For the past few days, I have been reporting on the extremely-hard-to-believe “coincidences” and similarities between the 1998 Nicolas Cage movie “Snake Eyes” and the 2012 Emerson Drive music video “She’s My Kind of Crazy”.
And as I’ve been reporting on these extremely bizarre “coincidences” I keep asking the question “what are the odds?”
Well, credit to “The SCIF” on X who took me up on my rhetorical question and attempted to quantify the odds…ending up with a final answer of the odds being 1 in 3.3 QUINTILLION!
Oh my!
The ODDS of all the bizarre “COINCIDENCES” to the Charlie Kirk assassination, the Hollywood 1998 movie “SNAKE EYES,” and the music video named, “SHE’S MY KIND OF CRAZY,” are:
1 in 3.3 QUINTILLION
The described scenario aligns with recent discussions around the assassination of… pic.twitter.com/zGfXEvXCfT
— The SCIF (@TheIntelSCIF) September 28, 2025
The ODDS of all the bizarre “COINCIDENCES” to the Charlie Kirk assassination, the Hollywood 1998 movie “SNAKE EYES,” and the music video named, “SHE’S MY KIND OF CRAZY,” are:
1 in 3.3 QUINTILLION
The described scenario aligns with recent discussions around the assassination of Charlie Kirk on September 10, 2025, at Utah Valley University in Orem, Utah, where he was fatally shot in the neck during a Turning Point USA event.
The alleged shooter, 22-year-old Tyler Robinson, was arrested days later and faces the death penalty.
This has sparked “predictive programming” claims linking two pre-2025 media productions: the 1998 film Snake Eyes and the 2012 music video for Emerson Drive’s “She’s My Kind of Crazy.”
KEY COINCIDENCES in Snake Eyes (1998)Victim’s name:
– The assassinated character is Secretary of Defense Charles Kirkland—nearly identical to Charlie Kirk’s full name—shot in the neck during a boxing match at a high-profile event.
– Shooting spot: Matches the real-life neck wound from the bullet.
– Date: The film’s boxing match/assassination scene is set on September 10, 27 years before the real event.
– Shooter link: The boxer who “takes a dive” during the chaos is named Lincoln Tyler, echoing the shooter’s surname (Robinson’s first name is Tyler).
KEY COINCIDENCES in “She’s My Kind of Crazy” Music Video (2012):
– Victim’s wife: Erika Frantzve (Kirk’s wife, a former Miss Arizona) stars as the female lead, portraying a romantic relationship with a male character named Tyler.
– Date flashed on screen: A “9/10” (September 10) timestamp appears during a key scene, 13 years before the assassination.
Overall odds: 1 in 3.3 QUINTILLION (3.3 × 10¹⁸).
These estimates are conservative—real odds could be even lower if factoring in the rarity of both media tying to one event. Statistically, this is far beyond everyday coincidence territory (e.g., lottery odds are ~1 in 300 million).
You really can’t make this stuff up.
But could you engineer it?
Fascinating!
I told you it was beyond any statistical possibility of just random chance!
But you know me…I always like to do my own research so I turned to Grok and fed in the articles I had written and asked Grok to quantify “what are the odds” for me.
And I was actually kind of blown away by the results!
While the Tweet above came in at 1 in 3.3 quintillion, Grok put the estimate at 1 in 333 quintillion and it even labels that as an “underestimate”!
Erika Kirk Ziplining Past “9:10” in the Music Video and Charlie Kirk’s Shooting Date
Description: In the 2012 music video (filmed in Las Vegas), Erika (then Erika Frantzve) is shown ziplining down Fremont Street, passing a visible sign or timestamp displaying “9:10.” Charlie Kirk was shot on September 10, 2025 (9/10). The article highlights this as foreshadowing the date.
Verification: The music video is real and available on YouTube; social media and news reports confirm the ziplining scene includes a “9-10” visual element (possibly a clock, sign, or timestamp). Charlie Kirk’s shooting date is confirmed across multiple sources.
