So...Obves has not been just wasting band-width on this site, eh?
I found this reply to another of his long winded mathematical prophecies to be interesting on the other scroll [mentioned and cited above] that he was using to hype his prognosticims;
Obves, good afternoon. It is, of course, unnecessary for me to point
out that your previous, mathematically-proven prophecy - that the world
will end at the end of October 2004 - failed to realise.
It does not take mathematical calculation in order to predict that, say,
the sky is blue, or that the sea is wet. And nor does it take the
amount of maths you regularly present us to say that, at the end of
October 2004, someone in the world will die. Yet that was your back-
pedalling excuse as that time came and went - that the world ended for
SOMEONE at that time.
The simple fact of the matter is that your supposed wisdom in
understanding and quantifying prophecies has failed you. Your
predictions for the end of October were not fulfilled - yet, far from
being discouraged, you simply pick another date and pretend that you
knew it all along. It is this kind of flexibility and selective recall
that enables so-called 'prophets' to shrug off the ridicule that their
failures invariably bring about - but, as I have told you before, the
most popular prophets have all learned the basic rule of the predictions
industry: never give specifics. Let the punters do their own
prophesying.
Nostradamus, Mother Shipton, St John... They all spoke in obscure
riddles, so that no-one was quite sure what they were predicting, and
never once gave an actual, solid, testable date for the fruition of
their predictions. In essence, these great prophets told us nothing,
but gave those prone to believe a foundation on which to build their OWN
prophecies - usually based, as in your case, on simple wishful thinking.
If you wish to continue to try to establish yourself as the equal of
these great examples, then you need to alter your methods. Firstly, you
need to stop relying on numbers. Your mathematic demonstrations merely
highlight your desperation - in that you pick apparently random events
to make your numbers work.
Does any of that sound familiar?
Jeff