3 ms·
As always in such cases, the article is devoid of relevant content that could actually bring a scientific mind to even remotely consider the possibility that it
by Confusion 17y ago
As always in such cases, the article is devoid of relevant content that could actually bring a scientific mind to even remotely consider the possibility that it might be true. The fundamental questions that always prop up are not being answered: how many predictions were made and what were the exact phrasings?
- almost 17y agoExactly, the article is full of impressive sounding stuff but no real information. So what if random-guy-I've-never-heard-of was impressed by his predictions, even if said guy does/did work for the CIA. This would appear to be a very simple matter to settle, show a bunch of predictions and see how many are correct and how many fail. Even showing a few of his previous predictions would be interesting, along as you didn't do something absolutely moronic like cherry pick the ones that turned out to be correct (but oh what a surprise, the journalist goes and does that exact thing at the bottom of the article). So most likely just a bunch of bullshit reported by and incredulous reporter with no notion of critical thinking.