My prediction comes true:earthquake hits Calf.Dec.6 5.1 scale

carol

New Member
I am a guest on We Book. I have a section called "My Predictions".


To get there go to internet type in We Book once at the sight type my name (cdaroljean) in the blank space and check member. O the next page click on my name and it will bring you to my personnal sight where you will see "Cdaroljeans Predictions Sept 22, 2008. Click on My Predictions Sept. 22, 2008- in the upper right corner click on "My Predictions again than you can read it for yourself.

On Sept 22, 2008 I predicted that an earthquake would hit Sanfransico, Calf. within a three month period from Sept 22- to Dec 22 on a scale between 4.2 and 6.5

Today Dec. 6, 2008 saturday News-says there was an earthquake in Sanfransico, Calf. Scale 5.1

I predicted the Japan earthquake this year aso but failed to make it public
 

oop38290

New Member
I had some earthquake dreams earlier, but I don't think my dreams were related to the recent ones happened in the California.
 

PJ

Administrator
Staff member
Interesting. I grew up in Southern California and unfortunately earthquakes are so constant there (small ones happening regularly, not even in the news unless it's a slow day) that it's hard to get deserved credit for those kinds of predictions.

Of course if LAX is destroyed tomorrow I suppose someone will be getting credit...

Maybe you could focus on a specific city, somewhere out of the major issues for major regions (eg not looking for hurricanes in the south, quakes in the west, freezes in the north, or tornadoes in the midwest) and see if you can narrow in on something unexpected for a given region. I bet that could generate some publicity for your stuff.
 

daz

Remote viewer, author, artist and photographer.
Staff member
I think Courtney's experiment did pretty well in predicting the earthquake itself but he just missread the viewers data or the viewers expanded too much on real earthquake data and produced destruction data. But overall seeming as the climate change experiment wasnt looking for an earthquake it did ok.

Of course I would say this as i was involved :)

daz
 

PJ

Administrator
Staff member
I must not have seen the relevant info, as I thought the primary data that led to the quake conclusion was "the destruction of LAX" which sounds like a prediction of its own.

5.1 is not a significant earthquake in California is the thing. I've lived in valleys like jello where a 5-5.3 certainly was attention getting--we had a couple of those as aftershocks from the Northridge quake--but on most land types and with California's building codes that is not usually an issue.

I guess the point I'm making is that if every small quake in California of all places (which is huge -- you can fit all the countries of the UK into less than 2/3 of California -- and has quakes somewhere near constantly) leads to data of "destruction" then you might as well just consider every target on California for the next 20 years "an event of destruction" because there's probably a quake of some size fairly near in time and space around most of them.

Btw I thought the date was 12/8, which hasn't occurred yet in CA's timezone?
 

carol

New Member
Thank you all for the commnets.
Payne: I predicted another hurricane would hit behind Katrina the name of the hurricane was Hurricane Ike.
 

Marv_Darley

New Member
Staff member
I think Courtney's experiment did pretty well in predicting the earthquake itself
I thought that the Courtney project predicted the wholesale destruction of LAX...? Predicting an earthquake some time soon in an area totally prone to earthquakes is not really that much of a feat. :-\

Based on my own RV data I predict that there will be an earthquake in California in the next 6 months. I also predict extremely cold weather in the UK this January. There's gonna be a flood somewhere as well.

Marv :)
 

blackcat

New Member
I also am now confused. My understanding is that viewers on Courtney's project predicted (mostly due to Courtney's analysis of their work) destruction at LAX due to an earthquake that preceded the target date of viewing. Months is a long long window for predicting small earthquakes anywhere in California. We have em all the time. Just a few weeks ago, I was wakened by a fourpointsomething quake centered not far from my house! It didn't even make the news except locally. It did not affect LA even though LA is only 2 hours away. I think it was only about a week later that there was an even bigger one in Barstow. And checking the quake map, we had a 6.5 in Ludlow last week! Didn't even make the news.

California is larger and more populated than many countries. And it is a long skinny state! Los Angeles and LAX are on the south end and San Francisco is more on the north end. Even a big quake in San Francisco would be unlikely to cause damage at LAX so a small quake over in San Francisco can't be considered a hit for a prediction of damage at LAX, especially considering a small quake would not even creat a jiggle all the way over in LA.