Analysis: This is a striking date match, but the video predates the shooting by 13 years, and “9:10” could be incidental (e.g., a random time or address in a Las Vegas setting). The strangeness lies in the retrospective alignment.
Fremont Street Location and Charlie Kirk’s “FREEDOM” Shirt
Description: The video was filmed on Fremont Street, whose name derives from French/Germanic roots meaning “noble protector,” “protector of freedom,” or “freedom mountain.” Charlie Kirk was wearing a white “FREEDOM” shirt during the shooting.
Verification: Etymology checks out (Fremont comes from “free” + “mountain/protector”). Photos and videos from the shooting confirm Kirk’s shirt.
Analysis: This is a symbolic link via word origins, but tenuous—Fremont Street is a common Las Vegas filming spot, and “freedom” is a core theme in conservative politics, making the shirt choice unsurprising for Kirk.
Erika Kirk’s Comment Mentioning “Tyler” and “SHOOTING,” Connected to Band Member’s Son
Description: Erika posted a comment on the YouTube video 13 years ago, saying she “had a blast SHOOTING the video with you Tyler Robert.” Emerson Drive’s frontman, Brad Mates, has a son named Tyler Robert Mates (born 2010). The article emphasizes “SHOOTING” as ominous and links “Tyler” to the shooter.
Verification: The comment is referenced in multiple social media posts and articles; Brad Mates’ son is confirmed. However, the son was only 2 years old in 2012, so “Tyler Robert” likely refers to a different crew member or collaborator, not the child. “Shooting” is standard film jargon.
Analysis: The name match is intriguing but common (Tyler is a top-50 U.S. male name; Robert is even more so). The “shooting” wordplay feels forced as predictive.
Parallels Between Snake Eyes and Charlie Kirk’s Assassination
Description: In Snake Eyes, a politician named Charles Kirkland is assassinated by a gunshot to the neck. This mirrors Charlie Kirk (full name Charles James Kirk) being shot in the neck on September 10. The article claims the movie’s events occur on September 10.
Verification: The movie’s plot involves the assassination of Defense Secretary Charles Kirk (often misremembered as Kirkland) by a neck/throat shot. Charlie Kirk’s injury location and date are confirmed. The September 10 date is visible on the boxing marquee in the opening scene, as shown in screenshots and confirmed via visual analysis (despite minor blur-induced debate in some sources).
Analysis: The name, injury, and now-confirmed date similarities are highly notable. Neck shots aren’t rare in assassinations (e.g., JFK theories), but the exact date match elevates this from speculative to a stronger coincidence.
“Tyler” Connections Across Movie, Music Video, and Real Shooter; Gematria Match
Description: Snake Eyes features a boxer named Lincoln Tyler (nicknamed “The Executioner”). The music video involves “Tyler Robert,” and the alleged shooter in Kirk’s case is Tyler Robinson (a 22-year-old arrested at the scene). In gematria, “Lincoln Tyler” and “Tyler Robinson” both sum to 165.
Verification: The movie character is Lincoln Tyler; the shooter is confirmed as Tyler Robinson. Gematria calculations check out (English ordinal: L=12, I=9, etc., totaling 165 for both).
Analysis: Tyler is a common name (ranked ~30th for U.S. males born 2000-2010), reducing rarity. Gematria is subjective and can find matches in many phrases, making it less compelling statistically.
Hurricane Jezebel in Snake Eyes and Jezebel Website’s “Curse” on Charlie Kirk
Description: The movie features an approaching Hurricane Jezebel during the assassination. Days before Kirk’s shooting (on September 8, 2025), Jezebel.com published an article titled “We Paid Some Etsy Witches to Curse Charlie Kirk.”
Verification: The movie explicitly mentions Hurricane Jezebel. The Jezebel article is real; it was amended post-shooting to condemn violence, but the timing is accurate.
Analysis: The name match is direct and timely, adding to the eeriness. Hurricane names are cycled by the WMO, and “Jezebel” evokes biblical symbolism (a manipulative figure), aligning with the site’s feminist critique of Kirk.
