Guest guest Posted November 5, 2000 Report Share Posted November 5, 2000 Air Disaster Predictions Year 2000 Prediction Windows Jan 20-21, 24-25 Apr 6-7, 19-20 Jul 13, 22-31 Oct 1-8, 19, 22-23 Feb 18-20 May 1, 10-26 Aug 1, 3-18, 22-23, 30-31 Nov 12-13, 21-22 Mar 13-14, 19-21 Jun 18-21 Sep 10-30 Dec 8, 18-22, 26-27 Highest Peaks: Sep 22-25, Oct 22-23, Nov 21-22, Dec 21-22 .... More Later Visit SmarterLiving.com for discounts on airfare, hotels, car rentals, and more! Other Predictions Earthquakes Terror Attacks Air Disasters Outer Space US Elections Refinery Fires Roller Coasters Railways Services Horoscopes Love Charts Consulting Model Building Newsletters Help Home About Us FAQs Email The Wizard Year 2000 Results Air Disasters by Cause All Windows 3/21/00-9/9/00 Type of Event Hits Total Events SRC to Date Coincidence Total Air Disasters 11 23 34% 1 in 18 Out of Fuel 0 0 34% -- Aircraft Failure 2 7 34% 1 in 2 Terror/Military 0 0 34% -- Landing/Takeoff 6 9 34% 1 in 105 Ran into Mountain 2 4 34% 1 in 8 Mid-Trip Crash 1 1 34% 1 in 1000 Midair Collision 0 2 34% -- Weather 0 1 34% 1 in 2 Higest Peaks Fit: All Crashes (1 in 118), Aircraft Failure (1 in 10), Landing/Takeoff (1 in 258), Ran Into Mountain (1 in 28), Mid-Trip (1 in 12) The year 2000 Results are based on the vernal year 3/21/00-3/20/01. The Steady Rate Chance of the prediction windows for the 2000 vernal year is 31% (113days). Back To Predictions Year 1999 Results Air Disaster Hit Summary 3/21/99-3/20/00 Type of Event Hits Total Events SRC to Date Coincidence Aircraft Disasters 11 47 27% 1 in 2 Highest Peaks 6 47 9% 1 in 8 The year 1999 Results are based on the vernal year 3/21/99-3/20/00. The Steady Rate Chance of the prediction windows for the 1999 vernal year is 27% (100days). Air Disasters Occurring on Peaks By Cause 3/21/99-3/20/00 Type of Event Hits Total Events SRC to Date Coincidence Total Disasters on Peaks 6 47 9% 1 in 8 Out of Fuel 0 0 9% none observed Aircraft Failure 1 6 9% 1 in 10 Terror/Military 0 3 9% 1 in 4 Landing/Takeoff 3 24 9% 1 in 6 Ran into Mountain 1 8 9% 1 in 6 Mid-Trip Crash 1 6 9% 1 in 10 Midair Collision 0 0 9% none observed Back To Predictions Wizard's Model Notes Air Disasters The predictions on this page are derived from an 'event based' system of planetary probability. The predictions were developed using the dates from a sample of 17 Fatal Aviation Disasters which occurred from 1985-1997. The location of the events was not specified. Back To Predictions URL: http://www.zodiacwiz.com Layout, design & revisions © 1999-2000 The Wizard, Astrologer & Mystic. All rights reserved Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products. All in one Place. / Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 5, 2000 Report Share Posted November 5, 2000 Hi Rhoda-- >The predictions were developed using the dates from a >sample of 17 Fatal Aviation Disasters which occurred >from 1985-1997. The location of the events was not >specified. At the risk of sounding like Chris sounding like a wet blanket ;-), a sample of 17 crashes over a twelve year (!!!) period is hardly conclusive. Firstly, we don't know if the sample were randomly-selected; I'm POSITIVE I could select from a large list of plane crashes and retrofit a selection of them into a "sample" which had a STRONG correlation to ANYTHING. The sample has to be randomly-chosen in order for it to be meaningful. Secondly, even if the sample WERE randomly chosen, that is not a large enough sample for such a long period of time to be conclusive. For example, Merc goes retro about four times a year, so there were about 48 retros during the cited study period, yet only 17 cited crashes. So, even if the sample were chosen randomly, it still LOOKS suspicious--there should be many more crashes in the study for it be credible. And lastly, we don't need to use small "samples" at all. Since we have access to all the data, why not analyze all of it? Or at least much more of it? It would take a little more work--ok, a LOT more work--but it would eliminate the suspicion that we had somehow rigged the study; our results would be easily reproducible. Small sampling is really only indicated whenever the data are expensive to gather, there is too much data to analyze with the available tools, or analyzing the sample causes its destruction. None of those cases apply here. Furthermore, the date ranges cited for 2000 accident propensities span about 30% of the entire year. It's virtually inconceivable that there wouldn't be SOME sort of air accident during those time period, especially since accidents (in general, not just air accidents) are the number one single cause of death for Americans across age ranges. (I would guess that parameter would be applicable across all the world's peoples.) (Just speaking as a devil's advocate.) jpd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.