Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

SKEPTICS SHOULD HAVE LABOTAMIES NOT LABORATORIES !!!

2 views
Skip to first unread message

Graham Cooper

unread,
Apr 3, 2011, 10:29:21 PM4/3/11
to
James Randi's new book coming out...

THE MAGICIAN IN THE LABORATORY!

I'm going to write my own

THE UNTESTED MINDREADER
Cherry Picking Applications Is Not "Good Science" Randi!


------------------------------

Actually if Skeptics all had labotamies I would have passed a psychic
test 10 years ago!

All they have to do is listen to the applicants and follow the test
instructions, but none of them do, the $1,000,000 and $100,000AU
competition prizes are actually for a DEBATING COMPETITION! You have
to prove your claim is worthy, i.e. make a legallly tight contract of
the unprovable being provable!

Alex

unread,
Apr 3, 2011, 10:43:40 PM4/3/11
to
In aus.tv Graham Cooper <graham...@gmail.com> wrote:
> James Randi's new book coming out...
>
> THE MAGICIAN IN THE LABORATORY!
>
> I'm going to write my own
>
> THE UNTESTED MINDREADER

THE LOBOTOMY IN THE MAGICIAN
would seem a more apt title for any of your output...

> Actually if Skeptics all had labotamies I would have passed a psychic
> test 10 years ago!

Says the genius who can't work out how to use a spell-checker...

> All they have to do is listen to the applicants and follow the test
> instructions, but none of them do, the $1,000,000 and $100,000AU
> competition prizes are actually for a DEBATING COMPETITION! You have
> to prove your claim is worthy, i.e. make a legallly tight contract of
> the unprovable being provable!

...or manage to successfully complete a single application for one of the
many "DEBATING COMPETITIONS" which form the focus of these ongoing whinges.

Alex.

PS. Still posting to rec.org.mensa after promising not to?
Naughty, naughty.

Graham Cooper

unread,
Apr 3, 2011, 10:53:06 PM4/3/11
to
On Apr 4, 12:43 pm, Alex <n...@leng.id.au> wrote:
> ...or manage to successfully complete a single application for one of the
> many "DEBATING COMPETITIONS" which form the focus of these ongoing whinges.

Define "successfully complete".

Seems like an arbitrary decision made by the skeptics.

Sylvia has verified several of my protocols, one of which was sent to
Aus Skeptics by mail and email and handing out at the Skeptics
Conference.

Try applying yourself! It's just goes to a discarded folder. None of
the dozens of competitions reply AT ALL! Not one!

Clocky

unread,
Apr 4, 2011, 10:58:56 AM4/4/11
to

"Graham Cooper" <graham...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:16b6845b-8678-4903...@b13g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

> James Randi's new book coming out...
>
> THE MAGICIAN IN THE LABORATORY!
>
> I'm going to write my own
>
> THE UNTESTED MINDREADER
> Cherry Picking Applications Is Not "Good Science" Randi!
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Actually if Skeptics all had labotamies I would have passed a psychic
> test 10 years ago!

Interesting that you think that only brain damaged people believe you are a
psychic. You are 100% correct ofcourse, because it's only YOU that believes
you are psychic.


Graham Cooper

unread,
Apr 4, 2011, 11:09:08 AM4/4/11
to
On Apr 5, 12:58 am, "Clocky" <notg...@happen.com> wrote:
> "Graham Cooper" <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote in message


oh har har, the wit

exactly the twist_everything_into_opposites I'm talking about, I think
I found my first patient!

Clocky

unread,
Apr 4, 2011, 11:54:29 AM4/4/11
to

"Graham Cooper" <graham...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:dc499da6-d4e4-44a8...@a21g2000prj.googlegroups.com...

The only twisted thing here is you.

Find all the evidence you need on schizophrenia.com


BruceS

unread,
Apr 4, 2011, 1:44:04 PM4/4/11
to
Graham just can't seem to keep a promise even a little bit. Why is
that, Graham?

Bob Casanova

unread,
Apr 4, 2011, 6:35:39 PM4/4/11
to
On Sun, 3 Apr 2011 19:29:21 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Graham Cooper
<graham...@gmail.com>:

>Actually if Skeptics all had labotamies I would have passed a psychic
>test 10 years ago!

You'd pass if skeptics had their labs removed? Just
curious... dogs or rooms? Do the dogs detect the odor of
fraud, or does the equipment in the room show that nothing
is happening? Enquiring minds want to know...
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless

Graham Cooper

unread,
Apr 4, 2011, 7:02:06 PM4/4/11
to
On Apr 5, 8:35 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Apr 2011 19:29:21 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Graham Cooper
> <grahamcoop...@gmail.com>:

>
> >Actually if Skeptics all had labotamies I would have passed a psychic
> >test 10 years ago!
>
> You'd pass if skeptics had their labs removed? Just
> curious... dogs or rooms? Do the dogs detect the odor of
> fraud, or does the equipment in the room show that nothing
> is happening? Enquiring minds want to know...

It's like in the novel Cyborg, Steve Austin lost his eye when part of
the cockpit went through and damaged some of his brain. It was
considered not to be a great detriment since they just wanted him to
follow instructions not to CRITICAL THINK his way out of everything.

Dingo Bob

unread,
Apr 4, 2011, 8:35:19 PM4/4/11
to
On Apr 5, 9:02 am, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote:

> It's like in the novel Cyborg, Steve Austin lost his eye when part of
> the cockpit went through and damaged some of his brain.  It was
> considered not to be a great detriment since they just wanted him to
> follow instructions not to CRITICAL THINK his way out of everything.

What's YOUR excuse for a damaged brain then?

Graham Cooper

unread,
Apr 5, 2011, 12:01:15 AM4/5/11
to

9 years non-stop sonic torture today!

I"m the quietest, most considerate, passive person you could ever
meet, this 9 years of screaming onilne is from constant prodding by
torture beams from above. None of you believe it so I got a decade of
it.

Greendistantstar

unread,
Apr 5, 2011, 12:06:53 AM4/5/11
to

Perhaps the 'torture beams' adversely affect your 'psychic' powers?

This would explain your continual, abject failures, one delusion supporting another....

GDS

"Let's roll!"

Graham Cooper

unread,
Apr 5, 2011, 12:11:37 AM4/5/11
to
On Apr 5, 2:06 pm, Greendistantstar <Greendistants...@iinet.net.au>
wrote:


I answered 1000 peoples questions *blind* and was rated by 75% of them
as giving an apt answer.


http://www.flickr.com/photos/29237020@N05/5262218366/


I've also passed an OBJECTIVE test well over average results which I'm
certain I can duplicate with a much simpler word-guess version but
sketpics are hell bent on not following my protocol which has been set
for 3 weeks now.

Greendistantstar

unread,
Apr 5, 2011, 12:14:48 AM4/5/11
to
On 5/04/2011 12:11 PM, Graham Cooper wrote:
> On Apr 5, 2:06 pm, Greendistantstar<Greendistants...@iinet.net.au>
> wrote:
>> On 5/04/2011 12:01 PM, Graham Cooper wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 5, 10:35 am, Dingo Bob<dingobob...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Apr 5, 9:02 am, Graham Cooper<grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> It's like in the novel Cyborg, Steve Austin lost his eye when part of
>>>>> the cockpit went through and damaged some of his brain. It was
>>>>> considered not to be a great detriment since they just wanted him to
>>>>> follow instructions not to CRITICAL THINK his way out of everything.
>>
>>>> What's YOUR excuse for a damaged brain then?
>>
>>> 9 years non-stop sonic torture today!
>>
>>> I"m the quietest, most considerate, passive person you could ever
>>> meet, this 9 years of screaming onilne is from constant prodding by
>>> torture beams from above. None of you believe it so I got a decade of
>>> it.
>>
>> Perhaps the 'torture beams' adversely affect your 'psychic' powers?
>>
>> This would explain your continual, abject failures, one delusion supporting another....
>>
>> GDS
>>
>> "Let's roll
>
>
> I answered 1000 peoples questions *blind* and was rated by 75% of them
> as giving an apt answer.

Ah yes, like your claim to be able to intuit people's names via your putative psychic abilities.

What's mine?

Quick now, time's a wastin'...

GDS

"Let's roll!"

Graham Cooper

unread,
Apr 5, 2011, 1:00:50 AM4/5/11
to
On Apr 5, 2:14 pm, Greendistantstar <Greendistants...@iinet.net.au>


give me 4 options DickHead

Greendistantstar

unread,
Apr 5, 2011, 1:06:57 AM4/5/11
to

Ah, so 1/4 is it? I see you've blown the first one (DickHead) but I'll give you a pass on that.

Steve

Ben

Dave

Gordon

So, which is it?

Your time starts....NOW!

GDS

"Let's roll!"


Graham Cooper

unread,
Apr 5, 2011, 3:16:48 AM4/5/11
to
On Apr 5, 3:06 pm, Greendistantstar <Greendistants...@iinet.net.au>


So you want to think of a number and I guess it?

