Please Take a Number

This is the laziest post I will ever make.

The point is simply this: the number 33 may mean something sometimes. But it can be found wild in nature, too, about as much as any number in its range.

So I looked for the next number up in connection with the Coronavirus. Yep. Lots of 34s out there. Those hits would look “spooky” to anyone who deemed 34 a Masonic marker. 

I mean no disrespect to Mark or anyone who sees meaning in collections of 33s. I am simply accepting the challenge laid down by him and by a commenter to show that no other number occurs with the frequency of 33 in connection with fishy occurrences.

Here are some screenshots. I readily grant you that there are repeats in these hits, but I am too lazy to snip out just one instance of each. Just click on the image to enlarge it.

I leave it as an exercise for the student to repeat the procedure with any random number you pick.


OK. That’s plenty. Time to follow Commander Cody’s lead and get lost in the ozone again …



26 thoughts on “Please Take a Number

  1. In short, I agree. It is next to impossible to separate signal from noise for the numerology stuff. I never take any argument that hinges only on numerology too seriously. I am sure it is sometimes used intentionally, but it is very difficult (close to impossible) for the layperson to be able to identify meaningful number references.

    I always think about 9/11 and how their prepared footage would have required a cloudless day. What if 9/11 had been cloudy? Did they circle certain meaningful dates and wait for one with matching weather? It’s an aspect that I have wondered about. 9/11 prepped footage needed to match the day in question. Or was the technology good enough that they could swap out the weather last minute?


      1. What do you mean the footage is gray? It would have been incredibly hard to keep cloud cover consistent in fake images. It would have had to have been a cloudless day, so they couldn’t have been THAT set specifically on 9/11. What do you mean gray/could have gone either way?


        1. September Clues actually has a good analysis of the washed-out quality of the 9-11 video from news outlets. Some of it is so filtered, it almost looks like sepiatone.


          1. I get that it’s washed out, but a day with distinctive cloud patterns would have been next to impossible with their technology. I still see that it must have been a requirement they use a day without a cloud in the sky, which would mean that there were other possible days circled on the calendar. Maybe 9/11 itself was already a backup day.


  2. This pleases me no end, as it is the kind of discourse that must take place among rational people. I am not in a position to slam dunk you, and won’t even try. I will give this several days to percolate and respond, and with respect. I will try to assimilate my perceptions, but not try to “prove” them to be accurate, as I will have a mirror handy. The essence of good thinking is not proof, but disproof. I don’t pretend to have mastered it, only to know that it is what we aspire to. Did I just commit a grammatical error there?

    More later, and thank you for this challenging post.


  3. I saw on the news in the very beginning of all this that there were 333 confirmed cases. They later changed it 330. It was on MSNBC I believe. I knew then it was fake.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. So … wait … you knew it was fake when the number was 333? Or when they changed it to 330? If the latter, why did the change make a difference? You thought it was a genuine count prior to that?
      And if the number is different now? MSNBC now says the number of confirmed cases is “4077+”: does this mean it’s not fake anymore?
      Dontcha see? Just like a broken clock is right twice a day, the number 33 will be correct some of the time.


  4. COVID-19 = 34. That is, add up the letter values of COVID (C=3 O=15, V=22, I=9, D=4) subtract 19 and you get 34.

    Interestingly, 34 is also the number you get when you add up the letter values for COLD: 3 + 15 + 12 + 4.

    So clearly, the illness in question is nothing but the common cold!


      1. Number 34 is not a masonic number, as far as I know.
        33 is, think Jesus when he was crucified.
        Also, 33 is the masonic grade inside lodges (the highest is 51).
        So, when you have 34 you have to do 3+4= 7, which is the number of perfection like 9. Dante’s Divine Comedy is a numerology masterpiece.

        To know more about this stuff you need to study all the major esoteric books and also the Tarots, more precisely the Golden Dawn ones.


