Prediction - August 4th 2004

[Anders]

Wednsday is probaly a very quite day in Irak. Accoding to some militay man on CNN, the terroristic people plan their attacks in the Mosques during the Saturday services. And implementing them on sunday, hence the large activity today in Irak. The number of attacks should be decreasing during the week.

But we'll see, Oh, Lucis predictions: I make better prediction, my grandmother make better predictions than that. "Attack on western target", wow! c'mon, we want specific places, time, number of dead...

 

[TheBoyPaj]

I prefer something along these lines:

 

[Lucianarchy]

Good one, Paj!

 

[Operaider]

I have not posted in a while and find this conversation very interesting. So I figured I better post before time runs out.

Now, Lucianarchy. It is obvious that many people have doubts about your prediction. Mostly due to vagueness. I think that if you could answer some of the following questions it will help clear some things up. I read that you do not respond to rudeness, so I am trying to be as polite as possible. If you detect any sarcasm it is not what I intended, and you have my apologies in advance.

Prediction - August 4th 2004
I perceive that something awful will occur that day. An attack on a Western target (UK, USA, Europe).

1. Could you please give me a description of a day in which your prediction for August 4th did not come true? By this I mean, if your prediction were to not come true, for whatever reason, how could we know?
   
2. Some would say that a "western target" could describe an area targeted by the west. Could you please verify that this is not what you mean by "western target", so we can eliminate that as a possibility.
   
3. Will it be August 4th in that area of the world at the time of attack? Can you please verify that you do not mean that it will just be August 4th somewhere in the world at the time of attack? Some have already suggested this as a possible loophole.
   
4. You have said that the event will be self-evident. By this do you mean that once it happens we will have no way of doubting that it is the event you predicted? If people do not think it fits with what you predicted, will it then not be considered "self evident", and hence an incorrect prophecy?
   
5. You said it would be an "attack". Could you please give your definition of attack? Can we eliminate natural disasters? Can we safely assume that it will be an intentional attack, and not an accident caused by man? Example: would you consider a disaster similar to the spill caused by the Exxon Valdez an attack?
   
6. You said that there will be “over 100 casualties (death or serious injury)”. Can we safely assume that none of the “serious injuries” you describe will be emotional injury, and that all of the injured will have physical injury? Can we assume the injuries predicted will be serious enough that those people will be listed among the injured after the attack? Many minor injuries will not make the news, I assume none of these will be counted as the seriously injured you predicted. [/list=1]
   
   I appreciate your time, and thank you in advance for any clarifications you might bring forth. As I’ve said, I meant no disrespect with any of these questions. I’m just trying to eliminate some of the vagueness others have complained about. Likewise, I mean no disrespect with the following prediction. It is only meant as a sort of devils advocate. The prediction is…
   
   “There will be an attack on a Western target on August 3rd or August 5th that will be greater than any attack made on August 4th in terms of casualties and injuries.”

 

[AOK Tiger]

Luci has it COMPLETELY covered…

As he/she sits at home “praying” fervently for a disastrous attack on Wednesday he ponders the irony of wishing for all that death just to make his out and out guess come true !

But then he thinks .. hmmm.. if it doesn’t happen it was only BECAUSE I predicted it..

He will claim purely by making the prediction KNOWN he created enough “negative” (or is it positive) PSI to avert the event.

You can’t win with these nutters

1. They make an INCREDIBLY vague prediction
2. That will claim anything remotely resembling their prediction validates it
3. When NOTHING resembles the prediction they claim “negative” Psi or some such ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊.

We all cannot wait for Luci’s prediction to be shown as another piece of balderdash but don’t for ONE second think it will change his/her mind about his/her “powers” !

 

[CFLarsen]

You forgot this one:

4. They will lie about it, too.

 

[The Mighty Thor]

As the date grows nearer it occurs to me that if, Ed forbid, something akin to 9/11 should happen on the predicted date, our Lunianarchy will no doubt be getting a visit from some real MIB who tend not to have a sense of psirony, and who will be asking some very serious questions of him and looking into his anarchy-prone personal lifestyle very closely.

