ROBERT O'NEILL CLAIMS TO BE SHOOTER OF BIN LADEN

There are many O’Neill’s in the world, enough that the name merits an article in Wikipedia. But only one of them (Robert O’Neill) is claiming the distinction of having been the shooter who put two bullets into the head of Osama Bin Laden. The former United States Navy SEAL goes by the nickname Rob. On the matrix below ROB O’NEILL is the axis term. BIN LADEN is found only once in Torah, and it’s on the matrix. Also on the matrix at skip -1 is SHOOTER.

STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE MATRIX. As per my standard protocol, no statistical significance is assigned to the axis term, here ROB O'NEILL at its 37th lowest skip in wrapped Torah. Before addressing this high ELS skip rank, let it be said that if this matrix were based on the lowest skip, the odds against having BIN LADEN on the 230-letter matrix at skip +1 would be about 1,325 to 1. In fact, it only takes 160 letters to show both names, and the initial odds against a match that close are about 1,905 to 1. BUT, this matrix is based on the 37th lowest skip of ROB O'NEILL, and therefore the significance is diminished by a factor of 37.  If we just look at 160 letters for the first name, the odds against the match are altered to about 51.5 to 1. If we use the word SHOOTER at a special case skip of -1, the odds against it appearing at a special case skip (+/-1 or the absolute skip of the axis term) on the 230-letter matrix were about 22.6 to 1. The initial combined odds against the matrix are about 29,949 to 1, but when this number is reduced by a factor of 37, the final odds against the matrix are set at about 809 to 1.

A WORD ABOUT THE TORAH CODE TECHNIQUE KNOWN AS "SNOOPING." Snooping is based on looking at letters in sequence with and directly ahead of or behind axis terms, a-priori terms or a-posteriori terms. The snooped letters add words to the above terms, and possibly value to what was originally sought. However, probabilities are generally inappropriate for snooped terms.

       With Snooping, Longer ELS "finds" tend to be by Non-Jews. Their Hebrew is usually dictionary-derived, not spoken. When mistakes are pointed out, they often do not alter their web site errors. They quote extreme probabilities for what is usually gibberish, and for what is always a-posteriori (noticed, but not predicted for the matrix).

       Snooping often yields long ELSs, but are they Deliberate or Random Gibberish? Bible Code Digest previously labeled as good Hebrew the following snooped passage:

Let the oppressed by (be?) congratulated, saturated from Him at 2001, and let them be guarded by the echo of the Father’s son. Supported by the U.S. I will see but he has the knowledge. (48-letter ELS in Hebrew).

       Bible Code digest also labels as acceptable Hebrew:

There is a is quarrel in his speeches, a living brother uttered words to them and to me.  And Zubaidah turned to the sea without then lying for a whole week.  Oh, the mountain of her interior will bear a testimonial to her name. (61-letter ELS in Hebrew)

I contend that the phrases above are nonsense attributable to the high frequency or 2-3 letter terms in Hebrew, as are the other long ELS phrases in Bible Code Digest.

     Frequently non-Jews write me about matrices that they have found which are purported to back their religious beliefs. They almost always include long snooped ELS terms. In my 17 years of research the longest term that I ever found a-priori was 13 letters. However these people write me with multiples ELS trains on the same matrix that are well over 20 letters in length. I have never seen a single one of them that did not have spelling mistakes, or that were no grammatically absurd. Israeli Codes researchers have long sought such long ELS trains. Hebrew is their native tongue. But they have found virtually nothing to back the idea that such long patterns are deliberately encoded. Perhaps their best snooped find was a 29-letter one about Bin Laden: DESTRUCTION I WILL CALL YOU: CURSED IS BIN LADEN AND REVENGE IS FOR THE MESSIAH.  This phrase was judged intelligible by only 7 out of 27 reviewers. The problem segment I WILL CALL YOU is Biblical Hebrew, but not Modern Hebrew. It is judged as valid. Note that there are no words in the Hebrew as short as two letters. But most important, is that in the end, if Robert O'Neill is correct, revenge was his, not the Messiah's. This historical fact may be more evidence against the wisdom of assigning any statistical value to snooped terms.