Support Science Not Superstition
| Homepage | Links | Book & TV List | Contact Us | Blog |


Ken Ring

Weather Forecasting by the Moon

Readers' Comments:        Add a Comment         Return to Article

Commenting on this article is via email, so there will be a delay between making a comment and seeing it appear. 'Unsigned' posts will be marked 'Anonymous'. Your email address will not be disclosed, nor will your surname if provided. If you wish your full name published, or a link to your website, simply request this in your email.

Unlike many other internet forums, we do not require you to register or join our club before you are allowed to comment. We realise that this restriction simply insulates forums from negative views, since many refuse to bother joining a group they disagree with just to disagree with it.

Previous Page     Page 3     Next Page


  1. Comment by Anonymous-6, 18 Feb, 2011

    Ken Ring says that the moon is a planet.

    In the discussions area under moon man/sun man, facebook page is Christchurch Quake Live:

    Ken Ring
    "Melissa, the moon aanswers to the sun because it is a planet. Earthquakes arise from solar activilty and moon tides acting on the earth. Read my articles on my website that explain it. Expect more shake activity around days of more sunspots and full moons and new moons. It's not rocket science, and I have never changed my mind about it. On 4 Sept sunspots were WAY up."
    on Tuesday 15th Feb 2011
  2. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 18 Feb, 2011

    Yes, he's not too bright is our Ken. We've noticed him call the moon a planet several times now. First we thought it was just a mistake, but after being corrected he still insists on saying it is a planet rather than a satellite. If you use his stupid logic, then even you are a planet since you also orbit the sun.

    Ken is an astrologer, and in ancient times astrologers called all the five visible planets, the sun and the moon planets. Planet means 'wanderer', since they moved and the stars didn't. Ken has great difficulty in accepting that modern astronomy has replaced astrology.

    He keeps saying he's an expert in these matters, yet silly nonsense like this just shows that Ken is stuck in the distant past.

  3. Comment by Anonymous-7, 22 Feb, 2011

    Ian, after reading all this ,,,, who's the absolute fool now !

  4. Comment by Anonymous-8, 23 Feb, 2011

    I think you are a silly lot on sillybeliefs.com ... people who work within square and cannot see outside the square ... myopic and I would say calling someone a liar among other things is slander. Ken Ring forewarned of yesterday's earthquake over two weeks ago and in connection with the full moon - he forewarned of the earthquake in September and forewarns of the likelihood of earthquakes in March. If pioneers, scientists and explorers in the past had been silly enough to work within the square that you silly, silly people do we would still be in the ice age now ... it's a pity that you climate changers don't do something more than say the farting of sheep is causing global warming ... global warming, ha, ha, what a myth. We've had ice ages and global warming way before the sheep were farting. Give yourself a colonic irrigation and sip your green tea and then try to do something worthwhile than these silly blogs.

  5. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 23 Feb, 2011

    Ken Ring did NOT predict the Sept 4, 2010 Christchurch earthquake (see here), nor did he predict yesterday's one (Feb 22, 2011). And even if he appeared to, since Sept 4 the Christchurch region has had over 4,400 earthquakes, so any idiot could safely predict that they may well have more. But the embarrassing fact is that Ring himself did NOT expect there to be another major earthquake in Christchurch. In the months following the Sept earthquake and leading up the Feb quake, this is what Ring predicted:

    I do expect tremors but how deep and what magnitude could be anyone’s guess... But I don’t think we should live our lives in fear - we have to accept sometime that earthquake damage has always been a reality living in NZ and Christchurch got its turn recently. No doubt somewhere else will cop it next time. Yet we can observe in hindsight that the Napier earthquake didn’t come back to buzz Napier, nor have the Murchison and the Edgecumbe shakes returned to the same place. In fact we can confidently say quite the opposite, like the measles once you have had it you probably won’t get it again in your lifetime. So on the basis of historical probability, next March Christchurch might well be one of the safest places.

    Update 13 October... Therefore it seems unlikely that as large an earthquake (as 4 Sept) will occur in the same place.

    I would still not consider that another massive earthquake is certain, in fact I think it’s more likely not to be the case in Christchurch. I can only repeat that other well-known earthquakes in NZ’s history have not, as a rule revisited the same site.

    For another disastrous event, Christchurch may or may not be in the firing line again; it could be Wellington or anywhere, and it may not even happen.

    The numbers of shakes do seem to be getting less and the distances greater between clusters. People are at last adjusting.

