Re: a miss is a miss
Posted by Cathryn on September 04, 2004 at 18:01:50:

Not to argue with a scientist, for whom a near miss is indeed a miss, but the comparison to JOB doesn't translate. Not to sound mean, but JOB has built so much wiggle room into his predictions, they're hardly predictions at all. The "There will be a 7 somewhere in the Ring of Fire" during a 10 day interval, is more likely to happen than not. Same thing with his, "There will be a 3-4 somewhere in the Bay Area," the Bay Area constantly expanding, and the likelihood of that also being quite high.

Question: Did he predict the Cambria earthquake?

Cathryn


Follow Ups:
     ● we're working a bit on that - John Vidale  18:28:00 - 9/4/2004  (22723)  (2)
        ● The moon/tidal theory - Cathryn  20:30:17 - 9/4/2004  (22726)  (0)
        ● But my question ... - Cathryn  20:24:15 - 9/4/2004  (22725)  (2)
           ● Re: But my question ... - Roger Hunter  21:48:11 - 9/4/2004  (22729)  (1)
              ● Re: But my question ... - Cathryn  16:29:13 - 9/5/2004  (22740)  (1)
                 ● P.S. to Roger - Cathryn  17:14:54 - 9/5/2004  (22745)  (1)
                    ● Re: P.S. to Roger - Roger Hunter  21:11:45 - 9/5/2004  (22751)  (1)
                       ● Re: P.S. to Roger - Cathryn  14:51:52 - 9/6/2004  (22765)  (0)
           ● I've no idea - John Vidale  21:03:49 - 9/4/2004  (22727)  (3)
              ● JOB - Cathryn  16:33:02 - 9/5/2004  (22741)  (1)
                 ● Re: JOB - Cathryn  16:35:46 - 9/5/2004  (22742)  (0)
              ● Re: I've no idea - Cathryn  16:23:25 - 9/5/2004  (22738)  (0)
              ● Re: I've no idea - Cathryn  16:22:58 - 9/5/2004  (22736)  (1)
                 ● More on the books - Cathryn  16:25:28 - 9/5/2004  (22739)  (0)