It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
Well your mate said in his April 15 video that the next few days will be quiet...
Wait, what's that? A 7.8 in Iran?
Blimey!
Originally posted by PlanetXisHERE
His prediction for the rest of the month is here, we should get a downtick after Monday of this week, until the 19th when we have more conjunctions. Of course a single large quake during this time will not refute his observations, as anyone familiar with stats knows you do not need 100% correlation to prove a theory, just as you do not need 0% correlation to disprove a theory.
Originally posted by eriktheawful
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
Make sure if you are keeping track that you do keep this date and the EQ in mind however.
As you said, this event doesn't disprove a theory. However the flip side is true too: an event that does happen when things are aligned does not prove the theory either.
Have you looked today? I've been too busy with other things. But it would be interesting to see if there were any alignments (and it could come down to hours to, hours just before the quake, etc).
I'm not poking fun at you. I think this is a lot more credible to research, and at the very least I do find it interesting, so I'm sure others on here do too.
***** In any case it's nice to read something other than North Korea, Gun control, etc.
Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
A 6.8 in Papua New Guinea...
Lucky we're in a "quiet spell"
PlanetXisHERE
Also to remind everyone that absence of quakes during these times or presence of quakes during lull periods is not proof the theory has no value
oxbow
PlanetXisHERE
Also to remind everyone that absence of quakes during these times or presence of quakes during lull periods is not proof the theory has no value
Best caveat ever. Earthquakes, you win. No earthquakes, you win. Well done.
The likelihood that a result or relationship is caused by something other than mere random chance. Statistical hypothesis testing is traditionally employed to determine if a result is statistically significant or not.
Lil Drummerboy
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
Been a fan of SuspiciousObserver for a while now.
He is a No crap news guy,. doesnt attempt to hype stuff up
or make it doom porn..