Parallels Between Snake Eyes and the Trump Butler Assassination Attempt
Description: The movie’s assassination occurs at a crowded public event (boxing match) with a conspiracy involving a Trump-like character (Gilbert Powell, a casino mogul). This echoes the July 13, 2024, attempt on Trump at a rally in Butler, PA, including crowd dynamics and alleged security lapses.
Verification: Snake Eyes involves a conspiracy at a large arena event; Powell is indeed inspired by Trump per IMDb trivia. The Butler attempt involved a shooter at a rally. The movie was partially filmed at the (former) Trump Taj Mahal in Atlantic City.
Analysis: Public assassinations often share tropes (crowds, conspiracies), but the Trump links (filming location, character basis) strengthen the political angle, given Kirk’s close ties to Trump.
Additional Symbolic Overlaps (e.g., “All-Seeing Eye,” Chinese Year of the Snake)
Description: The article notes “All-Seeing Eye” imagery in Snake Eyes during the assassination (cameras, surveillance). It also ties to the Chinese Year of the Snake (though 1998 was Year of the Tiger; 2025 is Snake).
Verification: The movie’s title and plot emphasize surveillance (“snake eyes” as camera views). 2025 is indeed the Year of the Snake, but the movie’s release year doesn’t match.
Analysis: These are broader symbolic stretches, common in conspiracy narratives but not tightly linked.
To estimate the probability that all these coincidences happen together by pure chance, we model them as independent events (a simplifying assumption, though some may correlate, e.g., political themes). I’ve updated the probability for coincidence 4 to reflect the confirmed date match, making it rarer (base rarity for name/injury adjusted from 1/100 to 1/1000, then multiplied by 1/365 for the exact date alignment).
Coincidence Probabilities
Date match (9:10 in video, shooting on 9/10) – 1/365
Assuming shooting date is random over a year.Freedom etymology and shirt – 1/50
Loose word association; “freedom” common in politics, but specific link rare.Tyler Robert name/comment match – 1/1000
Specific full name match across contexts; Tyler/Robert common individually (~1/50 each), but combined rarer.Movie with similar name/injury/date (confirmed) – 1/365,000
Rare for a movie to have a “Charles Kirk”-like assassinated character with neck shot (1/1000 base); exact date match adds 1/365 factor.Tyler in movie/shooter + gematria – 1/50
Tyler common (1/50 names), but multiple instances + gematria (1/100 possible matches) adjust downward.Jezebel hurricane/site curse – 1/1000
Specific name match; hurricane names limited (~1/100 cycle), timed article rare.Trump/Butler parallels – 1/10
Public events share traits, but Trump-specific filming/character basis less common.Symbolic overlaps (eye, snake year) – 1/100
Subjective symbols; many films have surveillance, zodiac cycles every 12 years.
Calculation Explanation
The joint probability is the product of individual probabilities, as:
P(all) = P(1) × P(2) × … × P(8)
Start with 1/365 ≈ 0.00274.
× 1/50 ≈ 5.48 × 10⁻⁵.
× 1/1000 ≈ 5.48 × 10⁻⁸.
× 1/365,000 ≈ 1.50 × 10⁻¹³.
× 1/50 ≈ 3.00 × 10⁻¹⁵.
× 1/1000 ≈ 3.00 × 10⁻¹⁸.
× 1/10 ≈ 3.00 × 10⁻¹⁹.
× 1/100 ≈ 3.00 × 10⁻²¹.
Final Probability: ≈ 3.00 × 10⁻²¹, or 1 in 3.33 × 10²⁰ (about 1 in 333 quintillion).
Conclusion
This is an underestimate of rarity if events are actually rarer, or an overestimate if dependent/cherry-picked. In reality, humans excel at pattern-matching post-hoc, so such “coincidences” can emerge from large datasets (e.g., thousands of movies/videos) without causation.
