Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Numerology on Twitter

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
View attachment 739122

Speaking of numbers .....
Up $7.77 for the day. Looks like we about to win a big prize in slot machine ;)
Yeah, and take the SP add a 1 to the 6, add the two 4s together and subtract the other 1, then you have 777777

Not sure what that means, but it seemed important to point it out in this thread. :p

P.S. Oh! Look at the percent. What falls between 6 and 8? (That's right! It's 7!)

I also noticed on my spreadsheet that today's close brings us to 62.22% gain for the year, and for the life of me I cannot find a connection to 7 in there anywhere. Oh well. 🤷‍♂️
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: CarlS
9 more days and a hunt for a new date begins
A lot of this stuff can transfer right over to 1/29 similar to the way it went from 11/11 to 12/9 a few weeks ago. Not all of it mind you, but a bunch.

Seems to me fairly likely at this point Elon is up to something, but not betting much more than lunch money on it.
 
9 more days and a hunt for a new date begins
Exactly.

That's why this thread is titled "Numerology on Twitter" and not "Rational Predictions for December 9th 2021".

Here we have a safe place where we can just relax and have fun with illusory pattern perception, circular reasoning, hyperactive agency detection and attribution error.
 
s-l400.jpg
 
  • Funny
  • Like
Reactions: CarlS and Boomer19
He also doesn't like Wall Street, nor shortsellers, nor their Enrichment Commission, and has made comments like "A tsunami of hurt is coming for the shortsellers", "Stormy weather in Shortsville" and "Short burn of the century coming up soon". Several plausible ideas have been provided in this thread about how this may be a bear trap setup.

Finally, we know that he was displeased with his settlement with the SEC in 2018 which restricted his ability to tweet about Tesla without going through his legal team first, IIRC. If this is what it appears to be, I think he'd probably have plausible deniability in court.

This again proves my point. Everything you mentioned is still true for any possible date. Therefore, they do not contribute at all to the theory.

1) Digits showing up sequentially (e.g. "129" or "69")

2) Tweet timestamps and dates

3) Simple addition or multiplication of adjacent digits, without complex combinations

4) Letter indices in the Latin alphabet

5) Any simple numerical connections in pictures similar to the 1209 Viking raid or $129 Dinosaur AirPods

6) Running tweets through an anagram checker website

And for each one of your examples is a bucket full of twisted logic, questionable "math", wild-ass assumptions, and fabricated, additional data. == Confirmation bias.

And the reason nobody can pick a random date and find all the same kind of relationships, is that for 12/9, everyone knew the destination [date], and it's easy to draw a path from A-->B to find some way to magically get to 12/9. It's not really possible to pick a random new date and work backwards to the clues/hints and go from C-->A. For instance, what about all the other tweets that don't lead to 12/9? They're just ignored because they don't fit your pre-determined conclusion (or someone hasn't found a way to link them). But they're still all valid data. How many tweets lead to 12/9 versus how many don't? You can't just ignore that dataset because it doesn't fit the narrative.
 
This again proves my point. Everything you mentioned is still true for any possible date. Therefore, they do not contribute at all to the theory.
All you need to do to prove your point is wait a few days.

Arguing about it isn’t going to settle anything.

Just bookmark the page so you can come back and say “I told you so”.
 
This again proves my point. Everything you mentioned is still true for any possible date. Therefore, they do not contribute at all to the theory.
The primary contribution to the theory was to qualitatively demonstrate the likelihood of Elon behaving in this manner in general, based on personality, motives and past behavior. Without any additional facts, I'd assign a much higher baseline probability to Elon pulling a stunt like this on Twitter than the average famous person. From a Bayesian probability perspective, it's critical to attempt to establish a base rate probability from which to update beliefs with new evidence.

Additionally as @Artful Dodger has shown, 12/9 in particular would be extraordinarily favorable timing for bear trap, especially in light of the fact that it immediately follows the deadline for Elon to exercise his 2018 Compensation Award options.

We also know that December 2021 in general is expected to have an extraordinary amount of important Tesla news and developments compared to a typical month. If, hypothetically, Elon were holding onto some bullish information and wanted to bury the shorts in a tsunami of pain while effectively taunting the SEC in the process, why not disclose it at the same time as the two largest car factories in the world are opening and as intentions for a stock split are announced? That's what I would do if I were him and that were my goal.

And for each one of your examples is a bucket full of twisted logic, questionable "math", wild-ass assumptions, and fabricated, additional data. == Confirmation bias.
The six tests listed in my prior post are exactly what I would do if I were trying to post silly semi-cryptic messages on Twitter. The examples regarding prime numbers and a couple of the others are more of a stretch but nonetheless they exist and contribute to the overall body of evidence.

And the reason nobody can pick a random date and find all the same kind of relationships, is that for 12/9, everyone knew the destination [date], and it's easy to draw a path from A-->B to find some way to magically get to 12/9. It's not really possible to pick a random new date and work backwards to the clues/hints and go from C-->A.
That's not how this timeline went. A couple Twitter users noticed an apparent 12/9 pattern first and then started to connect the dots. Subsequently, several new tweets and stock sales happened that aligned with the predictions.

If you're asserting that it was easy to start with 12/9 and selectively find evidence to support that conclusion, then it also should be equally easy to do the same for any other date.

Shouldn't we also be able to say this?

"For MM/DD, everyone knew the destination [date], and it's easy to draw a path from A-->B to find some way to magically get to MM/DD."

Or alternatively, if you're asserting that it was easy to start with tweets and then identify commonalities and spin a narrative off that, then again it should also be equally easy to do that for other similar narratives.

For instance, what about all the other tweets that don't lead to 12/9? They're just ignored because they don't fit your pre-determined conclusion (or someone hasn't found a way to link them). But they're still all valid data. How many tweets lead to 12/9 versus how many don't? You can't just ignore that dataset because it doesn't fit the narrative.
The theory presented says that Elon is trying to make major announcements and probably setting up a bear trap without getting in legal trouble. If that were the case, it's reasonable to expect that not every single tweet would relate to this because:

1) He also tweets for other reasons, like having fun and communicating with customers

2) If every tweet were related then it may be too obvious, thus weakening the legal argument I suspect

Does this make the situation more ambiguous? Of course, but it doesn't invalidate the reasoning entirely.
 
Last edited:
I'm really puzzled by the upcoming 1209 event non event. IF it is a non event, it will certainly have worked as a marketing attention economy ploy, and it'll most likely then be a SP plunge event, which could be a trap for the bears getting slaughtered later, like at 4Q earnings time.

Wait til I get going... ;)

e0b6cf9a-600a-4b33-8f06-c92e7cd0aa03_text.gif


Cheers!
 
You’re kidding right?
Not - unless the Twitter poster was lying - I posted a query confirmation (paging @Oveeus who bought one) but .. the mods deleted that post - well they won't be able to *IF* it is indeed confirmed. Now think, if you were Elon, how could you not resist having it sound 1209 or 129 Hz?

My deleted post in the main thread


TSLA.TMC.1209.deleted.jpg


And the sounds for verification purposes if anyone has the Cyberwhistle



Edit: @Artful Dodger : agreed, that does sound too low for a whistle
 
Not - unless the Twitter poster was lying - I posted a query confirmation (paging @Oveeus who bought one) but .. the mods deleted that post - well they won't be able to *IF* it is indeed confirmed. Now think, if you were Elon, how could you not resist having it sound 1209 or 129 Hz?

My deleted post in the main thread


View attachment 739299

And the sounds for verification purposes if anyone has the Cyberwhistle



Edit: @Artful Dodger : agreed, that does sound too low for a whistle
I thought zeros mattered?