Courtney predicted damage at LAX. That has not yet happened. Perhaps a decent sized quake in LA causing some decent kind of disruption at the airport sometime in the general predicted time frame might be considered somewhat of a near hit. But saying there will be a middling sized (nondamaging) earthquake somewhere in California sometime in the next bunch of months is not really a prediction as much as it is a likelihood all the time. California is a huge state located on major fault lines. We have dozens of known fault lines right here in San Diego, any of which could (and will) create minor earthquakes at any time.

Just to give you an idea how many quakes we have, check out the quake map here:
http://quake.usgs.gov/recenteqs/

For an itemized listing of the bigger ones, click on one of the 'shake map' links either for northern or southern California which are located below the main map. You will see that we have dozens of 3s and 4s and some 5s and 6s on a monthly basis. But unless you are local to the quake, you won't feel em. I live in southern California and no one near me felt either the 6.5 Ludlow one or the 5 something Barstow one, even though they were also in southern California, cuz we just aren't local enough. Basically, if no plates even fall off the shelf, then an earthquake in California is neither news nor significant.
-Eva
 

daz

Remote viewer, author, artist and photographer.
Staff member
I thought that the Courtney project predicted the wholesale destruction of LAX...? Predicting an earthquake some time soon in an area totally prone to earthquakes is not really that much of a feat. Undecided
All I can offer is My opinion which can only be based on my sessions - and i didn't get any destruction data just an earthquake data.

I thought that the Courtney project predicted the wholesale destruction of LAX...? Predicting an earthquake some time soon in an area totally prone to earthquakes is not really that much of a feat. Undecided
Go on then - becasue in eleven years of watching rv I haven't seen a viewer do this yet, this isnt a common thing. - Courtney said a high probability of an earthquake in LA in july based on previous more than double blind RV data and one hit - yes it didn't do the damage he said but lol its not exactly a miss either guys.

You can see why people don't want to do things in public because its soooooo easy to sit in comfy chairs not really doing anything except criticise, bitch and moan - how about just a smidging of positivity for an attempt to get conflicting methods to work on a common goal and one that UNEXPECTANTLY come across an effect that yes wasn't a complete hit - but wasn't off either and shows that there are great things Rv CAN do. No we don't hear that because that would be just too much for many of you.

half empty or half full?

Daz
 

katzenhai2

Ambassador
BOOOO. Viva Revolution for more accurate predictions!!



Disclaimer: The characters, incidents, and locations portrayed herein are fictitious, and any similarity to or identification with the location, character or history of any person or entity is entirely coincidental and unintentional.
 

PJ

Administrator
Staff member
daz said:
You can see why people don't want to do things in public because its soooooo easy to sit in comfy chairs not really doing anything except criticise, bitch and moan - how about just a smidging of positivity
You know, I totally agree that the field at large should have more positive support for hands-on viewing. The marginalization of RV creates a lot of defensiveness. Not always, but as a general energy yeah.

But how this translates in reality--and I've seen this before--is that if anybody makes any comment whatever on the protocol, or on the results, they are seen as "attacking" or "unsupportive."

This isn't gradeschool, it's not politically correct, it's a forum of (mostly) serious viewers who are going to have some opinion and comments and possibly critique or at least critical questions about *anything*. That's not a bad thing, it's a good thing, and any project, tasker, viewer, or outcome, that is actually ok is going to be able to stand up to that just fine.

Concluding people are just meanies is basically refusing to allow anybody else to have an opinion--if they discuss an RV opinion about RV in an RV forum, they are out of line is what you're saying.

Here is what I think is unfair:

I think it is unfair to say, "X predicted a major international airport would be wiped out probably by a major quake. So a tiny quake over 100 miles from there in an area that has them *constantly* counts as a 'hit'!"

This isn't fair to RV, it isn't fair to all the people who really do work their butts off to make distinct predictions and are willing to accept fail when they don't come about.

Nobody said it wasn't a good effort. Nobody said it wasn't interesting. Nobody said a quake still might not happen and in fact, wipe out LAX in the next few hours, days, whatever. You wrote: "...positivity for an attempt to get conflicting methods to work on a common goal..." -- and nobody said that wasn't a good thing either. Because we weren't talking about that daz, we were talking about "Did LAX get destroyed?" and well, no, it didn't.

