Originally posted by ArMaP
[Don't tell anyone, but I think this "earthquake" will be considered as not a geologic earthquake but something different, maybe the Israeli attack on Gaza, for example, for which the latitude is the right one, and some word connotations will appear to show that they were right.

This is why webbot sucks

You can take anything from it an interpret it how you like.

With in the January fifth window .A 7.6 earthquake is on target!

One more though to go I think... Something about twin quakes if I remember and not from what went down in china. I already read that!

lat number 133.279°E

[edit on 3-1-2009 by titorite]

Because the webots folks said the earthquake would be with in a certain range of lat.

And I think it got that relatively right.. along with the intensity... Lord knows it sucks in Indonesia right now. And Its magnitude is of something larger which was expected and with in the jan fifth window.

PS This thread finally got my star and flag

[edit on 3-1-2009 by titorite]

[edit on 3-1-2009 by titorite]

OMG I thought this thread was dead. I am speechless and don't know what else to say. gosh

Originally posted by TruthParadox

Really?
A 7.6 earthquake??
Don't get me wrong, that's big, but it's not HUGE like the webbot predicts.
The effects won't be felt around the world as the webbot suggests.
I think this is just grasping at straws...
It reminds me of the Oct 7th prediction...

The guys have already admitted their mistake on Coast to Coast AM for mis-interpreting the earthquake data. Here's a quote from this weeks article at Urbansurvival.com...

2. "You didn't mention the failure of you Dec. 10-12 earthquake in your 'predictions report'.

Correct: I did, however, cover that on the air with Ian Punnett as our "Worst Prediction of 2008" and made two points (from my notes):

1. "We expected a December 10-15 ‘twin quake’ and that was simply a bad read on our part"

2. And... "What we got was a lot of' financial earthquake’ and ‘after shocks’ language around the breaking Bernie Madoff story that happened at the same time as the isolation/shutdown of the Pacific Northwest - just a case of getting pieces right but not the whole"

As far as the Oct. 7th prediction you keep bringing up, here's what he had to say about that in response to a reader's complaints, much like your own...

3. Here's a dandy email: "You still are trying to take some kind of false credit for predicting some kind of incident on 07 October 2008. Your .PDF which lists 2008's "accomplishments" puts the Icelandic bank failures at 06/07 October 2008. NEWSFLASH -- they were precipitously failing a WEEK PRIOR the failures did NOT begin on 06/07 October 2008. Another NEWSFLASH -- They still are. Again, you had the trend but you faltered by listing a specific date and time."

WTF is this? First, look at the wording of the prediction from Jan 2 2008: See slide # 3, October 2008 prediction, fourth bullet point: "May be a global replay of what the 1932 bond crash in the Great Depression was."

Second, we refined this to a roughly Bell curve distribution around Oct. 7th. That's a distribution centered on a date. Now, look at Wikipedia's entries for September 2008 and there is no reference to "global financial crisis." Now look at the October entry below it. There are three references including the October 7th loan of $4-billion to Iceland by Russia to bail them out as they experienced a national financial failure.

I have informed the individual that it is not my role in Universe to engage in further debate on this, and despite that I have received yet another insulting email criticizing the accuracy of the prediction made 10-months in advance. As evidence 'you weren't right' the reader quoted news item about a smaller $600-million loan from the week before Oct 7th was attached.

Lemme see here: Jan 2 a year ago we point to Oct '08 and the large-scale crisis. Mid summer we refine it to October 7 as the peak of a distribution. And non-subscriber (without access to all the data) claims a minor article appears the week before and that somehow invalidates 10-years of work in a new area of science? OK, sure...whatever

That about sums it up nicely, IMO.

Originally posted by Evil Genius
Now, consider this semi-correct hit and the May quake in China which they missed by 1 day and they seem to be on to something.

The problem is that I cannot consider this semi-correct. What was correct about it, that two large earthquakes would happen during this time? That, as far as I know, was the only correct thing. The location was a failure and the magnitude was a failure. What was left is something for which statistics are enough.

I remember seeing a TV show where a man said that statistics can help something but they can not tell everything. That man, using statistics, predicted that on a certain month there would be an aeroplane crash, the number of passengers involved, the type of aeroplane and the colours of the company's logo, and his predictions was right, but only because of the frequency of aeroplane crashes, the average number of passengers, the average type of aeroplane involved in crashes and the average colours of the logos.

It really wasn't a prediction because he could not predict exactly where and to which aeroplane or company, so I do not see a great difference between those statistics predictions and the web-bot forecasts.

And only with enough statistic data can we rule out lucky guesses.

Another thing, that apparently people keep on forgetting, is that if these forecasts are really accurate, who is the responsible. For what we know, the man behind it may have a specific ability to predict some events, and considering that he programmed to web-bot and all the other software that does the data manipulation and is the same person that interprets the resulting data, the web-bot may be a failure while the man is the real wonder.

Oh its Feb 3rd!!!! how many days do we have left oh wise one?