BIN LADEN IN YEMEN FOR TERROR IN 2010

       Rabbi Matityahu Glazerson posted an interesting video about a matrix found by Michael Drosnin. It pointed out that Dr. Rips had quoted an associated probability of less than 1 in 100,000,000. Because Drosnin is an atheist who thinks that aliens created the Torah Code, Rabbi Glazerson spent some time explaining what Drosnin should have seen if he were a believer. I will not dispute the importance of religious terms cited by the rabbi (who is our family’s rabbi), but I will not include them in my discussion here for 2 reasons: (1) They required a slightly expansion of the matrix to see, and (2) my interest in it is primarliy in having my military colleagues review the matrix for any value in terms of intelligence useful in bringing Bin Laden to justice.

STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE.  If the Hebrew words shown for IN YEMEN FOR TERROR were the only words possible for this phrase, as it occurs at an ELS only once in the Torah, there would be 1 chance in 468 that it would be on the 651-letter matrix with TORAH CODE.  However, there is nothing intrinsic about the long ELS that would indicate it was a natural choice of a priori key words to look for.  So how did Drosnin likely find it?  Most likely he would have started with the axis term (TORAH CODE), then put an enormous number of key words to search for in conjunction with it, and then worked with those words that came up relatively close to the axis term. With a large open list that is kept from public view, an impressive matrix is likely to be found, but it will be one that would not reflect whether the Code is real or not.  In this case, he most likely got lucky when two search terms IN YEMEN and FOR TERROR happened to arise in sequence on the matrix. So the first serious question we must address is how likely is it that the components just given would both be on the matrix?  The answer is about 1 chance in 120, but again it does not follow from these odds that the two words would be in sequence. However, there is nothing about this combination of two 5-letter terms that is unique.  Drosnin would have been just as happy to find IN YEMEN 5771 (with 5771 as hey tav shin ayin alef) or IN YEMEN IN 5771 (with in 5771 as bet tav shin ayin alef). 

       Was FOR TERROR as given the only Hebrew that would have worked for this phrase?  No. The dictionary on my CodeFinder program gave 5 other terms for FOR TERROR (and not the term actually used on the matrix).  While the chance to find the FOR TERROR term used in the matrix was about 1 in 13, that is reduced to 1 chance in 1.61 (better than even odds) when the search includes the spellings used on CodeFinder.  That reduces the combined odds of FOR TERROR and IN YEMEN to about 1 chance in 14 before we consider the fact that the terms are in sequence. The reason that Mr. Drosnin is not taken seriously by the scientific community is that he never lets his audience know of the tricks of the trade employed in finding such matrices.  The only scientist that I am aware of other than myself who always checks for these tricks is Dr. Robert Haralick (who wrote the foreword of my Ark Code book).

       What about the odds of Bin Laden being on the matrix? Surprisingly, the term turned out to have the same odds as IN YEMEN FOR TERROR, about one chance in 468.  That's because when I applied the Roffman Skip Formula and Tables to it, the name came up only once in the skip range explored.  Thus there was one chance in 468 for the name to be on the matrix. This means that the matrix will have a significant probability figure assigned to it. 

       The word ATOMIC has two possible spellings. The term is a transliteration that sounds like atomie.  CodeFinder offers a 5-letter spelling while the matrix offers only a 4-letter version. For simplification here I will overlook the fact that a word for nuclear was probably also sought, and just use the frequency of the 2 spellings for atomic. The chance to have one of the two spelling on the matrix was 1 in 1.87.  Thus this word is not significant on a matrix this size.  As such, there is no justification to use this matrix to prove that Bin Laden (or Chan) is building an atomic bomb in Yemen. Therefore I will not do a calculation for CHAN BUILT. Nor, without knowing more, do I think it is worth doing a calculation for FROM 5766 since we do not know that Bin Laden or Chan are doing something in Yemen only from 5766. 

       Nobody in the West seems to know for sure where Bin Laden is, but his current location is of critical interest.  So what are we to make of the current year being on the matrix?  There was about 1 chance in 16 to have it on the matrix with the preferred 5-letter spelling used on the matrix.  So what are we to make of the entire matrix?  I think only three key terms are of great interest (the axis term is never given any weight by my protocol).  They are IN YEMEN FOR TERROR, BIN LADEN and 5771. The probability that they could all be found a priori is 1 in 3,539,717. If we break up IN YEMEN FOR TERROR into two terms and factor in synonyms for TERROR, then the odds are altered to 1 chance in 112,286.  Does this mean that Bin Laden is in fact in Yemen today?  No, there was one chance in 16 that the year would be on the matrix.  Is there terror in Yemen?  Of course, but we don't need the Torah Code to know that.

     The main problem with this matrix is its source - Michael Drosnin.  His methodology has nothing to do with science. Even when we see a matrix with significant apparent probabilities offered to the public by him, we must remain aware of his consistent lack of clarity with respect to protocols.  If, for example, he searched for 500 terms in conjunction with the axis term here, then the matrix cannot be deemed significant because such a technique is bound to produce some terms close to the axis term.  My best advice is to ignore all further publications by him unless he conforms to standards set by reputable researchers like Dr. Haralick or Harold Gans. Both men taught me well how to conduct an experiment.