decay rate on the list - half-life = 1 million years. In 6000 years, the amount of nuclide remaining will be exp(-6,000/1,000,000) = 99.4% . In other words, IT WOULD STILL BE PRESENT IN ALMOST THE ORIGINAL (6,000-year-old) AMOUNTS.

If the world was created just 6000 years ago, we would expect to find BOTH the 18 slowly-decaying AND the 11 quickly-decaying isotopes in nature. Of course, G_D may have decided not to include certain of these isotopes in his creation. Let's say G_D decided to include only 18 of the 29 listed radionuclides in his creation. How many ways could He have chosen the 18 to include? The number of ways to select 18 objects from 29 is just 29!/(18!*11!) = 34,597,290 . So, there are 34,597,289 ways to select 18 isotopes from 29 that WOULD include at least one short-lived isotope. But there's only ONE way to select 18 from 29 that includes NO short-lived (<80 million years, >1 million years).

Thus, the probability that we just "happened" to live in a world that includes no short-lived isotopes is simply 1/34,597,290 = 2.9e-8 or 29 out of a BILLION.

I say that probability theory in this case strongly supports a many-billion-year-old earth.

And the cheap answer - that G_D simply chose not to include isotopes with half-lives greater than one million and less than 80 million years in His creation - brings back my previous question; why would G_D create such a pathological and devious hoax????

What say you?

Sincerely,
Dave Thomas

Date:Wed, 21 Jun 2000
From: Eugene Faulstich <chri@ncn.net>
To: "Dave Thomas, NMSR" <det@rt66.com>
Subject: The Age of the Earth


Thanks for your quick response again Dave.

>
>(1) How were the 13 "key events" on the "mileage chart" (Burning Bush,
>Exodus Passover, etc.) chosen? WHO DID THE CHOOSING OF THESE KEY
>EVENTS?

There are very few specific dates within any year given in the Bible.
These surround the following years:

a). Creation
b). The Flood
c). Exodus from Egypt
c). And the loss of the first Temple

The Exodus had quite a large number of specific dates. These we have
shown. These dates are crucial to Jewish theology. The Bible does not
date any other significant event, not even, for instance, the events in
the life of David.

The loss of the second Temple and the Return of Israel today were
selected too, because they were found to fit the patterns. This
supported Moses’ admonishment to “study the history of your fathers.”
It also seems to support the prediction made by Isaiah, “I and my people
are signs to the nations when they are on Mount Zion.” Again, Isaiah
tells us that “the prophets were given so that we could know that HaShem
was God and non other.” In fact, Isaiah challenged us to “bring other
gods and test them.”

>(2) How were the astronomical dates derived for the 13 key events (and
>or others studied). WHO DID THE CALCULATIONS?

I will include as an attachment, the computer calendar programs we
developed. One is for Macintosh and the other for pc. Be sure that the
“caps lock” is down on the pc version. These are based on the standard
formula for calculators that is used in astronomy programs. They also
include the slowing of the earth due to the gravitational pull from the
moon.

>(3) Most importantly, who developed the matrix of weeks for the 13 key
>events? Did this person have ANY SAY in what the key events and/or
>their assigned dates were?

I developed the matrix of weeks by observing the key dates in Jewish
history. I could just as easily listed the groups of sevens which look
most impressive, but then you would have asked why I omitted others.
The matrix shows all of the differences.

>(4) Of the 13 key events on the mileage chart, 10 are on Friday, and the
>remaining 3 on Saturday (according to my own astronomical calculations.)
>WHY WERE NO OTHER DAYS OF THE WEEK CHOSEN?

(See my answer to question 1) The dates determined the days of the
weeks via a computer program. I had no control over that. I chose the
only dates given directly and indirectly connected with the key turning
points in Jewish history.

>(5) On your page about the destruction of the First Temple in 588 B.C. :
>My calculations agree with yours regarding Julian Day 1506874 being August
>6, -587 (Julian) and a Saturday. HOWEVER, on the chart beside this, for
>Julian Day 1567854, I get Tuesday (in agreement with your page), BUT I
>calculate this is July 20, -420 (Julian), NOT July 21st, -420 as you
>report. How do you explain this discrepancy?

Without examining the data on a computer, I cannot tell you the answer.
It could be a typo. When you get your programs, you might check it out
yourself. The lunar calendar dates are based on sun-down, whereas the
Gregorian dates are based on midnight, and the Julian dates, I believe,
are noon or sun up. So if one looks for a lunar date, input that date.
Then look at the Gregorian and input the Gregorian. The two should be
the same. If they are one day off, it is because the computer has to
make a judgment call. The second date should be the closest to correct.

>In closing, you wrote
>>I hope you will have the courage to challenge it to a greater extent
>>than to pass it off with a swipe of the hand.

I appreciate your acceptance of this challenge. I hope that I can
reciprocate.

>And also, you wrote
>> This work is based on astronomy, an exact science. The study of
>>the patterns is based on probability, certainly a much more exact
>>science than any which claims to date the age of the universe under an
>>evolutionary time scale. The system of lottery never looses money
>>because of the laws of probability.

>I submit that YOU are dismissing an entire field of science - radiometric dating - with a casual
>'swipe of the hand.' This science is very connected to probability theory, which you seem to
>consider 'precise.' In a rock with uranium, we cannot predict exactly which atoms of U-238 will
>decay (eject an alpha particle) at any instant, but we CAN calculate very precisely how many
>atoms will decay in a given time interval, or how long it will take for half of the U238 in a smaple
>to decay, and etc. This is very similar to insurance actuaries, who cannot say precisely when
>John Q. Doe will die, but CAN with confidence say how many people that are the same age and
>health as John Q. Doe will be alive in, say, 30 years.

I am not convinced that radio metric dating is an exact science. It is
a science which has limitations because we have limited data. I have
read reports of dating clams and recent volcanoes to very old ages.
Neither am I convinced that the insurance company can tell exactly how
many people will die at an exact age. They can give you a figure which
will fall within certain parameters, and then they can bend the
percentages in their favor and charge a significant amount of money to
cover the error. On the other hand, I can guarantee that you will find
that the historical records of ancient civilizations will show random
differences between key events. On the other hand, the same should
apply to Israel. But her agreement with G-d on Sinai, her entrace and
removal from her land form Sabbath patterns. Why not patterns of some
other significant number, like 1,2,3,4,5,6,8,9, or 0? Perhaps Ezekiel’s
prophecy accounts for it (20:20).

>Brent Dalrymple's book _The Age of the Earth_ (Stanford U. Press, 1991) has on page 377 a list of
>known radioactive nuclides with a *measured* half-life of one million years or more. Of the 29
>nuclides listed which are NOT continually produced by atomic processes, 18 have half-lives
>greater than 80 million years, and 11 have half-lives LESS than 80 million years. The really
>interesting thing is that NONE of the nuclides with half-lives less than 80 million years are found in
>nature - just as we would expect for a very OLD earth. Scientists think these short-lived
>nuclides WERE possibly present in the primordial earth (4.5 billion years ago), but that they have
>all decayed away in the long time since the formation of the earth. The long-lasting (> 80 million
>years) nuclides are all still present in measureable amounts, as geoscientists would expect.


If their theory is correct... not if their scientific finding is
correct. There is no way to test anything beyond recorded history.
There is no recorded history which predates 6000 years. Therefore
theories are still theories if they cannot be tested in a laboratory.
Our work is dealing only with that which we know from recorded history,
not from theoretical history as we find in old earth theories.

On the other hand, if we had access to records of men a million years
ago, and then again ten million years ago which recorded the nuclides in
nature, you would have a more sound argument. We have such data in
chronology studies going back to 6000 years, so that is as far as we are
willing to scientifically investigate. We are not assuming time studies
beyond what the historical record allows.

>If the earth were a mere 6,000 years old, then ALL of the short-lived nuclides should be present
>in measurable amounts. Consider a nuclide with the fastest possible decay rate on the list -
>half-life = 1 million years. In 6000 years, the amount of nuclide remaining will be
>exp(-6,000/1,000,000) = 99.4% . In other words, IT WOULD STILL BE PRESENT IN ALMOST THE
>ORIGINAL (6,000-year-old) AMOUNTS.
>
>If the world was created just 6000 years ago, we would expect to find BOTH the 18
>slowly-decaying AND the 11 quickly-decaying isotopes in nature. Of course, G_D may have
>decided not to include certain of these isotopes in his creation. Let's say G_D decided to include
>only 18 of the 29 listed radionuclides in his creation. How many ways could He have chosen the
>18 to include? The number of ways to select 18 objects from 29 is just 29!/(18!*11!) =
>34,597,290 . So, there are 34,597,289 ways to select 18 isotopes from 29 that WOULD include
>at least one short-lived isotope. But there's only ONE way to select 18 from 29 that includes NO
>short-lived (<80 million years, >1 million years).
>
>Thus, the probability that we just "happened" to live in a world that includes no short-lived
>isotopes is simply 1/34,597,290 = 2.9e-8 or 29 out of a BILLION.
>
>I say that probability theory in this case strongly supports a many-billion-year-old earth.
>

Probability is not an exact science, but astronomical calculations are.
We have the dates which we can prove via astronomy. The patterns in
history would not be expected. They cannot be found in any other
history except Israel. Therefore our natural expectations are overruled
by probability studies. Since patterns exist in Israeli history, we
might expect patterns to hold in all histories, but they do not. If our
expectations do not hold in this model, why must they hold in your
model?

>And the cheap answer - that G_D simply chose not to include isotopes
>with half-lives greater than one million and less than 80 million years in
>His creation - brings back my previous question; why would G_D create such a
>pathological and devious hoax????
>

The cheap answer might be right and it might be wrong, but to make a
decision based on a lack of information is not scientific. Your
solution is your logic which is warped by your bias. To say G-d should
not have done it this way or He is a deceiver if He didn’t is not
academic, it is placing one’s self over G-d. If we are going to deal
with scientific fact, lets stay there. Our work is dealing with
statements made by ancient historians which in effect told us the
position of the sun and moon on a specific historical day. The Bible
claims that G-d ordained the history of Israel. The ancient historians
could have arranged historical records to fit patterns, but if the
historical records coincide with contemporary nations’ historical
records, that theory falls. One might assume that the Christians, at
the time of the second Temple destruction organized historical dates to
make certain patterns agree with their theology, but they rejected the
perpetuation of Israel as a chosen race of G-d. When those patterns
pick up again at the end of the German Holocaust, we might assume that
the Jews were instrumental in organizing the Holocaust so that their
patterns would fit. Not very likely in either case.

For instance, the chronology of the Persians as given by Jose Halaftah
in the Seder Olam was deliberately altered to defend Jewish theology
according to Rabbi Schwab. The Christians changed Persian chronology to
fit their concepts of eschatology. Both Jewish and Christian
theologians are shown to be wrong through chronology and the science of
astronomy. So who controlled history, G-d, chance, the Jews, or
Christians? Can our research hold its own in the scientific arena when
compared to various radio metric dating assumptions which are not
provable through the scientific method because of the lack of data?

What say you?

Sincerely,
Gene

Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000
From: "Dave Thomas, NMSR" <det@rt66.com>
To:Eugene Faulstich <chri@ncn.net>
Subject: The Age of the Earth

Thanks for the reply, Gene. I'd rather hoped that your answers would have been more substantial, but they weren't.

Before I get going, I want to mention that I'm putting our correspondence on the message board of the NMSR web site, accessible via www.nmsr.org/bullbord.htm, under "Bible Code" . I have done this because I think the public deserves to be able to see how this discussion is evolving. I trust that will be OK with you.

Here's why I was interested in WHO chose the dates analyzed, WHO calculated those dates, and WHO studied the "mileage chart" of patterns of 7's between dates.

You see, I have a theory that explains the remarkable "mileage chart" without any need to invoke the supernatural (G_D); this theory is also compatible with geological evidence that supports a very old earth.

Here's my hypothesis. I think it's entirely possible that the amazing patterns of 7's in your mileage chart may indeed represent an IMPROBABLE outcome. That is, the statistics, chi-square calculations, etc., may all be legitimate, GIVEN THE INPUT DATES.

My theory is that your group has, perhaps without realizing it, *COOKED UP a set of dates guaranteed to produce your amazing results.* It's not the experiment itself that is flawed, but the choice of the INPUT DATA.

You have shown amazing leeway in your calculations of dates. You have decided that the destruction of the First Temple occurred 167 YEARS before the date described in the _Seder Olam_. You use a birthdate for Jacob that is two YEARS after the date in the _Seder Olam_. We are not talking "fudge factors" of a few days here - we are talking CENTURIES.

By computing your "mileage" matrix again and again, each time with slight adjustments to the dates being analyzed, I believe that you have managed to develop a matrix showing the very improbable coincidences with 7's.

And the "kicker" is that, as the 7's effect in the matrix improved, it appears that you convinced yourselves that this was simply due to the fact that YOU WERE FINALLY CALCULATING THE EXACT DATES ACCURATELY. That is, you took the compelling 7's coincidences as evidence that your dates were on the right track.

I don't question your sincerity. I simply think that you have managed to delude yourselves.

THAT is why I wanted to be sure that the workers who decided what dates were important, and what these dates actually are, were NOT WORKING TOGETHER with the person(s) doing the matrix of 7's probabilities.

Your latest letter strongly indicates that the date deciders/calculators worked closely in unison with the 7's analyzers. WHO CHOSE THE KEY EVENTS? "These we have shown." WHO DID THE CALCULATIONS? "...the computer calendar programs we developed." WHO DEVELOPED THE 7's MATRIX? "I developed the matrix of weeks..."

I know you will not be pleased with the direction my theory is taking, but you have supplied the raw data I used to develop it.

You said:

>The loss of the second Temple and the Return of Israel today were
>selected too, because they were found to fit the patterns.

In black and white, you just admitted that you selected certain dates BECAUSE THEY FIT THE PATTERN.

Your 7's matrix does not prove anything about G_D, or the truth of the Biblical account. It merely shows that your group is very adept at juggling numbers. There is so much "slop" (or "fudge factors") in your calculation of dates - centuries worth! - that it is very evident that YOU ARE USING THE PATTERNS OF 7'S TO DETERMINE WHICH DATES ARE "ACCURATE," AND ARE NOT SIMPLY USING WELL-VALIDATED DATES TO CALCULATE THE 7'S MATRIX.

As regards geology and the age of the earth, you wrote:
>I am not convinced that radio metric dating is an exact science. It is
>a science which has limitations because we have limited data. I have
>read reports of dating clams and recent volcanoes to very old ages.

Sometimes when radiometric methods are used in the wrong conditions poor results are obtained, such as the old ages of recent lava flows. This has all been discussed in the scientific literature; the citations of wrong ages are published by scientists who want to help others learn how to avoid such mistakes. These citations are often quoted out-of-context by creationists who want to bash radiometric dating. BUT, they are the exception, not the rule. There are some extremely powerful techniques (such as isochron methods) that are self-checking - they contain indications of when the date calculations are compromised, whether or not any of the parent/daughter radio-isotopes have been chemically removed over the years, and much more. The same level of science that landed a man on the moon also assures us that the earth is Billions and Billions of years old.

Additionally, you wrote:

>There is no recorded history which predates 6000 years. Therefore
>theories are still theories if they cannot be tested in a laboratory.

This demonstrates a lack of knowledge about how science really works. Eyewitness testimony may have its place, but many conclusions can be made about things that are witnessed by NO ONE. If a murderer is alone with his victim, leaving no witnesses, I suppose you'd say we'd have to set him free, even if his blood, fingerprints, hair, clothes, and bits of DNA were found all over the crime scene. (In this case, the "theory" would be that John Q. Doe is the murderer, and the "repeat laboratory experiments" used to test the theory would involve analyses of fingerprints, blood, DNA, hair, etc.)