Predicting quakes in a territory that has them *constantly* would not be much of a prediction either, although if it were specific enough to size and date that would be a very good example at least. So, predicting a huge one in one place and getting a tiny one in a nearby place, 'semi-near' in date, is just not a good match. The probabilities are too high; even guessing might work.

Predicting massive quakes, specifically predicting the destruction of a major international airport, is a fairly specific prediction on both counts. Neither happened. And that's fine, sheesh!--nobody has to be right all the time!--but in a state stuffed with constant seismic activity, claiming a very tiny quake that was "sort of near" in space and "sort of near" in time as even close to a hit with "major quake and destruction of LAX" is beyond just stretching daz. That's the kind of stuff that gives skeptics whole new reams of material against RV and its claimants.

And it doesn't have any relation to how positive someone is about the overall endeavor. It is simply an observation that any viewer might be likely to make. That doesn't make them mean or negative. It merely makes them observant.

PJ


PS I see what Katz posted while I was typing. Sheesh!
 

daz

Remote viewer, author, artist and photographer.
Staff member
Nobody said it wasn't a good effort. Nobody said it wasn't interesting.
True - but nobody anywhere in any of the discussions about this project both here and elsewhere had yet said any of this either. 99 times out of 100 within this field its always lets focus on the negative. Show me one comment, one discussion that mentions these - just one?

Sorry but all i ever see is moaning and bitching.

And from a viewers point of view I cant be held responsible for poor analysis - as far as I'm concerned I nailed that and all the control targets in the study.

Predicting quakes in a territory that has them *constantly* would not be much of a prediction either, although if it were specific enough to size and date that would be a very good example at least. So, predicting a huge one in one place and getting a tiny one in a nearby place, 'semi-near' in date, is just not a good match. The probabilities are too high; even guessing might work.
Oh come on its not like the experiment was looking for an earthquake in LA - it just happened across one in the data - all the data. he predicted a major earthquake in an area - the area of rv focus within a time window and it happened just not to the scale he got from the analysis (which we would ALL analyse differently) - now that's a lot of pluses.

And it doesn't have any relation to how positive someone is about the overall endeavour. It is simply an observation that any viewer might be likely to make. That doesn't make them mean or negative. It merely makes them observant.
Whatever ??? - i must have not seen all those positive comments about this project in my inbox, and online -take it from me, one of the participants there aren't any, in fact some people shot the project down before the results were even in - but as i said its the same throughout this field. And I'm allowed an opinion and its that most people are just plain negative. As I said it makes me think its not worth the bother doing things in public and sharing - i might just criticise all the time instead.

daz
 

Gene_Smith

Administrator
Staff member
katzenhai2 said:
BOOOO. Viva Revolution for more accurate predictions!!



Disclaimer: The characters, incidents, and locations portrayed herein are fictitious, and any similarity to or identification with the location, character or history of any person or entity is entirely coincidental and unintentional.
Hey don't give me that disclaimer crap, that one guy there looks suspiciously like Joe Smouse to me. And here I was thinking his absense meant he was likely enjoying an extended stay in the big house visiting friends.
 

PJ

Administrator
Staff member
daz said:
Nobody said it wasn't a good effort. Nobody said it wasn't interesting.
True - but nobody anywhere in any of the discussions about this project both here and elsewhere had yet said any of this either. 99 times out of 100 within this field its always lets focus on the negative. Show me one comment, one discussion that mentions these - just one?
I'll take your word on it. Alas as I am only 'here' --and that like 60 seconds a day sometimes -- I'm not aware of the discussions on all the other forums and lists and groups about the subject. I don't even know much besides the fragments posted here several eons ago. I asked a couple people way back if there was a clear outline of the protocol somewhere online, but they didn't know. Personally, I can only comment on what I see, and as far as an overall project (eg to discuss the merits of its altruism or glory) I like to see the protocol in detail to feel like there's any evaluating of it from the outside.

Those little tidbits (major quake/LAX destroyed, vs. minor quake nearby) are the only things I've seen here at the moment so it's all I addressed. Is there a detailed doc that goes through the protocol for this? Perhaps more people would have more discussion of more than a few tidbits -- like "the prediction on the internet about LAX" -- if more people were exposed to more than that?