Oldest trick in the book.

You can either post the MD5 of your name then I'll post my guess, or
just tell me.

My guess is encrypted here: MD5 = dc52cc0d63691f63eca74ba1197e2111

Greendistantstar

unread,
Apr 5, 2011, 3:29:47 AM4/5/11
to

You wanted a 1/4 chance, and you got it.

> You can either post the MD5 of your name then I'll post my guess, or
> just tell me.

Just tell you? Bwahahahaha!!!

> My guess is encrypted here: MD5 = dc52cc0d63691f63eca74ba1197e2111

Why is it encrypted, and how am I supposed to decrypt it?

You have some manner of decryption key or algorithm you'd like to share?

Why don't you just state your, er, 'guess'?

GDS

"Let's roll!"


george

unread,
Apr 5, 2011, 4:16:19 AM4/5/11
to
On Apr 4, 2:29 pm, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Actually if Skeptics all had labotamies I would have passed a psychic
> test 10 years ago!

Obesity is not psychic.It just means you are fat and stupid...

Mick

unread,
Apr 5, 2011, 4:56:22 AM4/5/11
to

"Greendistantstar" <Greendis...@iinet.net.au> wrote in message
news:b9idnbI4ba3BCAfQ...@westnet.com.au...

Perhaps he needs one of these to stop those nasty beams
http://zapatopi.net/afdb/


Clocky

unread,
Apr 5, 2011, 5:23:31 AM4/5/11
to

My guess is that your name Gordon, and I have no psychic powers.

Don't tell me if I'm right or wrong until Cooper has made a guess.

.


Greendistantstar

unread,
Apr 5, 2011, 5:25:57 AM4/5/11
to

Noted.

> Don't tell me if I'm right or wrong until Cooper has made a guess.

I can do that....

GDS

"Let's roll!"

Brad

unread,
Apr 5, 2011, 5:48:31 AM4/5/11
to
On Apr 5, 7:25 pm, Greendistantstar <Greendistants...@iinet.net.au>

That was my choice too, and to add to the spooky element of
connectness, I live in Gordon Street. Woooooooooooooo

Greendistantstar

unread,
Apr 5, 2011, 6:28:37 AM4/5/11
to

Noted.

GDS

"Let's roll!"

Peter Bowditch

unread,
Apr 5, 2011, 6:50:15 AM4/5/11
to
Brad <goo...@vk2qq.com> wrote:

I used to play golf at Gordon course.

--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com
I'm @RatbagsDotCom on Twitter

Dingo Bob

unread,
Apr 5, 2011, 6:55:43 AM4/5/11
to
On Apr 5, 8:50 pm, Peter Bowditch <myfirstn...@ratbags.com> wrote:

> I used to play golf at Gordon course.

I like Gordon-Zola cheese.....

Graham Cooper

unread,
Apr 5, 2011, 10:35:38 AM4/5/11
to
On Apr 5, 5:29 pm, Greendistantstar <Greendistants...@iinet.net.au>
wrote:

>
> Why don't you just state your, er, 'guess'?

because you're a moron.

Greendistantstar

unread,
Apr 5, 2011, 11:04:58 AM4/5/11
to

Total evasion and epic failure noted.

A few others have made their guesses, where's yours?

1/4 a bit too risky, is it?

Tsk, tsk.

Now shouldn't you be off and bench-pressing 120kgs somewhere?

Herc? Herc??

I don't fucking think so...

GDS

"Let's roll!"

Graham Cooper

unread,
Apr 5, 2011, 11:08:43 AM4/5/11
to
On Apr 5, 5:29 pm, Greendistantstar <Greendistants...@iinet.net.au>
wrote:
>
> > My guess is encrypted here:  MD5 = dc52cc0d63691f63eca74ba1197e2111
>
> Why is it encrypted, and how am I supposed to decrypt it?


OK since you asked.

I took one of the 4 names and added a private numerical key.

e.g. BEN349889348743873498

then I typed in "md5 calculator" into google and the md5 website gave
me the hash
MD5 = dc52cc0d63691f63eca74ba1197e2111

MD5 is used on a billion websites to store the hash of your password
rather than the password itself.

i.e. there is no way to work out the NAME given then HASH except with
a brute force / dictionary attack.

so either, you go first or I go first.

but whoever goes second should post the MD5 of the name up front.

this stops them from changing their guess/name.

Even Peter got it, eventually, after a few dictionary attacks had him
crying CHEAT for weeks on end.

Greendistantstar

unread,
Apr 5, 2011, 12:07:30 PM4/5/11
to
On 5/04/2011 11:08 PM, Graham Cooper wrote:
> On Apr 5, 5:29 pm, Greendistantstar<Greendistants...@iinet.net.au>
> wrote:
>>
>>> My guess is encrypted here: MD5 = dc52cc0d63691f63eca74ba1197e2111
>>
>> Why is it encrypted, and how am I supposed to decrypt it?
>
>
> OK since you asked.
>
> I took one of the 4 names and added a private numerical key.
>
> e.g. BEN349889348743873498
>
> then I typed in "md5 calculator" into google and the md5 website gave
> me the hash
> MD5 = dc52cc0d63691f63eca74ba1197e2111
>
> MD5 is used on a billion websites to store the hash of your password
> rather than the password itself.
>
> i.e. there is no way to work out the NAME given then HASH except with
> a brute force / dictionary attack.
>
> so either, you go first or I go first.
>
> but whoever goes second should post the MD5 of the name up front.
>
> this stops them from changing their guess/name.

OK, that's not unreasonable.

How many 'guesses' per set do you intend?

How large are the sets?

How many sets?

What result do you deem to be non-trivial?

I ask because 1/4 for one set *is* trivial.

You might also have to consider introducing deliberately null-sets ie where none of the values are a
match.

I'm thinking that if a 'real' psychic can 'see' the target, the target's absence should be readily
apparent.

GDS

"Let's roll!"

Bob Casanova

unread,
Apr 5, 2011, 1:56:07 PM4/5/11
to
On Tue, 05 Apr 2011 12:14:48 +0800, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by Greendistantstar
<Greendis...@iinet.net.au>:

I have a few too:

What's the name of my street? *
What color was my first dog?
What high school did I graduate from? *
What college did I graduate from? *
What's my wife's biological father's last name?
What's the occupation of my son-in-law?
What make and model vehicle did he drive when he moved to
the state where he currently lives?

The ones marked with an asterisk *may* have answers
available online, assuming of course that you pick the right
person to research. The others don't.

Good luck.

>Quick now, time's a wastin'...

Yep.

Bob Casanova

unread,
Apr 5, 2011, 1:57:07 PM4/5/11
to
On Mon, 4 Apr 2011 22:00:50 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Graham Cooper
<graham...@gmail.com>:

Why? If you have the abilities you claim you don't need a
multiple-guess test.

Bob Casanova

unread,
Apr 5, 2011, 1:59:00 PM4/5/11
to
On Tue, 05 Apr 2011 15:29:47 +0800, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by Greendistantstar
<Greendis...@iinet.net.au>:

I think he's conflating "encryption" and "file hash". He's
not the brightest bulb on the tree...

>Why don't you just state your, er, 'guess'?
>
>GDS
>
>"Let's roll!"
>
>
>
>
>

Bob Casanova

unread,
Apr 5, 2011, 2:01:03 PM4/5/11
to
On Tue, 05 Apr 2011 20:50:15 +1000, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by Peter Bowditch
<myfir...@ratbags.com>:

<snip>

>I used to play golf at Gordon course.

They will knot let me in.

Bob Casanova

unread,
Apr 5, 2011, 2:02:33 PM4/5/11
to
On Tue, 5 Apr 2011 07:35:38 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Graham Cooper
<graham...@gmail.com>:

You can't do it so he's a moron.

Uh-huh...

Who do you blame when you don't make it to the potty?

george

unread,
Apr 5, 2011, 4:21:04 PM4/5/11
to
On Apr 6, 6:02 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:

> Who do you blame when you don't make it to the potty?

His mummy. She's the lump of lards caregiver....

Peter Bowditch

unread,
Apr 5, 2011, 6:57:08 PM4/5/11
to
Graham Cooper <graham...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Even Peter got it, eventually, after a few dictionary attacks had him
>crying CHEAT for weeks on end.

Got what? That you are prepared to cheat? I think that was already a
given.

Graham Cooper

unread,
Apr 5, 2011, 8:44:25 PM4/5/11
to
On Apr 6, 8:57 am, Peter Bowditch <myfirstn...@ratbags.com> wrote:

> Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Even Peter got it, eventually, after a few dictionary attacks had him
> >crying CHEAT for weeks on end.
>
> Got what? That you are prepared to cheat? I think that was already a
> given.


It's more obvious how you will forge anything into bogus accusations.


