| Roll & Rock
|
[
Roll & Rock ] [ Main Menu ] |
|
|
|
23185 |
|
|
Date: February 09, 2024 at 05:53:20
From: Leonardo, [DNS_Address]
Subject: M 7.0+ 9-17 Feb 24 05:50 UTC Timing (only) Forecast |
|
|
Forecasting a magnitude 7.0 + or larger quake to
strike "somewhere in the world" during the eight (8)
day period starting at:
05:50 UTC, 9 Feb. 2024 to
to
05:50 UTC 17 Feb. 2024
This is an experimental "timing only" forecast
__"For Entertainment Purposes Only"__.
This is a test to see if previous experimental
results/ (inferred) correlations duplicate / repeat
moving forward
OR
if they are merely the result of coincidence (or
chance odds) and therefore any presumed physical
linkage concepts may be unsupported and likely do not
exist
Posted: 9 Feb. 24 13:43 UTC. (13:54 E.)
(As previously stated (long ago) a Hit is determined
at the sole descetion of this poster.)
(Any constructive comments should be made under a "new
message")
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[23199] [23187] [23198] |
|
23199 |
|
|
Date: February 13, 2024 at 19:56:36
From: Leonardo, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Time Correction: 10:50 vs 05:50 UTC |
|
|
Time correction: 10:50 Utc instead
of 5:50 utc.
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
None |
|
23187 |
|
|
Date: February 10, 2024 at 08:41:12
From: Skywise, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: M 7.0+ 9-17 Feb 24 05:50 UTC Timing (only) Forecast |
|
|
"(As previously stated (long ago) a Hit is determined
at the sole descetion of this poster.)"
That's not a scientific approach.
"(Any constructive comments should be made under a "new
message")"
It's ironic that you challenge EQF for failing to do a statistical
analysis on his methods, a necessary scientific tool, yet fail to
uphold yourself to the same by refusing to use accurate information
to analyze your own success.
And then you go further and use EQFs red herring of trying to say
who is allowed to talk to you or not on a public forum owned and
controlled by someone else simply because someone has critical
comments about your methods.
I have my own prediction, someone is going to say something about
how dangerous I am for saying these things.
Brian
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[23198] |
|
23198 |
|
|
Date: February 13, 2024 at 19:50:57
From: Leonardo, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: M 7.0+ 9-17 Feb 24 05:50 UTC Timing (only) Forecast |
|
|
>>"(As previously stated (long ago) a Hit is
determined
at the sole descetion of this poster.)"
>That's not a scientific approach.
Actually it is. It's just that you
have not been paying close attention
(or have memory problems). Your statement
is analagous to the type of thinking
exhibited by a cult-follower who accepts
dogma without question or critical thinking.
Since I'm not your teacher I'm not
going to explain the details to you.
>>"(Any constructive comments should be made under a
"new
message")"
>It's ironic that you challenge EQF for failing to do
a statistical
analysis on his methods, a necessary scientific tool,
yet fail to
uphold yourself to the same by refusing to use
accurate information
to analyze your own success.
See my previous reply above. Your cult
belief statements are not a replacement for
rigorous "proof" as evidenced by peer review.
If you had the slightest clue ss to what I am
talking about you would cite a oeer reviewed
paper to support your view based on evidence not
"Opinion" passed off as firm fact.
>And then you go further and use EQFs red herring of
trying to say
who is allowed to talk to you or not on a public forum
owned and
controlled by someone else simply because someone has
critical
comments about your methods.
Well that is a flat out false statement (/lie) since
listing a "new message" does not block communications.
It just moves your mostly ill-informed comments out
of the "Forecast post" so that other readers
don't have to wade through me having to correct
your misperceptions (yet again) within the thread.
Also it makes it easier to delete your message
thread should the owner want to without messing
up the thread message pointer to the next message.
Your "critical comments" are mostly based
on: misreadings; failure to pay attention; or short
memory; propensity to misstate facts; propensity
to try and pass off your (cult) opinions as
firm facts; and your zeal to lecture and
sermonize based on your presumptions foisted
on your victim as firm / known facts (when they
maybe far from it.). So you overstate your
effectiveness which is an additional incomptence
on your part IMO.
>I have my own prediction, someone is going to say
something about
how dangerous I am for saying these things.
Lol! Don't flatter yourself so much. "Dangerous"?
Yeah...your right...I might bust a rib
laughing! Lol...
I don't know what your deal is. Your remark above
sounds like "delusions of paranoi" or something.
It seems you have some kind of persistent disabity
and
combined with a compulsion to lecture others
(that) it leads to displays of incorrect and
false or invalid replies. Nevertheless you
mostly display certitude in them regardless.
And that's why you should put all future replies
under a "new message" (or be adjudicated a
closet "bully or tyrant-wannabe").
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
None |
|
[
Roll & Rock ] [ Main Menu ] |