You have repeated this umpteen times, but this argument does not explain away the hits, particularly the two I have mentioned.
The hits have been explained away by numerous posters since the very beginning of the thread. I'll repeat them for you, seeing as you claim not to have seen them:
Random Chance
Of the thousands upon thousands of predictions any person hears (and, since you were in some sort of spiritualist group, the greatly increased number you heard), some of them
Will Come True.
Your mistake is thinking that low probability events cannot happen. In fact, low probability events happen all the time. They are guaranteed to happen. The Detroit Tigers will win the World Series. The fact that they haven't won in 26 years (and have only won 4 times in 116 years) doesn't change anything at all.
You also may want to look into something else that has been explained to you multiple times:
Confirmation Bias.
It appears that you have been interested in the paranormal for decades. Your interest in these areas predates the "hits" that you are recording. Thus, you must at least concede that you may be biased in the way that you are recording data.
It's really no great fault to admit bias. Scientists are happy to admit they are biased in ways they are not even aware of and work hard to remove themselves from their own experiments on the off chance that they might subconsciously affect the results.
How can you justify that I should have been correctly told that my wife was pregnant when my youngest son was then just three months old and that this information should have been correct?
I remember that my wife was less than 1 month pregnant when she came to my office for a visit. The moment she left, my bookkeeper stated, "That woman is with child." So, hooray. I justify it by saying that a young, married couple is constantly being accused of hiding a pregnancy in the early stages.
My sister, at a Thanksgiving dinner, was being hectored so incessantly by my aunt that she poured herself a glass of wine and drank it to prove that she wasn't "trying" and certainly wasn't pregnant. She still beats herself up because, unbeknownst to my sister at the time, she was.
Also, your wife got pregnant when your son was three months old? Good for her, taking one for the team. I tried to hold my wife's hand when my son was three months old and she punched me in the head.
What I seem to find here is an all too strong urgency to discard rather than seriously analyse, just like children who would rather close their eyes so that they might not see what they do not wish to.
Actually, as you should know as a parent, children are far more likely to imagine things that are not there than pretend real things don't exist.
See what I did there? I ruined your metaphor.
But, seriously, there's no reason to discard your data, because your data is insufficient. You've provided two hits over some unknown period of time out of some unknown number of guesses. One of them is a very weak hit. The other, about pregnancy, has not been given much context.
We don't have enough information to analyze your data in any way. If you know someone who you thinks generates hits at a rate greater than chance, perhaps you can convince him or her to participate in a proper study. We can control variables, remove confirmation bias, provide only for definite hits and misses, and generate some real data. That would be ideal. And several posters have already explained that.
I have perhaps put more on your plates than you can handle for a day, so let's take a break and get back to this conversation tomorrow, shall we?
Trust me when I tell you: When I'm the one explaining quantum waveform collapse, the usual JREF posters are not playing their starting bench.
