Post Your 2012 Predictions Here

[rcfieldz]

OK here goes...

First of all I do not claim to predict events. I have a compelling feeling to share a feeling or vision as one may proclaim. I prefer to be called a Prophet (or The Prophet) one of many I believe coexisist but may wish not to share. I see two airliners colliding with all lost and many on the ground.

 

[swanjackal]

Tom Cruise and John Travolta will finally come out................






And admit they really are not that convincing actors.

 

[Multivac]

I predict that all predictions in this thread will be wrong.

 

[Spektator]

1. A scandal will derail Newt Gingrich's candidacy in mid-spring.

2. Look out for a stormy spring--many tornadoes will cause widespread devastation.

(snip)

All righty...I'd say (1) has already begun (I expect it to grow in the next weeks to a major issue), and (2) yesterday saw an unprecedented outbreak of tornadoes causing widespread devastation in Alabama.

I claim no extraordinary powers and my opinion is there is nothing to claims of precognition, remember.

What say ye? Partial hits already?

 

[Turgor]

I predict that all predictions in this thread will be wrong.

I predict that Multivac's predictions will turn out to be wrong.

 

[rjh01]

I predict that all predictions in this thread will be wrong.

If every other prediction in this thread is wrong, then this prediction would be correct, but that would make this prediction wrong as there is one prediction that is correct - itself. So under that condition it is neither correct or wrong.

Of course if one prediction is correct then the quoted prediction will be wrong.

 

[Multivac]

If every other prediction in this thread is wrong, then this prediction would be correct, but that would make this prediction wrong as there is one prediction that is correct - itself. So under that condition it is neither correct or wrong.

Of course if one prediction is correct then the quoted prediction will be wrong.

Exactly!

 

[MetalPig]

2. A famous celebrity couple will divorce.

Heidi Klum and Seal! You win!

 

[Brown]

13. A titantic "Oops" bigger than any made so far by Rick Perry will dog a well-known person for several months.

I think I'm about ready to call this one a "hit." Has there been any event recently that reminds people of the Titanic? Has there been a monumental blunder that has made a person "the most hated person in the world " and that is going to cause him trouble for the next several months?

 

[Pixel42]

I think I'm about ready to call this one a "hit."

If you're referring to the Costa cruise ship sinking than definitely not. In the prediction the word titanic is clearly being used as an adjective meaning very big rather than as a prediction of a disaster involving a ship, and the ship captain certainly wasn't well known before the accident.

 

[BaaBaa]

Somebody famous will die. People will be sad, entirely out of proportion and the media will have tell us What It Means.

 

[Brown]

If you're referring to the Costa cruise ship sinking than definitely not. In the prediction the word titanic is clearly being used as an adjective meaning very big rather than as a prediction of a disaster involving a ship, and the ship captain certainly wasn't well known before the accident.

Okay, fair enough. I've still got eleven months to go. Plenty more mistakes might be made in that time that might qualify.

If I were a "psychic," however, I most certainly would point out that there have been hundreds, if not thousands, of comparisons of the recent cruise ship to the Titanic. (Here's a link to a recent one). One would be hard pressed to find this many comparisons to the Titanic in the last 20 years, or any newsworthy mistake characterized by that word (although there surely are some, but it's a safe bet that the cruise ship debacle surpasses them all). A "psychic" would focus in on the repeated use of "Titanic" in the news articles, and would point out that the word "titanic" was an integral part of the prediction. Capitalized or not, it's a hit.

And it is an "oops," that is, the events were almost certainly not intentional but the result of carelessness at least, perhaps recklessness and incompetence. "Oops" is a hit.

And to be technical about it, the prediction did not say that the person was well-known before the titanic oops. Or I could also take the position that the captain previously DID have a degree of fame (as some news sources have reported), even though he did not have the degree of infamy he now has. Either way, I could claim a hit. Heck, I can't lose!

But as you have impliedly pointed out, whether something is a hit or not depends (or perhaps more correctly, OUGHT to depend) upon the degree of specificity of the prediction. The prediction did say "titanic oops" but it did not say "shipwreck" or "Italy" or "Schettino" or give ANY details about the nature of the blunder or the number of people affected. It is a fairly simple matter to retrofit the facts of a tragic screw-up to the vague words of my prediction, and one might have a basis to conclude that I didn't really predict a shipwreck of any kind at all.