And from a viewers point of view I cant be held responsible for poor analysis - as far as I'm concerned I nailed that and all the control targets in the study.
I think your personal involvement here makes you a little defensive, but I guess that's understandable.

Predicting quakes in a territory that has them *constantly* would not be much of a prediction either, although if it were specific enough to size and date that would be a very good example at least. So, predicting a huge one in one place and getting a tiny one in a nearby place, 'semi-near' in date, is just not a good match. The probabilities are too high; even guessing might work.
Oh come on its not like the experiment was looking for an earthquake in LA - it just happened across one in the data - all the data.
I find that interesting on its own merits, but don't know the detail; all I heard about was 'the LAX prediction on the internet'. Maybe next time predictions are made, some better (as in more detailed) publicity for them should be passed around or linked to. Then anybody 'hearing the prediction' would at least be able to see some of the details -- what it "really" said, the overall project, the protocol, etc. in a capsule form like a press release. Given the effort y'all are putting into this it seems worth making something like that.

he predicted a major earthquake in an area - the area of rv focus within a time window and it happened just not to the scale he got from the analysis (which we would ALL analyse differently) - now that's a lot of pluses.
I respect your opinion on this, we'll just have to disagree--I am FROM southern California and I assure you that earthquakes are so regular that it's like predicting that it will rain in Spring or Fall in the Ozarks.... yeah. It's gonna happen pretty near in space or time. The thing is that doesn't mean it wasn't psychic, it probably is, though how/why that data is another story; just that to me it doesn't help RV to brag about 'hits' on things people really could throw a dart at a calendar or map of southern CA and be right about.

Anyway, I must completely misunderstand -- and oddly enough in these messages I still haven't seen you mention it -- what the target WAS? Did every viewer go into sessions knowing they were describing the weather? What specifically at LAX (I believe that was the target location right?) was the tasker looking to find?

(Would going into a project on climate change build in a sort of chronic T.O./AOL regarding negative things I wonder...)

I have to admit that Brown being both the tasker and evaluator (not analyst since he knew the task) and many of the viewers probably having some T.O. issues with him of course, is so shades-of-Dames that it kinda makes me wary... I suppose that doesn't mean that the viewers won't succeed despite that though.

I must have not seen all those positive comments about this project in my inbox, and online
Well I'm sorry about that. I'm thinking though, that like I said above, perhaps there are many places you hang out online where there is great detail about this and it was discussed all over, but I've only heard some passing references to it early on, and this stuff.

Most subjects are more likely to be discussed in detail if the people in conversational areas are aware of the detail. Did Courtney post the detail protocol etc.? Or is it just a private group thing?

As I said it makes me think its not worth the bother doing things in public and sharing
Well it's been 13 years I've been in this field now and there has been very, very little in public for anybody to comment on this far, assuming you do not count insanity, insanity, insanity, and oh yeah, insanity.

There was HRVG's reports which were very interesting, but I believe that I and everybody else I knew at the time considered them single-blind, since the viewers themselves at times said so and that was a given then (...until Atwater's visit...) so I didn't comment because I didn't respect the protocol enough to validate it and I didn't want to say anything negative. Unfortunately nobody else commented either until they complained about that and decided they wouldn't post any more. ('Course that was years ago and I haven't a clue what's up anywhere now. Just haven't got time alas.)

There've been sessions posted publicly in the TKR Window Gallery, I've commented on many of those. There've been a few things now and then posted here on the forum and most of 'em that I've seen I've commented on, including your own just a couple days ago. I think it's important to support viewers and public work.

I just don't necessarily think one should be dysfunctionally forced to make target-'hit' matches they don't think are so, and if they don't want to, I don't think it should be taken as an attack on the viewers, tasker, team, overall project, etc.

I remember when Dave's team did this TV viewing. The target was -- boy this is fuzzy memory now, sorry if I mess it up -- a guy on a motorcycle and a 12 mile ride through the city. The main data people were enthused about wasn't the guy, the bike, the ride, or the city, but a picture on the T-shirt of the show assistant who helped the guy get on the motorcycle before he took off. When some people pointed out that while interesting, that example probably shouldn't be considered much of a hit on the intended target, and that a '12 miles of city experience' target might not be ideal protocol for tasking either (this in the viewer's defense!), other people freaked out a little, insisting that all this was SO negative and 'attacking Dave' and so on. But it wasn't; it was just fair (and it didn't even mention him!). I only remember this because not long ago I archived all my posts from the stargate list circa '02-06 which was really... enlightening as a refresher. My one observation being that "nothing changes". ::)

Anyway. I do agree that more positive really should be in place. I can build stuff to help people post sessions, I can cheer on the sessions I see people post that I think are good, but that's just me and I'm just one person.