By the way, most radiogeologists DO work in a "laboratory." They test their theories in the laboratory EVERY DAY.

>What say you?
>
>Sincerely,
>Gene

What will it take to convince you that you have managed to delude yourselves?

I bet that it wouldn't be too hard to come up with a set of valid dates that produces as compelling a set of 7's coincidences as yours.

Should I even bother with the attempt? If I was successful, would you change your mind?

Sincerely, Dave Thomas

Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000
From: Eugene Faulstich <chri@ncn.net>
To: "Dave Thomas, NMSR" <det@rt66.com>
Subject: The Age of the Earth

Thanks for your prompt reply Dave. Now to your answers:

>Thanks for the reply, Gene. I'd rather hoped that your answers would have
>been more substantial, but they weren't.

Sorry to hear that a swipe of the hand erases so much information so easily.

>Before I get going, I want to mention that I'm putting our correspondence on the message board
>of the NMSR web site, accessible via www.nmsr.org/bullbord.htm, under "Bible Code" . I
>have done this because I think the public deserves to be able to see how this discussion is
>evolving. I trust that will be OK with you.

I am not disappointed that you have displayed our correspondence on the chat board. I am dismayed that you placed it under “Bible Codes.” Surely you must understand something about Bible codes, a subject that has been successfully refuted in a number of arenas. If you do not know about Bible Codes, I will introduce you to this subject.

Bible codes are a cabalistic attempt to make something out of the way letters are arranged in the Hebrew text. The use of gematria (assigning numbers to letters, and then attempting to interpret the sum of the letters) has nothing to do with this research. Gematria can be interpreted to say about anything the writer chooses to say.

I would appreciate it immensely if you would open a new subject on the chat board, and then proceed to insert all of our correspondence under that new subject. I would like the title of that subject to be:

“Sacred Sabbaths of Israel, Proof of the Past, Key to the Future.”

Since this is a public forum, it would also be wise if the reader had a printed version of our work before them. Therefore, I am attaching the "mileage chart" in a JPEG format so that they can print it out as I assume you did. I am also willing to give them free two computer programs, so that they can easily see through your free style non scholarly accusations.

>Here's why I was interested in WHO chose the dates analyzed, WHO calculated those dates, and
>WHO studied the "mileage chart" of patterns of 7's between dates.

>You see, I have a theory that explains the remarkable "mileage chart" without any need to invoke
>the supernatural (G_D); this theory is also compatible with geological evidence that supports a
>very old earth.

>Here's my hypothesis. I think it's entirely possible that the amazing patterns of 7's in your
>mileage chart may indeed represent an IMPROBABLE outcome. That is, the statistics, chi-square
>calculations, etc., may all be legitimate, GIVEN THE INPUT DATES.

>My theory is that your group has, perhaps without realizing it, *COOKED UP a set of dates
>guaranteed to produce your amazing results.* It's not the experiment itself that is flawed, but
>the choice of the INPUT DATA.

NOW YOU ARE PUTTING YOUR BRAINS AND YOUR AGENDA ON THE TABLE. Your first letter assaulted the scientists who studied and commented positively on our work. That was not entirely wise on your part, so you changed your attack on the chronology which was not produced singularly be me, but by a group of scholars. In response to this, I give you rabbinic evidence that my dates were correct and that the Seder Olam has been deliberately falsified (3 paragraphs down). Furthermore, any reputable scholar of Near East chronology would scoff at the idea of 490 years between the two temple destructions.

Your theories can be examined by our audience to see if our dates are “cooked up.” All that is necessary is for them to download our web pages and request the computer programs and see for themselves.

www.mashiach6000.org

www.ncn.net/~chri

>You have shown amazing leeway in your calculations of dates. You have decided that the
>destruction of the First Temple occurred 167 YEARS before the date described in the _Seder
>Olam_. You use a birth date for Jacob that is two YEARS after the date in the _Seder Olam_.
>We are not talking "fudge factors" of a few days here - we are talking CENTURIES.

The Seder Olam assigns only 490 years between the two Temple destructions. Jewish rabbis have put this question to deliberation, and have concluded that the writer of the Seder Olam deliberately reduced this period by 167 years to keep a divine mandate of Daniel “Keep this book secret”.
“There seems to be left, as yet unexplored, only one avenue of approach to the vexing problem confronting us. It seems possible that our Sages, for some unknown reason, “covered up” a certain historic period and purposely eliminated and suppressed all records and other material pertaining thereto. If so, what might have been their compelling reason for so unusual a procedure? Nothing short of a Divine command could have prompted our Chazal, those saintly "men of truth," to leave out completely from our annals a period of at least 165 years and to correct all data and historic tables in such a fashion that the subsequent chronological gap could escape notice for countless generations, and remain known only to a few initiates who were duty-bound to keep the secret to themselves." (Comparative Jewish Chronology? by Rav Shimon Schwab)

>What will it take to convince you that you have managed to delude yourselves?

>I bet that it wouldn't be too hard to come up with a set of valid dates that produces as
>compelling a set of 7's coincidences as yours.

>Should I even bother with the attempt? If I was successful, would you change your mind?

SOUNDS LIKE A REASONABLE REQUEST ON YOUR PART. SURE, I CHALLENGE YOU TO FIND

1). A PREDICTION MADE BEFORE HAND WHICH SUGGESTS THAT THE CHRONOLOGY OF A SPECIFIC NATION WAS CONTROLLED BY G-D AS THE FOLLOWING PREDICTION BY MOSES.
Remember the days of old, consider the years of many generations; ask your father, and he will show you; your elders, and they will tell you: When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he set apart the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the people of Israel: For the Lord's portion is his people; Jacob is the lot of his inheritance (Det. 32:7-9)

2). AND THEN FIND IT FOLLOWED BY A SET OF TESTABLE HISTORICAL DATES WHICH PROVE IT.
I have from the beginning declared it to you; before it came to pass I announced it to you; lest you should say, My idol has done them, and my carved image, and my molten image, has commanded them: You have heard, now see all this; and will you not declare it? (Isaiah 48:5-6a)

THE BALL IS IN YOUR COURT.

Gene

Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000
From: "Dave Thomas, NMSR" <det@rt66.com>
To:Eugene Faulstich <chri@ncn.net>
Subject: The Age of the Earth

>Thanks for your prompt reply Dave. Now to your answers:
>
>>Thanks for the reply, Gene. I'd rather hoped that your answers would have
>>been more substantial, but they weren't.
>
>Sorry to hear that a swipe of the hand erases so much information so easily.

I'm not sure what you mean here. Are you referring to your 'swiping away' of any serious discussion of radiometric dating techniques? You have been avoiding this part of the discussion most curiously.

>
>>Before I get going, I want to mention that I'm putting our correspondence on the message board of the NMSR
>>web site, accessible via www.nmsr.org/bullbord.htm, under "Bible Code" . I have done this because I
>>think the public deserves to be able to see how this discussion is evolving. I trust that will be OK with
>>you.
>
>I am not disappointed that you have displayed our correspondence on the chat board. I am dismayed that you
>placed it under “Bible Codes.” Surely you must understand something about Bible codes, a subject that has
>been successfully refuted in a number of arenas. If you do not know about Bible Codes, I will introduce you
>to this subject.
>
>Bible codes are a cabalistic attempt to make something out of the way letters are arranged in the Hebrew
>text. The use of gematria (assigning numbers to letters, and then attempting to interpret the sum of the
>letters) has nothing to do with this research. Gematria can be interpreted to say about anything the writer
>chooses to say.
>
>I would appreciate it immensely if you would open a new subject on the chat board, and then proceed to insert
>all of our correspondence under that new subject. I would like the title of that subject to be:
>
>“Sacred Sabbaths of Israel, Proof of the Past, Key to the Future.”

I have renamed the topic as you suggested. However, I see a LOT of similarities with your work and the Bible Code, and I don't think it was unreasonable to put your letters in that slot. Thanks for "introducing" me to the Bible Codes, but I have studied these in some detail, and have published several articles about the Codes in the Skeptical Inquirer. Consult the NMSR Bible Code page for links to these articles and other resources. By the way, they involve more than just 'gematria' - for example, ELS's (Equidistant Letter Sequences).

>
>Since this is a public forum, it would also be wise if the reader had a printed version of our work before
>them. Therefore, I am attaching the "mileage chart" in a JPEG format so that they can print it out as I
>assume you did. I am also willing to give them free two computer programs, so that they can easily see
>through your free style non scholarly accusations.

I suggest that anyone who wants your programs can email you for them, using your email address above. The chart is already available on your websites, mentioned above, so I see no need to also post them on the NMSR website.

>
>>Here's why I was interested in WHO chose the dates analyzed, WHO calculated those dates,
>>and WHO studied the>>"mileage chart" of patterns of 7's between dates.
>>
>>You see, I have a theory that explains the remarkable "mileage chart" without any need to invoke the
>>supernatural (G_D); this theory is also compatible with geological evidence that supports a very old earth.
>>
>>Here's my hypothesis. I think it's entirely possible that the amazing patterns of 7's in your mileage chart
>>may indeed represent an IMPROBABLE outcome. That is, the statistics, chi-square calculations, etc., may all
>>be legitimate, GIVEN THE INPUT DATES.
>>
>>My theory is that your group has, perhaps without realizing it, *COOKED UP a set of dates guaranteed to
>>produce your amazing results.* It's not the experiment itself that is flawed, but the choice of the INPUT
>DATA.
>>

>NOW YOU ARE PUTTING YOUR BRAINS AND YOUR AGENDA ON THE TABLE.
>Your first letter assaulted the scientists who
>studied and commented positively on our work. That was not entirely wise on your part, so you changed your
>attack on the chronology which was not produced singularly be me, but by a group of scholars. In response to
>this, I give you rabbinic evidence that my dates were correct and that the Seder Olam has been deliberately
>falsified (3 paragraphs down). Furthermore, any reputable scholar of Near East chronology would scoff at the
>idea of 490 years between the two temple destructions.

I think you'd better read my first letter again. I did NOT "assault" your scientists, I commented that the work was unintelligible. Whoever posted the equations on that web site formatted them so poorly that they couldn't be read. I did NOT address MATH problems, but rather TYPE-SETTING problems.

You say that the "chronology which was not produced singularly be me, but by a group of scholars."
WHO ARE THESE SCHOLARS??? WERE YOU AND/OR OTHER MEMBERS OF YOUR GROUP AMONG THESE SCHOLARS???

>
>Your theories can be examined by our audience to see if our dates are “cooked up.” All that is necessary is
>for them to download our web pages and request the computer programs and see for themselves.
>
>www.mashiach6000.org
>
>www.ncn.net?~chri
>
>>You have shown amazing leeway in your calculations of dates. You have decided that the destruction of the
>>First Temple occurred 167 YEARS before the date described in the _Seder Olam_. You use a birth date for
>>Jacob that is two YEARS after the date in the _Seder Olam_. We are not talking "fudge factors" of a few >>days here - we are talking CENTURIES.
>
>The Seder Olam assigns only 490 years between the two Temple destructions. Jewish rabbis have put this
>question to deliberation, and have concluded that the writer of the Seder Olam deliberately reduced this
>period by 167 years to keep a divine mandate of Daniel “Keep this book secret”.

>“There seems to be left, as yet unexplored, only one avenue of approach to the vexing problem confronting us.
>It seems possible that our Sages, for some unknown reason, “covered up” a certain historic period and
>purposely eliminated and suppressed all records and other material pertaining thereto. If so, what might have
>been their compelling reason for so unusual a procedure? Nothing short of a Divine command could have
>prompted our Chazal, those saintly "men of truth," to leave out completely from our annals a period of at
>least 165 years and to correct all data and historic tables in such a fashion that the subsequent
>chronological gap could escape notice for countless generations, and remain known only to a few initiates who
>were duty-bound to keep the secret to themselves." (Comparative Jewish Chronology? by Rav Shimon Schwab)

YOU ARE NOT RESPONDING TO MY PREVIOUS LETTER. In fact, it appears that you decided to ignore the most important part of that letter.

Let me ask again. WHICH CAME FIRST, THE LIST OF KEY DATES OR THE 7'S MATRIX?

If, as you admitted in a previous letter, the results of ongoing 7's matrix were used to "ratify" any or all of the selected dates, then your work is fatally flawed. The ONLY proper way to do the experiment you describe is for an independent group of scholars to arrive at a set of "key dates" BEFORE ANY 7'S MATRIX COMPUTATIONS ARE EVEN BEGUN. Then, if this set of dates produces an improbable number of 7's in a matrix of week differences, you might have a case for arguing that this represents a supernatural "message" in the Torah.

BUT, IF ANY OF THE KEY DATES WERE REVISED AS A RESULT OF WORK ON THE 7'S MATRIX, THE WHOLE PROJECT BECOMES WORTHLESS. You are simply juggling the inputs to get the desired answer.

So I ask again, WHICH CAME FIRST, THE LIST OF KEY DATES OR THE 7'S MATRIX?

>
>>What will it take to convince you that you have managed to delude yourselves?
>>
>>I bet that it wouldn't be too hard to come up with a set of valid dates that produces as compelling a set of
>>7's coincidences as yours.
>>
>>Should I even bother with the attempt? If I was successful, would you change your mind?
>
>SOUNDS LIKE A REASONABLE REQUEST ON YOUR PART. SURE, I CHALLENGE YOU TO FIND
>
>1). A PREDICTION MADE BEFORE HAND WHICH SUGGESTS THAT THE CHRONOLOGY OF A
>SPECIFIC NATION WAS CONTROLLED BY
>G-D AS THE FOLLOWING PREDICTION BY MOSES.
>Remember the days of old, consider the years of many generations; ask your father,
>and he will show you; your
>elders, and they will tell you: When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he set
>apart the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the people of Israel: For
>the Lord's portion is his people; Jacob is the lot of his inheritance: (Det. 32:7-9)
>
>2). AND THEN FIND IT FOLLOWED BY A SET OF TESTABLE HISTORICAL DATES WHICH PROVE IT.
>I have from the beginning declared it to you; before it came to pass I announced it to you; lest you should
>say, My idol has done them, and my carved image, and my molten image, has commanded them: You have
>heard, now see all this; and will you not declare it? (Isaiah 48:5-6a)
>
>THE BALL IS IN YOUR COURT.
>
>Gene

Your challenge is not acceptable as stated. Why should I have to look around for predictions about the chronologies of specific nations?

YOU claim that you have arrived at a set of key dates, and that the differences between these dates show a remarkable number of 7's that cannot be explained by chance alone.

All I propose to do is to select 13 key dates from history, and produce an equally compelling matrix of 7's.

Should I even bother with the attempt? If I was successful, would you change your mind?

Sincerely, Dave

Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000
From: Eugene Faulstich <chri@ncn.net>
To: "Dave Thomas, NMSR" <det@rt66.com>
Subject: The Age of the Earth


Thanks again for your prompt reply Dave.
Now to your answers:

DT>I have renamed the topic as you suggested.

Thank you very much Dave.

DT>I suggest that anyone who wants your programs can email you for them, using
DT>your email address above. The chart is already available on your websites,
DT>mentioned above, so I see no need to also post them on the NMSR website.

This chart would only occupy the space of about one paragraph. I understand your reluctance to display this chart because its appearance would damage your case dramatically. It is a simple tool which scientifically proves the actions of G-d in human history.

DT>You say that the "chronology which was not produced singularly be me, but by a group of DT
DT>scholars." WHO ARE THESE SCHOLARS??? WERE YOU AND/OR OTHER MEMBERS OF YOUR
DT>GROUP AMONG THESE SCHOLARS???

