Actually, this dude is pretty interesting from an analytical point of view -- I am particlarly fascinated with partial ex eventu prophecy such as those found in the apocalyptic section of Daniel, ch. 7-12, the Animal Apocalypse (1 Enoch 85-90), Pseudo-Daniel (4Q243-245), the Assumption of Moses, ch. 5-10, Revelation (particularly ch. 17-19), the Sibylline Oracles, etc. These give an apocalyptic survey of history, revealed by a putative divine source, which represents events that have already occurred by the time the author wrote but which are portrayed as lying in the future when the prophet received his vision or message. Typically, these predict real history with astonishing accuracy -- accuracy derived from the fact that the author knew what really happened when he wrote. The prophet then made some predictions of his own, genuine attempts at prophecy, which generally fail. So when you look at the sweep of predicted history provided by the prophet, it seems astonishingly prescient up to a particular point and then it abruptly makes unfulfilled predictions that go far beyond what actually happened. A good modern example can be found in the Book of Mormon. There is a survey of history of the colonization and history of America in 1 Nephi 13-14, a text that presents itself as written in 600-592 BC. It accurately "predicts" the coming of Columbus (v. 12), the colonization of the land by colonists of the "mother" country for freedom from religious persecution (v. 12-16), the colonists' conquering of the native Americans (v. 14), the war the colonists had with the "mother" country for independence which the colonists won (v. 17-19), the Americans prospering more than other countries (v. 30), the Indians being smitten but not wiped out entirely by white Americans (v. 31, 34), and the "rediscovery" of the Book of Mormon by Joseph Smith (v. 34-40). That brings things up to 1829. But it is here that the prophecy becomes especially vague and goes awry, failing to foresee the rise of the LDS church and Smith's role in it (he is referred to only as a "translator" and "seer" in the book, not as "prophet" or founder of the "restored" church), nor his death, nor whatever else that was to happen after 1829.
From this perspective, Walkington is quite interesting. He relates in 2008 a series of prophetic signs he purportedly received in the spring of 2001, relating to the events that transpired in the years since. Signs 1-6 represent ex eventu prophecy, referring to events that had already come to pass by the time the "prophecy" is divulged. It is the final seventh sign that is the sole prediction of the future made by Walkington, and if it fails to come to pass, then we would have a pattern similar to what we have above. I wonder tho if he is revising an older similar "prophecy" given in 2004. The video is claimed to have been made in spring 2008, but the sixth sign Walkington gives is a little strange. The caption to the video says: "Sixth Sign: Something tragic will happen to Arafat. Our nation will be blamed for this. This will trigger World War III." Although it is true that Arafat died in 2004, nothing like what Walkington describes actually came to pass. No one has blamed America for the natural death of Arafat, and no grave international crisis followed, certainly not triggering WWIII. This prediction better fits the situation in 2004, around the time when Arafat died. If this is what he publically claimed in his own circles in 2004, then Sign 6 would represent an original prophecy made by Walkington as well, and he would be constrained against changing it if others remember what he claimed the sixth sign to be. Actually, this makes a good deal of sense. Walkington then came up with this story at the time of the 2004 Kerry-Bush election, at a time when it looked like Bush would be defeated by Kerry who was leading in the polls. Arafat died in November 11, just a week after the election, but he was gravely ill in October and he was in a coma before the election. If Bush was going to be defeated by Kerry, and if Bush was to be the last president, then the end times were at hand....we would have a situation similar to that with Obama -- the end would come before Kerry takes office in January. So it sounds like this is a warmed-over prophecy he made in October 2004, revived now because of the similar situation he assumed would happen in 2004. If this is the case, Walkington is already a failed prophet, even before his current public exposure: Signs 1-5 originally were ex eventu predictions, whereas signs 6-7 were genuine predictions that did not come to pass with Bush winning his second term. Now that Bush's presidency is really going to come to end, this is a second chance for Walkington's predictions to come true -- although Sign 6 no longer makes the kind of sense it made in 2004. But Walkington cannot change it, if people in his own circles already remember what he claimed back in 2004.
In other words, the "prophecy" may not be as "fresh" as it seems.