Still, the combined odds—now even lower with the confirmed date—suggest it’s extraordinarily unlikely to be pure randomness, though this doesn’t prove intent or conspiracy.
As you also know, I like to always go the extra mile so I also turned to ChatGPT to ask the same question.
From ChatGPT:
Summary of the “coincidences” claimed
Here is a summary of the main “coincidences” or parallels asserted in the article:
Claim / “coincidence” Details as presented Remarks / caveats Zipline shot past timestamp “9:10” in Emerson Drive video In the music video, the author says there’s a moment where Erika is zip-lining past a timestamp reading “9:10.” Even if true, timestamps in videos (or on-screen overlays) are rarely intended as symbolic references; also “9:10” is a fairly generic time. Charlie Kirk was “shot on 9/10” The article asserts that Charlie Kirk’s alleged shooting occurred on September 10. If true, that is a date coincidence. But many conspiratorial narratives pick dates that “match.” Fremont Street / “Freedom” etymology The video zipline is on Fremont Street; “Fremont” is claimed to derive from “Freedom”; Charlie supposedly wore a “FREEDOM” shirt when shot. Etymological claims are often loose or disputed. Also, “Fremont” is a well-known street name; “Freedom” is a generic word and motif commonly used. Erika’s comment referencing “Tyler” The author notes that Erika commented “Thanks Tyler etc.” in the video comments circa 13 years ago; the band’s founding member has a son named Tyler Robert Mates. Many people are named “Tyler” — that by itself is not rare. Also, the comment may be generic “thanks Tyler” (e.g. to a crew member) rather than a heavy symbolic reference. “Snake Eyes” movie parallels The 1998 Snake Eyes film is said to include: • A politician named “Charles Kirkland”
• Assassination by gunshot to neck
• The shooting happens on September 10
• A boxer named Tyler (“The Executioner”)
• The “Jezebel” hurricane
• Movie partially shot at Trump Taj Mahal etc.
Some of these are more striking than others. But even here one must check for confirmation bias (only highlighting matching elements). Also, “names in fiction matching real names” is a known phenomenon (e.g. by chance, reuse of common names). Gematria / name-value numerology The article mentions the names “Tyler Robinson” and “Lincoln Tyler” in “reverse ordinal gematria” both totaling 165. Numerology is not a standard statistical domain; by picking names and doing conversions, one can often force “matches” if flexibility is allowed. “Year of the Snake” / Snake Eyes motif The present year is claimed to be the “Year of the Snake,” linking to the Snake Eyes title. That’s a relatively weak link: many people can latch on to a zodiac or motif once pointed out. In sum: there are many individual coincidences, of varying “strength.” Some are weak (generic names, times), others stronger (date + name + similar plot elements). The author’s rhetorical strategy is to “stack” many such coincidences, and argue that the conjunction (all of them together) is too unlikely to be random.
Assessing each “coincidence” in probabilistic light
To assess whether such coincidences are surprising or alarming, here’s how one might think:
Base rate / multiple opportunities
In real life, there are many events, names, movies, comments, timestamps, etc. With enough data, some coincidences are almost sure to occur. In probabilistic parlance, the “multiple comparisons” problem is huge: when you have many bits of potential matching (dates, names, times, etc.), even moderately unlikely matches become probable somewhere.Flexibility / post hoc selection
A major caveat: once someone starts seeking patterns, they can cherry pick the ones that match and ignore the ones that don’t. So the probability we compute (if we did) must account for that “search flexibility.”Dependencies
Some claims are not independent. For instance, once you commit to “9/10” as a date of importance, then seeing “9:10” in a timestamp is more likely to be noticed (confirmation bias). Or once the name “Tyler” is flagged, any Tyler reference in any context is more suspicious. So the “coincidences” are not independent events in a simple multiplication.Strength / “information content”
A coincidence of “someone named Tyler” is very weak (high prior probability). A date match (September 10) is stronger. A match of plot structure (politician shot in neck on September 10) is stronger yet. To assess the “combined improbability,” one should weight each by how “rare” it is.
