To what I said to Daniel: I didn't here about this story until it was well underway. What caught my attention was the salience of the story - it was huge in Britain - and the clearly improbable 'King-related' twist that was at the story's forefront (a salient part of that narrative).
This may clarify the difference between producing a 'pattern' versus a 'comparable' pattern. Any honest appraisal of the associations mentioned will lead to the conclusion that the connections mentioned all link to things that are of clear consequence (otherwise I wouldn't mention them). They don't link to 'anything' in other words, which is the essence of the argument that one can find "patterns" anywhere. Good luck finding, with any 'empirical' consistency, similar unfoldings where such layered significance is tied to clearly significant-salient moments. Not saying that you can't do it, but that would be where the rubber meets the road.
Just to be clear, I am not insisting that this case study is most likely non-random, only that it appears to be at this point, owing to how salience and improbability connect with things that are salient themselves, and relevant for various reasons. As such, the overall results mimics how people interpret synchronicity at the personal level. But is what's perceived truly non-random?
(In closing, since the date 4/4 plays such a pivotal role in this example, I will add without further commentary that this particular manifestation is strangely common when it comes to major public events, "The Fours" have a way of showing up in salient places, more often than it seems they should in random settings.)
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 27-Sep-18 19:45 by Poster Boy.