Just like you, but different
His latest nonsense covers these dates via Earthquake News – Predict Weather – the home of long range weather.
Upcoming dates for possible increases in seismic action are
28th Aug – 2nd Sept, (6 days)
14th-17th and (particularly) 23rd-28th Sept. (4 days) and (6 days)
So that’s a total of 16 out of 32 possible days that this prediction covers.
Not so much a prediction then as a scattergun guess.
The article contains many “thinks” and accretions and calls to attention by inference. such as “Imagine if another event is to strike in September”, which is a call the fear, and highlights that Ken Ring wants to have his cake and eat it. He didn’t get the last “prediction” anywhere close, unless you call “give or take 2-3 days either side” accurate.
And I don’t even know where to begin with this nonsense “This also adds weight to the chance of a potent September for Christchurch, being the next equinox period (remember what happened last September?). Due to what I think is the southward drift of lunar perigees, earthquake events have moved from Christchurch since 30 April and 5-10% of all recorded seismic events in NZ have gone elsewhere. “
Due to “what I think” – which is odd because later in the article he claims “it’s scientific”, and what the heck is “southward drift of the lunar perigees” – To understand this you have to know that Perigee is the point in Moon’s elliptical orbit where it is closest to Earth. I have no idea what science is involved in a “drift southwards” and even how that would or could happen. I don’t think that it’s science. Oh and as a caveat he says “Therefore at least 5-10% more earthquakes have moved further north since April” Pesky earthquakes always being counter-intuitive.
You should read it for yourself, It makes me angry that he calls it “science” that the “gravitational pull” of the moon causes earthquakes when coupled with the tides”, which explains many inland earthquakes.
He finishes with this, which is a good belly-laugh “It is not astrology, which some have an aversion to, it is pure science. After all, the planets, Sun and Moon, and the earth and earthquakes, were here a long time before humans arrived to compare birth signs.” Which makes no sense in an article predicting earthquakes unless he’s going to claim “the not true Scotsman” defense.
But what I’d like to finish with, is another quotation from the same article “The likelihood is great for seismic events around the globe. ” to which I would ask “define ‘great’ and define your qualification standard for ‘event’.
To say that I’m skeptical of this is an understatement, there is no science involved in picking 50% off all possible days and associating it with naturally occurring and non-threatening events. If you believe that this is science then you should ask yourself why “that in the last 100 years of earthquakes in Christchurch how come that none of these scientifically dangerous coincidences have occurred?”.