--- In [email protected], [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Wow, Wow. You have a very busy intellect.
So what in my natal chart and current transits is causing that. (No, you can't look at my chart. Its an exercise in jyotish reverse engineering. :) ) >I don't think I would be able to > answer all of > your questions. Five simple questions are really not that hard. unless transiting saturn is right on top of and crushing your natal mercury or something. :) > I have a 70% accuracy rate. Based on what? Do you have the analysis that supports this claim? > I said in 1993 that Wall Street would have a > difficult time around the > spring of 2003. They thought I was a quack. But the spring of 03 did have > some difficulties due to the terrorist attack and the Iraq War set this in > motion. Well it had much HUGER problems 2000-2002 when the market crashed when the internet bubble popped. Many nasdaq stocks lost 90% of their value. Some popular stock (can you say JDSU) lost 99% of their value. predicting that would have been far more significant than the relatively milder drop in 2003. > Example: When I asked the planet Mars what it was going to do in August > of 2005 Do you ask it for a report on each month? If not, why did you pick August 2005? >it > responded with " I will uleash my anger through a terrorist attack or a > natural disaster". That is not too specific. Was Mars undecided between the two. Was he being transited by mercury or rahu? >I > don't get specifics such as where the natural disaster might accure. Then the "prediction" is not terribly useful, is it? Its not actionable by anyone. > The mind and intellect cannot fathom the enormous intelligence of divine > judgement. Man > tries to figure everything out. This is human judgement. He thinks he knows > it all. Who? No one I know does. >But when you look at the last 26,000 years man has only created > violence and destruction without any answers. Woman have been patiently waiting for > man to relax his intellect and just surrender to the will of a higher > intelligence. And this somehow demonstates that divine judgement exists -- as opposed to more mechanical caause and effect mechanisms. There seems to be a large non-sequitur here. > I am not trying to cop out here in regards to my predictions. If you are claiming 70% accuracy, to be credible, you need to demonstrate that i) your predictions were well established beforehand, ii) prior to the event, you disclose all your prdictions so failures and successes can be counted iii) your same or similar predicions are not repeated year after year. iv) the probability of an event occuring in a prediction is substantially greater than it is normally and historically. v) the event is not pretty obvious by non-jyotish conventional wisdom or common sense. vi) show that the prediction actionable. Thats why I asked these questons in my origianl post. If you can't substantiate your predictions per the above points, IMO they are just some parlor game. Perhaps amusing, but not credible predictions that can be verified. They become the type of stuff that makes Off-world go unhinged (with good reason, IMO). >I have a > feeling that if I was 100% accurate people would still ignore that fact. Thats an odd view. If you were 100% accurate, per the above six points, you could provide a great service to the world. People believe what is tested and validated. Your predictions are not validated. You appear to have not interst in doing so. Thus, there is little mystery if people ignore you. > There has > never been a visionary that > has had 100% accuracy. And no one is asking that. A series of predicions meeting the above six criteria in which the success rate was quite above the rate of natural occurence would be wonderful. > > In terms of earthquakes you are correct. However, the tsunami was huge. We > don't see 9.2 > richter often. But of course you did not predict an earthquake above 9. If you did, I would admire your prediction. Instead you said "four major quakes in 2.5 years." Pretty much normal events IMO. It depnds on how "major is defined. to be credible, you need to be specific. "major could mean the top 10-100 quakes every year." "A 9.2 quake" is a much more specific and testable prediction. By the way, the ancient civilization of Lemuria will rise > above the Pacific Ocean > within the next 48 months. OK. That is sort of specific. But open to lots of wiggle room, IMO. If a new land mass arises in the pacific ocean, how do we know its Lemuria? If you stated a new land mass grater than 10,000 square miles will arise in the pacific in next 48 months, that would be pretty specific. Your current prediction could include a small 50 foot island arising that you claim is a mountaintop of Lemuria. > It will > provide much historical information regarding the Pladian civilization and its > connection to the Hindus and the Rishis of India. The mantras. Ok. That is more specific. if actual ruins are found that substantiate the above, that would be a rare event. > However, I predict that > Northern Tokyo, in the financial district will be hit by a big in either > 2007 or 2008. At what richter? Will buildings over 50 stories collapse. How many? Will electricity and services be out for weeks? These factors would help make the event far rarer than normal. Your prediction could be business as usual. Tokoyo often gets "big" quakes, depending on how you define "big". > The International Banking system will be in for a big challenge > over the next two years. Is that conected to Tokyo event? Regardless, the above on banking system is very non-specific and essentailly worthless as a prediction. Anyone could say pluasibly, today, that the int'l banking system has been having major challenges for the last decade, and this will continue for at least the next few years. > I wish you were reading my 2005 predictions because I was so right on. I did read those. I have the same comments for most of those. >I find that some of my predictions come true three to five > years after the fact. A prediction that the yankees will win the series in a given year is not a substantial predcion if it comes true, but noteworthy. Its less so if ones says they yankees will win the series in the next five years. If its spread to 10 years, its just about worthless -- that is its approaching the historical average. Remember, I > just started this in 1993 so I need more time to see over the long run. I do > predict that MMY will get his 1% effect but it will be after he has passed > away. About two years after. Why? Because his movement will become less > conservative. They will release some of his video DVD knowledge to the public. That > would help. OK. But that is reasoned specualtion. It has nothing to do with jyotish predictions. >Negative predictions will continue in 2007 and 2008 and then I > see around the middle of 2009 a better time worldwide. I think the last ten years have been better than the prior ten years. It all depends on what criteria one uses for "better". >Negative predictions will continue in 2007 and 2008 and then I > see around the middle of 2009 a better time worldwide. is a meaningless non-specific prediction. > I hope this helps you. I was trying to help you establish a credible basis for your prediction record. Thus far I don't see it. Nor that you really care much about validating your claims beyond what would occur normally. Which anyone can predict with reasonable accuracy. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