I produced the original chronological framework in 1975, long before computers. The patterns of weeks was not discovered until the early 1980’s when computers were first used. The basic chronology did not change one year. I wrote a work book in 1975 which had a Biblical chronological framework. The final chronology did not change one year. If you like, I can send you a copy of the book, or I can scan a page and send it to you. The chronology proved to be accurate by computer programs developed by Mark Ness after he joined me in 1981. At that time the patterns of weeks were obvious without changing one year in the chronology.

The name of the two men who worked with me at the Chronology-History Research Institute were:

Oliver Blosser, PhD, University of Wisconsin
Mark Ness, B.S. Computers, University of Minnesota

DT>YOU ARE NOT RESPONDING TO MY PREVIOUS LETTER. In fact, it appears that you
DT>decided to ignore the most important part of that letter.

Your radio metric dating questions have been answered by no small number of men who call themselves “creation scientists.” I am not qualified in this area. I was president of Bible Science Association for 8 years, and from my exposure to them, I am convinced that there are good reasons to reject this dating because of the flawed results. Some of which include dating a living clam to several million years old. Furthermore, one cannot project a scientific subject outside the realm of testability into the unknown. Radio metric dating cannot be tested to a previous period of millions of years ago without assuming uniform actions within the material and without assuming a certain amount of chemical in the original matter. The same argument applies to our work. We can examine the actions of G-d in history, but to project those actions into the future, or prior to any recorded history would be no more than speculation. That is why I reject radio metric dating as non scientific speculation.

DT>Let me ask again. WHICH CAME FIRST, THE LIST OF KEY DATES OR THE 7'S MATRIX?

The answer to this question was just given.

DT>If, as you admitted in a previous letter, the results of ongoing 7's matrix were used to "ratify"
DT>any or all of the selected dates, then your work is fatally flawed. The ONLY proper way to do
DT>the experiment you describe is for an independent group of scholars to arrive at a set of "key
DT>dates" BEFORE ANY 7'S MATRIX COMPUTATIONS ARE EVEN BEGUN. Then, if this set of dates
DT>produces an improbable number of 7's in a matrix of week differences, you might have a case
DT>for arguing that this represents a supernatural "message" in the Torah.

DT>BUT, IF ANY OF THE KEY DATES WERE REVISED AS A RESULT OF WORK ON THE 7'S MATRIX,
DT>THE WHOLE PROJECT BECOMES WORTHLESS. You are simply juggling the nputs to get the
DT>desired answer.

DT>So I ask again, WHICH CAME FIRST, THE LIST OF KEY DATES OR THE 7'S MATRIX?

Excuse me sir, I have never implied that the patterns were used to establish the dates. Your accusations are unjustified. The chronology was formed several years before the computer programs were introduced. See the above history of the research.

DT>>What will it take to convince you that you have managed to delude yourselves? I bet that it
DT>>wouldn't be too hard to come up with a set of valid dates that produces as compelling a set
DT>>of coincidences as yours.
>>
DT>>Should I even bother with the attempt? If I was successful, would you
DT>>change your mind?
>
EF>SOUNDS LIKE A REASONABLE REQUEST ON YOUR PART. SURE, I CHALLENGE YOU TO FIND
>
EF>1). A PREDICTION MADE BEFORE HAND WHICH SUGGESTS THAT THE CHRONOLOGY OF A
EF>SPECIFIC NATION WAS CONTROLLED BY
EF>G-D AS THE FOLLOWING PREDICTION BY MOSES.
EF>Remember the days of old, consider the years of many generations; ask your father, and he will
EF>show you; your elders, and they will tell you: When the Most High divided to the nations their
EF>inheritance, when he set apart the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to
EF>the number of the people of Israel: For the Lord's portion is his people; Jacob is the lot of his
EF>inheritance: (Det. 32:7-9)
>
EF>2). AND THEN FIND IT FOLLOWED BY A SET OF TESTABLE HISTORICAL DATES WHICH PROVE
EF>IT.
EF>I have from the beginning declared it to you; before it came to pass I announced it to you; lest
EF>you should say, My idol has done them, and my carved image, and my molten image, has
EF>commanded them: You have heard, now see all this; and will you not declare it? (Isaiah
EF>48:5-6a)

EF>THE BALL IS IN YOUR COURT.
>
EF>Gene

DT>Your challenge is not acceptable as stated. Why should I have to look around for predictions
DT>about the chronologies of specific nations?

DT>YOU claim that you have arrived at a set of key dates, and that the differences between these
DT>dates show a remarkable number of 7's that cannot be explained by chance alone.

DT>All I propose to do is to select 13 key dates from history, and produce an equally compelling
DT>matrix of 7's.

DT>Should I even bother with the attempt? If I was successful, would you change your mind?

DT>Sincerely, Dave

Dave, I have written articles and books on Egyptian, Babylonian, and Assyrian chronology. I have studied Jewish chronology during the Diaspora. I have also studied Christian church history and American history. I have looked for patterns in all of them without success.

Since you write G-d’s name with a hyphenation, this tells me you are Jewish. If you are Jewish, you should also fear G-d (Ha-Shem). If what I am telling you is true, then you might be wise to defend G-d rather than His opponent. This is not science, it is just common sense.

You have wisely denied my challenge.

Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000
From: "Dave Thomas, NMSR" <det@rt66.com>
To:Eugene Faulstich <chri@ncn.net>
Subject: The Age of the Earth

At 10:50 AM 6/23/00 +0100, you wrote:

EF>Thanks again for your prompt reply Dave.
EF>Now to your answers:

DT>I have renamed the topic as you suggested.

EF>Thank you very much Dave.

DT>I suggest that anyone who wants your programs can email you
DT>for them, using your email address above.
DT> The chart is already available on your websites,
DT>mentioned above, so I see no need to also post them on the NMSR website.


EF>This chart would only occupy the space of about one paragraph.
EF>I understand your reluctance to display this chart because its
EF>appearance would damage your case dramatically. It is a simple
EF>tool which scientifically proves the actions of G-d in human history.

Your chart takes up 72,502 bytes. A dense page of text, over 60 lines by 80 characters per line,
takes only 4,800 bytes. Your chart would occupy the space of 15 DENSELY PACKED PAGES, not a "paragraph" as you suggest. My reluctance to post your chart has everything to do with bandwidth, and nothing to do with fears that it would "damage my case dramatically." If THAT were the case, then why would I be including the links to your web pages, WHERE ANYONE CAN VIEW YOUR CHART, in these letters? Hmm?

To make the point, here are the websites where YOUR CHART can be viewed, for reference:

mashiach6000.org (see mashiach6000.org/images/pic1.jpg for the image itself, and
see mashiach6000.org/intervention.htm for the image on the page.)

www.ncn.net/~chri (see www.ncn.net/~chri/html/paternweek.html )

Happy now?

DT>You say that the "chronology which was not produced singularly
DT>be me, but by a group of scholars." WHO ARE THESE SCHOLARS???
DT>WERE YOU AND/OR OTHER MEMBERS OF YOUR GROUP AMONG THESE SCHOLARS???

EF>I produced the original chronological framework in 1975, long before
EF>computers. The patterns of weeks was not discovered until the early
EF>1980’s when computers were first used. The basic chronology did not
EF>change one year. I wrote a work book in 1975 which had a Biblical
EF>chronological framework. The final chronology did not change one
EF>year. If you like, I can send you a copy of the book, or I can
EF>scan a page and send it to you. The chronology proved to be accurate
EF>by computer programs developed by Mark Ness after he joined me in 1981.
EF>At that time the patterns of weeks were obvious without changing one
EF>year in the chronology.

It's good that you didn't tweak the years of your original chronology.
However, your chart, being differences of weeks between dates, depends
critically on the DAYS involved, not simply the years. Keeping the years
as originally derived would still leave PLENTY of wiggle room in the
adjustments of DAYS. It's interesting that "The final chronology did not change one
year." The real question is,

CAN YOU SAY TRUTHFULLY THAT "The final chronology did not change one DAY" ?

If you cannot, then your work is meaningless.

EF>The name of the two men who worked with me at the Chronology-History
EF>Research Institute were:

EF>Oliver Blosser, PhD, University of Wisconsin
EF>Mark Ness, B.S. Computers, University of Minnesota

Which branch of the University of Wisconsin is home to Prof. Oliver Blosser?
I have looked without success for him at the web sites of the U. of Wisconsin
branches at Madison, Eau Claire, La Crosse, Parkside, Stevens Point, Stout,
Oshkosh, Platville, Milwaukee, Riverfalls, and Whitewater.

So, which branch of the U. of Wisconsin, and is he still working there?

EF>Your radio metric dating questions have been answered by no small number
EF>of men who call themselves “creation scientists.” I am not qualified in
EF>this area. I was president of Bible Science Association for 8 years,
EF>and from my exposure to them, I am convinced that there are good
EF>reasons to reject this dating because of the flawed results. Some of
EF>which include dating a living clam to several million years old.
EF>Furthermore, one cannot project a scientific subject outside the realm
EF>of testability into the unknown.

I have already described how science "tests into the unknown" (i.e. into
areas for which we have no human testimony.) You are apparently afraid to
respond to the meat of this discussion. I am shocked to think that you
appear perfectly willing to let a murderer who is implicated by blood, hair,
fingerprints, and DNA evidence go scot free simply because there were no
"witnesses" to record the event for posterity.

EF>Radio metric dating cannot be tested
EF>to a previous period of millions of years ago without assuming uniform
EF>actions within the material and without assuming a certain amount of
EF>chemical in the original matter.

This comment betrays your ignorance of the advances in radiometric dating.
As I warned you previously, don't listen to your creationist friends regarding
radio-dating. They have an agenda which precludes their addressing the real
science issues. You parrot the creationist lie that "Radio metric dating cannot be tested
...without assuming a certain amount of chemical in the original matter." This, of course,
is not true. The ISOCHRON METHOD, which I have mentioned repeatedly to you,
PERMITS THE MEASUREMENT OF RELATIVE AMOUNTS OF CHEMICALS IN THE ORIGINAL MATTER.

Geologists don't need to "assume" how much of the daughter isotope was present in the
rock when it hardened from a molten state. THEY CAN CALCULATE THE AMOUNT PRECISELY.

It's obvious that you are ignorant of the realities of radiometric dating.
I suggest you can remedy this by simply reading Dalrymple's book _The Age of the Earth_.
Unless you are able to get past creationist lies about radio-dating, I see no point
in discussing this particular topic further with you.

DT>BUT, IF ANY OF THE KEY DATES WERE REVISED AS A RESULT OF WORK ON THE 7'S
DT>MATRIX, THE WHOLE PROJECT BECOMES WORTHLESS. You are simply juggling the
DT>inputs to get the desired answer.

DT>So I ask again, WHICH CAME FIRST, THE LIST OF KEY DATES OR THE 7'S MATRIX?

EF>Excuse me sir, I have never implied that the patterns were used to establish
EF>the dates. Your accusations are unjustified. The chronology was formed
EF>several years before the computer programs were introduced. See the above
EF>history of the research.

Excuse me, sir, but you certainly DID imply the patterns were used to establish the dates.

On June 21, 2000, you wrote
"The loss of the second Temple and the Return of Israel today were
selected too, because they were found to fit the patterns."

Perhaps you'd care to explain your contradictory statements.


DT>>What will it take to convince you that you have managed to delude
DT>>yourselves? I bet that it wouldn't be too hard to come up with a
DT>>set of valid dates that produces as compelling a set of 7's coincidences
DT>>as yours.

DT>>Should I even bother with the attempt? If I was successful, would you
DT>>change your mind?

EF>SOUNDS LIKE A REASONABLE REQUEST ON YOUR PART. SURE, I CHALLENGE YOU TO FIND

EF>1). A PREDICTION MADE BEFORE HAND WHICH SUGGESTS THAT THE CHRONOLOGY OF A
EF>SPECIFIC NATION WAS CONTROLLED BY G-D AS THE FOLLOWING PREDICTION BY MOSES.
EF>Remember the days of old, consider the years of many generations; ask your
EF>father, and he will show you; your elders, and they will tell you: When the
EF>Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he set apart the
EF>sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of
EF>the people of Israel: For the Lord's portion is his people; Jacob is the
EF>lot of his inheritance: (Det. 32:7-9)

EF>2). AND THEN FIND IT FOLLOWED BY A SET OF TESTABLE HISTORICAL DATES WHICH PROVE IT.
EF>I have from the beginning declared it to you; before it came to pass I announced
EF>it to you; lest you should say, My idol has done them, and my carved image, and
EF>my molten image, has commanded them: You have heard, now see all this; and will
EF>you not declare it? (Isaiah 48:5-6a)
EF>THE BALL IS IN YOUR COURT.


DT>Your challenge is not acceptable as stated. Why should I have
DT>to look around for predictions about the chronologies of specific nations?

DT>YOU claim that you have arrived at a set of key dates, and that the
DT>differences between these dates show a remarkable number of 7's that
DT>cannot be explained by chance alone.

DT>All I propose to do is to select 13 key dates from history, and produce
DT>an equally compelling matrix of 7's.

DT>Should I even bother with the attempt? If I was successful,
DT>would you change your mind?

DT>Sincerely, Dave

EF>Dave, I have written articles and books on Egyptian, Babylonian,
EF>and Assyrian chronology. I have studied Jewish chronology during
EF>the Diaspora. I have also studied Christian church history and
EF>American history. I have looked for patterns in all of them without success.

EF>Since you write G-d’s name with a hyphenation, this tells me you are
EF>Jewish. If you are Jewish, you should also fear G-d (Ha-Shem). If
EF>what I am telling you is true, then you might be wise to defend G-d
EF>rather than His opponent. This is not science, it is just common sense.

EF>You have wisely denied my challenge.

Gene, you are a real artist at avoiding my questions.

I did not ask if YOU have looked for curious patterns in other chronologies.

I asked a very simple question.

"SHOULD I EVEN BOTHER WITH THE ATTEMPT?
IF I WAS SUCCESSFUL, WOULD YOU CHANGE YOUR MIND?"

Since your "challenge" would have involved lots of pointless looking for predictions
of chronologies of various nations, and was NOT AT ALL at what I proposed, which
was simply "to select 13 key dates from history, and produce an equally compelling
matrix of 7's", I think we are in agreement that I was "wise" to deny your challenge
as stated.

I'll be away on travel a few days, so it'll be a while before I can reply to your
next letter, if there is one.

Sincerely, Dave Thomas

Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000
From: Eugene Faulstich <chri@ncn.net>
To: "Dave Thomas, NMSR" <det@rt66.com>
Subject: The Age of the Earth

Thanks again David, for your prompt response.

I hope your are not away from your desk for very long. Now to answer
your questions.

DT>Which branch of the University of Wisconsin is home to Prof. Oliver
DT>Blosser? I have looked without success for him at the web sites of the
DT>U. of Wisconsin branches at Madison, Eau Claire, La Crosse, Parkside,
DT>Stevens Point, Stout,
DT>Oshkosh, Platville, Milwaukee, Riverfalls, and Whitewater. So, which
DT>branch of the U. of Wisconsin, and is he still working there?

I did not imply that these two men were teachers at the universities,
simply that they received their degrees from these institutions. Our
research ended in about 1988. At that time Mark Ness joined the
military, and eventually became an Arabic translator in the Gulf War.
He now is a computer programmer for Lutheran Brotherhood Insurance in
Minneapolis. Dr. Blosser went to teach world religions at the
University of Wisconsin, Oshkosh. He is now a pastor of a church in
Minnesota.

>I have already described how science "tests into the unknown" (i.e. into
>areas for which we have no human testimony.) You are apparently afraid
>to respond to the meat of this discussion. I am shocked to think that
>you appear perfectly willing to let a murderer who is implicated by
>blood, hair, fingerprints, and DNA evidence go scot free simply because
>there were no "witnesses" to record the event for posterity.