When it comes to someone's evaluation of "what session data means", that's a hellishly hard job everybody knows, and I see NO SHAME IN BEING WRONG when it comes to remote viewing -- everybody is sometimes about any given role and that is an important part of learning! -- but what is 'announced as prediction' is kind of where the discernment comes in there.

Anyway, certainly nobody is going to learn from it probably if discussions are never allowed for it. There's so many examples viewers and scientists from the lab have given me over the years, and Ingo makes ref to this too at times in his writings, where they discovered a certain way that things were being done -- in the protocol, physically or even mentally on the part of the tasker or viewer, and sometimes it was wrong or misinterpreted data that helped point them to it, to figure it out. If nobody'd been able to critically evaluate the results, or if 'sorta almost close' was 'on target' for them, most of that never would have been figured out.

Many things that laymen think are problems (...such as serial displacement, telepathic overlay, etc.) are problems that a clean protocol and disciplined thinking on the part of all involved will avoid or resolve in the first place. But focus on it and validate it, and it can become the overwhelming norm. That's an issue of process they learned over 20 years ago in science, but it takes layman's groups running into it afresh to have reason to figure it out in the present in the public. Well, by the same theory, I'm sure there's much about this project you're working with Courtney on that the layman public could learn about and from, as it goes on. But that can't happen without discussion--and that's always going to include critical questions and comments anywhere the people have brains and aren't afraid to speak up.

And yet I do think you're right about the positive/negative thing in the field overall, for sure. So maybe in the various places you post you should introduce some topics that cover the project from a description perspective and talk about it in a positive way.

I think it's fair to say that a project can have 1001 great things about it, and have 1 more thing that isn't so great. If the only thing covered is that one more thing, that isn't real fair, I would agree. But since you know about it and are doing it and I'm not, how about you be the one -- in separate threads -- to introduce the larger picture of it that people would be more likely to appreciate?

PJ
 

blackcat

New Member
The more I read, the more I get confused. The only prediction I read was about destruction at LAX by a certain time. Yes, some of us at the time did question the analysis that reached that conclusion. Some of us felt the data was not there to make that prediction. We don't have to wait for the due date to question analysis.

If I had waited until after the due date to question the analysis than people may well have said hindsight is 20-20 and why didn't I speak up earlier? So instead, I stuck MY neck out and said I thought the data was not there to make such an analysis of destruction in LA BEFORE we knew the final answer. No one questioned the drive and effort or the viewers, but we did in fact have critiques about the method and analysis and I still do. Support does not mean I will say nothing when I see something that looks to me to be flawed. This is not the scientific way. Is it a kindness to not tell someone when they are going over board and making unfounded predictions? I think not and neither is it a kindness to the field of rv.

I also dispute you saying that no one ever says anything positive. We are positive all day long on the dojo viewing and with the weekly sessions. Many have been positive about Mcmoneagle's repeated tv demos. I know I have even been positive about a tv demo I saw from Ed Dames and Jonina (who are 2 very not positive people themselves) because I saw Jonina nail that session on TV. We were positive about future grab website as well. So I will not accept that we are not positive.

I simply was not positive about the analysis on the LAX target. Even if earthquakes were not the intended target, Courtney made a big public statement about his prediction and also retasked the viewers on it specifically. He made it the target and he made a big prediction on it. He is the one that made it news and took it public. And if I felt better about how it was done, then I would have been more positive in my speaking of it.

Oh and I am also confused about the prediction of an earthquake in the area in July. Where was that predicted? I must have missed it. I only saw a prediction about damage of LAX due to an earthquake. Was there another one that said earthquake in general area but nothing about destruction? And I don't remember anything about the quake specifically being in July. Maybe I didn't catch all the predictions.

