Sometimes the chimps get lucky and type a great novel. More often than not, the endings are confusing.

Thax, EVERYBODY, for setting me straight! I was under the impression that coincidences are much less frequent in this reality! (especially, if they aren't really coincidences at all)
_________________NO SWEAT!__________________
Although some of the Snoops' debunkings are just hypothetical, nevertheless I agree -- the case of "Lincoln/Kennedy" may not qualify for a spot in the thread. (although I remain dumbstruck!)

However, there are many other "pure" coincidences that defy logic! ( that is, until you, guys, or Snoops, will debunk them).
_________________________THANX!___________________________

OK, how about this coincidence:


In 1898, Morgan Robertson published a novel where action took place aboard the transcontinental liner with the followong characteristics: length: 243 meters, voluum capacity: 70 000 tons, engine capacity: 50 000 horse powers, 4 pipes, 3 propellers, speed: 25, number of passengers 3000.
One cold April night, the ship collided with iceberg and sunked.

The "Titanic" tragedy happend in 1912. It's parameters:
length: 269 meters, voluum capacity: 66 000 tons, engine capacity: 55 000 horse powers, 4 pipes, 3 propellers, speed: 25, number of passengers 3000.
One cold April night, the ship collided with iceberg and sunked.

Wouldn't the simple explanation be that the writer could see into the future?

I wouldn't dare suggesting that, but some kind of the premonition could be in effect (?)

Perhaps the writer spoke with aliens from the future ... or the aliens could see into the future ... or the aliens liked his book so at some point in the future the aliens sank the ship because they were drunk and remembered the story.

More like Future confirming/justifying the Past(?)

But seriously, the true part of the "Stareing at Goats" was that he was right in remote viewing enough to defy statistics.

Actually, the other interesting thing about that book written in 1898 was that he named the ship "Titan". But you never know, maybe the builders of the Titanic read the book and thought they could do it better. Maybe "Titanic" was in homage to the author. Can't say for sure.

Oh yeah, thanx for reminding me, donthatoneguy, I forgot such an important detail -- the name! (Titan in the book, Titanic in real life!) That's quite significant!
Though I doubt the builders of the Titanic read the book and thought they could do it better -- naming their creation after something that's sufferred bad end! (it doesn't seem like something caused by the human failure)! More like the lack of providence!!!

W.C. Fields....

"I always keep a supply of stimulant handy in case I see a snake--which I also keep handy"

Bill as Larson E. Whipsnade: “This way, ladies and gentlemen, this way. Right up on this platform. The world's greatest novelty. The Pronkwonk Twins! Elwood and Brentwood. Elwood is ten minutes older than Brentwood and has been in a hurry ever since. Ladies and gentlemen, Brentwood is the smallest giant in the world, whilst his brother, Elwood, is the largest midget in the world. They baffle science.”



What a coincidence!

At least two people found your story quite funny: YOU and ME! -- although not bacause of the humour, but due to the lack of it!!!

But of course, humanity's too slow to absorb the brilliant ideas!!!

How is the next dictator to be born in 2018 when the world is supposed to end in 2012? IF your system of figuring applies to more tha 4 people out of a hundred billion, or so, THEN it MAY work to produce another major dictator in 2018. That, however, is a mighty BIG IF. History is cyclical in some ways, but not in others. Cycles set up INFLUENCES...NOT REQUIREMENTS. The socio-political forces which gave us Hitler no longer exist, so they can't give us Hitler II. These days, Germany is NOT under The Versaille Treaty. There is no world war for a modern Hitler to serve in, and draw support from the veterans of. Small wars like Iraq won't produce enough disgruntled vets to put a Hitler type into power, and a modern world war will go so nuclear, or chemical, or biological, or all of the above, that there won't be enough survivors to give a new Hitler type the suppoert needed to get into power. It was reasoning like yours that convinced people the world was going to end in 1888, and 1900, and 1911, and 1925, and so on. Each focused upon different alleged cycles. According to one based upon the size of The Great Pyramid, Christ was supposed to return in 1976.

Thanks for your valuable input.
However, the reason I posted the article, which I've run into accidentally, is because I was dumbstruc with the undeniable facts (i.e. the dates)!!!

As for the next Hitler, he would not be the exact carbon copy of the previous one -- just as the original one had nothing in common with Napoleon. Do not interpret everything literally!!!
However, inspite of the different socio-political forces which gave us Hitler, you never know how the future circustances might turn out: if not The Versaille Treaty, it might be something else, and NOT necessarily Germany!!! The cycle is not tied to the geographical location * * *

I am aware of the cyclical nature of the Humanity's development.But I never thought the cyclicity also concerns the specific individuals (and their impact upon the Humanity)!

After all, as you mentioned, "History is cyclical in some ways, but not in others. Cycles set up INFLUENCES...NOT REQUIREMENTS".
However, some historical coincidences seem to resemble the latter much more than the former!

True, there are some interesting coinciidences in history...but math says there would have to be. There are now 6 billion people on the planet. If you count up all who ever lived, there would be a trillion, or more. Wherever you gather 25, or more, people together you will note strange coincidences...if you look hard enough. For example...I knew a gal at work. She met another gal at an office party, and became acquainted, and was amazed by the coincidences. Both gals were born in the same hospital in a the same small town in North Dakota in the same year. Both moved as children to Minnesota. Both moved as adults to Oregon, and the same town in Oregon. Both ended up in the same job code, working in the same state office at the same time. Neither had ever met before the office party.

One girl's nanny in childhood regularly went to europe for vacations, with a friend of hers. That Nanny's friend-who went on the trips with the one gals' nanny-was the other gals' first cousin. Both gals grew up hearing about the trips with the friend, and had copies of the same photos from the trips given them by the nanny/cousin. Both gals owned the same kind of dog. One gal named her dog what the other had named her son. There were other coincidences, and it seemed spooky to the gals. In reality, it is a matter of math. Since there are such weird coincidences between just two people out of every 25 in any group, imagine how many and how odd, must be the coincidences in a group of a trillion on the same planet throughout history.

a wise man once observed that the universe is not only stranger than we imagine...it is stranger than we CAN imagine. I forget whether that was Issac Asimov, or who, but should look it up. He was right.

I'm not sure of the quotation you're referring to, but Asimov, as I recall, once said:


In other words, I presume there's nothing special in the matter of coincidences, i.e. some omen, or predisposition?

Oh, wha a boring place this world is!!!!

And yet, some people tend to think differently:

1. "Coincidence is God's way of remaining annonimous." (Einstein)

2. The problem of synchronicity has puzzled me for a long time, ever since the middle twenties, when I was investigating the phenomena of the collective unconscious and kept on coming across connections which I simply could not explain as chance groupings or "runs." What I found were "coincidences" which were connected so meaningfully that their "chance" concurrence would represent a degree of improbability that would have to be expressed by an astronomical figure. * * *
(Carl Jung)

3. All mystical experience is coincidence; and vice versa, of course. (Tom Stoppard)

4. The more frequently one uses the word "coincidence" to explain
bizarre happenings, the more obvious it becomes that one is not
seeking, but evading the real explanation.
(Robert Shea and Robert Anton Wilson)