I don't recall saying anything of the sort. This is what I actually
said. "Radio metric dating cannot be tested to a previous period of
millions of years ago without assuming uniform actions within the
material and without assuming a certain amount of chemical in the
original matter."

Let me give you four examples of "pseudo-scientific" dating assumptions.

1) It is commonly accepted that the universe is some 14-18 billion
years old. Astronomers had theories about the red shift which was
supposed to support these ages. But wait! Three Iowa State University
professors of astrophysics insist that the universe may be a mere 7
billion years old by the actions of the pulsating stars (Des Moines
Sunday Register, August 2, 1987).
2). Dinosaurs were supposed to have become extinct some 65 million
years ago. But a graveyard of organic dinosaur bones have been found in
Colville, Alaska! Organic material does not last 65 million years.
What's more, one sample of it has been carbon dated @ 9,890 years old,
while another sample @ 16,120 years old. A far cry from 65,000,000
years!
3). The first lunar landing expected to find deep layers of dust, based
on the age of the universe and the knowledge of how much dust is known
to collect there each year. But the large pads which appeared on the
feet of the lunar landing module were not necessary! There was not
enough dust to plant the flag in the ground!
4). Radio metric dating seems to have one purpose, that is to shore up
a defunct 19th century ìtheory of evolution.î In doing so, it can
ìsave faceî for teachers. That's not science, that's deception.
Popular scholars like Steven J. Gould of Harvard flatly reject gradual
evolution because of the lack of evidence. If evolution happened, he
would suggest punctuated speciation, i.e., a reptile laid an egg and it
hatched into a bird, which was promptly fed bugs by the loving reptile
mother!

DT>Excuse me, sir, but you certainly DID imply the patterns were used to
DT>establish the dates. On June 21, 2000, you wrote "The loss of the
DT>second Temple and the Return of Israel today were selected too, because
DT>they were found to fit the patterns." Perhaps you'd care to explain
DT>your contradictory statements.

A good scientist does not refuse to turn over a stone because of his
certainty that there are no bugs under it. He does not proceed with
blind bias; he keeps an open mind and builds on the facts at hand. Once
patterns were obvious in Jewish history, and the Bible verses were found
which guaranteed this kind of evidence, I was naturally compelled to
study all of the dates in Jewish history. This is not a contradiction,
it is good science. If there were no patterns, I would not have lost
anything. Modern scientific methods compel men to follow the popular
views because deviation from those views means you are out of fellowship
with the rest of science.

EF>I CHALLENGE YOU TO FIND
EF>1). A PREDICTION MADE BEFORE HAND WHICH SUGGESTS THAT THE CHRONOLOGY OF
EF>A SPECIFIC NATION WAS CONTROLLED BY G-D AS THE FOLLOWING PREDICTION BY
EF>MOSES.
EF>
EF>2). AND THEN FIND IT FOLLOWED BY A SET OF HISTORICAL DATES WHICH PROVE
EF>IT.

DT>Your challenge is not acceptable as stated.
DT>Why should I have to look around for predictions about the chronologies
DT>of specific nations?

O.K., lets ignore the *prior predictions* aspect of the challenge so it
will be easy for you.

DT>I bet that it wouldn't be too hard to come up with a set of valid dates
DT>that produces as compelling a set of 7's coincidences as yours... [My
DT>proposal] was simply "to select 13 key dates from history, and produce
DT>an equally compelling matrix of 7's."

The bets on. In order to demonstrate to the reader what an 'equally
compelling matrix of 7's are, he or she will have to see a thumbnail
sketch of our matrix of 7's. Since the matrix graphic consumes too much
space, I will list the dates and the 7's. The first 7 dates I will
reference from the Bible, and convert them to day numbers. The dates
are given in the lunar calendar, so I could not have 'tweaked' them.
The day numbers can be subtracted to find the number of days are between
them. Divide this day difference by 7 to convert them to weeks. The
first 7 dates are taken directly from the Bible. (Actually 8 from the
Bible; the exact date of the burning bush of Moses is calculated through
the use of the Bible and made absolute through Egyptian chronology. The
details can be found in our web page). A list of these 7 dates, their
references, and their day numbers appear below:

0) Tishri 22, (Oct. 9, 1462 BCE) The Burning Bush of Moses (Ex.
2:23-3:2, Egyptian Phaopi 30) #927,548
1) ìIn the 1st month, on the evening of the 14th day is the Passoverî
(Lev. 23:5) #927,717
2) ìOn the 3rd new moon, on the same day they left Egypt, they came to
Sinai, i.e., the 15th (Ex. 19:1) # 927,777
3) ìMake yourselves ready for the third day, for on that day I will
return, i.e., the 17th (Ex. 19:11) # 927,779
4) ìAnd Moses remained on the mountain for 40 days, i.e. till the 4th
mo. day 28 (Ex. 24:18)
and one week later, Moses returned to the mountain again, i.e. 5th mo.,
7th day #927,828
5) ìAnd in the 1st month, the 2nd year, the 1st day, the Tabernacle was
erectedî (Ex. 40:17). # 928,087
6) ìAnd Aaron died there, in the 40th year on the 1st day of the 5th
monthî (Nu. 33:38) # 942,087
7) ìAnd on the 40th yr., on the 1st day, of the 11th month, Moses spokeî
(Dt. 1:3) #942,263

Once these patterns were observed, a text of Isaiah was found which
predicted that Israel's presence in the Holy land would be a sign.
ìBehold, I and the children whom the Lord has given me are for signs and
for wonders in Israel from the Lord of hosts, who dwells in mount Zion:î
(8:18). This, along with the other predictions previously cited,
prompted me to study all the dates of the nation Israel to look for
other harmonies. The next six dates listed are extra Biblical dates
which are accepted by Jews as significant historical events which were
predicted by Moses.

8) Nisan 15 (April 6, CE 30) Before Passover Hall of Hewn Stones lost
(Gen. 49:10, Abodah Zara 8b) # 927,779 [DT - THIS APPARENTLY SHOULD BE DAY # 1471938???]
9) Sivan 6 (May 25, CE 30) Pentecost, Hall of Hewn Stones lost (Gen.
49:10, Abodah Zara 8b) #1,471,987
10) Ab 9, (Aug. 2, CE 70) The Second Temple was destroyed (Josephus:
Wars VI,iv, Dt. 28:63) # 1,486,666
11) Elul 15, (Sept. 6, CE 70) The People sold into Egypt (Josephus: Wars
VI,ix, Dt. 28:68) # 1,486,702
12) Tishri 22 (Oct. 18, 1946) Feast of Tabernacles, 10 Germans hung
@Nuremburg (Dt. 30:7) # 2,171,938
13) Sivan 6 (May 14, 1948) Israeli Declaration of Independence (Dt.
30:1-6) # 2,172,512

Now these dates will be compared to show the harmonious patterns of
sevens.

The Burning Bush of Moses & 8 significant dates following it (# 0 above)

24 Wks Nisan 14 (March 26, 1461 BCE) The Exodus (#1 above)
33 Wks Sivan 17 (May 28, 1461 BCE) The Ten Commandments (#3 above)
40 Wks Ab 7 (July 16, 1461 BCE) Moses intercedes for Israel (#4 above)
77 Wks Abib 1 (April 1, 1461 BCE) The first house of God dedicated(#5
above).
2077 Wks Ab 1 (July 29, 1422 BCE) Aaron died (#6 above)
77,770 Wks Nisan 15 (April 6, CE 30) Before Passover of CE 30 (#8
above)
77,777 Wks Sivan 6 (May 25, CE 30) Pentecost, Hall of Hewn Stones lost
(#9 above)
177,770 Wks Tishri 22 (Oct. 18, 1946) Feast of Tabernacles, 10 Germans
hung (#12 above)

The Exodus Passover & 3 significant dates forward
77,746 Wks Passover of CE 30 (#8 above)
77,753 Wks Pentecost of CE 30 (#9 above)
177,746 Wks 10 Germans were hung.(#12 above)

The Ten Commandments & 5 significant dates forward
7 Wks Moses intercedes for Israel after their apostasy (#4 above)
44 Wks Moses dedicated the Tabernacle (#5 above).
77,737 Wks Passover of CE 30 (#8 above)
77,744 Wks Pentecost of CE 30 (#9 above)
177,737 Wks 10 Germans were hung on Succot of 1946 (#12 above).

Moses Intercedes For Israel & 4 significant dates forward
37 Wks Tabernacle Dedication (#5 above)
77,730 Wks Passover of CE 30 (#8 above)
77,737 Wks Pentecost of CE 30 (#9 above)
177,730 Wks 10 Germans were hung in 1946 (#12 above)

The Tabernacle Dedication & 4 significant dates forward
2000 Wks Aaron, its first high priest died (#6 above)
77,700 Wks Pentecost of CE 30 (#9 above)
79,797 Wks Second Temple was destroyed (#10 above)
177,775 Wks Declaration of Independence of Israel on May 14, 1948 (#13
above)

Aaron's Death & 2 significant dates forward
75,700 Wks Pentecost of CE 30 (#9 above)
77,797 Wks Second Temple was destroyed (#10 above)

Deuteronomy Read & 2 significant dates forward
77,772 Wks Second Temple Destruction (#10 above)
77,777 Wks People were sold to Egypt by the Romans (#11 above)

Passover of CE 30 & 2 significant dates looking forward
7 Wks Pentecost of CE 30 (#9 above)
100,000 Wks 10 Germans were hung on Succot of 1946 (#12 above)

Pentecost of CE 30 & 1 significant date forward
99,993 Wks 10 Germans were hung on Succot of 1946

The patterns and the probabilities which you claim to be able to
duplicate follow:

1). Each digit (0-9) should appear as 10% of any random total, but 7's
appear 35 %
2). Digits are less likely to appear in pairs, triples, quadruples, or
quintuples.
The following pairs, triples, quadruples, or quintuples appear with
probabilities

1 pair of 3's @ 1/100 = 10-2
2 pairs of 4's @ 1/100 = 10-4
1 pair of 6's @ 1/100 = 10-2
16 pairs of 7's @ 1/100 = 10-32
3 triples of 0's @ 1/1000 = 10-9
1 triple of 6's @ 1/1000 = 10-3
9 triples of 7's @ 1/1000 = 10-27
8 quadruples of 7's @ 1/10,000 = 10-32
1 quadruple of 9's @ 1/10,000 = 10-4
1 quintuple of 0's @ 1/100,000 = 10-5
2 quintuples of 7's @ 1/100,000 = 10-10
Total probability = 10-130

DT>CAN YOU SAY TRUTHFULLY THAT "The final chronology did not change one
DT>DAY" ?
DT>If you cannot, then your work is meaningless.

After seeing the above data, what do you think?

NOW IT IS UP TO YOU TO DUPLICATE OUR MATRIX OF 7'S
USING SOME OTHER NATIONAL HISTORICAL RECORD.

DT>I'll be away on travel a few days, so it'll be a while before I can
DT>reply to your next letter, if there is one.

I sure hope you don't run away Dave, I am going to learn from this. I
hope you do too.
Sincerely, Gene

Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2000
From: Eugene Faulstich <chri@ncn.net>
To: "Dave Thomas, NMSR" <det@rt66.com>
Subject: The Age of the Earth

Hi Dave,

Just wondering if you have returned to work as yet.

Dave, is there some way that our discussion can be easily located by researchers?

You have most of the other debates, etc., listed on your home page under topics.

Our debate is very difficult to find.

I hope you are well,

Gene

Date: Thui, 06 Jul 2000
From: "Dave Thomas, NMSR" <det@rt66.com>
To:Eugene Faulstich <chri@ncn.net>
Subject: The Age of the Earth

Hello Gene. I'm back, but am very busy this week & next!!

When I get some time soon, I'll move the letters on Sabbath etc. to their own webpage. I don't really like how the bulletin board site works, and it IS hard for people to find! So look for that in a week or so.

Having a fun time studying chronologies. Fascinating!

Regards, Dave

Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000
From: "Dave Thomas, NMSR" <det@rt66.com>
To:Eugene Faulstich <chri@ncn.net>
Subject: The Age of the Earth

Hello Gene.

I'm back from my travels, and have been working hard on my chronology of dates. It is fascinating stuff! I'm beginning to appreciate how much work is involved.

As you'll see by visiting http://www.nmsr.org/sabbaths.htm, I have moved our correspondence off of the hard-to-find bulletin board, and onto its own web page. I hope this will make it easier for our colleagues to follow this discussion.

I'm writing a chapter of a forthcoming Prometheus book about skepticism; my chapter will be about codes like the Bible Code, and about patterns like your intriguing ensemble of 7's.

May I have your permission to quote from your e-mailed comments in this chapter? I would be happy to send you the specific quotes I have in mind, so you can be sure it's something you're willing to see in print.

I hope to wrap up my work on the chronology of America in just a few days!

Sincerely,

Dave

Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000
From: Eugene Faulstich <chri@ncn.net>
To: "Dave Thomas, NMSR" <det@rt66.com>
Subject: The Age of the Earth

I would like to see your total argument. I do not want any statement I have made taken out of context and published so as to make jest out of logic. That is so easy to do. I insist that the same two scientists who critiqued my work are allowed to critique your work and make a comment in your book. That is reasonable is it not?

I hope to evaluate your work soon. I assume that you are using American history.

Best Regards,

Gene

Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000
From: "Dave Thomas, NMSR" <det@rt66.com>
To:Eugene Faulstich <chri@ncn.net>
Subject: The Age of the Earth

Alas, your request is NOT reasonable. Prometheus books invited ME to submit a chapter to their forthcoming book, not you. I will be very interested in your critics' comments, and will be happy to include some of them in my chapter (with their permission), but I have no interest in giving over a large chunk of my very limited space to your critics to do as they please. They may, however, certainly pursue getting a book or article of their own to publish a more detailed analysis of my findings, if they so desire.

Since you're unwilling to let me quote from your e-mail letters, I will just report on what you've stated very publicly on your diverse web sites. The Fair Use doctrine permits me to do this; details are printed below.

Remember, Gene, YOU approached ME, asking me to investigate your sabbath patterns. I have become quite interested in the topic, and have invested several hours of hard work into my historical analyses. You may not appreciate my reporting on these analyses in books and magazines, but that's what I do.

You knew that, of course, when you approached me, did you not?

How did you get my name, anyway? Did you see an article of mine on the Web? Did you read my Bible Code articles in the Skeptical Inquirer, or the article on me in People Magazine (Nov. 3rd, 1997)? Perhaps you saw my work mentioned in the June 9th, 2000 Wall Street Journal (2nd to last page, article by David Murray, "The Code Cracks"). How did you learn that "Dave Thomas" is someone who might be interested in researching your sabbath patterns?

If possible, I will post my Chronology of America tonight, or perhaps later in the weekend.

I think you will be most impressed and puzzled with my results, and I eagerly await your critics' analysis.

Sincerely, Dave

>US Code as of: 01/05/99

>U.S. Code, Title 17, Sec. 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use

>Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work,
>including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified
>by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including
>multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.
>In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to
>be considered shall include -
> (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether
> such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit
> educational purposes;
> (2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
> (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in
> relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
> (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or
> value of the copyrighted work. The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a
> finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000
From: "Dave Thomas, NMSR" <det@rt66.com>
To:Eugene Faulstich <chri@ncn.net>
Subject: The Chronology of the United States of America.

Hello Gene. I have finished my analyses, and am very pleased to present
you with

The Chronology of the United States of America.

Like you, I have identified 13 key dates from history.

And these dates are all about powerful, significant events.

I begin with three earth-shaking events : all three New Madrid earthquakes
of 1811-1812. These were all above magnitude 7, and coming as they did at
a critical period in US history (the trial by fire of the new nation in the
war of 1812 against the British), in a region NOT known for earthquakes,
perhaps they embody the hand of G_D himself moving across the land to awaken
the new Nation to its destiny.