THIS IS THE POST PETER ACCUSES ME OF CHEATING BY CRACKING THE NAKED
WORD MD5

> The problem is that I've given him the MD5 of the word (so that when
> he actually comes up with a one-word answer it can be checked). If I
> give him a list of words he only has to MD5 all of them to find the
> correct answer.
> Australian Skeptics Pres. explains how to defeat a dictionary attack
> http://www.md5.net/cracker.php?md5=db442f230d3deca58e3f481f3338381b


I pointed out your dictionary attack reasoning was stupid and the test
trial you had muddled in 5 different ways including MD5ing the naked
word was invalidated.

did you see the police interview?

I have another police website with 15,000 visitors a day in sales
negotiations stage.

Pretty soon millions of people will see this video that clearly
describes how 'skeptics' are the biggest organised mass abuse cult on
Earth and use the $100,000 prize to forge stories, accusataions and
abuse of the psychic claims!

A picture of you snarling holding the pill bottle might be apt on
www.AustrlianPolice.com where the 15,000 'police traffic' will be
redirected each day! Your pic as the final frame on the police
interview video Peter? what did you call us "They're all KUUU-KUUU-
KUUUUKS" makes a great caption with your Australain Skeptic Prezident
Title!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pQEBn2YaX0

The opening credits and the last minute!

The truth is coming out about you Peter

Bob Casanova

unread,
Apr 6, 2011, 6:20:12 PM4/6/11
to
On Tue, 05 Apr 2011 10:56:07 -0700, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:

>On Tue, 05 Apr 2011 12:14:48 +0800, the following appeared
>in sci.skeptic, posted by Greendistantstar
><Greendis...@iinet.net.au>:

>>On 5/04/2011 12:11 PM, Graham Cooper wrote:

<snip>

>>> I answered 1000 peoples questions *blind* and was rated by 75% of them
>>> as giving an apt answer.

>>Ah yes, like your claim to be able to intuit people's names via your putative psychic abilities.
>>
>>What's mine?

>I have a few too:
>
>What's the name of my street? *
>What color was my first dog?
>What high school did I graduate from? *
>What college did I graduate from? *
>What's my wife's biological father's last name?
>What's the occupation of my son-in-law?
>What make and model vehicle did he drive when he moved to
>the state where he currently lives?
>
>The ones marked with an asterisk *may* have answers
>available online, assuming of course that you pick the right
>person to research. The others don't.
>
>Good luck.

[Crickets...]

What a shame you can't answer any of them. Deserted by your
"psychic powers"?

Graham Cooper

unread,
Apr 6, 2011, 6:57:46 PM4/6/11
to
On Apr 7, 8:20 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Tue, 05 Apr 2011 10:56:07 -0700, the following appeared
> in sci.skeptic, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:
>
> >On Tue, 05 Apr 2011 12:14:48 +0800, the following appeared
> >in sci.skeptic, posted by Greendistantstar
> ><Greendistants...@iinet.net.au>:

> >>On 5/04/2011 12:11 PM, Graham Cooper wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>> I answered 1000 peoples questions *blind* and was rated by 75% of them
> >>> as giving an apt answer.
> >>Ah yes, like your claim to be able to intuit people's names via your putative psychic abilities.
>
> >>What's mine?
> >I have a few too:
>
> >What's the name of my street? *
> >What color was my first dog?
> >What high school did I graduate from? *
> >What college did I graduate from? *
> >What's my wife's biological father's last name?
> >What's the occupation of my son-in-law?
> >What make and model vehicle did he drive when he moved to
> >the state where he currently lives?
>
> >The ones marked with an asterisk *may* have answers
> >available online, assuming of course that you pick the right
> >person to research. The others don't.
>
> >Good luck.
>
> [Crickets...]
>
> What a shame you can't answer any of them. Deserted by your
> "psychic powers"?


They're all trivial pursuit! We've been over this for 10 years, I've
stated OVER 500 TIMES - Questions of genuine interest, not just for
test purposes.

God won't answer questions you can easily get the answer yourself, God
doesn't play dice!

For 10 years no skeptic knows how to use an oracle! what a laff!

I'd ask you to try again with genuine questions but you are all fools
and try and twist the requirements, 10 years and counting not 1
genuine question from a skeptic.

george

unread,
Apr 6, 2011, 8:06:51 PM4/6/11
to

You have been questioned about your mental health
Asked why you're still stalking that girl.
Two genuine questions so you're a liar..
Wow, who'd have thought it

Dingo Bob

unread,
Apr 6, 2011, 9:41:28 PM4/6/11
to
On Apr 7, 8:57 am, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote:

> God won't answer questions you can easily get the answer yourself, God
> doesn't play dice!

Rubbish! I was talking to her just yesterday over a cappucino and she
was quite chatty. She doesn't play dice because she prefers OzLotto.
She's getting bloody fed-up with you though (like just about everyone
else). She said that if you don't shut the ferk up, she might just
send a few more cyclones to Queensland (FOR WHICH YOU WOULD THEN BE
RESPONSIBLE!).

Graham Cooper

unread,
Apr 6, 2011, 11:53:44 PM4/6/11
to
On Apr 7, 11:41 am, Dingo Bob <dingobob...@gmail.com> wrote:
> send a few more cyclones to Queensland (FOR WHICH YOU WOULD THEN BE
> RESPONSIBLE!).

I already claimed responsibility for the floods and cyclones,

predicted them just before in an email to 50 Queensland government
departments.

http://hercshome.com/my-fault.png

DavidW

unread,
Apr 7, 2011, 12:38:11 AM4/7/11
to

Forget the genuine questions. You're making it too hard. Too much effort needed.
You've devised tests before that just involved picking random words. That's
easy. Stick with that.


Dingo Bob

unread,
Apr 7, 2011, 2:16:03 AM4/7/11
to

Now even more people know what a pathetic deluded loon you are. You
need to be locked up.

Clocky

unread,
Apr 7, 2011, 5:02:11 AM4/7/11
to

You didn't predict anything.


Bob Casanova

unread,
Apr 7, 2011, 12:42:50 PM4/7/11
to
On Wed, 6 Apr 2011 15:57:46 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Graham Cooper
<graham...@gmail.com>:

Uh-huh. So you can't answer them. Why am I not surprised?.

>God won't answer questions you can easily get the answer yourself, God
>doesn't play dice!

You're not God.

So the only questions you can answer are those which can't
be verified? What a surprise...not.

>For 10 years no skeptic knows how to use an oracle! what a laff!

Oracles generally foretell future events. So state when the
next tsunami will strike Japan, where it will strike and the
number of casualties. Or give the location and severity (on
the Richter scale) of the generating earthquake.

Waiting...

>I'd ask you to try again with genuine questions but you are all fools
>and try and twist the requirements, 10 years and counting not 1
>genuine question from a skeptic.

Those are genuine questions. And you can't answer them. Nor
can you foretell future events.

Graham Cooper

unread,
Apr 7, 2011, 7:23:04 PM4/7/11
to
On Apr 8, 2:42 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Apr 2011 15:57:46 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Graham Cooper
> <grahamcoop...@gmail.com>:


Did you use your Oracle to prove that?

You personally haven't put up $1,000,000 for proof of powers, so you
aren't in breach of contract for making up facts as you go along, but
you're not the target audience of my claims, the skeptics who put up a
challenge are.

Checkable facts, whether on an answer sheet or a future event are not
my particular claim.

I have predicted most of the major natural catastrophes in the last
decade with most of the variables correct and time stamped in googe.

But prediction is not my forte, I don't have a decade spare to get
enough sample results.

So just ask a real question you want to know helpful-advice about now!

And the context should be clear!

In 10 years no skeptic has got past the subjective demo stage...

think about that for a minute before we argue the TELL ME THE ANSWER
skeptics copout for another 10 years.

Eve is 34 yo mate! You are killing another one of my kids this way..


BruceS

unread,
Apr 7, 2011, 10:55:05 PM4/7/11
to

What?! I've asked you quite a number of genuine questions, I'm a
skeptic, and yet you continue to fail to answer the questions. Time
and again you fail, and time and again you have sorry excuses for your
failures. Please stop lying in such a transparent attempt to cover
your shortcomings.

BruceS

unread,
Apr 7, 2011, 11:05:14 PM4/7/11
to

How about you trying to actually ANSWER at least a few of the many
questions I've asked you in Usenet over time, following the ever-
changing rules you post. I don't mean just quoting some vague trash
from a book and refusing to turn that into a yes or no answer. You
required the questions to be yes/no questions (at least *some* of the
time), so you should be able to answer them with a simple Yes or No,
not some pointless babbling that nobody (not even you) can interpret
into a yea or nay.

Please stop lying about other people's attempts to support your tests,
and about your failures to accomplish anything, and DO WHAT YOU SAY
YOU CAN DO!


Here's a new one for you: Will I tomorrow have more than two
significant blisters from today's ramblings on the island? Page 128,
line 22. No crap this time, just a "yes" or "no". Believe me when I
say this is a question of interest to me. I'm on holiday (resort
island full of golf courses and beautiful beaches), so I am not online
much, but next time I'm online I should know the answer and be able to
score your response if you make any that makes any sense. I'm not
holding my breath.