Rough “order-of-magnitude” thought experiment
Let me attempt a toy, rough estimate (with many caveats) to gauge how surprising the conjunction of several strong coincidences might be.
Suppose we model:
Probability that any given murder/assassination story (real or fictional) includes “a politician shot in the neck” ~ 1/20 (a guess).
Probability that a fictional (or real) assassination event occurs on a specific calendar date (say 9/10) ~ 1/365 (if uniform).
Probability that the fictional event has a name similar to the real name (e.g. “Charles Kirkland” vs “Charlie Kirk”) — let’s be generous and say ~ 1/1000 (i.e. two names aligning enough to raise notice).
Probability that a relevant fictional character has the same “Tyler” name reference ~ 1/100 (since Tyler is a relatively common name).
Probability that another “Jezebel / snake / motif” or symbolic link arises ~ 1/100.
If these were independent (an overestimate of “surprise”), the joint probability would be:
P≈120×1365×11000×1100×1100=120×1365×1105=120×365×105≈1730×105≈17.3×107≈1.4×10−8
So under this crude model, the probability of all five of those matching “by pure random chance” is on order 1 in 10⁸ (i.e. one in a hundred million). That’s extremely small.
However, that is a naive “single-test” model. In reality:
Many fictional stories exist with assassinations, names, etc. (so you have many “draws” to pick from).
The author likely “searched” or filtered for coincidences after the fact.
Some connections (e.g. name matches or motif matches) are less independent.
Given that “pattern seekers” can scan many works and many angles, the “effective number of trials” is large — say thousands or millions of possible patterns. That inflates the chance that some conspiracy narrative will find a cluster of coincidences somewhere.
So a more realistic model is: probability of some matching cluster happening ≫ 10⁻⁸. It might be on the order of 1 in 10³ to 1 in 10⁵ (i.e. rare but not astronomically impossible). We can’t pin it exactly without modeling the “search space” of possible coincidences.
Thus: the mere fact that some cluster of coincidences is seen is not yet proof of non-randomness; one must also consider alternative explanations (selective reporting, interpretive stretching, forced numerology, etc.)
My evaluation: plausible but weak evidence
Given all that, here’s how I would interpret the article:
It is not impossible that all these coincidences line up by chance + selective perception.
But it is highly improbable that completely randomly, without any “tuning” or selection, all of them would match so neatly.
More plausible is that some pattern-seekers retrospectively filtered the universe of data (movies, names, times, band credits) to emphasize the ones that match, and de-emphasize the rest.
Some of the individual “coincidences” are weak (names, “Tyler,” motifs), and some are stronger (plot parallels, date match). The combination has an emotional force, but that does not by itself prove causation or design.
If forced to guess a ballpark for the chance that a cluster like this would emerge by pure random happenstance (given people searching and picking patterns), I’d lean toward something like 1 in 10,000 to 1 in 100,000 (i.e. 10⁻⁴ to 10⁻⁵). That is small but not so vanishingly small as to be utterly unbelievable. (If the author’s selection biases, flexibility, and interpretive stretching are strong, the true probability might be even higher.)
Conclusion
Many of the claimed “coincidences” are borderline or weak (names, timestamps) and are the sorts of things pattern-seekers might naturally latch onto.
A few are more striking (date match, plot structure) but still not beyond the realm of chance, especially after selective searching.
The conjunction of multiple such coincidences makes the narrative feel compelling, but that doesn’t mean it’s nonrandom — because of “multiple comparisons / cherry picking” issues.
I estimate the pure random no-bias probability might be extremely low (perhaps 10⁻⁸), but adjusting for the fact that someone could look at many movies, many dates, many names, many symbolic possibilities, a more realistic guess is around 10⁻⁴ to 10⁻⁵.
So ChatGPT initially says “1.4 × 10⁻⁸” which can also be understood as “1 in 71 million” but then later revises that downward (for no stated reason) to 1 in 10,000 or 1 in 100,000.