I have also included three key dates from the War of 1812: the declaration
of war by the U.S., the Fall of Detroit, and the Battle of Lake Erie (which
the U.S. won in a crucial turning point of the War; it is famous for
Commodore Perry's stirring remarks "We have met the enemy, and he is ours.").

I have included the 1812 dates because, for the young United States, a
nation struggling to assert itself on the world stage, the 1812 War was the
nation's literal baptism by fire - perhaps even more important than the
American Revolution.

I have included one date from the World War II era, that being Oct. 16th,
1946, the day that 10 Nazi war criminals were hung at Nuremberg.
(Incidentally, Gene, I noticed that this is one of the 13 dates YOU chose
as well! Except you got it wrong. It happened on the 16th of October, not
the 18th as you claim. You know, Gene, if you make errors this obvious on
RECENT dates, why should we trust your research on the more remote,
difficult dates of the Biblical Past? Just wondering!) Why is Nuremberg
significant? Because it never would have happened without US involvement
in WWII; the execution of Nazi criminals was really the culmination of the
huge war effort that ended, not only with the end of the Nazi regime, but
also with the establishment of the U.S. as a world superpower.

I have included three key political events: breaking relations with
Castro's Cuba; the capture of Gary Powers U-2 by the Soviet Union; and the
disastrous Bay of Pigs debacle. These important events defined the
conflicts between the US, Soviet Union, and Cuba for decades to come. (And
if you don't think tensions with Cuba are a hot topic, consider the case of
Elian.)

I have also included two extremely important events regarding space travel;
the day the first man went to space (Gargarin), and the day the first
American went to space (Shepard). These dates are crucial because
America's destiny is clearly linked to advances in space travel.

My final date, the admission of black student James Meredith to the
University of Mississippi, is included because it is a watershed in the
advancement of the recognition of civil rights for all citizens; it's even
more important than the symbolic sitting in the front of the bus by Rosa Parks.

Here are the details for my 13 Key Dates:

EVENT,calday,weekday,Julian

1) First major New Madrid earthquake (Mag ÷ 7.5)., 12/16/1811, Monday, 2382863
2) Second major New Madrid earthquake (Mag ÷ 7.3)., 01/23/1812, Thursday, 2382901
3) Third major New Madrid earthquake (Mag ÷ 7.8)., 02/07/1812, Friday, 2382916
4) U.S. declared war on Great Britain., 06/18/1812, Thursday, 2383048
5) British captured Detroit., 08/16/1812, Sunday, 2383107
6) The Battle of Lake Erie; Commodore Perry, 09/10/1813, Friday, 2383497
7) Nazi war criminals hanged in Nuremberg., 10/16/1946, Wednesday, 2432110
8) Gary Powers in U-2 Reconnaissance Plane shot down over USSR.,05/01/1960, Sunday, 2437056
9) US breaks relations with Cuba., 01/03/1961, Tuesday, 2437303
10) Yuri Gargarin; first manned orbital flight., 04/12/1961, Wednesday, 2437402
11) The Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba., 04/17/1961, Monday, 2437407
12) Alan Shepard; first U.S. manned space flight., 05/05/1961, Friday, 2437425
13) James Meredith; first black student at Univ. of Mississippi.,10/01/1962, Monday, 2437939

Now for the Analysis.

Here is my Matrix of Weeks. It's built just like yours, so you should have
no trouble interpreting my results.

date#, Adamic

1, 2122689
2, 2122727, 5
3, 2122742, 8, 2
4, 2122874, 26, 21, 19
5, 2122933, 35, 29, 27, 8
6, 2123323, 91, 85, 83, 64, 56
7, 2171936, 7035,7030,7028,7009,7000,6945
8, 2176882, 7742,7736,7734,7715,7707,7651, 707
9, 2177129, 7777,7772,7770,7751,7742,7687, 742, 35
10, 2177228, 7791,7786,7784,7765,7756,7701, 756, 49, 14
11, 2177233, 7792,7787,7784,7766,7757,7701, 757, 50, 15, 1
12, 2177251, 7795,7789,7787,7768,7760,7704, 759, 53, 17, 3, 3
13, 2177765, 7868,7863,7860,7842,7833,7777, 833, 126, 91, 77, 76, 73
ID # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Because I'm only using a couple of centuries, I don't get quite as big
numbers as you.

But I get plenty of digits to explore the probabilities!

I obtain 240 digits overall, distributed thus:

0 , 18 , 7.5 %
1 , 15 , 6.25 %
2 , 13 , 5.416667 %
3 , 16 , 6.666667 %
4 , 12 , 5 %
5 , 20 , 8.333333 %
6 , 20 , 8.333333 %
7 , 94 , 39.16667 %
8 , 20 , 8.333333 %
9 , 12 , 5 %

As you can see, I have over 39% 7's, better than your 35%.

I encourage you to verify this calculation; all you need to do is plug my
Adamic dates into your program, and see what results.

Let's look at the Chi-square calculation now.

Here is my table, modeled on yours.

N=13, ei = 240/10 = 24.

oi , zi = ABS(oi - ei)

n0 , 18 , 6
n1 , 15 , 9
n2 , 13 , 11
n3 , 16 , 8
n4 , 12 , 12
n5 , 20 , 4
n6 , 20 , 4
n7 , 94 , 70
n8 , 20 , 4
n9 , 12 , 12
--------------

My sum of the zi^2 is 5538, and so u = 5538/ei = 5538/24 = 230.75;
My Probability for the matrix is thus P = exp(-u/2)/gamma, where
gamma = [(2*pi*240)^9 p1*p2*...p0]^(1/2) [NOTE - shouldn't (2*pi*240) be
raised to the 10th power? You are using 10 digits; nonetheless, I'll stick
with 9 here so as to follow your development to the letter.]

My gamma comes out as 2.008x10^9 ; please feel free to check it. (I
reproduced your results prior to calculating mine).

Thus, P = exp(-u/2)/gamma = exp(-230.75)/2.008x10^9 = 3.8951 x 10^-60 .

This is a little larger than yours, but you surely realize how SMALL a
result of 10^-60 is;
why the chances of winning our Powerball lottery with just one ticket are a
whopping 1.25*10^-8 !!!!

That is, I have better than 10^51 times chance to win the lottery than I
do to get such a matrix by picking random dates!

Finally, let's look at pairs, triplets, and etc. Following your
development, I have:

2 pair 0's: 0.01^2 = 10^-4
2 pair 3's: 0.01^2 = 10^-4
2 pair 6's: 0.01^2 = 10^-4
25 pair 7's: 0.01^25 = 10^-50
1 pair 8's: 0.01^1 = 10^-2
1 triple 0's: 0.001^1 = 10^-3
6 triple 7's: 0.001^6 = 10^-18
2 quadruple 7's: 0.0001^2 = 10^-8

TOTAL PROBABILITY: 10^-93.

This isn't as small as yours (10^-130), but 10^-93 is SO SMALL that the
conclusion is the same.

You said "NOW IT IS UP TO YOU TO DUPLICATE OUR MATRIX OF 7'S

USING SOME OTHER NATIONAL HISTORICAL RECORD."

And that is exactly what I have done.

Have fun checking out all the details!

I'll be interested in your comments, and those of your critics.

All best from New Mexico,

Dave

Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000
From: Eugene Faulstich <chri@ncn.net>
To: "Dave Thomas, NMSR" <det@rt66.com>
Subject: The Chronology of the United States of America

Hi Dave,

I will check out the details as soon as possible, but it seems up front that you are already admitting defeat.
You claim to equal the findings of ours, yet you admit you did not equal them, and you still want me to give
you an A+ for a good job. So shooting from the hip, here is an immediate response:

Exceptions on your part:

1. You do not allow for predictions beforehand.
2. You will not allow for an independent professional comment afterward.

Claims on your part:

1. You can find 13 valid dates from American history
2. That produce an equally compelling matrix of 7’s

Lets look at your data to see if it complies with your claims.

1. 13 valid dates from American history
a. The World Book Encyclopedia lists over 120 dates as key to American history.
Only one of them appears in your list, the date US declared war on Britain.
b. The same source lists 33 major quakes. It does not include any of the 3 Madrid quakes as major quakes.

2. Equally compelling matrix of 7’s
a. There is no question that your statistics, even though they are not based on insignificant American history,
do not match mine.

Best regards,

Gene

Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000
From: "Dave Thomas, NMSR" <det@rt66.com>
To:Eugene Faulstich <chri@ncn.net>
Subject: The Chronology of the United States of America.

>Hi Dave,
>
>I will check out the details as soon as possible, but it seems up front that you are already admitting defeat.
>You claim to equal the findings of ours, yet you admit you did not equal them, and you still want me to give
>you an A+ for a good job. So shooting from the hip, here is an immediate response:

I did not admit defeat. I achieved BETTER than you on percentages of 7's;

do you agree that 39 is a bigger number than 35?

My pairs/triples/quads statistic was larger than yours, BUT 10^-93 IS BILLIONS AND BILLIONS AND BILLIONS OF TIMES SMALLER THAN THE CHANCE OF WINNING A $100,000 MILLION LOTTERY WITH A SINGLE $1 TICKET.

Come on, Eugene. Is 10^-93 "small" or not?

Likewise, my chi-square calculation was larger than yours, BUT 10^-60 IS ALSO BILLIONS AND BILLIONS AND BILLIONS OF TIMES SMALLER THAN THE CHANCE OF WINNING A $100,000 MILLION LOTTERY WITH A SINGLE $1 TICKET.

Come on, Eugene. Is 10^-60 "small" or not?

>Exceptions on your part:
>1. You do not allow for predictions beforehand.
>2. You will not allow for an independent professional comment afterward.

Of course I will allow for an independent professional comment. You can publish it anywhere you want (and are able) to. If I write this up for Skeptical Inquirer (and they are interested!), you can also write letters of comment to that journal, and they will probably be printed. I have said I would include some of your reviewers' comments in my articles; more than that I am not obligated to do.

>Claims on your part:
>1. You can find 13 valid dates from American history
>2. That produce an equally compelling matrix of 7’s

>Lets look at your data to see if it complies with your claims.
>1. 13 valid dates from American history
>a. The World Book Encyclopedia lists over 120 dates as key to American history.
>Only one of them appears in your list, the date US declared war on Britain.

This is the first time you have mentioned that I was to be confined in my source of historical events. That's not fair, Gene. You never mentioned that I had to restrict myself to the World Book Encyclopedia. That's changing the rules after the game has started, and that's not fair. My dates are all very significant events; but you want me to restrict myself to a book that doesn't mention the first American in space? The Battle of Lake Erie? The Bay of Pigs? Not fair!

Re the Madrid earthquakes: did you notice I used all three quakes? Not just the second, or the third, or etc.

You are quibbling over the events I chose. Fact is, they're all significant, and provide a compelling "chronology" THAT HAS MORE 7'S THAN ISRAEL'S.

>b. The same source lists 33 major quakes. It does not include any of the 3 Madrid quakes as major quakes.

You know, there have been more than 33 quakes in history. This is more quibbling and nit-picking.

>2. Equally compelling matrix of 7’s
>a. There is no question that your statistics, even though they are not based on insignificant American history,
>do not match mine.

Is 10^-93 a small number? YES!!!!!

Is 10^-60 a small number? YES!!!!!

Why don't you deal with the realities, Gene? Is quibbling with the events I chose the best you can do?

I got more 7's per digit than you, and my associated probilities are INCREDIBLY SMALL.

If you think I haven't equaled your result because of a few powers of ten, then why not see how long you can feed your family on 10^-60 of a A MILLION BILLION BILLION DOLLARS!!!!

>Best regards,
>Gene

Gene, at least I got my dates right.

Why haven't you commented on your use of the wrong date for the hangings at Nuremberg?

Don't you realize that this destroys one of your special "100,000 weeks" comparisons?

Are you going to correct the error, and lose your 100,000 weeks event?

Or will you just go back and tweak the date of Passover of CE 30?

Sincerely, Dave

Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000
From: Eugene Faulstich <chri@ncn.net>
To: "Dave Thomas, NMSR" <det@rt66.com>
Subject: The Chronology of the United States of America

Hi Dave,

You claimed to be able to equal our work Dave, yet you admitted that you had done an inferior job, so what's the beef?
Your agenda is to mock G-d, the one who wrote and defended Himself as the author of the history of Israel.
Take it from an old man Dave.
You will lose when you fight against G-d!

Best Regards,

Gene

Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000
From: "Dave Thomas, NMSR" <det@rt66.com>
To:Eugene Faulstich <chri@ncn.net>
Subject: The Chronology of the United States of America.

I have admitted no such thing!

I claim that 10^-60 and 10^-93 are VERY SMALL PROBABILITIES.

I also claim that 39 IS A BIGGER NUMBER THAN 35.

Here's the real question:

Do you agree that 39 is bigger than 35?

If you do, then I have done a SUPERIOR job.

If you don't, then you need to go back to grade school.

The ball is in your court.

Sincerely, Dave

PS: I'm sorry that you see my efforts as "mocking" G-d.

My personal religious faith is that G-d does not play silly mind games like your patterns of 7's.

My personal religious faith is that G-d did not make the earth look like it's billions of years old just to fool everyone; I think it IS that old, and that G-d is Honest.

My personal religious faith is that G-d created evolution as his method for bringing forth life to His Creation.

I don't see myself as "fighting" G-d; I do see myself as fighting to oppose those who twist and distort science in misguided efforts to prop up their insecure faith.

Now, if you're so sure that the patterns of 7's proves the Bible is absolutely true, why not expand your matrix to more than just 13 dates?

If Jacob's birth is an important event (as you say), then why isn't IT in your matrix of dates?

HOW LARGE A MATRIX CAN YOU BUILD AND STILL GET A LARGER-THAN-CHANCE DISTRIBUTION OF 7's?

Please tell me (A) THE ORDER OF THE MATRIX (13, 23, 35, etc.) and
(B) THE PERCENTAGE OF 7's (35%, 40%, etc.)

Also, if you want me to take you seriously, please don't try to frighten me with your warnings of G-d's Wrath; instead, how about answering my query regarding your mistaken assigment of the Nuremberg hangings date? YOU GOT THE DATE WRONG - WHY SHOULD I BE IMPRESSED WITH A MATRIX BUILT UPON *INCORRECT* DATES?

Sincerely, Dave

Dave,

Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000
From: Eugene Faulstich <chri@ncn.net>
To: "Dave Thomas, NMSR" <det@rt66.com>
CC: "Wagner, Dr. Curt" <krunchkaptain@excite.com>
Subject: The Chronology of the United States of America

DT> I'm sorry that you see my efforts as "mocking" G-d.

The Tenach tells it like it is. G-d is not a liar. To scoff at the simple straight forward language of Moses is to “mock G-d.”

My personal religious faith is that G-d does not play silly mind games like your patterns of 7's.

G-d sanctified the seventh day and made it holy (Gen. 2:1-3). Do you believe that the Shabbat is holy? Why is it holy? Because G-d wants us to see the truth through our reason (Isa. 1:18). How does He show us the truth through reason? He did it by predicting the future and then making it happen through the history of the Nation Israel (Isa.48:5-7). Furthermore, Moses taught us to study the history of our fathers and to learn from it that Israel was His own chosen people (Dt. 32:6-9). Why would G-d teach us to believe a lie? Isn’t it more logical to trust Moses than to trust a system which cannot allow G-d into the equation? This especially in light of the fact that we can test the historical record of Moses but we cannot test the “theory” of evolution. See

http://www.ncn.net/~chri/html/biblechro.html

My personal religious faith is that G-d did not make the earth look like it's billions of years old just to fool everyone; I think it IS that old, and that G-d is Honest.