Graham Cooper

unread,
Apr 8, 2011, 12:43:38 AM4/8/11
to
> holding my breath.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


FOR THE 600TH TIME - GOD DOESN'T PLAY DICE

I MATCHED MOST OF YOUR QUESTIONS TO THE CHANNELS BLIND

WHEN YOU ACTUALLY FOLLOWED THE TEST PROTOCOL FOR ONCE.

NO EASY TO MARK ANSWERS - PERIOD!

GOES DOESN'T PLAY DICE


GOES DOESN'T PLAY DICE


GOES DOESN'T PLAY DICE


GOES DOESN'T PLAY DICE


GOES DOESN'T PLAY DICE

george

unread,
Apr 8, 2011, 1:35:41 AM4/8/11
to

Rant on oh nutter

Government Shill #2

unread,
Apr 8, 2011, 2:19:10 AM4/8/11
to
On Thu, 7 Apr 2011 21:43:38 -0700 (PDT), Graham Cooper <graham...@gmail.com>
wrote:


>GOES DOESN'T PLAY DICE
>
>
>GOES DOESN'T PLAY DICE
>
>
>GOES DOESN'T PLAY DICE
>
>
>GOES DOESN'T PLAY DICE
>
>
>GOES DOESN'T PLAY DICE

And Adam doesn't have a spell checker, apparently.

Shill #2
--
"Me fail English? That's unpossible!"
Ralph Wiggum

Sylvia Else

unread,
Apr 8, 2011, 4:27:02 AM4/8/11
to
On 4/04/2011 12:29 PM, Graham Cooper wrote:
> James Randi's new book coming out...
>
> THE MAGICIAN IN THE LABORATORY!
>
> I'm going to write my own
>
> THE UNTESTED MINDREADER
> Cherry Picking Applications Is Not "Good Science" Randi!
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Actually if Skeptics all had labotamies I would have passed a psychic
> test 10 years ago!
>
> All they have to do is listen to the applicants and follow the test
> instructions, but none of them do, the $1,000,000 and $100,000AU
> competition prizes are actually for a DEBATING COMPETITION! You have
> to prove your claim is worthy, i.e. make a legallly tight contract of
> the unprovable being provable!
>

Graham, your original claim to Randi was manifestly untestable. Despite
multiple attempts online, you have failed to construct a testable claim
which you can then substantiate. Why should Randi listen to you?

Sylvia.

camg...@hush.com

unread,
Apr 8, 2011, 4:30:39 AM4/8/11
to


stop lying.

standard placebo test, which I detailed to aus skeptics.

subjective is a mole hill, not a 10 year mountain.

BruceS

unread,
Apr 8, 2011, 1:55:53 PM4/8/11
to

I didn't ask anything about dice, or ask anyone to play dice. This is
an entirely dice-free question. I note that you have again failed to
answer a simple yes/no question, that was of interest to the asker,
and with which you were provided a page and line number for your magic
incantation. Instead, you start nattering on about dice, and
obliquely admitting that you can never actually answer any questions
using your magic powers.

BruceS

unread,
Apr 8, 2011, 1:58:10 PM4/8/11
to
On Apr 8, 12:19 am, Government Shill #2 <gov.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Apr 2011 21:43:38 -0700 (PDT), Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com>

> wrote:
>
> >GOES DOESN'T PLAY DICE
>
> >GOES DOESN'T PLAY DICE
>
> >GOES DOESN'T PLAY DICE
>
> >GOES DOESN'T PLAY DICE
>
> >GOES DOESN'T PLAY DICE
>
> And Adam doesn't have a spell checker, apparently.

WHAT?! ah...uh...how did I miss *that*? I thought you must have
misquoted him, so I went back and looked again. FTR, a spell checker
wouldn't catch that, as "GOES" is a valid word, but still...Graham
can't spell "GOD"?

BruceS

unread,
Apr 8, 2011, 2:00:47 PM4/8/11
to

So come up with an objectively measurable protocol to demonstrate your
magic powers---one which shows a significant, repeatable deviation
from random effects.

Bob Casanova

unread,
Apr 8, 2011, 6:17:59 PM4/8/11
to
On Thu, 7 Apr 2011 16:23:04 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Graham Cooper
<graham...@gmail.com>:

Nope, just observation that you won't answer them. In your
case, based on observed posting history, "won't" equals
"can't".

>You personally haven't put up $1,000,000 for proof of powers, so you
>aren't in breach of contract for making up facts as you go along, but
>you're not the target audience of my claims, the skeptics who put up a
>challenge are.

Nice wiggle. You still can't answer the questions.

>Checkable facts, whether on an answer sheet or a future event are not
>my particular claim.

Oh, I'm sure your claim has nothing to do with facts; no
need to confirm.

>I have predicted most of the major natural catastrophes in the last
>decade with most of the variables correct and time stamped in googe.

Bull. Just so you'll know, postdiction isn't prediction. But
let's be fair:

Cites to the relevant posts, please.

>But prediction is not my forte, I don't have a decade spare to get
>enough sample results.

All you need to do is predict *one* accurately (time to the
minute and location within one minute of both latitude and
longitude) at least a week in advance. There are enough
available catastrophes that you should be able to post one
next week for the following week. Or just keep whining that
you can't provide answers.

>So just ask a real question you want to know helpful-advice about now!

As I said, you're not God. You're not Dear Abby either. That
said, please advise where I shouldn't be for one natural
catastrophe (tornados, anyone?) in the continental US for
the week of 17 April; remember, exact time and location
required. If that's not helpful to me I can't think of
anything which might be.

>And the context should be clear!

Why? Given your psychic powers the context should be obvious
to you. But I think the context of the above is sufficiently
clear even you should be able to work it out.

>In 10 years no skeptic has got past the subjective demo stage...

Maybe there's a lesson there, since you can't (or won't; no
difference here) answer anything that can be verified. Oh,
and we're looking for *objective* evidence, not subjective.

>think about that for a minute before we argue the TELL ME THE ANSWER
>skeptics copout for another 10 years.

You claim to be psychic. You claim to be able to provide
unambiguous answers. What else would you expect but
questions with verifiable answers you wouldn't be expected
to know by other than psychic means?

>Eve is 34 yo mate! You are killing another one of my kids this way..

Take your meds.

Bob Casanova

unread,
Apr 8, 2011, 6:21:33 PM4/8/11
to
On Fri, 08 Apr 2011 16:19:10 +1000, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by Government Shill #2
<gov....@gmail.com>:

>On Thu, 7 Apr 2011 21:43:38 -0700 (PDT), Graham Cooper <graham...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>
>>GOES DOESN'T PLAY DICE
>>
>>
>>GOES DOESN'T PLAY DICE
>>
>>
>>GOES DOESN'T PLAY DICE
>>
>>
>>GOES DOESN'T PLAY DICE
>>
>>
>>GOES DOESN'T PLAY DICE
>
>And Adam doesn't have a spell checker, apparently.

Nah, he's right:

http://noaasis.noaa.gov/NOAASIS/ml/genlsatl.html

The GOES satellites use direct observation; no statistics or
chance involved. ;-)

Bob Casanova

unread,
Apr 8, 2011, 6:24:08 PM4/8/11
to
On Fri, 8 Apr 2011 11:00:47 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by BruceS
<bruc...@hotmail.com>:

Need I (ahem!) predict that the response will at some point
involve the deity (or possibly weather satellites; see my
other post) and dice?

Graham Cooper

unread,
Apr 8, 2011, 9:29:15 PM4/8/11
to
On Apr 9, 8:17 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Apr 2011 16:23:04 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Graham Cooper
> <grahamcoop...@gmail.com>:


How about a daily weather forecast while we're at it?

"BUT JESUS, FORGET ABOUT THE SCRIPTURES, SHOULD I BAIT MY HOOK FOR
SALMON OR TROUT ON OUR FISHING TRIP?"

Graham Cooper

unread,
Apr 8, 2011, 9:31:43 PM4/8/11
to
On Apr 9, 8:24 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>
> Need I (ahem!) predict that the response will at some point
> involve the deity (or possibly weather ....


SPOT ON!

Very impressive Bob, *I* give you 100% full marks for that precise
prediction about my above response (which was clearly not rigged BTW),
though no skeptic would!

Swap 'deity' for 'daily' weather response and you literally broke
TRILLION:1 ODDS with such a specific prediciton!

BruceS

unread,
Apr 9, 2011, 12:19:07 AM4/9/11
to

Why do I get the feeling that went straight over his head?
I'm in a paradise, so I don't need a pair of dice. I'll go back to
see my dog, so I have no need of a god. Didn't ole One Stone say
something about an invisible sky pixie and craps?

Graham Cooper

unread,
Apr 9, 2011, 12:35:35 AM4/9/11
to
On Apr 9, 2:19 pm, BruceS <bruce...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Apr 9, 8:24 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>
> > > Need I (ahem!) predict that the response will at some point
> > > involve the deity (or possibly weather ....

