Claim 1
Natalee Holloway is not dead
Counterclaim: Jimmy Hoffa is not dead.
Note that if neither ever show up alive again, and no body is ever found, or even IF a body is found and time of death cannot be established conclusively before the time of the claim that the veracity of neither statement can be determined. Still, it is the most specific claim yet, even though the percentages say it will never be a verifiable claim.
Claim 2
Natalee Holloway will return to the news and the world 11/3 the 11800th day since 7/14/1973
Counterclaim: The news will mention something about Iraq every day from now until 11/3.
Taken as a full conjunction, this means that to be true Natalee Holloway must not be in the news, indeed not even in the world, at some time before 11/3, and on that day she will return to the news AND return to the world. Does that mean she is dead, and this claim is a counter to #1? Or does that mean at some future time, she will die, and then on 11/3 she will "return to the world"? Or has she gone to the moon, and on 11/3 her landing back on earth will make the news?
Or is the claim that on 11/3 (which I note you've left a year off of) some news source somewhere in the world will mention Natalee Holloway? Or is the claim that on 11/3 you will have a new prediction?
claim 3
the science of skepticism is dead
Counterclaim: Skepticism currently continues to exist.
Skepticism isn't a science, it is a tool used to cull unlikely propositions from consideration. For example, if I say "Communicating on message boards is evil, and anyone doing so from this point forward will suffer an eternity of torture", do you believe it? If you consider such a notion, and then continue to post, then you either desire an eternity of torture, or you doubt the notion I suggest. If you doubt that notion then you, yourself, are a skeptic, at least with regard to what others say. I hope that is not unsettling to you.
claim 4
Natalee Holloway was chosen a sign and a witness
Counterclaim: Julia Child was chosen a sign and a witness. I just picked a yield sign for her, and my cousin is a Jehova's Witness, so I'll choose him for her and *BOOM*, one claim already proven for me. How's your count?
claim 5
The tribulation starts 7/16/2008
although not pertinent to this claim, nice to know
Counterclaim 1: The tribblation started 12/29/1967, just ask Kirk.
Counterclaim 2: The tribulation is going to start a lot sooner than that, I'm going to go work on testing my code in a minute or two, and that's no picnic.
Anyway, before I go, I think we need a new prediction rule. Predictions should now be stated in the following format:
1. They must clearly state what results will prove the prediction wrong.
2. They must indicate a date & time in the future by which such results will be known.
If the date and time passes and the prediction has not been proven wrong, it is a success. Sounds simple, but understand it is then more difficult to phrase a MEANINGFUL prediction. As a service, I may translate all future predictions to this format. There, that will eliminate the need for skepticism, since we will have clear means by which to disprove future predictions.