God did not make the earth look old, the theory of evolution claims it is old. The layers of sediment you see are a result of washing action of the flood of Noah. They are not nicely laid down layers over billions of years of time with clean marks which prove an abrupt rather than a gradual change.

 My personal religious faith is that G-d created evolution as his method for bringing forth life to His Creation.

You believe a deception. G-d did not create in chaos (Isa. 45:18). He created the universe in six days, and according to Moses, when it was finished, it was “very good” (Gen. 2:3). For proof see

http://www.ncn.net/~chri/html/biblechro.html

 I don't see myself as "fighting" G-d; I do see myself as fighting to oppose those who twist and distort science in misguided efforts to prop up their insecure faith.

 I am not a theologian. I am an engineer. I did not get involved in this work to prop up my faith. I got into it to try to settle the arguments which permeate all religions. It happened that my method was to examine the historical record of the Hebrews as well as other ancient civilizations through the absolute science of astronomy. The major difference in all religious schools is dependent on the age of the universe. If the universe is old, Moses is a liar. If Moses is a liar, the Bible is a lie, and who wants to be a fool and follow a lie? If you have irrefutable scientific proof that Moses was right, why not tell others about it. There is no proof that the universe is billions of years old. This depends entirely on the concept that there is no G-d, and that the universe formed itself out of nothing, and then all by itself it progressively ordered itself. Surely you would not claim that matter can create itself out of nothing, and that order can come out of disorder all by itself!

 Now, if you're so sure that the patterns of 7's proves the Bible is absolutely true, why not expand your matrix to more than just 13 dates?

 I have already done this. Please examine the web sites

 http://www.ncn.net/~chri/html/paternyear.html

 http://www.ncn.net/~chri/html/paternweek.html

 http://www.ncn.net/~chri/html/paterndays.html

 There are myriads of patterns which depend on the precise year of Creation. The patterns of sevens are just a start.

 If Jacob's birth is an important event (as you say), then why isn't IT in your matrix of dates?

 It is important. I did not include it because I wanted to keep the matrix as simple as possible. But please see the above three web sites and look for Jacob.

HOW LARGE A MATRIX CAN YOU BUILD AND STILL GET A LARGER-THAN-CHANCE DISTRIBUTION OF 7's?

The larger you build the matrix, the lower go the chances. This helps to show that the key dates in Israel’s history were G-d ordained.

Also, if you want me to take you seriously, please don't try to frighten me with your warnings of G-d's Wrath;

I cannot frighten you any more than you can frighten me. I have a right to express my beliefs just like you have been doing to me. Your teaching did not instill fear in my heart! If my teaching instills fear in your heart, perhaps that is G-d’s doing, not mine. It is called “conscience.”

how about answering my query regarding your mistaken assignment of the Nuremberg hangings date? YOU GOT THE DATE WRONG - WHY SHOULD I BE IMPRESSED WITH A MATRIX BUILT UPON *INCORRECT* DATES?

The Nuremberg “error” as you call it, was two days off. How did that modify the patterns of weeks? That would have made this particular pattern two days away from being full weeks. If we use this same criticism in the testing of your matrix, we have only nine dates which are not “full weeks.” The rest of them are decimals.

Sincerely, Gene

 PS I have taken the liberty to send our recent mail to Dr Wagner, since you suggested it in one of your previous letters.

Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000
From: "Dave Thomas, NMSR" <det@rt66.com>
To:Eugene Faulstich <chri@ncn.net>
Subject: The Chronology of the United States of America.

Hello Gene.

The .JPG file you sent (Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Percentages jpg") was corrupt. I could not open it with any graphics programs. What did it say?

Now on to the discussion.

You seem to be evading my rather direct questions, as usual.

I will ask again.

HOW LARGE A MATRIX CAN YOU BUILD AND STILL GET A LARGER-THAN-CHANCE

DISTRIBUTION OF 7's?

The largest matrix I saw in all of your web pages was N=13, with 35% 7's.

I am looking for TWO NUMBERS, and associated ADAMIC DATES, from you:

The FIRST NUMBER is the rank of the patterns matrix. I have seen your matrix with order N=13.

WHAT IS THE LARGEST MATRIX ORDER, N, THAT YOU HAVE ACHIEVED COMPELLING RESULTS FOR? DO YOU HAVE RESULTS FOR N LARGER THAN THIRTEEN?

I repeat: the FIRST number I want is N. Is N 13? 20? 25?

The SECOND NUMBER I am asking you for is the PERCENTAGE OF 7'S FOR THE MATRIX OF ORDER N.

Let's call this second number P, for percentage.

All I have seen so far is N=13, P=35%.

WHAT IS YOUR LARGEST N, AND WHAT IS THE ASSOCIATED P?

I'm having a lot of trouble printing your web pages. Please do not simply refer me to a web page. The information I need is very concise: a single number N, a single percentage P, and the N Adamic dates (+ event titles if you wish). Please send them as straight text.

>The larger you build the matrix, the lower go the chances. This helps
>to show that the key dates in Israel’s history were G-d ordained.

I don't understand this sentence. Does "lower go the chances" mean that percentage P gets smaller? Or larger?

WHAT IS YOUR LARGEST N, AND WHAT IS THE ASSOCIATED P? WHAT ARE THE N ADAMIC DATES?

>If you
>have irrefutable scientific proof that Moses was right, why not tell
>others about it. There is no proof that the universe is billions of
>years old.

Your last sentence above is simply false. The proof you claim does not exist can be found in libraries and labs all over the world.

I have recommended Brent Dalrymple's book _The Age of the Earth_ (Stanford U. Press, 1991) to you; have you read it yet? If you want to move beyond "The earth is young because Eugene says so," perhaps you should actually read Dalrymple and consider the cold, hard evidence that the earth is 4.54 BILLION YEARS OLD.

Be that as it may, what I'm really interested in today is :

WHAT IS YOUR LARGEST N, AND WHAT IS THE ASSOCIATED P? WHAT ARE THE N ADAMIC DATES?

Gene, you are the one who claims to have "IRREFUTABLE SCIENTIFIC PROOF THAT MOSES WAS RIGHT."

Let's see it, OK?

Please start by supplying the matrix order N (>13), percentage P, and the N Adamic dates.

Without trying very hard, I have already achieved P>28% for N=23, using valid dates from the Chronology of the United States.

CAN YOU DO BETTER?

Sincerely, Dave

Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000
From: "Dave Thomas, NMSR" <det@rt66.com>
To:Eugene Faulstich <chri@ncn.net>
Subject: The Chronology of the United States of America.

Hello Gene.

How are you doing with your larger-than-thirteen-date Matrix?

You wrote that you didn't include Jacob's Birthday in your 13-date patterns matrix because "I wanted to keep the matrix as simple as possible."

I suspect that the REAL reason is that Jacob's Birthday doesn't have ANY 7's when week differences are calculated between Jacob's birth and the 13 dates of your special matrix.

Your patterns of 7's are hard to obtain for large groups of dates, because G-d didn't put them in the Bible.

This much is obvious. You have found a cluster of 7's here, and another over there, but they DON'T WORK TOGETHER. You have produced a hodgepodge of different results. This is NOT a "strong signal" that your patterns were put there by G-d. I happen to believe that if G-d wanted to impress his readers with patterns, He would have made them MUCH stronger.

The patterns don't come from G-d or Moses, Gene. They come from YOU.

I am quite confident that your 7's patterns are pseudoscience. If they were based on REAL science, then you would have thanked me for finding errors in your dates, and corrected them on your website. You have done neither. I just checked on your page at http://www.ncn.net/~chri/html/paternweek.html, and it still has 700,000 days for the 2nd "100,000 Weeks of Jacob," and not the actual value of 699,998 . No, you have not responded to this error correction; instead, you have simply attempted to deflect my legitimate criticism of YOUR "SCIENTIFIC" ANALYSIS by accusing me of "mocking" G-d.

I try to discuss your statistics, and you accuse me of "fighting" G-d. This is a cheap debate tactic.

You have yet to acknowledge that my matrix of 13 US history dates has a higher percentage of 7's (39%) than your Israel matrix. Instead, you have focused on two associated statistics - pairs/triples/quads and chi-squared - for which we BOTH obtain EXTREMELY SMALL NUMBERS. In both cases, both of our answers amount to probabilities of ZERO. The only significant difference in our developments is in the real, countable percentage of 7's - and I have achieved 4% BETTER than you did.

I don't think G-d put the 7's in there Gene - I think YOU did.

I'm still waiting for the dates and percentage for your larger-than-13 Matrix.

CAN YOU DO BETTER than 28% with 23 dates?

How long will I have to wait for the answer to this question?

I am maintaining the letters web page at http://www.nmsr.org/sabbaths.htm, but it is getting so long that I have added a Discussion Page, at http://www.nmsr.org/patterns.htm. You should check them out.

Sincerely, Dave

Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000
From:Curt Wagner <krunchkaptain@excite.com>
To: "Dave Thomas, NMSR" <det@rt66.com>
CC: "Wagner, Dr. Curt" <krunch@ssu.southwest.msus.edu>
Subject: Faulstich-Thomas "debate" on "Patterns of 7's"

Dear Dave,

After following the "7's debate" for over a month, I finally found a little time to contact you personally. The basic questions you were trying to get Gene to answer (N and P for larger matrices of Israelite historical events) have already been answered by the rather extensive calculations I did last fall independently of Gene. Without asking any advice or suggestions from him I assembled matrices of 16,17,20,and 24 events that were chosen without regard to calculated results but only to the spiritual significance. These results have been published by the CHRI and posted to the web site mentioned to you by Gene. How you missed them I do not know, but for your benefit I will repeat them:

http://www.ncn.net/~chri/html/fomula.html

http://www.mashiach6000.org/intervention.html

http://www.mashiach6000.org/appendix.html

Please consult these pages for all the tables and discussion. I do not have time to expand upon them right now as our computer lab is closing and tomorrow we head west for our vacation, but I will expand upon everything from friends' computers in Washington. Please reply to my excite.com address as I can check that easily on the road. With all my regards and hopes to continue, I am sincerely, Dr. Curt Wagner

Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000
From: "Dave Thomas, NMSR" <det@rt66.com>
To:Curt Wagner <krunchkaptain@excite.com>
Subject: Re: Faulstich-Thomas "debate" on "Patterns of 7's"

Dear Curt,

Thanks for your letter! Comments follow.

At 02:31 PM 7/27/00 -0700, you wrote:

>Dear Dave,
> After following the "7's debate" for over a month, I finally found a
>little time to contact you personally. The basic questions you were trying
>to get Gene to answer (N and P for larger matrices of Israelite historical
>events) have already been answered by the rather extensive calculations I
>did last fall independently of Gene. Without asking any advice or
>suggestions from him I assembled matrices of 16,17,20,and 24 events that
>were chosen without regard to calculated results but only to the spiritual
>significance. These results have been published by the CHRI and posted to
>the web site mentioned to you by Gene. How you missed them I do not know,
>but for your benefit I will repeat them:
>
> http://www.ncn.net/~chri/html/fomula.html
> www.mashiach6000.org/intervention.html
> www.mashiach6000.org/appendix.html

Thank you for sending the first URL. The last two did not work at all for me - bad addresses?

On http://www.ncn.net/~chri/html/fomula.html, you mention the "very obvious overabundance of the digit 7 in all 5 charts ...", where the 5 charts have 13, 16, 17, 20, and 24 dates respectively in the matrix. So here, the claim is made that a compelling over-abundance of 7's appears for n=24, etc.

The reason I hadn't realized that this was indeed the answer to my query to Gene Faulstich (as yet un-answered by him) is that I got the completely opposite impression when I read the .PDF file Gene sent me some time ago (file name P3provin.pdf). On that page, it mentions the analysis of Drs. Gutman and Wagner, and this quote was what got me thinking the augmented (larger) matrices did NOT show compelling 7's:

"However, when we add group R2 of 4 recent events involving (so-called) peace treaties between Israel and her Arab neighbors we now see a significant change in the probabilities listed in the last column. The probabilities now all increase, which is an indication that these added events are really random events not continuing the previous pattern of "loaded dice" or external influence on the sequence of historical events for Israel. .."

This is the same group R2 of dates which give you a matrix of 24, as appears on http://www.ncn.net/~chri/html/fomula.html, where you mention the "very obvious overabundance of the digit 7 in all 5 charts."

I hope you can see how I thought the purpose of the 24-rank matrix was to show modern events did NOT resonate 7-wise with earlier special dates.

> Please consult these pages for all the tables and discussion. I do not
>have time to expand upon them right now as our computer lab is closing and
>tomorrow we head west for our vacation, but I will expand upon everything
>from friends' computers in Washington. Please reply to my excite.com address
>as I can check that easily on the road. With all my regards and hopes to
>continue, I am sincerely, Dr. Curt Wagner
>

I have been studying the web page (http://www.ncn.net/~chri/html/fomula.html), and I have some questions regarding the formula for multiple "births" of k or more 7's , using the "binomial distribution."

It's useful to have a detailed, yet simple example, and I choose the matrix of 13 dates shown as a "mileage chart" on Faulstich's web pages. You have assumed that the maximum difference between any pair of dates, in weeks, is 199,999, and counted how many numbers between 0 and 199,999 have one or more 7's (81902), two or more 7's (16292), three or more 7's (1712), and so on. In addition, you have listed counts for actual hits for at least one 7 (55 in the Faulstich 13-date matrix), two or more 7's (35 entries), three or more 7's (19 entries), and so on.

There are 78 numbers to choose from (78 pairs, = 13 things 2 at a time = 13*12/2 = 78).

The formula you use for the Binomial Distrubution looks like this: (please forgive my typesetting).

P (at least one 7) = (n - n7)^(m-m7) * n7^m7 / n^m , where n = 199,999, n7 = 81,902 (= how many numbers between 0 and 199999 have one or more 7's), m = 78 (pairs), m7 = 55 (actual hits), and "^" mains "raised to the power...";

so for m7=55, P = (199999 - 81902)^(78-55) * 81902^55 / 199999^78.

This is tricky to evaluate, but using logarithms I found that P = 2.58536x10^(-27), exactly as you have indicated on your page.

In fact, for ANY value of m7, the probability works out to:

P = exp(-41.09087157 - 0.36598291*m7)

Put in m7 = 55, out pops P = 2.58536x10^(-27);

Put in m7 = 0, out pops 1.43x10^(-18), as big as it gets!

If you put in all the possible values of m7 (from 0 hits to 78 hits, i..e the entire Universe of possibilities) and sum the probabilities, what do you get? You get 4.65641x10^(-18).

I don't know just what you have concocted here, but I do know that it is NO "probability distribution."

Do you have a reference for the development you used?

I decided to take an independent approach. Here is how I think Binomial Distributions should be applied to this problem.

First, the number of Trials (or attempts) to get cool numbers. This number is your m, = 78 pairs to play with.

Second, the probability of success. There are 199999 possible numbers that could appear in any one of the 78 entries, and exactly 81902 of these possibles have one or more 7's; therefore, the probability that any ONE CELL of the matrix has one or more 7's is p = 81902/199999 = 0.4095...; the probability that any ONE CELL has NO 7's is q = 1-p = 0.5905 or so.

I think it may be reasonable to not use the arbitrary choice of 199,999 but instead, use the actual maximum value from your matrix. For the Faulstich 13-date patterns matrix, the biggest difference is 177852; I wrote a little counting program, and found the number of possible 7's-holders for n=177852 was 72877. Thus, you could use p = 72877/177852 = 0.4098 or so, very close to the 0.4095 valus for n=199999.

Do you agree this [using 72877/177852 instead of 81902/199999] is reasonable?