But if I were a "psychic," I might claim, "Sure, I foresaw this."

 

[100]

99±2% of people named Steve or any variation of will still be called Steve...
or any variation.

 

[Pixel42]

It is a fairly simple matter to retrofit the facts of a tragic screw-up to the vague words of my prediction, and one might have a basis to conclude that I didn't really predict a shipwreck of any kind at all.

But if I were a "psychic," I might claim, "Sure, I foresaw this."

Indeed, that's how a fake psychic would attempt to claim a hit. But on this forum we wouldn't let them get away with it, so I don't see why we should let you either.

 

[Sideroxylon]

If you're referring to the Costa cruise ship sinking than definitely not. In the prediction the word titanic is clearly being used as an adjective meaning very big rather than as a prediction of a disaster involving a ship, and the ship captain certainly wasn't well known before the accident.

Nostradamus has gotten credit for worse.

 

[Brown]

Indeed, that's how a fake psychic would attempt to claim a hit. But on this forum we wouldn't let them get away with it, so I don't see why we should let you either.

Yup, there ought to be no slack on this forum! Let's look at what was was actually said, and make sure we're not reading anything into it that wasn't there. That is the point of the exercise.

That said, in other venues of discussion **cough tabloid rags cough **, in which this sort of basic critical analysis would be set aside, and a prediction of a "titanic oops" would be hailed--and repeatedly cited--as a solid validation of true psychic ability.

Also, regardless of what I may have done to try to make the facts fit the prediction, I have added to my resume an incident that allows me to make the following serious claim: I am as good a predictor as, and arguably better than, some of those who hold themselves out as professionals.

 

[Ocelot]

Yup, there ought to be no slack on this forum! Let's look at what was was actually said, and make sure we're not reading anything into it that wasn't there. That is the point of the exercise.

That said, in other venues of discussion **cough tabloid rags cough **, in which this sort of basic critical analysis would be set aside, and a prediction of a "titanic oops" would be hailed--and repeatedly cited--as a solid validation of true psychic ability.

Also, regardless of what I may have done to try to make the facts fit the prediction, I have added to my resume an incident that allows me to make the following serious claim: I am as good a predictor as, and arguably better than, some of those who hold themselves out as professionals.

Hear hear.

I rather thought that the point of these was that we could do as well as the Psychics when judge by their standards. By which of course I mean claiming the same hit for.

Anarchy alongside the Mediterranean Sea

 

[Pixel42]

I rather thought that the point of these was that we could do as well as the Psychics when judge by their standards.

Sorry

Trouble is we already have at least one person posting what they claim is a genuine prediction (post #81).

 

[Ocelot]

Sorry

Trouble is we already have at least one person posting what they claim is a genuine prediction (post #81).

Oh yes thanks for reminding me. I wanted to comment on that.

 

[Ocelot]

First of all I do not claim to predict events. I have a compelling feeling to share a feeling or vision as one may proclaim. I prefer to be called a Prophet (or The Prophet) one of many I believe coexisist but may wish not to share. I see two airliners colliding with all lost and many on the ground.

Hello Prophet, ^*
That's a very good prediction I think I'll improve it and use it for myself.

Big air disasters can be very newsworthy and so later being able to say you predicted one would be a nice feather in anyone's cap.

However they are also more frequent than people like to think. We've got subject ourselves to these risks so lets downplay them please. This means that a sufficiently vague prediction can come up trumps and appear more impressive than it should be. This is a qood quality for this sort of game.

By the way, these are specifically predictions for 2012 you do know that don't you? If the events you describe haven't happened by 31st December then you've lost.

You can always renew your prediction here for the 2013 thread but the 2012 prediction will have failed. Eventually of course something like this will happen. It's getting the timing right that counts.

What I particularly like about your prediction is the additional specifics that don't really affect the probability. With take off and landing being by far the riskiest part of air travel the bit about "many on the ground" is almost a given. Even if you find that your prediction comes true except the crash happens at sea you can scour the news for an image of recovered bodies laid out on the ground and claim that as what you saw. That's the great thing about the whole "vision" shtick. You can later claim that the divine "vision" you were sent was accurate but it was your mortal interpretation of it that was fallible.