So now what I am questioning is the statement that the prediction was successful or sorta successful. I just don't recall seeing a prediction that has yet come to pass. Maybe there is more detail I missed. But I am not going to agree with anything just in the name of being supportive. If a specific prediction was made and it did not come to pass, IMO, the best thing to do is to accept that it was wrong and try to learn from it and thereby increase the chances of getting it right the next time. Considering rv's history of bad predictions, I don't think the field of rv can afford to be sloppy about this kind of thing. I think we need to be honest and admit mistakes and then work on how we are going to do better next time.

-Eva
 

blackcat

New Member
BTW, Katzenhai, thanx for the link but I suspect that the recent update to that link may have resulted in a rewording of the prediction. The prediction I saw 6 months ago on that site talked about damage to the airport and lack of normal functioning at the airport. Now I don't see any of that. And I never saw anything about a July time frame, only that the damage woudl occur within the next 6 months so that it would effect the airport by the due date. The original prediction was that by the December date, there would be damage to the airport due to an earthquake.

Now that the due date is past, it apparently has been said that a small July earthquake that did not effect the airport is being considered somewhat of a hit. But I say again, predicting a small or middling sized earthquake in LA within a 6 month period is not really a prediction. Such small earthquakes are regular events. LA itself is very large and very earthquake prone. I woudl have liked to have more positive things to say about this project, but the reality is that I have many serious issues with the Courtney's methodology and analysis, the fault for which I lay with Courtney and not the viewers. However, if anyone, viewer or no, wishes to support Courtney's decisions on this, I see no reason why I cannot disagree with them.
-Eva
 

Marv_Darley

New Member
Staff member
So now what I am questioning is the statement that the prediction was successful or sorta successful. I just don't recall seeing a prediction that has yet come to pass. Maybe there is more detail I missed. But I am not going to agree with anything just in the name of being supportive.
Pretty much my view also Eva. Daz...you know damn well that I am FULL THUMBS UP for anything being posted on the internet with regards RV and am happy to give credit where it's due. In this instance however I just don't see there being any justification at all for applause with regards Courtney's prediction. ???

He hit the airwaves warning of the imminent destruction of LAX. This hasn't happened yet. When it does (and pray god it doesn't) I will duly doff my cap. Until then I don't really feel it benefits anyone to pat Courtney on the back everytime a minor earthquake takes place in California. :p

As far as supporting public viewing goes...this is probably the wrong place to start accusing people of being negative in that respect. We have the weekly public in-protocol TKR mission running tonight (as always); please feel free to come and join us. You will find a whole heap of positivity there between viewers, I assure you.

The beauty of Remote Viewing lies in its rigorous scientific approach to the utilisation of psi (one hopes). The phenomenon can be studied, replicated and reported objectviely. Similarly we should maintain an objective approach when evaluating the worth of scientific endeavours like this climate change project. Objectively Courtney's prediction simply hasn't happened. Period.

No one is criticising anyone for publishing anything on line. Well done with your sessions. The disagreement comes over this statement:

But overall seeming as the climate change experiment wasnt looking for an earthquake it did ok
A few questions that need answering:

What WAS the climate change experiment looking for?

Why DIDN'T it find what it was looking for?

What was the original hypothesis?

Why is Courtney now calling the whole thing The Los Angeles Seismic Event Experiment if he wasn't looking for an earhquake?
(Criminal back-engineering of protocol and intent btw)

Are the destruction of LAX and a minor earthquake interchangeable as events? (eg if someone smashed a plane into LAX and knocked it down would we be congratulating a viewer for having predicted an earthquake in California?)

What effect would the fact that all viewers knew that they were partcipating in a CLIMATE CHANGE project before they sat down to view have had on the data?
(Frontloading to the max).

For all of these issues and more I suspect that Courtney's latest experiment is best applauded for its success in bringing together a host of RV methodolgies to work together and left at that. Unless LAX comes down before Xmas in which case I will make a small place on my plate for my words (alongside the turkey).

