Lobstrosity

Oh please, you're only finding an earthquake sometime in the past and then going back to say that astrology would have predicted it exactly. If that's not what you're doing, please tell us why you haven't given us the exact day and time of this upcoming disaster (if it was possible back in 2001, it's possible now). Also inform us as to why you can't even tell us what kind of disaster it will be (you say it might be an earthquake or it might be something else). Since either an earthquake or something else happens every day at least somewhere on Earth, right now your entire prediction is completely worthless. Why don't you use your astrology to tell us something worthwhile, like date, time, nature of disaster, and location of disaster. Put your money where your mouth is.

Volker.Doormann

No one must believe in anything.

Arken

I think it would be more interesting for Volker to find us a horoscope predicting a day when an earthquake did not occur since, according to the U.S. Geological Survey there are up to 50 earthquakes detected every day, or 20,000 a year.

In other words, it wasn't even a coincidence. It was expected that there would be an earthquake since there are always multiple earthquakes every day of the year.

Volker.Doormann

Quack, quack, quack.
I talk about an algorithm. With an astronomical algorithm one can calculate as well geocentric planetary positions in the past, but also in the future. Believe or not. This is done here. Nothing else. Qualified critique is to prove this algorithm and the data wrong, that show that the index is highest in a 5 minute time interval out of a hole moth, in that the quake has occurred. Same result can be shown for the quake in Kobe, Japan. There is no need to discredit persons, and no need to discredit person with such wrong assertions. Please argue on the matter, if you have any.

Arken

If about 50 earthquakes happen per day, one earthquake should happen about every 30 minutes making the chance to predict one within five minutes as you say about 1 in 6 or a single roll of the dice... in other words, I could just as accurately predict earthquakes by rolling a single six-sided die than you could with your complicated software.

Volker.Doormann

The maximum in the data relates and coincide in time to a Mw7.6 Bhuj earthquake. In other words, this happens not 20,000 times a year.

It seems you are skeptic. (?)

Arken

If you remember, I'm not a skeptic, I'm a liar... at least, that's what you called me earlier in this thread.

Lobstrosity

I did, as have others. You just ignore it when we do, bringing up straw men and red herrings. My assertions are not wrong, they are supported by the fact that these quakes are only retroactively predicted by astrology even though astrologers should easily be able to predict the precise moment and location of these disasters years ahead of time. Please respond to this:

If that's not what you're doing, please tell us why you haven't given us the exact day and time of this upcoming disaster (if it was possible back in 2001, it's possible now). Also inform us as to why you can't even tell us what kind of disaster it will be (you say it might be an earthquake or it might be something else). Since either an earthquake or something else happens every day at least somewhere on Earth, right now your entire prediction is completely worthless. Why don't you use your astrology to tell us something worthwhile, like date, time, nature of disaster, and location of disaster. Put your money where your mouth is.

What five-minute interval is highest for the month of August, Volker? What will happen at that moment and where will it happen? If you can tell that my mother was over-protective, you should be able to tell where a major disaster will occur. Make a real prediction so that we can actually test your beloved pseudo-science.

Volker.Doormann

There is no complicateted software; the algorithm is listed an the graph. Make a cross check (and relax).

Arken

I'm perfectly relaxed.

Of course, since you've labeled me as a liar that means I'm not relaxed at all... so I guess I'm not relaxed... oh wait, I'm a liar. That means I am relaxed but we already established that I'm not!