The same goes for all lost. Survivors of mid air collisions aren't easy to come by. Chances are that near enough everybody will die.

Given the events of the 1977 Tenerife airport disaster^WP and the 1996 Charkhi Dadri mid-air collision^WP it would seem that two airliners collide every 20 years or so. Perhaps we're about due? A one in twenty a hit here will not really be statistically speaking very significant. One in twenty is often used as a cutoff point for a statistical wow factor. Yet if this year does roll a critical fail on it's air safety check, Joe Public will be far more impressed with your prediction than the statisticians here.

Now many will point out that air safety measure do increase and that collision detection systems in particular make the skies are much safer today than at any time in the past. This is true and if you're an individual passenger air travel is getting safer and safer all the time. Yet if you're looking for an accident in any particular year the increase in air traffic seems to counter this.

However I think that you'd be better to construct your prediction to account as just as good a hit for two airliners colliding but equally applicable to an airliner colliding with a different type of aircraft. These often have less stringent insurance requirements and so looking at the near miss stats they're are far more likely. I'm even expressing a bit of doubt about the other aircraft. Often the causes of crashes can be up for debate so if there's room for doubt I can claim to know what the investigators can't find out. I can always remove the punctuation later if I get the full hit. I've also tossed in some additional detail that again fits the bill every time but also allows me to construct a sentence that differentiates between the aircraft without making it obvious why:

I see the safety record of a popular airliner tarnished damaged when it is involved in an accident (with another aircraft?). I see hundreds of bodies on the ground.
​

What do you think? If you're right I still get just as big a hit in the popular imagination but I've allowed wiggle room in case there's survivors. I also get a big hit if an Airliner crashes with a private helicopter, glider or what have you. I get a trickier hit for a single airliner crash.

To explain why that's important have a look at a list of airliner crashes with over 200 dead.

1974|Turkish Airlines Flight 981|Single Airliner|Over Land
1977|Tenerife Disaster|2 Airliner Collission|Over Land
1978|Air India Flight 855|Single Airliner|Over Sea
1979|American Airlines Flight 191|Single Airliner|Over Land
1980|Saudia Flight 16|Single Airliner|Over Land
1985|Japan Airlines Flight 123|Single Airliner|Over Land
1985|Arrow Air Flight 1285|Single Airliner|Over Land
1991|Air New Zealand Flight 901|Single Airliner|Over Land
1991|Lauda Air Flight 004|Singe Airliner|Over Land
1994|China Airlines Flight 140|Single Airliner|Over Land
1996|Charkhi Dadri|2 Airliner Collission|Over Land
1996|Air Africa crash|Single Airliner|Over Land
1996|TWA Flight 800|Single Airliner|Over Sea
1997|Garuda Indonesia Flight 152|Single Airliner|Over Land
1997|Korean Air Flight 801|Single Airliner|Over Land
1998|Swissair Flight 111|Single Airliner|Over Sea
1998|China Airlines Flight 676|Single Airliner|Over Land
1999|EgyptAir Flight 990|Single Airliner|Over Sea
2001|American Airlines Flight 587|Single Airliner|Over Land
2002|China Airlines Flight 611|Single Airliner|Over Land
2003|Iran Ilyushin Il-76 crash|1 Airliner (and other craft?)|Over Land
2009|Air France Flight 447|Single Airliner|Over Sea

This doesn't include planes that have been bombed or shot down.

While you're at it note how often the "bodies on the ground" bit hits and saves me from having to quote mine myself by stripping the second sentence.

So if I get the 1 in twenty I can claim a rare event. If not there's still an high chance of claiming a big air crash of the sort that's unfortunately far more common. Roughly 60% chance every year. And that's only the one's with over 200 dead. With a more liberal interpretation of "hundreds" then there's over a hundred more crashes I can claim over the same period. In fact the only time in the last few decades in which there hasn't been an air crash involving over a hundred dead seems to be last year. (unless wiki has missed one) That 2011 exception could be gold dust. If someone comes back with a that sort of thing happens every year I can demand proof from the previous year. Brilliant!

* PS check out the definition of the word Prophet. Are you really claiming one of these definitions. And calling yourself the Prophet, it's a good thing all Muslims have such thick skins.

ETA on second thoughts tarnished implies that the safety record was pristine to start with, damaged is going to be a given.