 

[richardm]

Let's call the FBI, just to be on the safe side.

 

[Ed]

As the date grows nearer it occurs to me that if, Ed forbid, something akin to 9/11 should happen on the predicted date, our Lunianarchy will no doubt be getting a visit from some real MIB who tend not to have a sense of psirony, and who will be asking some very serious questions of him and looking into his anarchy-prone personal lifestyle very closely.

I suspect that the MIB could teach a thing or two about orifice probing to the aliens.

I noted this in the Telegraph today:

At 11.11am on Wednesday, in front of one of the most select groups of old soldiers in the world, a piper will play a lament for those who cannot join them. August 4 marks the 90th anniversary of the day on which Britain declared war on Germany and embarked on four years of slaughter.

Of all obnoxious possibilities for a bombing this one strike me as particularly obnoxious. Lot's of Royals, MP's, and others will be there I wager. Sounds a bit like the venue in Day of the Jackal.

 

[BPSCG]

Luci, I asked you this before, so please answer, before August 4.

I live near the Pentagon and work in downtown Washington DC.

Are my wife and I in danger?

I'll make it easy for you; pick one:

A) Yes
B) No
C) Don't know.

If I don't see an answer by 8:00 am U.S. eastern time on August 3, I'll assume the answer is C and that your prediction is worthless.

Again, put up or shut up.

 

[CFLarsen]

Luci, I asked you this before, so please answer, before August 4.

I live near the Pentagon and work in downtown Washington DC.

Are my wife and I in danger?

I'll make it easy for you; pick one:

A) Yes
B) No
C) Don't know.

If I don't see an answer by 8:00 am U.S. eastern time on August 3, I'll assume the answer is C and that your prediction is worthless.

There's a fourth possibility:

D) The answer is A, but he keeps silent, because he doesn't want to stop it from happening.

With premonition of this kind comes the responsibility of warning people. Keeping silent about this is equivalent to accepting responsibility for it happening.

If Lucianarchy later claims that he got a hit, he similarly accepts the responsibility of it happening. If anyone gets killed, and Lucianarchy claims that he predicted it, he also says that he did nothing to prevent people from dying.

Lucianarchy claiming to have psychic powers means he accepts being an accomplice to murder.

Personally, I don't believe for a second that Lucianarchy has psychic powers. He's all talk, and no evidence.

 

[Chad Noles]

Originally posted by CF Larsen:

With premonition of this kind comes the responsibility of warning people. Keeping silent about this is equivalent to accepting responsibility for it happening.

So you say.Can you show us what the law says about this?

If Lucianarchy later claims that he got a hit, he similarly accepts the responsibility of it happening.

Can you prove that the "hit" was preventable?

If anyone gets killed, and Lucianarchy claims that he predicted it, he also says that he did nothing to prevent people from dying.

Lucianarchy claiming to have psychic powers means he accepts being an accomplice to murder.

That's quite a statement even from you.Nice attempt to demonize those you disagree with.By that standard,if a psychic tells you of an event where people will die, and you don't prevent it,then you are just as guilty, too.Are we to believe that all skeptics, who have shrugged off a prediction, as some mere coincidence, of an actual fatal disaster are accomplices to murder?I would find that quite ironic,and ridiculous.

 

[CFLarsen]

So you say.Can you show us what the law says about this?

You are held accountable if you are privvy to a crime, and don't do anything to stop it.

criminal negligence
: a gross deviation from the standard of care expected of a reasonable person that is manifest in a failure to protect others from a risk (as of death) deriving from one's conduct and that renders one criminally liable called also culpable negligence

gross negligence
: negligence that is marked by conduct that presents an unreasonably high degree of risk to others and by a failure to exercise even the slightest care in protecting them from it and that is sometimes associated with conscious and willful indifference to their rights
Source

Can you prove that the "hit" was preventable?

