On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 15:31:03 -0700 (PDT), the following appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Graham Cooper <grahamcooper7@gmail.com>:
>You're an idiot! > >There's only 5 or 6 major catastrophes in the last decade.
Define "major".
>The Tsunami caused 100,000 deaths. > >Exacty 2 weeks before I post a prediction of a catastrophe. > >I gave the DARK DAY MONDAY which was spot on regarding the day of >morning. > >TYPE = CHECK
No type (flood [tsumani or otherwise], earthquake, fire, massive bolide impact, etc) given. "Dark Day Monday" means nothing.
>TIME FRAME = CHECK
No time frame given.
>DAY OF WEEK = CHECK
The tsumani happened on Sunday,not Monday, IIRC. But no week given. No location given. No time given. No mention of nature of catastrophe.
>JUST BEFORE MAJOR CATASTROPHE = CHECK
Still no prediction..
>That's just ONE of the 4 MAJOR catastrophes of the last decade where I >predicted them
If all those "predictions" were of equal value your "predictions" are worthless, and so vague as to be meaningless. Like this one:
>SPACE SHUTTLE EXPLOSION = CHECK >(EXACTLY ONE YEAR AFTER MEGA POST ABOUT "PREMONITION")
...and this one:
>BOXING DAY TSUNAMI = CHECK >(CATASTROPHE ON THE COMING MONDAY - IT WAS THE SECOND MONDAY) > >CHRISTCHURCH EARTHQUAKE = CHECK
Details? Did you specifically predict an earthquake? In Christchurch? On a stated date? At a stated time? If the answer to these is "no" this doesn't qualify as a prediction either.
>QUEENSLAND FLOODS = CHECK
Ditto.
>Plus other predictions that were spot on! >Peter Bowditch ERRS BUT HANGS ON for early 2011.
That's not a prediction; it's an observation. How about this one:
"Graham Cooper disagrees that his predictions are worthless."
Does that make me an oracle?
>You won't find ANYONE who has that many time stamped predictions ALL >WITH HITS
Postdictions, and interpretations of vague statements to suit them, aren't "hits". --
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is evidence that the observation is wrong." - McNameless
