>Ignore him.
>he's one of Sollog's minions.
>Roger

Hardly am I anyones minion you idiot.
And what exactly does that have to do with measuring this predictions accuracy? I do love however, how quickly you want to sweep this prediction under the rug and incite people to ignore it. It seems anyone that you don't like or agree with or anyone making intelligent inquiries on this persons predictions no matter what their angle, you feel the need to make it personal hoping it will discredit that predictor no matter what the facts are.

I just happen to have an interest in an objective analysis of predictors and predictions whether it be him or another. And it just so happens this particular instance and prediction was extremely interesting if not extremely close in my opinion. I was merely interested in getting some unbiased objective feedback which is something you're obviously incabable of.

Since I've previously observed your buffoonery and downright childish posts attacking people like sollog or others making predictions and never commented, I now feel its necessary to respond accordingly since you've stuck your nose in this post and made a completely worthless comment probably because you didn't have the balls to admit how accurate it was statistically.
Why can't you be impartial and judge the prediction simply on the facts? Is it because any admission of accuracy would destroy your entire mission to
hide the evidence and discredit him? Or is it that any validation whatsoever would ruin all the time you've invested in denying the truth that this quake prediction was as accurate as it appears?

Having stated a date over a year ago about an historic quake to hit on or around 01/01/05 and further stating this quake would involve the deaths of thousands, makes this prediction well worth analyzing whether a location was given or not in this particular case. Statistically this prediction is incredibly accurate and the probability or odds that a quake being called historic happening only 5 days from a specific date warned of over a year ago, is beyond uncanny. If you want to hide, deny and lie about the facts, or refuse to admit the basic characteristics that do show a statistically very accurate hit, thats your choice. But it
still doesn't invalidate it. Hopefully someone with a brain here is willing to discuss it civilly and properly.

You're obviously biased for personal reasons, otherwise you'd have shown how the prediction itself wasn't accurate, so anything you have to say is suspect and overall worthless on the matter.

Now having wasting way too much time on you, back to what I originally came here to discuss.

I'm then curious if anyone here saw this prediction described above that "roger the disinfo agent" has such a problem with, which was written last year on November 23rd 2003 about a series of great quakes that were going to occur on or around a target window of 01/01/05 for an Historic Great Quake that would kill thousands. Specifically, the following was stated:

"THOUSANDS OF HUMANS SHALL BE SACRIFICED IN AN HISTORIC QUAKE"

If that prediction was in fact made, I'd like to know what the members here
think. No location was given, and as I understand, this prediction was not
intended to be what many seismologists term "useful" in the "traditional" sense.

So my question here is centered around its statistical accuracy and whether this prediction could be called a hit without having given the location or exact date.

If based on the data and explanation above, you agree it was a very accurate
prediction, I hope those that agree will state so. If you disagree, please explain where and how the explanation and evidence is wrong.

As I see it using simple deductive reasoning, this prediction was extremely
uncanny at the least since the odds of an historic quake occurring within
5 days from a given date is around 1500 to 1 probable as it was calculated by
some of this persons supporters. I also believe the USGS defines a great quake as an earthquake having a magnitude of 8.0+ and I would assume that one of that magnitude would fall within what might described as historic or in this case, the quake that hit Indonesia. It was also pointed out that rare seismic events like this usually occur less than one per year. Given that, I don't see how not having given the location lessens the accuracy or relevance other than it not being useful in the traditional sense.

Any thoughts?

thanks