  5. This could be my confirmation bias speaking, but perhaps in a story of this scope, many or most of the numbers ARE random… The exception would be key numbers that receive extra highlighting of some kind, that are really harped on. As well as the numbers that will end up in the wikipedia entry when this is all wrapped.


  6. When you’ve got this many reports covering such a diverse geographical area, they can hardly make them all 33s, can they?

    I think in this case it’s you being a little selective, Martin. In order to really prove anything with this you’d need to do a much wider analysis of news reports and wikipedia articles over a period of time, and you’d also want to separate legitimate news stories (assuming such things still exist) from obvious hoaxes.

    It’s understandable that you find it hard to take when people overcomplicate things or stretch too far by involving math or using the numerical value of letters. I also think that stuff reeks of confirmation bias. But take purely the figures that are on the page and you’ll find that the magic numbers are rife in hoaxes – 33 more than any, and certainly more than mere chance.


    1. This is precisely why I would like to see a professional mathematician’s analysis. Someone who can say which citations should be included in the sampling and how significant the appearance of 33 is. Otherwise, it’s just the musings of armchair statisticians like you and me. I.e., worthless speculation.

      I wish I could find it again … early on in the Coronavirus crisis I saw a post that highlighted the preponderance of the number 400 in pandemic reportage. You can see for yourself just by Googling. It looks like there is something. But probably only to the eyes of the untrained.


  7. Wow. This post was lazy indeed!

    Maybe Maarten was winking at his readers with that “lazy” reference? Maybe this was actually a test to see whether or not we’d be too lazy to look it up ourselves?

    If you Google Coronavirus 33 and then Coronavirus 34, there’s quite a difference!

    The 34 references are usually to some random person: e.g., “Man, 34, comes down with cold.”

    The 33 references, on the other hand….

    33 Million will die!
    Trump made 33 false claims about the coronavirus!
    33 Italian doctors died in 2 weeks
    Data suggests 33% of coronavirus cases in China were asymptomatic
    Unemployment Spikes 33% Amid Coronavirus Pandemic
    Iran tests 33 million people for coronavirus – Middle East Monitor
    33 cases in SLO county
    33 new cases in Egypt
    Venezuela’s to implement nationwide quarantine as coronavirus cases rise to 33

    I don’t know what it all means, but that 33 number sure does come up a lot!


    1. Don’t you see the circularity in your reasoning?

      Me: There are lots of numbers out there in print.
      You: Not all of them matter.
      Me: Which ones matter?
      You: The ones that matter.
      Me: How do you pick out the ones that matter from the ones that don’t?
      You: It depends on where the numbers come from.
      Me: How do you know which sources matter?
      You: They are the ones that use the numbers.
      Me: So the numbers matter, but only when they matter.
      You: Exactly.


    2. Our Prime Minister Conte has ordered 33 thousand bottles of holy water to be distributed among people sick with Coyote virus.

      No kidding.


  8. I see your point about circular reasoning. However:

    1) The “33 seers” never said that a number “being in print” was the relevant threshold.

    2) Of course we don’t know exactly WHO The Powers That Be are, nor where to draw the line.

    But I humbly suggest that 33 would probably show up a lot more than 34 if the relevant data set were limited from “being in print” to “major publications, major news stories, and quotes from business and government luminaries.”

    3) Surely you can easily see the qualitative difference in the Coronavirus 33 and Coronavirus 34 searches. Can you not?

    4) “We can’t quantify it or fully understand it” is not the same thing as “there’s probably nothing to it.”

    You make a great point overall. Numerology types are probably VERY susceptible to false positives, seeing imaginary patterns, not thinking statistically, etc.

    But do you REALLY believe that the number 33 has NO more secret or symbolic or signalling meanings than the number 34?


  9. Thank you for your reply, and for the collegial tone, which is always appreciated.

    Briefly for now, I agree with your point #4.