> Why do I get the feeling that went straight over his head?

[BOB]


> There are enough
> available catastrophes that you should be able to post one
> next week for the following week.

[BOB] *


> Need I (ahem!) predict that the response will at some point

> involve the daily weather ....

[HERC]


How about a daily weather forecast while we're at it?

* = only 2 similar letters changed - deity->daily

Impressed me when I misread 'diety' as
I PREDICT HERCS RESPONSE WILL BE ABOUT DAILY WEATHER..

BruceS

unread,
Apr 9, 2011, 4:43:39 PM4/9/11
to

Still went over your head. Sad, really.
Bob, do you want to explain in small words, or should we just leave
it?

Bob Casanova

unread,
Apr 9, 2011, 4:46:31 PM4/9/11
to
On Fri, 8 Apr 2011 18:29:15 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Graham Cooper
<graham...@gmail.com>:

Are you volunteering to do a forecast? That would work, as
long as you stated the exact location and temperature/time
data. One week in advance, of course.

>"BUT JESUS, FORGET ABOUT THE SCRIPTURES, SHOULD I BAIT MY HOOK FOR
>SALMON OR TROUT ON OUR FISHING TRIP?"

Who said anything about Scripture? this is about *your*
claims about *your* supposed powers. No deity necessary.

Bob Casanova

unread,
Apr 9, 2011, 4:47:53 PM4/9/11
to
On Fri, 8 Apr 2011 18:31:43 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Graham Cooper
<graham...@gmail.com>:

>On Apr 9, 8:24�am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>>
>> Need I (ahem!) predict that the response will at some point
>> involve the deity (or possibly weather ....
>
>
>SPOT ON!
>
>Very impressive Bob, *I* give you 100% full marks for that precise
>prediction about my above response (which was clearly not rigged BTW),
>though no skeptic would!

Sure they would, given your recent posts. It's like
"predicting" that water will remain wet.

>Swap 'deity' for 'daily' weather response and you literally broke
>TRILLION:1 ODDS with such a specific prediciton!

Take your meds.

Bob Casanova

unread,
Apr 9, 2011, 4:51:16 PM4/9/11
to
On Fri, 8 Apr 2011 21:35:35 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Graham Cooper
<graham...@gmail.com>:

>On Apr 9, 2:19 pm, BruceS <bruce...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Apr 9, 8:24 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>>
>> > > Need I (ahem!) predict that the response will at some point
>> > > involve the deity (or possibly weather ....
>
>> Why do I get the feeling that went straight over his head?
>
>[BOB]
>> There are enough
>> available catastrophes that you should be able to post one
>> next week for the following week.
>
>[BOB] *
>> Need I (ahem!) predict that the response will at some point
>> involve the daily weather ....

Nope: "deity". As in (your repeated statement) "GOD (or
GOES) DOESN'T PLAY DICE!". Whatever relevance that has...

>[HERC]
>How about a daily weather forecast while we're at it?

Already answered; still waiting for *any* verifiable
prediction...

<snip irrelevantia>

camg...@hush.com

unread,
Apr 9, 2011, 5:13:27 PM4/9/11
to
On Apr 10, 6:51 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Apr 2011 21:35:35 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Graham Cooper
> <grahamcoop...@gmail.com>:

>
>
>
>
>
> >On Apr 9, 2:19 pm, BruceS <bruce...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> > On Apr 9, 8:24 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>
> >> > > Need I (ahem!) predict that the response will at some point
> >> > > involve the deity (or possibly weather ....
>
> >> Why do I get the feeling that went straight over his head?
>
> >[BOB]
> >> There are enough
> >> available catastrophes that you should be able to post one
> >> next week for the following week.
>
> >[BOB] *
> >> Need I (ahem!) predict that the response will at some point
> >> involve the daily weather ....
>
> Nope: "deity". As in (your repeated statement) "GOD (or
> GOES) DOESN'T PLAY DICE!". Whatever relevance that has...
>
> >[HERC]
> >How about a daily weather forecast while we're at it?
>
> Already answered; still waiting for *any* verifiable
> prediction...
>


I predicted Space Shuttle Explosion 365 days before
Boxing Day Tsunami 10 days before
Qld Floods and Cyclones days before
Christchurch earthquake days before
"Bowditch Errs but comes through" predicted for early 2011 4 months
before

and 3 Towns I've lived or worked at all had a disaster in the space of
2 weeks last Jan
immediately after I posted to 50 Qld Government emails
"YOU GET HIT HARD AND IT KEEPS ON COMING"
i.e. the rain kept on coming until half the state was underwater the
next week.

Toowoomba (high school) floods
Townsville (lived most of last decade) cyclone
Kelmscott (worked) bushfire

Since you toss all of these time stamped forecasts aside with your
idiot heathen ears there is no use doing any more.

Bob Casanova

unread,
Apr 10, 2011, 2:13:32 PM4/10/11
to
On Sat, 9 Apr 2011 14:13:27 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by camg...@hush.com:

I don't see any time-stamped forecasts. Cites?

Bob Casanova

unread,
Apr 10, 2011, 2:14:33 PM4/10/11
to
On Sat, 09 Apr 2011 13:51:16 -0700, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:

>On Fri, 8 Apr 2011 21:35:35 -0700 (PDT), the following
>appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Graham Cooper
><graham...@gmail.com>:
>
>>On Apr 9, 2:19 pm, BruceS <bruce...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> > On Apr 9, 8:24 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>>>
>>> > > Need I (ahem!) predict that the response will at some point
>>> > > involve the deity (or possibly weather ....
>>
>>> Why do I get the feeling that went straight over his head?
>>
>>[BOB]
>>> There are enough
>>> available catastrophes that you should be able to post one
>>> next week for the following week.
>>
>>[BOB] *
>>> Need I (ahem!) predict that the response will at some point
>>> involve the daily weather ....
>
>Nope: "deity". As in (your repeated statement) "GOD (or
>GOES) DOESN'T PLAY DICE!". Whatever relevance that has...
>
>>[HERC]
>>How about a daily weather forecast while we're at it?
>
>Already answered; still waiting for *any* verifiable
>prediction...
>
><snip irrelevantia>

Still waiting...

george

unread,
Apr 10, 2011, 4:08:23 PM4/10/11
to
On Apr 11, 6:14 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Sat, 09 Apr 2011 13:51:16 -0700, the following appeared
> in sci.skeptic, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:
>
>
>
> >On Fri, 8 Apr 2011 21:35:35 -0700 (PDT), the following
> >appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Graham Cooper
> ><grahamcoop...@gmail.com>:

>
> >>On Apr 9, 2:19 pm, BruceS <bruce...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>> > On Apr 9, 8:24 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>
> >>> > > Need I (ahem!) predict that the response will at some point
> >>> > > involve the deity (or possibly weather ....
>
> >>> Why do I get the feeling that went straight over his head?
>
> >>[BOB]
> >>> There are enough
> >>> available catastrophes that you should be able to post one
> >>> next week for the following week.
>
> >>[BOB] *
> >>> Need I (ahem!) predict that the response will at some point
> >>> involve the daily weather ....
>
> >Nope: "deity". As in (your repeated statement) "GOD (or
> >GOES) DOESN'T PLAY DICE!". Whatever relevance that has...
>
> >>[HERC]
> >>How about a daily weather forecast while we're at it?
>
> >Already answered; still waiting for *any* verifiable
> >prediction...
>
> ><snip irrelevantia>
>
> Still waiting...

In that case you have a lifelong wait...

The only thing out of that quarter is lies, damned lies and
unsubstantiated statistics ...

Graham Cooper

unread,
Apr 10, 2011, 9:06:41 PM4/10/11
to


Here are 3 of my premonitions ON RECORD!

http://groups.google.com/groups/search?as_usubject=proof+of+god+0202+2002
FEB 2 2002 I post PROOF OF GOD 02 02 2002 to a dozen newsgroups
1 year to the day later the Space Shuttle exploded

http://groups.google.com/groups/search?as_usubject=dark-day-monday
DEC 14 2004 A ouigee board warning of global catastrophe - DARK DAY
MONDAY
2 weeks before the Boxing Day Tsunami killed 100,000 people ON A
SUNDAY

http://hercshome.com/my-fault.png
Days before Queensland floods and cyclone.
YOU GET HIT HARD AND IT KEEPS ON COMING (THE RAIN)
Emailed to 50 Queensland Govt. departments

-------------

I'm not saying it's a simple matter that it's definitive,
but that's 3 of the biggest natural disasters of the last decade
predicted,
and I don't make any predictions other than
the ones that DO show some results.

GovShill

unread,
Apr 10, 2011, 10:48:06 PM4/10/11
to
> http://groups.google.com/groups/search?as_usubject=proof+of+god+0202+...

