Ha, no, that was not a prediction. That was an after-the-fact connection you made.

The 500 was in reference to your “proof” that DHS was interfering. You never made the assertion the number was about victims yourself until the sting had already happened.

If only 500 avocados fell off a truck on the freeway. Or if you had specifically said, “this 500 number is going to represent victims.”

Only finding those connections after the fact is how confirmation bias works. Being unable to specifically predict events and only explain then in hindsight usually means what you’re dealing with isn’t scientific.

Ha, no, that was not a prediction. That was an after-the-fact connection you made.

The 500 was in reference to your “proof” that DHS was interfering. You never made the assertion the number was about victims yourself until the sting had already happened.

If only 500 avocados fell off a truck on the freeway. Or if you had specifically said, “this 500 number is going to represent victims.”

Only finding those connections after the fact is how confirmation bias works. Being unable to specifically predict events and only explain ten in hindsight usually means what you’re dealing with isn’t scientific.