    Is something going on with 33? Intuitively, I would say yes. But to spell out exactly what? That’s where I see folks going astray.

    Does 33 mean “This is fake”?
    Or does it mean “Chalk this one up to our team”?
    Big difference.
    And, as you point out, we can’t even say who they are: Masons, Jesuits, Phoenicians (lol), spooks, lions, tigers, bear, oh my …

    Some say Coronavirus is fake because of the 33s in the headlines. My blood relatives who work in the frontlines of health care are not telling me that this is a hoax: quite the opposite.

    I absolutely agree, there is a lot of fishy stuff in the media about the virus. Early on I saw videos “from China,” showing people drop dead in their tracks from the COVID. I always have to ask: How was it that someone just happened to have a camera on that random guy who croaked unexpectedly? (I can no longer find those videos, by the way.)

    But do faked videos mean a hoax virus? Or are they government propaganda intended to make people take a real threat more seriously than they might otherwise. I can see it play both ways.

    My bottom line: There are 33s out there, and we don’t know what the hell they mean. So, draw no conclusions from them.

    I will repeat a point a made at another comment: early on I also saw someone’s evidence for thinking that the number 400 was significant with regard to the COVID. I don’t know what to make of it, but my searches seem to indicate that 400 meets the same threshold of meaningfulness that 33 does.


  10. I have an answer for you, Maarten, though not one that anyone will like. It is this: We can see tendencies, but we can never “prove” anything.

    My wife and I play a dice game called “Farkle” on our phone when waiting to be served, back in the day when we had restaurants. There are six dice in play, and the numbers 1 and 5, straights, pairs, threesomes are all rewarded. I noticed early on that when I rolled three dice (having already selected three to stay in play), that a “Farkle”, or no scoring dice rolled, was coming up too often.

    The odds that rolling three dice will produce a score are 72.22%, yet with the computer game Farkle is a high probability. With only two dice left, the odds are still greater than 50% of a score, but don’t even try. That rarely works in this game. The odds of rolling a six dice Farkle are 2.52%, or 1 in 40, yet not a game goes by without six dice Farkles, occasionally back to back, the odds of which are 1 in 1,574 turns.

    In other words, the computer Farkle game is rigged. I could complain to the company that devised it, but would not do that for two reasons: One, I know why they rigged it – to make it more fun. With six real dice, it’s a very boring game, nearly as bad as Yahtzee. Two, I could never prove a thing. Statistics never express certainty, only probability. Everything is possible.

    And this is the position you have put yourself in – you’ve devised an argument that cannot be defeated. No matter how many times people argue that the numbers 8, 11 and 33 turn up far too often in public hoaxes, you can simply say that anything is possible. Because, anything is possible … statistically speaking.

    I thought about devising an experiment where we collected news stories or Wiki posts about events we know to be real, such as a horrible multi-car accident down on I70 last year, a runaway semi plowed into cars that were standing still. Twelve deaths, the number of injuries I don’t remember. We could take stories like that and compare them to stories that we know to be hoaxes, such as Las Vegas or OJ or famous people dying. We could observe the tendency, if there were a tendency, for more spook numbers in hoax events.

    But you know what? You would still win the argument. Because anything is possible. There are probabilities, tendencies, possibilities, but they are never 0 or 100.

    With spook numbers we are arguing tendencies and and you are arguing coincidence. We will never be able to settle the matter. End of story. Long comment too. Sorry about that.


  11. When I see 33’s in the news I normaly think hoax. But I remember Washington Redskins QB Alex Smith in 2018 breaking his leg 33 years to the day that Redskins QB Joe Theismann broke his leg. I’ve watched the video and it looks real. Unless they went back and altered the video somehow in the fashion of the Zapruder film. If they did fake it, I tip my cap.

    Since the odds of this happening 33 yrs to the day are so slim, maybe this is an example of “Chalk this one up to our team” as Maarten says. Something very esoteric may have happened?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s