It's in the "stars" (predicting by astrology and other means)

[Eric the Green]

(12-08-2016, 09:35 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:

(12-07-2016, 07:51 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: NO doubt people here will jump on my one major (although partial) failure since I've been posting here, and deservedly so--- but forget the dozens of major correct predictions I've made here. So it goes with the T4T world. The T4Ters have a very hard time admitting that their saeculum exactly equals the Uranus orbit during the history of the colonies and USA. Even the authors stated that by definition the saeculum is 84 years = the orbit of Uranus. And the meaning of Uranus was defined by astrologer/philosopher Dane Rudhyar as based on the length of a human life = how S&H define the saeculum. But, that doesn't stop most people HERE from ignoring this crystal-clear link of the S&H cycle to astrology.



But, for sure, I am less confident about the economy with Trump at the helm. Still, I don't see recession until 2018, but it will probably be worse now than it would have been before Trump grabbed the White House (he likes to grab things, doesn't he? --courtesy plaudits to Seth for that one).

My record is probably miles better than "economists," let alone the "pundits" who almost always get things wrong.

Uh,no

Uh, yeah, and so obviously.

Quote:

Eric Wrote:In my old system I rated his horoscope score as 15-4. When I saw it, I knew he was going to be in the running and might win, and said so soon after he announced. Horrible thought though it was, It's clear from his chart that he appeals to Americans, and can get away with almost anything because the people like his personality, style and approach to campaigning.

1. A "new" system indicates that the old one is flawed.  That  means a self admission of less than perfection.  There is also the weasel word, "might" which translates into there's a "chance of" .  Weathermen phrase their predictions as "there is a chance of snow/rain".  That means you yourself use weathermen terminology and all one has to do is point it out to you.   Also of note is the usage of numbers like "15-4" as a point system.  So, with The Donald, we have numbers of 15 for vs. 4 against.  I can easily use that to come up with a chance by adding the numbers to get 19. So the chance of The Donald winning = 15/19. That's a 79 percent chance of The Donald winning.
(Like why else would you even type those numbers down if they meant nothing?)

IIRC Lincoln used a "four score and 7" , so I suppose we can split the difference there.

That's one way of stating the length of the saeculum, as he was doing PLUS the three additional years of the war he was fighting. And it's the orbital period of Uranus plus three years as well.

My point system is a work in progress, being gradually developed. And yes, I make counting errors, and get more thorough in my research than I was before. I have put a lot of hours into this, you know. Fortunately I can cast my pearls in other places besides here. But, it's at least a repository where I can put out what I am finding out and writing up. And fundamentally this is a website about predictions and cycles. What that means is that it is inherently astrological, although few here realize this.

The pundits almost all thought in fact that Trump could NOT win, so I was miles ahead of almost all of them with my prediction, which I made as soon as I saw his chart-- soon after he declared his candidacy. Early in 2016 I made a definite statement here that he would be the Republican nominee; remember?

You could use the numbers for the candidates that way; why not? The meaning of a score is pretty easy to understand. It's a way of comparing candidates to each other; the better-scoring candidate usually wins; that's the point of the scores; although other methods can also be used to predict the elections, and other considerations enter in. What's more complicated is going through all the data and sorting it out.

Rather than use the numbers to compute the chance of victory, I see it more like a comparison of baseball teams in the standings, using percentages based on their win-loss record. The score of a candidate is like that, comparing each candidate's favorable to unfavorable aspect ratio. The higher the percentage in his or her score, the higher his or her standing as a presidential candidate in the minds and attitudes of Americans.