Now, the Binomial Distribution for the likelihood of getting m7=55 successes out of m=78 trials, where p = 81902/199999 = 0.4095..., and q = 0.5905, is

P(m7 = 55) = [78 things 55 at a time] * 0.4095^55 * 0.5905^(78-55), or in general,

P(X = m7) = [binomial coefficient for m things m7 at a time] * p^m7 * q^(m-m7)

= m!/(m7!*(m-m7)!) * p^m7 * q^(m-m7)

For p = 0.4095, m7 = 55, I get P(m7 = 55) = 8.91984x10^(-8), QUITE A BIT LARGER than your 10^(-27) figure!

When I plot this probability function for m7 = 0 to 78 (i.e. ALL POSSIBLE VALUES OF m7), I get a nice Bell Curve, with a peak at m7=32, and a P=0.0915 there. (That means you have about a 1 in 11 chance to get EXACTLY 32 "hits" in a 78-entry matrix.) To get the chances of getting AT LEAST m7 = 32 numbers with >=one 7, you would add P(m7=32) to P(m7=33) and so on, all the way to P(m7=78), to yield 0.537, or better than 50% chance of getting AT LEAST 32 hits!

The really nice thing about this function is that, the sum of P(X=m7) for m7 ranging from 0 to 78 is 1.0000000000, as is required for any probability distribution.

I have much more to say on my own USA-based larger than 13 matrices, but I want to try to get some consensus on the statistics first.

Can we resolve this problem about the Binomial Distribution? To summarize the discussion above bluntly, you present something that I contend is NOT a probability distribution; it doesn't even sum to 1.0000 over the problem space. Can you explain this?

I'm going to have a second look at the chi-squared analysis also.

Just so you know I _am_ reading your pages, you might want to check the sums-of-digits entries on your web page unde Group C+W1+R1+R2. For n1, you have 226; it should be 225. For n3, you have 76; it should be 77. For n8, you have 118; it should be 119. For n9, you have 108; it should be 109. I calculated these myself as a way to make sure I understand your statistics. But, they appear correctly on other pages (like the PDF Gene sent to me).

I am looking forward to your comments about your "binomial distribution."

With all best regards,

Dave Thomas

Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000
From: "Dave Thomas, NMSR" <det@rt66.com>
To:Curt Wagner <krunchkaptain@excite.com>
CC:chri@ncn.net (Eugene Faulstich)
Subject: Re: Binomial Distribution - found the error!

Dear Curt,

I think I have figured out the Problem.

The formula you use for the Binomial Distrubution looks like this: (again, forgive my typesetting).

P (at least one 7) = (n - n7)^(m-m7) * n7^m7 / n^m ,

where n = 199,999, n7 = 81,902 (= how many numbers between 0 and 199999 have one or more 7's), m = 78 (pairs), m7 = 55 (actual hits), and "^" mains "raised to the power...";

so for m7=55, P = (199999 - 81902)^(78-55) * 81902^55 / 199999^78.

This can be re-written as [(1999999-81902)/(199999)]^(78-55) * [81902/199999]^55,

which is identically equal to the quantity I wrote as q^(78-55) * p^55,

where p = 81902/199999 = 0.409512047..., and q = 1-p = (199999-81902)/199999 = 0.590487952....

So, your formula is PART of the answer, but you left out the (78,55) [78 things 55 at a time] binomial coefficient part, which is (78,55) = 78!/(55!*23!) = 3.45013x10^(19). (That's how many ways you can choose 55 objects from a pool of 78).

In fact, for ANY value of m7, the p^m7 * q^(m-m7) part of the probability works out to:

P = exp(-41.09087157 - 0.36598291*m7) [the first time I sent this it had an extraneous "*" symbol)]

Put in m7 = 55, m=78, and out pops P = 2.58536x10^(-27);

now multiply by 3.45013x10^(19) to get 8.9198 x 10^(-8), which is exactly what I got in my first letter to you:

>For p = 0.4095, m7 = 55, I get P(m7 = 55) = 8.91984x10^(-8), QUITE A BIT
>LARGER than your 10^(-27) figure!

Do you agree that you neglected to include the binomial coefficient multipliers I have mentioned in your "binomial distribution" ?

With all best regards,

Dave Thomas

Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2000
From: "Dave Thomas, NMSR" <det@rt66.com>
To:Eugene Faulstich <chri@ncn.net>
CC:"Wagner, Dr. Curt" <krunchkaptain@excite.com>
Subject: Re: Sabbath Patterns Paper

Gene, I haven't heard from you since July 19th, more than two weeks ago.

Curt, I haven't heard from you since July 27th, more than one week ago.

Gentlemen, please recall that YOU both approached ME, and have asked me to evaluate and study your claims regarding Sabbath Patterns. I have invested considerable hours doing so.

I have a deadline of less than one week to complete my chapter for a forthcoming Prometheus book, in which I will be discussing these Sabbath Patterns at length.

If I don't hear from either of you, I plan to proceed with the information I have at hand. I have more than enough material to produce a riveting and interesting article.

Gene, the .JPG file you sent earlier (Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Percentages jpg") was corrupt. I could not open it with any graphics programs. I asked you what was in it, but you have vanished. What did it say?

Curt, the web sites you mentioned

www.mashiach6000.org/intervention.html

www.mashiach6000.org/appendix.html

STILL don't work. What do they say?

Curt, did you get the letter where I explained how your probability calculation left out the binomial coefficients, and was thus more than a BILLION BILLION times TOO SMALL? The error is still posted on your web page.

Gentlemen, I have left you both with queries that remain unresolved.

Are you both "passing me off with a swipe of the hand?"

If you have any comments on my work thus far that you wish me to consider for mention in my book chapter (and possibly a magazine article too), you should get them to me at your earliest possible convenience.

If you wish to contest or explain the errors I have brought to your attention, please do so promptly, or I will have no recourse but to publish and explain them to the best of my ability.

Sincerely, Dave Thomas

Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000
From:Curt Wagner <krunchkaptain@excite.com>
To: "Dave Thomas, NMSR" <det@rt66.com>
CC: Eugene Faulstich <chri@ncn.net>
Subject: Your unanswered messages...

Dear Dave,

I'm sorry for not answering you sooner, but I just got back from the first part of our 40-day western saga during which we were either up in the mountain wilderness of Montana (not too far from the forest fires around Helena) or with friends in British Columbia who did not have a computer! Judging by your last e-mail of 8/4/00 This response will be too late for your deadlines, but I need to respond to you anyway to clear up the communication problems. The error in the binomial distribution multipliers which you pointed out in your e-mails of 7/29/00 was unfortunately not noticed last fall before it got posted to the ncn.net/~chri website and printed in a short 8-page publication, but it was quickly corrected and published in an expanded 16-page version which is available from CHRI; it was also corrected on the other web site (mashiach6000.org) which for some reason you have been unable to read. The mathematical notation unfortunately does not reproduce very well there, so you should have Gene send you a hardcopy of the 16 page publication which of course includes all of the corrected tables of probabilities. The conclusions restated there remain the same even with the somewhat larger (though incredibly tiny) values, i.e. that the patterns of 7s for larger matrices demonstrate the non-random nature of those patterns up until we begin to include modern events involving the so-called "peace process".

I should be able to check my e-mail rather regularly from now until we get back to Minnesota by September 7, so I would be happy to continue the correspondence and try to answer any further questions that you may have. I have expanded the type and scope of calculations since those referred to above, which were completed by last December. In fact they are leading me to a quantum mechanical type of model for the history of Israel which I would love to share with you after I am back in Minnesota; perhaps we might even be able to get together in person on a trip I may make to NM in the future.

I look forward to your continuing interest and replies. Sincerely,

Dr.Curt Wagner

Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000
From: "Dave Thomas, NMSR" <det@rt66.com>
To: Curt Wagner <krunchkaptain@excite.com>
CC:chri@ncn.net (Gene Faulstich)
Subject: Re: Your unanswered messages...

Dear Curt,

Thanks for your reply. I had figured you and Gene decided to stop corresponding with me.

And perhaps Gene has. I have not heard from him for weeks.

I'm still working on my book chapter, and will wrap it up this weekend. So, you did get to me in time, but barely.

I certainly would like to see the web pages you mentioned, but the problem is not that I am "unable to read them." The problem is that the specified documents do not exist on your server.

When I attempt to go to

http://www.mashiach6000.org/intervention.html

I get this message:

File Not Found
The requested URL was not found on this server.

When I attempt to go to

http://www.mashiach6000.org/appendix.html

I get the same message:

File Not Found
The requested URL was not found on this server.

Can you or Gene give me the correct address for these documents? It would be helpful.

Gene, would you please send me a copy of the 16-page report Curt mentioned? If you sent it priority mail, I should get it by the weekend. Send it to: Dave Thomas, P.O. Box 1017, Peralta, NM 87042-1017.

Or, you could FAX it to me at work.

If that's better, just let me know, and I'll send you my FAX number.

Thanks, Curt, for the reply.

Sincerely,

Dave Thomas

Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000
From: Eugene Faulstich <chri@ncn.net>
To: "Dave Thomas, NMSR" <det@rt66.com>
CC: "Wagner, Dr. Curt" <krunchkaptain@excite.com>
Subject: Re: Your unanswered messages...

Look Dave,

All I asked you to do is to comment on my web pages.

I did not challenge your position, nor did I attempt to make a mockery of it.

>From the inset, you have indicated that you were able to receive my web pages.

Now all of the sudden you claim that you cannot.

You have accused me of pre planning my dates to fit patterns.

I have proven to you that the dates were established long before computer programs were available to test them.

Computer programs then found the dates to be on the correct day of the week, and they were also found them to form patterns.

You have deliberately lied.

You, on the other hand, have made a mockery of the patterns which are obviously present in Jewish history, by picking every nonsense date in American history, and claiming that these dates are recognized as important to American history, yet there is only one ot these dates which popular encyclopedias claim significant to American history.

You claimed to be able to match these patterns, and when you could not, you defended your forced dates as having "reeeeeeeeealy small chances,", --- though they did not match the Biblical date patterns which we had found.

Your agenda is not to find truth, it is to make a mockery of G-d's actions in Israeli history.

Look Dave, print what you want in your article. The truth will find you out.

If Dr. Wagner wants to waste his time on you, OK, otherwise, I have better things to do than to play games with fools.

Gene

Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000
From: "Dave Thomas, NMSR" <det@rt66.com>
To:chri@ncn.net (Gene Faulstich)
CC:Curt Wagner <krunchkaptain@excite.com>
Subject: Re: Your unanswered messages...

>Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 14:59:08 +0100
>From: Eugene Faulstich <chri@ncn.net>
>Reply-To: chri@ncn.net
>Organization: CHRI
>To: Dave Thomas <det@rt66.com>, "Wagner, Dr. Curt" <krunchkaptain@excite.com>
>Subject: Re: Your unanswered messages...
>
>Look Dave,
>
>All I asked you to do is to comment on my web pages.
>
>I did not challenge your position, nor did I attempt to make a mockery of it.
>From the inset, you have indicated that you were able to receive my web pages.
>
>Now all of the sudden you claim that you cannot.

Please read the mail again. Dr. Wagner sent me addresses that did not work. I have repeatedly asked where the documents could be found. This is not "all of a sudden."

See my mail of 29 July, in which I wrote
...

>> http://www.ncn.net/~chri/html/fomula.html
>> www.mashiach6000.org/intervention.html
>> www.mashiach6000.org/appendix.html
>
>Thank you for sending the first URL. The last two did not work at all for
>me - bad addresses?
>

>You have accused me of pre planning my dates to fit patterns.

Wrong. On 21 June I wrote

>My theory is that your group has, perhaps without realizing it,
>*COOKED UP a set of dates guaranteed to produce your
>amazing results.* It's not the experiment itself that is flawed,
>but the choice of the INPUT DATA.

I have never said you pre-planned any dates; but I suspected then, and still suspect now, that you have, CONSCIOUSLY OR UNCONSCIOUSLY, managed to *SELECT* dates which make your patterns work.

Please read our letter exchange at http://www.nmsr.org/sabbaths.htm, and see how evasive you were during the entire conversation on the subject of WHO derived the dates versus WHO found the patterns.

>I have proven to you that the dates were established long before
>computer programs were available to test them.
>
>Computer programs then found the dates to be on the correct day of the
>week, and they were also found them to form patterns.
>You have deliberately lied.

I have done no such thing. Please tell me exactly what I said that was a "lie."

>You, on the other hand, have made a mockery of the patterns which are
>obviously present in Jewish history, by picking every nonsense date in
>American history, and claiming that these dates are recognized as
>important to American history, yet there is only one ot these dates
>which popular encyclopedias claim significant to American history.

So, the Bay of Pigs is not important? The first American in Space? Gary Powers shot down? The War of 1812?

The problem is not the dates I found, Gene. You need to go buy a new encyclopedia.

>You claimed to be able to match these patterns, and when you could not,
>you defended your forced dates as having "reeeeeeeeealy small chances,",
>--- though they did not match the Biblical date patterns which we had
>found.

You have never acknowledged that I achieved a better percentage of 7's than you.

Instead, you nitpick about 10^-60 versus 10^-66.

You apparently have no comprehension of small numbers. For you to say that 10^-60 is not "small" is preposterous, and shows that your work is pseudoscience, not real science.

>Your agenda is not to find truth, it is to make a mockery of G-d's
>actions in Israeli history.

You cannot defend your flawed science, so you fall back on religious arguments.

Why not discuss my mathematics instead of my religious beliefs?

>Look Dave, print what you want in your article. The truth will find you
>out.

I have no reservations or qualms about publishing what I see as the truth of this matter.

The Truth is indeed what I am interested in.

>If Dr. Wagner wants to waste his time on you, OK, otherwise, I have
>better things to do than to play games with fools.
>
>Gene

I FINALLY find the documents Curt mentioned, with the corrected Binomial distribution values (which agree with mine now, by the way), on your downlads page, at http://www.mashiach6000.org/downloads.htm. The document is listed as Appendix 1, and is called WEEKSDAT.PDF.

Now, I have a question, which I have asked before.

It deserves a good answer.

The question is: on the download page, for Divine Intervention, the file (P3PROVIN.PDF) plainly states that the dates Curt mentions as producing a COMPELLING 7's pattern based on up to 24 dates are NOT COMPELLING.

Here's what I wrote Curt on 29 July:

>On http://www.ncn.net/~chri/html/fomula.html, you mention the "very obvious
>overabundance of the digit 7 in all 5 charts ...", where the 5 charts have
>13, 16, 17, 20, and 24 dates respectively in the matrix. So here, the
>claim is made that a compelling over-abundance of 7's appears for n=24,
>etc.
>
>The reason I hadn't realized that this was indeed the answer to my query to
>Gene Faulstich (as yet un-answered by him) is that I got the completely
>*opposite* impression when I read the .PDF file Gene sent me some time ago
>(file name P3provin.pdf). On that page, it mentions the analysis of Drs.

[note : P3Provin.pdf = download under DIVINE INTERVENTION; published on your web site!]

>Gutman and Wagner, and this quote was what got me thinking the augmented
>(larger) matrices did NOT show compelling 7's:
>
>"However, when we add group R2 of 4 recent events involving (so-called)
>peace treaties between Israel and her Arab neighbors we now see a
>_significant_ change in the probabilities listed in the last column. The
>probabilities now _all increase_, which is an indication that these added
>events are really _random_ events ___not continuing the previous pattern of
>"loaded dice" or external influence___ on the sequence of historical events
>for Israel. .."
>
>This is the same group R2 of dates which give you a matrix of 24, as
>appears on http://www.ncn.net/~chri/html/fomula.html, where you mention the
>"very obvious overabundance of the digit 7 in all 5 charts."
>I hope you can see how I thought the purpose of the 24-rank matrix was to
>show modern events did NOT resonate 7-wise with earlier special dates.

So, what is the answer, Gene?