If it is an attack, and people knew about it, they could do something about it. Remember, this prediction is from May 12th, 2004. Lucianarchy has had plenty of time to warn the authorities.

That's quite a statement even from you.Nice attempt to demonize those you disagree with.By that standard,if a psychic tells you of an event where people will die, and you don't prevent it,then you are just as guilty, too.Are we to believe that all skeptics, who have shrugged off a prediction, as some mere coincidence, of an actual fatal disaster are accomplices to murder?I would find that quite ironic,and ridiculous.

I have no rational reason to believe that a psychic can predict an event where people will die. Therefore, I have no rational reason to take action. I cannot be blamed for not succumbing to superstitious beliefs, none of which have been found to be backed by real phenomena.

What you seem to be arguing is that we have to act on every prediction from every psychic in the world. That is a truly ridiculous stance.

 

[Rolfe]

Considering the long list of mass disasters that have occurred in the past three months or so, anything happening on 4th August is going to have to be pretty apocalyptic to register above that extremely high background noise.

I reckon it's a shot in the dark, perhaps because that date is the 90th anniversary of the outbreak of the First World War and there may be some commemoration events going on that might get targeted.

Rolfe.

 

[heath]

Wow. 7 pages.

I've got to say I have some growing admiration for Luci. It is a spectacularly sucessful troll.

 

[Operaider]

Luci, could you please clarify answer some of the questions below, to the best of your ability, before Aug 4th. This will not only make easier to tell if your prediction was real, but also make it harder for skeptics to dismiss it as only fitting a vague description of something that happens all the time.

1. Could you please give me a description of a day in which your prediction for August 4th did not come true? By this I mean, if your prediction were to not come true, for whatever reason, how could we know?
   
2. Some would say that a "western target" could describe an area targeted by the west. Could you please verify that this is not what you mean by "western target", so we can eliminate that as a possibility.
   
3. Will it be August 4th in that area of the world at the time of attack? Can you please verify that you do not mean that it will just be August 4th somewhere in the world at the time of attack? Some have already suggested this as a possible loophole.
   
4. You have said that the event will be self-evident. By this do you mean that once it happens we will have no way of doubting that it is the event you predicted? If people do not think it fits with what you predicted, will it then not be considered "self evident", and hence an incorrect prophecy?
   
5. You said it would be an "attack". Could you please give your definition of attack? Can we eliminate natural disasters? Can we safely assume that it will be an intentional attack, and not an accident caused by man? Example: would you consider a disaster similar to the spill caused by the Exxon Valdez an attack?
   
6. You said that there will be “over 100 casualties (death or serious injury)”. Can we safely assume that none of the “serious injuries” you describe will be emotional injury, and that all of the injured will have physical injury? Can we assume the injuries predicted will be serious enough that those people will be listed among the injured after the attack? Many minor injuries will not make the news, I assume none of these will be counted as the seriously injured you predicted. [/LIST=1]
   Once again, I'm trying to ask you as nicely as I know how. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. Though, I must admit that I agree with the others, that your description is very loose and open to a wide range of interpretation. Hopefully you answering some of these questions will fix that problem.

 

[Chad Noles]

Originally posted by CFLarsen:

You are held accountable if you are privvy to a crime,

Who said anything about a crime?We were talking about a prediction. Are we to assume that you consider all predictions crimes.

originally posted by CFLarsen:

If it is an attack, and people knew about it, they could do something about it.

I asked you to prove your position,if you are so certain.
This is not proof.You are welcome to your opinion.

Originally posted by CFLarsen:

Remember, this prediction is from May 12th, 2004. Lucianarchy has had plenty of time to warn the authorities.

And so have you.By your standards, you are now just as responsible.

Originally posted by CFLarsen:

I have no rational reason to believe that a psychic can predict an event where people will die. Therefore, I have no rational reason to take action.