Marv :)
 

daz

Remote viewer, author, artist and photographer.
Staff member
As far as supporting public viewing goes...this is probably the wrong place to start accusing people of being negative in that respect. We have the weekly public in-protocol TKR mission running tonight (as always); please feel free to come and join us. You will find a whole heap of positivity there between viewers, I assure you.
Firstly TKR just happens to be forum I expressed this comment - but I do disagree in general here and everywhere else the response to ANY published Rv (and i have quite a bit published) is negative or ignored. Whatever TKR does in its weekly targets has no direct relevance to the overall field of RV which IMO is very negative. This is not an accusation its what, I you and many others have discussed many times in many forums and communications. I cant help it if I'm the only one who's being honest.
RV as isnt stands is not a warm friendly, promoting environment with fluffy bunnies and pink ribbons.

Pretty much my view also Eva. Daz...you know damn well that I am FULL THUMBS UP for anything being posted on the internet with regards RV and am happy to give credit where it's due. In this instance however I just don't see there being any justification at all for applause with regards Courtney's prediction. Huh

He hit the airwaves warning of the imminent destruction of LAX. This hasn't happened yet. When it does (and pray god it doesn't) I will duly doff my cap. Until then I don't really feel it benefits anyone to pat Courtney on the back everytime a minor earthquake takes place in California. Tongue
Courtney posted online this image months ago.

http://www.farsight.org/graphics/Figure_1.jpg
detailing that from the data which was not a earthquake target - just a general describe lax airport - which gave him in analysis the timescale and the most probable time of the quake.

Also NO other earthquake however you U.S. guys see it has made the worldwide press on every European/UK TV and news station like this one did that day. Yes we all know you get small quakes and rumbles - but this is the ONLY one in years that made worldwide press because of its size.

Cmon Marv when form the UK did you see news on the TV of a LA earthquake - is it really that regular an event for you?

Yes the SCALE of the earthquake data or analysis was off but the rest was on.

Pj, this all accidentally poped out form the Climate change project which can be found in full here:
http://www.farsight.org/demo/Demo2008/RV_Demo_2008_Page1.html
The protocols, sessions, methods and all the detail is available here to view and download.

What WAS the climate change experiment looking for?
I don't know yet - the results ahve not be released by courtney, lyn and Glenn. Climate Change in locations Im guessing.

Why is Courtney now calling the whole thing The Los Angeles Seismic Event Experiment if he wasn't looking for an earhquake? (Criminal back-engineering of protocol and intent btw)

Are the destruction of LAX and a minor earthquake interchangeable as events? (eg if someone smashed a plane into LAX and knocked it down would we be congratulating a viewer for having predicted an earthquake in California?)
OMG cmon Marv this is a stupid comment.
There was a quake, it was sufficient enough in size to make ALL the major news channels all over the world - most of the prediction was correct except for the scale of destruction. - but he said a major earthquake will happen here and this being the most probable time - and he was right. The scale of the event he was wrong. Your commenst and 'plane' are like indicating that the cause was not part of the event - there was a quake - it was bigger than usual.

And there is nothing criminal or back engineered being done here: (just another negative attempt)
the page is titled "Predicted Earthquake Event for Los Angeles by 1 December 2008"
http://www.farsight.org/demo/Demo2008/LAX1.html
no back engineering...lol

What effect would the fact that all viewers knew that they were partcipating in a CLIMATE CHANGE project before they sat down to view have had on the data? (Frontloading to the max).
I dont know - all I can offer is if you look at my 'hit' control sessions for the climate change experiment they all describe the locations at the correct time. When tasked with the additional climate change location - LAX - we all describe earthquake data and not LAX.

Ask yourself this:
did Courtney accidentally predict using RV:

A correct earthquake location - YES
A correct time zone - YES
A correct description (major quake) - I would say yes (as I watched it all night here in the UK on the news - and haven't done this before for any earthquake from the US.)
The correct scale of destruction - NO

3 out of 4 isn't bad IMO.

daz
 

Marv_Darley

New Member
Staff member
Okay so let me get this straight.

The ONLY place on-line where viewers of all disciplines and methodologies are invited to come together and view a target in true double blind protocol with their data presented publically for all to see has

no direct relevance to the overall field of RV
and is in your opinion

very negative.
Whereas a project in which viewers are massively frontloaded as to the nature of their target, which changes tack and focus mid-way through to suit the apocalyptic doom-mongering of its manager before presenting a predictive outcome which DOESN'T actually happen is, I assume, by comparison...'relevant to the overall field of RV' and 'positive.'

We shall have to agree to disagree on this one.

Marv :)
 
Top