You say that the additional dates (making 24 total) do NOT show your patterns, but on http://www.ncn.net/~chri/html/fomula.html, Curt says there is a "very obvious overabundance of the digit 7 in all 5 charts."

I hope you can see that this is a REAL and SIGNIFICANT contradiction.

When you get your story straight, would you tell me how it ended?

Curt, if you have an explanation for this, I'd be interested.

Well, it's been fun!

Sincerely, Dave Thomas

Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000
From: Eugene Faulstich <chri@ncn.net>
To: "Dave Thomas, NMSR" <det@rt66.com>
CC: "Wagner, Dr. Curt" <krunchkaptain@excite.com>
Subject: Re: Your unanswered messages...

Dave:

Today you got the right web address!

Yesterday you could not find it!

This just proves these are little idiot games you are playing.

After 70 years, I don't have time for your nonsense.

Go bicker with someone else.

Gene

Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000
From: "Dave Thomas, NMSR" <det@rt66.com>
To:chri@ncn.net (Gene Faulstich)
CC:Curt Wagner <krunchkaptain@excite.com>
Subject: Re: Your unanswered messages...

Gene:

Before you "pass me off with a swipe of the hand," consider this:

Curt gave me WRONG ADDRESSES for the documents.

I asked for the correct addresses, waited for weeks, asked again, and then finally found them ON MY OWN.

I have never challenged your right to hold your particular religious beliefs, and have attempted to seriously discuss the SCIENCE behind your proposal during this entire discussion.

Yet my legitimate questions have been ignored.

I found a HUGE error in Dr. Wagner's calculations, which he had found as well, and which is corrected on the web page I finally found ON MY OWN yesterday. You should have thanked me for finding and explaining this problem to you weeks ago; instead, you accuse me of mocking G_D.

The problem I found about the binomial coefficients was not a "little idiot game," Gene. It was a very serious error, which Dr. Wagner CONFIRMED. [By the way, thanks, Curt, for treating my questions seriously, and for showing me where some of those answers could be found.]

Now, I have tried to bring another very serious discrepancy to your attention.

On your page at http://www.ncn.net/~chri/html/fomula.html the "very obvious overabundance of the digit 7 in all 5 charts" is mentioned.

The 24 dates here are the SAME dates cited in the download P3PROVIN.PDF, on your site at http://www.mashiach6000.org/downloads.htm, under "Divine Intervention."

But THAT page is where you claim that "these added events are really random events not continuing the previous pattern of "loaded dice" or external influence on the sequence of historical events for Israel."

This is a very serious contradiction, Gene. It is NOT a "little idiot game." It is NOT "nonsense."

Either your 24-date matrix provides an "overabundance of 7's" (www.ncn.net/~chri/html/fomula.html), or it does not (www.mashiach6000.org/downloads.htm, "Divine Intervention").

If you want to finish the job of convincing me that you are working on simple religious apologetics, and NOT on a scientific investigation, then, sure, use the fact that I could not find your documents on the web (which was, incidentally, because your colleague unfortunately gave me incorrect addresses), and then found the documents ON MY OWN, as your "excuse" to pass me off with a swipe of the hand.

Sure, blow off my entire analysis simply because your associate sent me incorrect information, and I had to ask for the correct information before figuring it out for myself.

Sure, leave my very legitimate and serious questions unanswered.

Sure, go ahead and tell yourself that you're "right" not to "bicker" about such "nonsense" any more.

Sure, go ahead and prove that Sabbath Patterns are all about your religion, and not about Science at all.

Sure, go ahead and call your critics "fools" and "idiots," while studiously avoiding any real discussion of the mathematics and "science" behind your work.

Don't you realize you're just rationalizing away my legitimate criticism of your work?

Do you sleep at night?

Sincerely,

Dave Thomas

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

PS

If you should change your mind about continuing this discussion, consider my matrix of 27 mundane USA dates, as follows:

EVENTS (* = in my original matrix of 13)

Date #1: Pilgrims Land
Date #2: * Madrid Earthquake #1
Date #3: * Madrid Earthquake #2
Date #4: * Madrid Earthquake #3
Date #5: * 1812 war declared
Date #6: * Fall of Detroit
Date #7: * Lake Erie battle
Date #8: White House Burns
Date #9: Battle of Lake Champlain
Date #10: Ft. McHenry; star-spangled banner
Date #11: Treaty of Ghent, War of 1812 ends
Date #12: FLA purchase
Date #13: Erie Canal Opens
Date #14: * Nuremberg hangings
Date #15: NATO formed
Date #16: Truman orders US to Korea
Date #17: 1st H-bomb at Eniwetok Atoll
Date #18: Rosa Parks Rides in Front of Segregated Bus
Date #19: * Powers U2
Date #20: * Cuba ties broken
Date #21: * Yuri Gargarin
Date #22: * bay pigs
Date #23: * Alan Shepard
Date #24: * Meredith
Date #25: Medgar Evers assassinated
Date #26: Martin Luther King "I have a dream" speech
Date #27: JFK assassinated

Here are the calendar dates, Julian Dates, and Adamic Dates for the events:

Calday Julian Adamic

12.21.1620 2313108 2052934 Date #1
12.16.1811 2382863 2122689 Date #2
01.23.1812 2382901 2122727 Date #3
02.07.1812 2382916 2122742 Date #4
06.18.1812 2383048 2122874 Date #5
08.16.1812 2383107 2122933 Date #6
09.10.1813 2383497 2123323 Date #7
08.24.1814 2383845 2123671 Date #8
09.11.1814 2383863 2123689 Date #9
09.13.1814 2383865 2123691 Date #10
12.24.1814 2383967 2123793 Date #11
02.22.1819 2385488 2125314 Date #12
10.26.1825 2387926 2127752 Date #13
10.16.1946 2432110 2171936 Date #14
04.04.1949 2433011 2172837 Date #15
06.27.1950 2433460 2173286 Date #16
10.31.1952 2434317 2174143 Date #17
12.01.1955 2435443 2175269 Date #18
05.01.1960 2437056 2176882 Date #19
01.03.1961 2437303 2177129 Date #20
04.12.1961 2437402 2177228 Date #21
04.17.1961 2437407 2177233 Date #22
05.05.1961 2437425 2177251 Date #23
10.01.1962 2437939 2177765 Date #24
06.12.1963 2438193 2178019 Date #25
08.28.1963 2438270 2178096 Date #26
11.22.1963 2438356 2178182 Date #27

Do the math if you want.

The Patterns Matrix has 24.98% 7's, better than your mere 24-date matrix (at 23.66%).

And where your 24-date-matrix gets only 175 of 276 entries with one or more 7's, with probability 2.88E-14, my 27-entry matrix gets 215 of 351 possible entries with one or more 7's, with probability 8.50E-15, SMALLER EVEN THAN YOURS.

But these numbers are based on your arbitrary choice of 199999 as the "biggest possible difference in weeks." If you use the REAL maximum difference, which is 180276 for your Israel 24-date matrix, the probability of 175 of 276 entries with one or more 7's actually increases, to 1.65E-13.

When I put MY maximum difference, 17893, into my binomial calculation, I find that the probability of my 215 of 351 entries with one or more 7's PLUMMETS, to 4.14E-24.

If you use real maximum differences, and not arbitrary numbers like 199,999, then my one-or-more-7's statistics are more than a BILLION TIMES SMALLER THAN YOURS.

But, I suppose, you're going to say that the Pilgrim landing, the first H-bomb, the JFK assassination, the formation of NATO, the "I have a Dream" speech, and my other events are also "unimportant."

I'm willing to discuss the science behind your claims.

Are you?

-Dave

Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000
From:Curt Wagner <krunchkaptain@excite.com>
To: "Dave Thomas, NMSR" <det@rt66.com>
CC: Eugene Faulstich <chri@ncn.net>
Subject: More communication problems & answers...

Dear Dave,

Thanks for your continuing patience in this communication impasse ('thanks' to the Second Law of Thermodynamics we seem to be fighting a raging entropy 'fire', though there's more 'smoke' than 'fire'....).

First an apology for carelessly increasing the entropy when I sent you those website addresses: I accidentally ended both of the mashiach6000.org page addresses with .html instead of .htm! I guess I was just on automatic pilot after listing the ncn.net/~chri/ address which ended in the usual .html form. Sorry for the one extra letter!

[NOTE: the web pages in question can be found at http://www.mashiach6000.org/intervention.htm and at http://www.mashiach6000.org/appendix.htm. - dt]

As far as the confusion over apparent contradictory claims about obvious overabundances of 7s in all 5 of my charts vs patterns in the 24-rank matrix, perhaps my wording was not as crystal clear as it could have been. I was not implying that the overabundance of 7s had suddenly become significant; the percentage of 7s had decreased (to about 24%, from 35% for N=13), but the really important results for the Pxs (Chi-Square) and Pk7s (Binomial) probabilities had stopped decreasing dramatically and began to increase SLIGHTLY when I added Group R2 (see column 5 in both tables). But adding only 4 such events to the previous group of 20 could not possibly change it very much, but rather only show a possible trend. When I then constructed some tables with 10 to 20 R2 ('peace process') events added to the basic core of 20 events (column 4 group data) I found the probabilities to be increasingly larger, thus indicating that these recent 10 to 20 R2('peace process') events are probably totally random in nature and so break with the patterns of the spiritual history of Israel.Hence the spiritual conclusion that these events do not follow the pattern of (possible) divine design shown in the pre-R2 events. It does not in any way diminish the significance of the pre-R2 spiritual history of Israel. In fact, adding other Biblically important events to the core group of 20 events DOES strengthen the claim of non-random patterns (i.e.,design) in the spiritual history of Israel. These experiments were done after the (corrected) tables were published in December, so they were not published at the time (though they do confirm all the earlier claims and trends). If necessary we could regenerate them and then post them (after I get back to Minnesota in September), but the deeper calculations I've been doing with the quantum model of Israeli history are so fascinating that it's hard to stop!

I hope these comments will help to reduce the entropy! I do look forward to our further correspondence in the name of truth.

Curt

Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000
From: "Dave Thomas, NMSR" <det@rt66.com>
To:chri@ncn.net (Gene Faulstich)
CC:Curt Wagner <krunchkaptain@excite.com>
Subject: More communication problems & answers...

Dear Curt,

Thanks for your explanation. I really appreciate the effort you have spent to answer my questions.

And I found the web pages you referred me to at last!

I'm afraid Gene is using this extra "L" as a means of avoiding any further discussion with me. Frankly, I'm disappointed that he is copping out so casually and completely.

If you do get a chance to repost the charts with more core events, do drop me a line at that time. I'll be interested to see them.

In the meantime, I think I have all the information needed for my first write-up, due this weekend.

I'll let you know when any publications of mine on the patterns are available.

All best regards from New Mexico,

Dave Thomas

Faulstich Returns!

It had been months since I had heard from Gene Faulstich. But then, on 23 February, 2001, I received this interesting letter from mathematician Bill Anglin, who wrote...

Dear Dave Thomas

I am a mathematician working as a database administrator. About 2 years ago, I met Mr. Faulstich in Jerusalem. His work has inspired me to study positional astronomy, and ancient calendars. I have concluded that his calendar software was not designed to get down-to-the-day accuracy at a range of 3000 years, and, as a result, many of his conclusions are wrong. In particular, his mystical day differences are off: it only takes an inaccuracy of one day to turn a mystical 3337 into a non-mystical 3338.

Yours,

Bill Anglin Ph.D.

I wrote Bill Anglin the following, copying Eugene Faulstich:

Dear Bill Anglin,

Thanks for your interesting letter! When I was working on this, even though I suspected some of the dates -why, Faulstich is two days off on a MODERN event (Nuremberg) - I decided to accept them conditionally, and see if the "patterns" could be obtained by careful selection of 13 or more dates from a pool of 100 or so.

They certainly could!

There's a new Prometheus book on 25 years of skepticism that's coming out soon that will have my full report.

Thanks for your letter. I'll check out your astronomy.

All best from New Mexico,

Dave Thomas

And that's when Faulstich returned from the Internet Ether he had vanished into. Here's what he wrote:

Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 17:41:25 -0600
From: chri <chri@ncn.net>
To: Dave Thomas <det@rt66.com>
Subject: Re: Inaccuracies in Faulstich calendar software

I have asked Bill Anglin to give me an example how one day can change 3337 weeks to 3338 weeks. I would ask you to do the same. Without giving me an example, you are simply blowing off steam.

Gene

Here is my reply from 23 Feb. 2001....

Hi Gene. Long time no hear!

I won't give you an example of one day's error changing 3337 weeks to 3338 weeks, but I'm pleased to show you how an error of just one day can change 180177 weeks into 180178 weeks.

You cite the day for the Golden Calf, Exodus 32, as Adamic Day # 927828 (see http://www.ncn.net/~chri/html/paternweek.html for example); and, you also cite the day for the Declaration of Principles with the PLO, as Adamic Day # 2189070 (see http://www.ncn.net/~chri/html/fomula.html).

How many weeks between the two dates?

(2189070 - 927828)/7 = 1261242/7 = 180177 + 3/7 . You round this off to 180177.

You do a LOT of rounding - why, in your mileage chart for the 13 "special" dates, 29 entries out of 78 (or over 37%) are actually not integers, but are rounded off to LOOK like integers. (Integers are whole numbers, without a fraction or decimal digits part).

Now, what happens if we change one of your events by JUST ONE DAY? If the Golden Calf episode happened just one day earlier, i.e. Adamic Day # 927827, then the number of weeks between the two dates is now (2189070 - 927827)/7 = 1261243/7 = 180177 + 4/7 . This rounds off to 180178.

It's just that easy, Gene!

I bet you will say that the PLO declaration isn't really part of your Biblical chronology, and that the modern-day events don't have as many 7's as Biblical dates do. But that would be committing the classical logical fallacy known as "Changing the Subject." Whether or not these dates are "significant" is besides the point - you asked me to "give me an example how one day can change 3337 weeks to 3338 weeks."

I've given you an example of how one day can change 180177 weeks to 180178 weeks.

Is that good enough?

While we're talking again, I noticed you still haven't corrected the 2-day error in one of your MODERN dates; you still have the Nuremberg hangings as occurring on Oct. 18, 1946, when any good historical source will tell you that event happened on Oct. 16, 1946.

See, for example, http://www.britannica.com/seo/n/nurnberg-trials/

"After 216 court sessions, on Oct. 1, 1946, the verdict on 22 of the original 24 defendants was handed down. (Robert Ley committed suicide while in prison, and Gustav Krupp von Bohlen und Halbach's mental and physical condition prevented his being tried.) Three of the defendants were acquitted; Hjalmar Schacht, Franz von Papen, and Hans Fritzsche. Four were sentenced to terms of imprisonment ranging from 10 to 20 years: Karl Dönitz, Baldur von Schirach, Albert Speer, and Konstantin von Neurath. Three were sentenced to life imprisonment: Rudolf Hess, Walther Funk, and Erich Raeder. Twelve of the defendants were sentenced to death by hanging. Ten of them, Hans Frank, Wilhelm Frick, Julius Streicher, Alfred Rosenberg, Ernst Kaltenbrunner, Joachim von Ribbentrop, Fritz Sauckel, Alfred Jodl, Wilhelm Keitel, and Arthur Seyss-Inquart, were hanged on Oct. 16, 1946."

If you can't even get your modern dates correct, why should we believe your Biblical dates?

Just curious.

You should check out the Skeptics book when it comes out. In it, I explain my secret method for accelerating the finding of patterns, so that I could do in just a few hours what took you decades! You won't BELIEVE how I did it!

All best from Peralta.

Sincerely, Dave

Alas, Eugene Faulstich never replied... I've lost him into the ether again!

Click HERE to go to the Main Discussion Page

NMSR Site Map