Then you have no rational standing to accuse anyone of being an accomplice to murder even if they admit they "knew" and did nothing.

Originally posted by CFLarsen:

What you seem to be arguing is that we have to act on every prediction from every psychic in the world. That is a truly ridiculous stance.

No,you are wrong.I'm not saying that we have to act on every prediction from every psychic in the world.I'm not even sure how you would derive that from what I wrote.What I'm saying is that I find your accusation that anyone who makes a prediction that come true,or has knowledge of the same,is equalivent to a murderer.A truly ridiculous stance,indeeed.

 

[CFLarsen]

Who said anything about a crime?We were talking about a prediction. Are we to assume that you consider all predictions crimes.

Not at all. We were talking about the prediction made by Lucianarchy. I don't think an "attack" cannot be considered a crime.

I asked you to prove your position,if you are so certain. This is not proof.You are welcome to your opinion.

I refer you to the references I posted. Those were not my opinions. If you don't accept evidence, then I cannot do anything about that.

And so have you.By your standards, you are now just as responsible.

Not at all. I don't believe that Lucianarchy is capable of predicting events.

Then you have no rational standing to accuse anyone of being an accomplice to murder even if they admit they "knew" and did nothing.

I wasn't doing that. I have pointed out that if Lucianarchy takes credit for having knowledge about an event, where people got killed, and he did nothing to prevent it, then he also accepts being responsible for it.

No,you are wrong.I'm not saying that we have to act on every prediction from every psychic in the world.I'm not even sure how you would derive that from what I wrote.What I'm saying is that I find your accusation that anyone who makes a prediction that come true,or has knowledge of the same,is equalivent to a murderer.A truly ridiculous stance,indeeed.

But I am not doing that. I have explained that I cannot be blamed for not succumbing to superstitious beliefs, none of which have been found to be backed by real phenomena.

 

[Lucianarchy]

Once again, I'm trying to ask you as nicely as I know how. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. Though, I must admit that I agree with the others, that your description is very loose and open to a wide range of interpretation. Hopefully you answering some of these questions will fix that problem.

Hopefully, you will do me the courtesy of reading what I have already wroter about this subject before asking such questions. Because, I have clearly stated, I have told you all I know. Only you can judge the significance for yourself. Claus Larsen, for instance, on the Fallujah police station attack, said it was not a particularly nasty attack and refused to accept that the US/Coalition installed puppet police station in Fallujah was not a 'Western target' . Now, that's up to him. That's his belief.
Only you can judge for yourself. Self evident.

It's unlikely to happen, statistically, those sort of attacks of 100+ deaths or serious injuries against western targets are, thankfully, not likely to happen. And I sincerely hope it doesn't. I was asked to record these perceptions here by other skeptics in this forum. That's it. No more. No less.

 

[CFLarsen]

Because, I have clearly stated, I have told you all I know.

Then, you have predicted nothing.

Only you can judge the significance for yourself.

No, that is not what "self-evident" means. You are merely trying to create an "out" for yourself: If it is "self-evident" for you, then your prediction will come true, no matter what happens.

Claus Larsen, for instance, on the Fallujah police station attack, said it was not a particularly nasty attack

It wasn't, compared to what else went on (and goes on!) in Iraq.

and refused to accept that the US/Coalition installed puppet police station in Fallujah was not a 'Western target' .

Please! That is a ridiculous claim: If the Iraqui police can be considered a "Western" attack, then there are hardly any attacks that cannot be considered such.

Only you can judge for yourself. Self evident.

(groan.....)

It's unlikely to happen, statistically, those sort of attacks of 100+ deaths or serious injuries against western targets are, thankfully, not likely to happen. And I sincerely hope it doesn't. I was asked to record these perceptions here by other skeptics in this forum. That's it. No more. No less.

Let's see what happens. Let's see what you claim afterwards.