> FEB 2 2002 I post PROOF OF GOD 02 02 2002 to a dozen newsgroups
> 1 year to the day later the Space Shuttle exploded
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups/search?as_usubject=dark-day-monday
> DEC 14 2004 A ouigee board warning of global catastrophe - DARK DAY
> MONDAY
> 2 weeks before the Boxing Day Tsunami killed 100,000 people ON A
> SUNDAY
>
> http://hercshome.com/my-fault.png
> Days before Queensland floods and cyclone.
> YOU GET HIT HARD AND IT KEEPS ON COMING (THE RAIN)
> Emailed to 50 Queensland Govt. departments
>
> -------------
>
> I'm not saying it's a simple matter that it's definitive,
> but that's 3 of the biggest natural disasters of the last decade
> predicted,
> and I don't make any predictions other than
> the ones that DO show some results.

Given that a prediction is "a statement made about the future" I'd say
you are full of shit. Situation Normal.

Shill #2

Graham Cooper

unread,
Apr 11, 2011, 2:46:10 AM4/11/11
to

2 days later I explained DARK DAY MONDAY was "predict a catastrophe"

http://groups.google.com/group/aus.tv/msg/1f3d3f27c20f32b2\


Message from discussion DARK DAY MONDAY


----8<-------------------

|-|erc View profile
More options Dec 14 2004, 8:21 pm

Newsgroups: aus.tv, sci.skeptic
From: "|-|erc" <h...@r.c>
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 20:21:20 +1000
Local: Tues, Dec 14 2004 8:21 pm
Subject: Re: DARK DAY MONDAY
Reply to author | Forward | Print | View thread | Show original |
Report this message | Find messages by this author
"Monty" <nomeneit...@hotmail.com> wrote in ...

> "|-|erc" <h...@r.c> wrote in message news:327rkgF...@individual.net...
> > my Ouigee board is playing up again.... hope its global and not related
> to me!


> > Herc
> > --
> > Capitalism meets Communism ~ limit 1 skyscraper per billionaire


> It's "Ouija" board - from the French "oui" and German "ja" both meaning
> "yes". I'm not picking on you but a lot of people get this wrong. It's
> what I use to drive suvvdj nuts.


just taking a stab at the spelling, weegee is even used.
actually it was DARKFALZ, DAVID, MONTY, DAVID dark day mon day
just after I got the message 'you can predict catastrophe'. gave me a
shiver
reading out the names..

Herc

-----------------------8<------------

DEC 14 - HERC "predict a catastrophe" "DARK DAY MONDAY"

DEC 26 - 100,000 DEAD mid Sunday

Government Shill #2

unread,
Apr 11, 2011, 3:41:14 AM4/11/11
to

Nope. Sorry. Don't see any statements made about the future in any of that
bullshit.

Maybe I'm not crazy enough?

Shill #2
--
Truly great madness cannot be achieved without significant intelligence.
Henrik Tikkanen

Graham Cooper

unread,
Apr 11, 2011, 5:10:08 AM4/11/11
to
On Apr 11, 5:41 pm, Government Shill #2 <gov.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 23:46:10 -0700 (PDT), Graham Cooper
>
>
>
>
>
> >>   "|-|erc" <h...@r.c> wrote in messagenews:327rkgF...@individual.net...

> >>   > my Ouigee board is playing up again.... hope its global and not related
> >> to me!
>
> >>   > Herc
> >>   > --
> >>   > Capitalism meets Communism ~ limit 1 skyscraper per billionaire
>
> >>   It's "Ouija" board - from the French "oui" and German "ja" both meaning
> >> "yes".  I'm not picking on you but a lot of people get this wrong.  It's
> >> what I use to drive suvvdj nuts.
>
> >just taking a stab at the spelling, weegee is even used.
> >actually it was  DARKFALZ, DAVID, MONTY, DAVID   dark day mon day
> >just after I got the message 'you can predict catastrophe'.  gave me a
> >shiver
> >reading out the names..
>
> >Herc
>
> >-----------------------8<------------
>
> >DEC 14 - HERC "predict a catastrophe" "DARK DAY MONDAY"
>
> >DEC 26 - 100,000 DEAD mid Sunday
>
> Nope. Sorry. Don't see any statements made about the future in any of that
> bullshit.
>
> Maybe I'm not crazy enough?


just plain stupdity!

"actually it was DARKFALZ, DAVID, MONTY, DAVID dark day mon day
just after I got the message 'you can predict catastrophe'"


GROUPS: aus.tv SCI.SKEPTIC
SUBJECT: DARK DAY MONDAY
DATE: 12 DECEMBER 2004
TOPIC: Ouija Board message
FOLLOW UP POST 14 DEC - *I* can predict catastrophe

2 WEEKS LATER
BOXING DAY TSUNAMI HIT ON SUNDAY

Any school kid can see it's a valid prediction and a hit.

Dingo Bob

unread,
Apr 11, 2011, 5:20:15 AM4/11/11
to
On Apr 11, 7:10 pm, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote:

> just plain stupdity!

Your plain stupidity is brought about by your mental illness.

> Any school kid can see it's a valid prediction and a hit.

Anyone sane can see that you are completely deluded.

Graham Cooper

unread,
Apr 11, 2011, 5:43:53 AM4/11/11
to

So what do YOU see?

Dingo Bob

unread,
Apr 11, 2011, 6:31:11 AM4/11/11
to
On Apr 11, 7:43 pm, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote:

> So what do YOU see?

A psychiatric patient embarrassing himself and boring everyone else to
shits.

Graham Cooper

unread,
Apr 11, 2011, 7:12:55 AM4/11/11
to

you were like that when I got here!

Dingo Bob

unread,
Apr 11, 2011, 7:43:15 AM4/11/11
to
On Apr 11, 9:12 pm, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > So what do YOU see?
>
> > A psychiatric patient embarrassing himself and boring everyone else to
> > shits.
>
> you were like that when I got here!

You're the resident psychiatric patient here - it's on the public
record that you're as crazy as batshit.

Government Shill #2

unread,
Apr 11, 2011, 8:08:41 AM4/11/11
to


Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Nuttier than rat shit in a walnut warehouse!

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Shill #2
--
"When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When
many people suffer from a delusion, it is called Religion."
Robert M. Pirsig

Bob Casanova

unread,
Apr 11, 2011, 5:40:18 PM4/11/11
to
On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 13:08:23 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by george <gbl...@hnpl.net>:

Yeah, but that fact (his inability to predict anything)
needs to be reiterated occasionally.

>The only thing out of that quarter is lies, damned lies and
>unsubstantiated statistics ...

I'd go with "delusions" rather than lies; it's yet to be
demonstrated that he has the faintest idea what the truth
actually is.

Graham Cooper

unread,
Apr 11, 2011, 5:44:56 PM4/11/11
to


Nope! You guys are reverse engineering your denial (conclustions)
based on your ASSUMPTION that predicting catastrophes is impossible.

It's very clear.

14 DEC 2004 in same thread


"actually it was DARKFALZ, DAVID, MONTY, DAVID dark day mon day
just after I got the message 'you can predict catastrophe'"

THIS IS WHERE I CLARIFY THAT IT WAS A PREDICTION OF CATASTROPHE
BECAUSE I POSTED "DARK DAY MONDAY" ON A SUNDAY IN SCI.SKEPTIC
AND NOTHING HIT *THAT* MONDAY - THE NEXT DAY.

Bob Casanova

unread,
Apr 11, 2011, 5:52:30 PM4/11/11
to
On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 18:06:41 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Graham Cooper
<graham...@gmail.com>:

No mention of the shuttle in that post. In fact, no stated
predictions at all.

>http://groups.google.com/groups/search?as_usubject=dark-day-monday
>DEC 14 2004 A ouigee board warning of global catastrophe - DARK DAY
>MONDAY
>2 weeks before the Boxing Day Tsunami killed 100,000 people ON A
>SUNDAY

Here's what you posted and later claimed to have been a
"prediction" of the tsunami:

"my Ouigee board is playing up again.... hope its global and
not related to me!"

Wow, right on target! Not...

And BTW, that's "Ouija" board; your spelling makes it sound
like something used to clean windows. HTH...

>http://hercshome.com/my-fault.png
>Days before Queensland floods and cyclone.
>YOU GET HIT HARD AND IT KEEPS ON COMING (THE RAIN)
>Emailed to 50 Queensland Govt. departments

Your actual statement (from the referenced website):

"You get hit hard and it keeps on coming until you break."

No mention of rain. No mention of location or time, even
vaguely.

IOW, no prediction of anything meaningful.

>I'm not saying it's a simple matter that it's definitive,
>but that's 3 of the biggest natural disasters of the last decade
>predicted,
>and I don't make any predictions other than
>the ones that DO show some results.

So where are those predictions? The ones you referenced were
neither predictions nor useful.

Bob Casanova

unread,
Apr 11, 2011, 5:58:08 PM4/11/11
to
On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 02:10:08 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Graham Cooper
<graham...@gmail.com>:

But not stupid enough to buy this BS.

