(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) -- Rx for RRR Cult's Loathsome
Agendas: Extinction!" <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote:

Ray Fischer <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote:

(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) -- Rx for RRR Cult's Loathsome
Agendas: Extinction! <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote:

Ray Fischer <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote:

(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) -- Rx for RRR Cult's Loathsome
Agendas: Extinction! <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote:

No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:

(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) -- Rx for RRR Cult's Loathsome
Agendas: Extinction!" <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> writes:

West Coast of USA -- Especially California -- watch for
possibility of an earthquake fairly soon. Possibly between
now and the Christmas Season. Could easily exceed 6.0 on
the Richter Scale.

It apparently hit Hawaii instead. Is this another case of the
"God who can't shoot straight"? :-)

My prediction was for the REGION.

And Hawaii isn't in the region you specified.

It's within the one I had in mind, based on the precedent. But
what would have been the point of mentioning the ocean, giving the
unlikelihood that an epicenter within that region would happen to
occur in Hawaii.

Why not just refer to the northern hemisphere? Or why not include
the whole planet?

Because the precedent upon which my prediction was based
has applied in the past ONLY to the FAR smaller area that never
lies beyond Salt Lake to the East. Midway Island to the west,
Vancouver, B.C. to the north, and halfway down Baja to the south.
As I mentioned farther down, not knowing where, WITHIN that area,
the epicenter would be, the odds of it hitting islands in the Pacific
would be so remote as to not normally come to mind.

A region large enough to include Hawaii and a little beyond.

Nice little bit of after-the-fact revisionism.

You'd obviously like to think so.

Your claim excluded Hawaii. There is no quesiton about that.
Now you're trying to adjust your claim after the fact.

See above.

It was based upon that which I described above.

West Coast of the US. That's nowhere near Hawaii.

See above.

And it had to do with tectonics, not God.

And Hawaii's tectonics are unrelated to California's.

They are indeed. AS is the case with the precedent and the
event its been so good at predicting.

Which just happened to be wrong.

Possibly. Since there's no way of knowing (as I've always
made clear) whether or not there IS a connection between the
precedent and the quakes that have followed it so soon thereafter (as
happened again this time), or an exponentially-unlikely coincidence.

If it's not the latter, then the actual causative factor that
links the precedent to the quickly-following West Coast - NE
Pacific quakes have yet to be determined.

Seems to be real easy to declare all those locations as the
boundaries of intent........after the fact.

(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) -- Rx for RRR Cult's Loathsome
Agendas: Extinction! <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote:

Ray Fischer <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote:

(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) -- Rx for RRR Cult's Loathsome
Agendas: Extinction! <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote:

Ray Fischer <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote:

(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯)

"ScottyFLL" <ScottyFLL@gmail.com>

(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) wrote:

West Coast of USA -- Especially California -- watch for
possibility of an earthquake fairly soon. Possibly between
now and the Christmas Season. Could easily exceed 6.0 on
the Richter Scale.

If it doesn't happen, then this potential prediction was
worthless. But I'm basing it on an observable precedent. If it
DOES occur, I'll tell these groups what I based it on.

Two earthquakes (one a 6.3) today in Hawaii, off the Big Island.

THAT is close enough to align with the precedent.

And the fact that you were off by several thousand miles doesn't
seem to make any difference.

The precedent upon which my prediction is based includes an
area that large. ###==>* It's just that a 6.0 quake right next
to or in CA, OR, or WA would be noticed (goes without saying)
and recorded as significant. Even though the quake would be
JUST as likely to occur out in the Pacific, even 2-3 thousand miles
out, it would go virtually unnoticed unless it caused a tsunami.
OR -- just happened to hit on or near Hawaii, as happened today.
The precedent, then, could apply JUST as much to Hawaii. But
since the precedent applies to a REGION, rather than a pinpointed
target, it didn't cross my mind to think specifically of Hawaii.

So at bottom -- IF the precedent upon which I based the
prediction DOES have an actual cause-and-effect mode, rather
that being a coincidence of HIGHLY-unlikely odds against its
BEING only a coincidence -- ANY locale within the region from
Midway Island to Salt Lake, and Vancouver to Baja, could have
had the quake.

Interestingly, the quakes that seem to follow the precedent that
I employed in making this prediction almost *always* tend to occur
within hours or days of that circumstance coming into play. Which is
why I said "between NOW and Christmastime." <==###*

* ( ###==> <==### ...encompasses now-RESTORED
text that Ray had deleted before making the response,
below.)

You predicted the west coast of the US. Honolulu is about as close
to the west coast of the US as is the east coast of the US.

You're playing that old game of taking credit for a vague prediction
when, in fact, your prediction, as vague as it was, does NOT fit the
Hawaii earthquake.

I have RESTORED, above, that which I already told you in that
regard, and which you obviously needed to dishonestly OMIT before
making the response you just did, lest you prove yourself to be a
total fool.

Now -- unfortunately for you -- people now can see clearly that
you not only *are* a total fool, but worse, that you are a DISHONEST
total fool.

It doesn't alter the fact that you're trying to take credit for a
FAILED prediction.