[bigiain]

Surely I’m not the only one wondering how many “prediction tweets” they’ve deleted?

It’s an easy scam, if you’re prepared to invest the time. Make lots and lots of quite vague claims. Delete the ones that don’t pan out. Cash in as a “futurist” on the TEd talk circuit or similar…

[_mczl]

Trying to misrepresent what I do as an easy scam is very rude and uncharitable.

Before deciding to begin posting recordings of data to Twitter I wanted to do something that was publicly verifiable. As that was my intention I chose Twitter and decided to never delete any predata.

The only tweets I have deleted are replies to Threadreaderapp and maybe some other random accounts where I would make a comment but then not want to associate it permanently with this precognitive Twitter so I would delete the comment. I never delete any predata. You may find some way to verify that with Twitter, anyone who works there with the right access, will know that what I say is true. I am sure someone can verify that should they choose. I am fully confident of that point.

If that is your method of trying to misrepresent what I have done then I accept the implied flattery that what is there is so incredible that it requires such a, however cruelly delivered, attempt at misrepresenting.

Although your TED talk idea is somewhat crazy-sounding to me. I do not think people are ready for that real acknowledgment of precognition. I hope that is wrong, however.

[thombat]

IIUI for that trick they need to make those futurist tweets protected AND not allow followers, or we'd see them too? So try following and see what happens?

[_mczl]

You may archive it in various ways. Followers may be a mixed blessing. Toxic hurtful people I would block to protect myself. It is a public archive for me. If people appreciate that, then that is great.

For many years I was reluctant to tell people about what I could do. The misrepresenting and cruelness hurts. And I did not feel strong enough before to share that. I was afraid that the mean words of another my damage my belief and my ability. Although I have been skeptical I know it is also necessary for me to believe. I wanted to regulate my emotions and thoughts about this ability as I went through the process of development. Prematurely sharing and exposing myself to the cruelty and misrepresentation of others, was something I was afraid would harmfully interfere with my ability to regulate, on my own terms, my emotions and thoughts about this, and I was scared it would also impact my development of my abilities.

So I carefully shared at each stage. Posting here today was another step for me. The significance of the Tonga event and the clarity of my predata on it is a milestone for me.

I knew something huge was coming but I did not anticipate the predata would be such a stunning hit.

Although, there are inaccuracies. I had the water and land mix, I had the undersea volcano and tsunami but I said North Pacific Ocean. When in fact Tonga is in the South Pacific ocean.

If you examine the history of my recorded predata and analysis and association with possible event hits you will see that these types of inaccuracies, either in time, geographic location or the event type are present.

Finally, in response to your earlier comment, I see it was perhaps a tactical error to respond to the misrepresentation of my work by adding additional examples to this thread. I anticipated that would expose me to further risks by little targeting more days then just the Tonga data. But for some reason I was careless and did it anyway. Perchance it is this: the pandemic data really stands out for me and holds its own.