>"actually it was DARKFALZ, DAVID, MONTY, DAVID dark day mon day
>just after I got the message 'you can predict catastrophe'"
>
>
>GROUPS: aus.tv SCI.SKEPTIC
>SUBJECT: DARK DAY MONDAY
>DATE: 12 DECEMBER 2004
>TOPIC: Ouija Board message
>FOLLOW UP POST 14 DEC - *I* can predict catastrophe
>
>2 WEEKS LATER
>BOXING DAY TSUNAMI HIT ON SUNDAY
>
>Any school kid can see it's a valid prediction and a hit.

Let's see...

No mention of the nature of the catastrophe.
No mention of the time of the catastrophe.
No mention of the location of the catastrophe.
No mention of *which* Monday.

Yeah, that's certainly a valid prediction, all right. Not.

Did you only have to take "Stupid 101" to post this kind of
crap, or was "Advanced Stupid" required?

Graham Cooper

unread,
Apr 11, 2011, 7:17:51 PM4/11/11
to
On Apr 12, 7:58 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 02:10:08 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Graham Cooper
> <grahamcoop...@gmail.com>:

a coming monday

> No mention of the location of the catastrophe.
> No mention of *which* Monday.
>
> Yeah, that's certainly a valid prediction, all right. Not.
>
> Did you only have to take "Stupid 101" to post this kind of
> crap, or was "Advanced Stupid" required?
> --
>
> Bob C.


OK what about when I made an encrypted prediction

http://tinyurl.com/bowditch-prediction

goes to >>

http://groups.google.com/group/aus.tv/browse_thread/thread/5c24116273ec9b4/08008c61c86c96e5?lnk=gst&q=prediction+peter+bowditch#08008c61c86c96e5


Prediction for early 2011
|-|ercules radgray...@yahoo.com aus tv sci skeptic alt prophecies
nostradamus
Peter Bowditch" <myfirstn...@ratbags.com> wrote with your kookiness.
Here is an
image segment of the prediction. http://hercshome.com/petersays/prediction-
bowditch.jpg True so far! Herc.
Nov 30 2010 by |-|ercules - 7 messages - 3 authors


and posted the MD5 of the image file back in October 2010
and stated it would happen early 2011.


The sneak peak of the prediction image was here:

http://hercshome.com/petersays/prediction-bowditch.jpg

The secret prediction image is here:

http://hercshome.com/readnewz-com/prediction1HIDE.png

which should match the first MD5 given in October 2010


OK, so before I post how Peter 'erred then hangs on' early 2011,
are we clear on the time frame and person and the nature of the
prediction?

Alex

unread,
Apr 11, 2011, 11:04:11 PM4/11/11
to
In aus.tv Graham Cooper <graham...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Nope! You guys are reverse engineering your denial (conclustions)
> based on your ASSUMPTION that predicting catastrophes is impossible.

Nope! You're "reverse engineering" your prediction of "DARKFALZ,
DAVID, MONTY, DAVID dark day mon day" to fit an unrelated event.

> It's very clear.

What, the hindsight or the coincidence? The only thing which is
clear is that the "prediction" has nothing whatsoever to do with
the event you're "reverse engineering" it to fit.

> 14 DEC 2004 in same thread
> "actually it was DARKFALZ, DAVID, MONTY, DAVID dark day mon day
> just after I got the message 'you can predict catastrophe'"

So your prediction was *actually* that "DARKFALZ, DAVID, MONTY,
DAVID" would have a "dark day mon day"? Did they?

> THIS IS WHERE I CLARIFY THAT IT WAS A PREDICTION OF CATASTROPHE
> BECAUSE I POSTED "DARK DAY MONDAY" ON A SUNDAY IN SCI.SKEPTIC
> AND NOTHING HIT *THAT* MONDAY - THE NEXT DAY.
>
>
> GROUPS: aus.tv SCI.SKEPTIC
> SUBJECT: DARK DAY MONDAY
> DATE: 12 DECEMBER 2004
> TOPIC: Ouija Board message
> FOLLOW UP POST 14 DEC - *I* can predict catastrophe
>
>
> 2 WEEKS LATER
> BOXING DAY TSUNAMI HIT ON SUNDAY

Yeah, if only you hadn't predicted "mon day" instead...

Alex.

Graham Cooper

unread,
Apr 11, 2011, 11:30:48 PM4/11/11
to
On Apr 12, 1:04 pm, Alex <n...@leng.id.au> wrote:
> > GROUPS: aus.tv SCI.SKEPTIC
> > SUBJECT:  DARK DAY MONDAY
> > DATE: 12 DECEMBER 2004
> > TOPIC: Ouija Board message
> > FOLLOW UP POST 14 DEC - *I* can predict catastrophe
>
> > 2 WEEKS LATER
> > BOXING DAY TSUNAMI HIT ON SUNDAY
>
> Yeah, if only you hadn't predicted "mon day" instead...
>
> Alex.

Nope! Very clear that Monday was a dark day, 2 weeks after I clearly
posted that prediction of catastrophe about the Boxing Day Tsunami.


-----------------------------------------------


What about this prediction about Peter?

The secret prediction image is here:
http://hercshome.com/readnewz-com/prediction1HIDE.png
which should match the first MD5 given in October 2010


Are you going to cry again that it's not an actual prediction once I
reveal the very clear hit early 2011?

Alex

unread,
Apr 12, 2011, 12:30:29 AM4/12/11
to
In aus.tv Graham Cooper <graham...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 12, 1:04 pm, Alex <n...@leng.id.au> wrote:
>> > GROUPS: aus.tv SCI.SKEPTIC
>> > SUBJECT:  DARK DAY MONDAY
>> > DATE: 12 DECEMBER 2004
>> > TOPIC: Ouija Board message
>> > FOLLOW UP POST 14 DEC - *I* can predict catastrophe
>>
>> > 2 WEEKS LATER
>> > BOXING DAY TSUNAMI HIT ON SUNDAY
>>
>> Yeah, if only you hadn't predicted "mon day" instead...
>
> Nope! Very clear that Monday was a dark day, 2 weeks after I clearly
> posted that prediction of catastrophe about the Boxing Day Tsunami.

Let's examine the prediction closely:

"DARKFALZ, DAVID, MONTY, DAVID dark day mon day"

So, to sum up, no mention of the tsunami, the timing of the tsunami,
the fact that it took place on a Sunday, or indeed anything actually
about it whatsoever.

A bit of a weak attempt at "reverse engineering" to fit a
catastrophe which it makes absolutely no mention of...

> What about this prediction about Peter?
>
> The secret prediction image is here:
> http://hercshome.com/readnewz-com/prediction1HIDE.png
> which should match the first MD5 given in October 2010

Here's my "psychic prediction" - I predict that Graham Cooper
and/or any of his aliases will be unable to stop posting or
crossposting to rec.org.mensa for the remainder of 2011.

Alex.

Graham Cooper

unread,
Apr 12, 2011, 2:31:56 AM4/12/11
to
On Apr 12, 2:30 pm, Alex <n...@leng.id.au> wrote:

Well I still made a prediction or a prominent premonition *proof of
God - powers of premonition 0202 2002*for most of the major
catastrophes of the last decade.

Just because you whinge and whine that I said the DAY AFTER was the
DARK DAY regarding a catastrophe just means you are a copout.

Yes Alex, paranormal is impossible have it your way you sooky bub.

Man, you post 2 weeks before a 0.1 MEGADEATH TSUNAMI

MY OUIJA BOARD IS PLAYING UP - "DARK DAY MONDAY"
IT'S A PREDICTION ABOUT A CATASTROPHE

and you all call it a MISS!

What a joke you are Alex. All you skeptics should be shot for your
outright lies, deceit and reneging.

Alex

unread,
Apr 12, 2011, 3:07:13 AM4/12/11
to
In aus.tv Graham Cooper <graham...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Well I still made a prediction or a prominent premonition *proof of
> God - powers of premonition 0202 2002*for most of the major
> catastrophes of the last decade.
>
> Just because you whinge and whine that I said the DAY AFTER was the
> DARK DAY regarding a catastrophe just means you are a copout.

Yes, you've had a problem comprehending simple logical analysis
before - and I'd observe that in terms of whinging and whining it
takes one to know one...

The fact that your "reverse engineering" of the "prediction" doesn't
actually match the catastrophe isn't *my* fault - do try to keep up.

> Yes Alex, paranormal is impossible have it your way you sooky bub.

*I've* never said that. Don't let facts stand in the way of your
personal delusions, though.

> Man, you post 2 weeks before a 0.1 MEGADEATH TSUNAMI
>
> MY OUIJA BOARD IS PLAYING UP - "DARK DAY MONDAY"
> IT'S A PREDICTION ABOUT A CATASTROPHE
>
> and you all call it a MISS!

Only in the sense that your "prediction" had nothing to do with (and
didn't even reference) the 0.1 MEGADEATH TSUNAMI. Yes, it's obvious
that you think "DARK DAY MONDAY" has more relevance than a
superficial and mostly subjective interpretation of a generic event
(your original post doesn't even link the claim with "catastrophe")
so you're able to spin this however you like. Which part of this
are you having trouble understanding?

> What a joke you are Alex. All you skeptics should be shot for your
> outright lies, deceit and reneging.

More waffle, no proof of powers. I've said it before - you're just
here for the attention. You have no motivation or ability to prove
any of your claims by actually entering these "skeptics competitions"
you constantly harp on, and no determination to actually follow
anything through to completion.

Alex.

Graham Cooper

unread,
Apr 12, 2011, 3:37:58 AM4/12/11
to
> More waffle, no proof of powers.  I've said it before - you're just
> here for the attention.  You have no motivation or ability to prove
> any of your claims by actually entering these "skeptics competitions"
> you constantly harp on, and no determination to actually follow
> anything through to completion.
>
> Alex.

Yes that is waffle. I've spent 10 hours per day trying to get someone
to test my powers for 10 years.

No motivation?

You are a cretinous liar.

I've also posted PROOF ON SIGHT 100 times for any skeptic witness to
meet me in person for 10 years also.

There are no skeptics, just lying bullshitters reliant on their no-
evidence-talks waffle religion.

Alex

unread,
Apr 12, 2011, 3:57:17 AM4/12/11
to
In aus.tv Graham Cooper <graham...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Yes that is waffle. I've spent 10 hours per day trying to get someone
> to test my powers for 10 years.

And I bet that sounded a great deal more impressive *inside your head* .
But thanks for proving my point.

> No motivation?
>
> You are a cretinous liar.

As I said before, don't let the facts stand in the way of your
delusions.

> I've also posted PROOF ON SIGHT 100 times for any skeptic witness to
> meet me in person for 10 years also.
>
> There are no skeptics, just lying bullshitters reliant on their no-
> evidence-talks waffle religion.

It is more than amusing how deeply ironic that sentence is - I mean,
if you substitute "psychics" (in the Graham Cooper sense of the word)
for "skeptics" it perfectly describes your "10 years" of largely
dishonest output and failing to follow through with anything:

"There are no psychics, just lying bullshitters reliant on their
no-evidence-talks waffle religion."

But hey, prove me wrong, stop waffling here and enter one of these
competitions you keep obsessing over.

I predict you can't.

Alex.

Graham Cooper

unread,
Apr 12, 2011, 5:37:33 AM4/12/11
to
On Apr 12, 5:57 pm, Alex <n...@leng.id.au> wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_prizes_for_evidence_of_the_paranormal

I've entered ALL of the 26 main paranormal prize competitions plus a
dozen other smaller prize offers for proof of paranormal.

They are ALL bullshit.

Why don't you show me a REPLY from any one of them?

Do you see any skeptics representing CSICOP in sci.skeptic offering
any claimants to apply?

The only excuse for a skeptic representative here is Peter BOW-DITCH
who automatically discards all claims that use the terms "guess" or
"binomial distribution"

Try making a paranormal claim and how it breaks million to one odds
under those terms!

Bob Casanova

unread,
Apr 12, 2011, 1:27:19 PM4/12/11
to
On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 14:44:56 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Graham Cooper
<graham...@gmail.com>:

No location.
No date.
No time.
Equals... *No* prediction.

>GROUPS: aus.tv SCI.SKEPTIC
>SUBJECT: DARK DAY MONDAY
>DATE: 12 DECEMBER 2004
>TOPIC: Ouija Board message
>FOLLOW UP POST 14 DEC - *I* can predict catastrophe
>
>
>2 WEEKS LATER
>BOXING DAY TSUNAMI HIT ON SUNDAY

Yeah; so? You certainly didn't predict it.

Bob Casanova

unread,
Apr 12, 2011, 1:35:37 PM4/12/11
to
On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 16:17:51 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Graham Cooper
<graham...@gmail.com>:

>On Apr 12, 7:58 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:

>> On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 02:10:08 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Graham Cooper
>> <grahamcoop...@gmail.com>:

>> >On Apr 11, 5:41 pm, Government Shill #2 <gov.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 23:46:10 -0700 (PDT), Graham Cooper

>> >> <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

>> >> >DEC 14 - HERC "predict a catastrophe" "DARK DAY MONDAY"
>>
>> >> >DEC 26 - 100,000 DEAD mid Sunday
>>
>> >> Nope. Sorry. Don't see any statements made about the future in any of that
>> >> bullshit.
>>
>> >> Maybe I'm not crazy enough?
>>
>> >just plain stupdity!
>>
>> But not stupid enough to buy this BS.
>>
>> >"actually it was  DARKFALZ, DAVID, MONTY, DAVID   dark day mon day
>> >just after I got the message 'you can predict catastrophe'"
>>
>> >GROUPS: aus.tv SCI.SKEPTIC
>> >SUBJECT:  DARK DAY MONDAY
>> >DATE: 12 DECEMBER 2004
>> >TOPIC: Ouija Board message
>> >FOLLOW UP POST 14 DEC - *I* can predict catastrophe
>>
>> >2 WEEKS LATER
>> >BOXING DAY TSUNAMI HIT ON SUNDAY
>>
>> >Any school kid can see it's a valid prediction and a hit.
>>
>> Let's see...
>>
>> No mention of the nature of the catastrophe.

[Crickets...]

>> No mention of the time of the catastrophe.

>a coming monday

Wow, what a precise time! "A coming Monday"! That's
certainly so well-defined that everyone will know what you
mean and be able to take precautions! Not.

>> No mention of the location of the catastrophe.

[Crickets...]

>> No mention of *which* Monday.

[Crickets...]

>> Yeah, that's certainly a valid prediction, all right. Not.
>>
>> Did you only have to take "Stupid 101" to post this kind of
>> crap, or was "Advanced Stupid" required?

Did you? I'd really like to know...

>OK what about when I made an encrypted prediction
>
>http://tinyurl.com/bowditch-prediction
>
>goes to >>
>
>http://groups.google.com/group/aus.tv/browse_thread/thread/5c24116273ec9b4/08008c61c86c96e5?lnk=gst&q=prediction+peter+bowditch#08008c61c86c96e5
>
>
>Prediction for early 2011
>|-|ercules radgray...@yahoo.com aus tv sci skeptic alt prophecies
>nostradamus
>Peter Bowditch" <myfirstn...@ratbags.com> wrote with your kookiness.
>Here is an
>image segment of the prediction. http://hercshome.com/petersays/prediction-
>bowditch.jpg True so far! Herc.
>Nov 30 2010 by |-|ercules - 7 messages - 3 authors
>
>
>and posted the MD5 of the image file back in October 2010
>and stated it would happen early 2011.
>
>
>The sneak peak of the prediction image was here:
>
>http://hercshome.com/petersays/prediction-bowditch.jpg
>
>The secret prediction image is here:
>
>http://hercshome.com/readnewz-com/prediction1HIDE.png
>
>which should match the first MD5 given in October 2010
>
>
>OK, so before I post how Peter 'erred then hangs on' early 2011,
>are we clear on the time frame and person and the nature of the
>prediction?

No. Your "time frame" is ridiculous, and the "nature of the
prediction" is so vague as to be meaningless. You could as
well post a "prediction" that I won't buy your claims
without evidence and then claim that your "prediction" was
accurate.

Brad

unread,
Apr 12, 2011, 5:40:13 PM4/12/11
to
On Apr 13, 3:35 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 16:17:51 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Graham Cooper
> <grahamcoop...@gmail.com>:
> >http://groups.google.com/group/aus.tv/browse_thread/thread/5c24116273...

>
> >Prediction for early 2011
> >|-|ercules radgray...@yahoo.com aus tv sci skeptic alt prophecies
> >nostradamus
> >Peter Bowditch" <myfirstn...@ratbags.com> wrote with your kookiness.
> >Here is an
> >image segment of the prediction.http://hercshome.com/petersays/prediction-

> >bowditch.jpg True so far! Herc.
> >Nov 30 2010 by |-|ercules - 7 messages - 3 authors
>
> >and posted the MD5 of the image file back in October 2010
> >and stated it would happen early 2011.
>
> >The sneak peak of the prediction image was here:
>
> >http://hercshome.com/petersays/prediction-bowditch.jpg
>
> >The secret prediction image is here:
>
> >http://hercshome.com/readnewz-com/prediction1HIDE.png
>
> >which should match the first MD5 given in October 2010
>
> >OK, so before I post how Peter 'erred then hangs on' early 2011,
> >are we clear on the time frame and person and the nature of the
> >prediction?
>
> No. Your "time frame" is ridiculous, and the "nature of the
> prediction" is so vague as to be meaningless. You could as
> well post a "prediction" that I won't buy your claims
> without evidence and then claim that your "prediction" was
> accurate.
> --
>
> Bob C.
>
> "Evidence confirming an observation is
> evidence that the observation is wrong."
>                           - McNameless

I can confidently predict the following:

SOMETHING WILL HAPPEN SOMETIME SOON.

There. Now prove me wrong.

It is loading more messages.
0 new messages