    ...my guess is that these aftershocks will end soon for Christchurch, probably around the end of November.

    it is reasonable to relax and asume that another devastating shake is unlikely to repeat anytime soon, despite a seismology-department knee-jerk reaction that a 6+ mag. earthquake aftershock could be arriving in the district at any time.

    Nothing is achieved by the so-called earthquake experts warning of ever-impending doom, which may be an ongoing exercise in damage control to cover-up performance embarrassment. To proclaim afterwards that more and bigger shakes were to come [is a] distraction... perhaps they should admit to that, rather than make more claims about future events to come

    There is no reason to suppose any aftershocks of significance will occur...

    it will take a long time to get over that fright in the middle of that early September night.

    It indicates the Christchurch shake is not part of some lasting new development, reaffirming that the activity of the past couple of days has probably been just remnants of general global disturbance due to the recent lunar eclipse... In a day or so things should be back to normal... Please share this article if you think there could be anxieties in your social circle.

    Ring was adamant that the worse was over and that 'Christchurch might well be one of the safest places'. Time and time again he makes it clear that he didn't think another major earthquake would occur in Christchurch. He was wrong. Note that he even criticised the 'seismology-department knee-jerk reaction that a 6+ mag. earthquake aftershock could be arriving in the district at any time'. The one Ring didn't expect was 6.3.

    You're correct that last year Ring does predict disaster for March 2011:

    Next year, the morning of 20 March 2011 sees the South island again in a big earthquake risk for all the same reasons... in Marlborough and N Canterbury... The time will be just before noon. It could be another for the history books.

    there may be an extreme event, perhaps a large earthquake, around 20 March, which is when the Moon may be again in a trigger position.

    it is again more likely than not that a significant shake may affect the South Island in March next year.

    However note that he makes no mention of February, let alone Feb 22nd, let alone Christchurch. Christchurch is not in Marlborough or N Canterbury. Note also that some predictions mention only the 'South Island' which means an earthquake anywhere would count as a success in Ring's view. The second prediction won't even commit to an earthquake, just an extreme event, which could be torrential rain etc. And to further confuse the matter, here is Ring categorically denying that we should be worried about earthquakes on the 20th March:
    I certainly cannot predict earthquakes. I have never said there will be an earthquake on 20 March, large or small.
    He's correct that he can't predict earthquakes, and yet he deviously suppresses his predictions of disaster when it suits him. If an earthquake does occur on March 20, we guarantee Ring won't publicise that quote. But by having issued completely opposite quotes, whether or not an earthquake occurs, Ring will have a quote that matches the reality. He can't lose.

    More recently (Feb 14?) his website made the following statement and also the following tweet:

    'Earthquakes again in Christchurch? The 15-25 February window is coming. Watch out around the 18th'.

    'Potential earthquake time for the planet between 15th-25th, especially 18th for Christchurch, +/- about 3 days.'

    Since the earthquake happened on the 22nd, unfortunately all those people that stayed home on the 18th, and even three days either side just to be on the safe side, were not helped by Ring's advice. The 18th was the full moon, just one of many, many things that Ring believes causes earthquakes. And note that Ring would have claimed success if an earthquake had occurred anywhere on the planet. But why has he suddenly mentioned February and Christchurch when March was going to be the next potential for earthquakes? In another quote he changes the February dates slightly, and again mentions the coming March earthquake:
    The earthquake risk period at the moment remains 18-25 February for a bigger shake. Another will probably happen in a month's time...
    You'll note that in that last quote Ring makes no mention of Christchurch, and this raises an important point. Why should he pinpoint earthquakes in Christchurch at all? Is the same moon not above Wellington and Te Anau and every other bit of NZ? Why would it only pick on Christchurch? If the moon is stressing tectonic plates throughout NZ, how can Ring predict that it will have a major impact on the Christchurch region and a negligible effect elsewhere? Could it be that Ring is most likely just hopping on the 4,400+ aftershock bandwagon?

    Even if Ring did appear to predict two or three of the Christchurch earthquakes (which he didn't), the question has to be asked, why did he have no idea about the other four and a half thousand that also happened? If his method can reliably predict earthquakes, Ring should have warned us of most, if not all of them. Predicting only 3 out of 4,400 is a success rate of 0.07%. Would you go under the knife of a surgeon where only 3 out of 4,400 patients had survived his operations?

    It is also rather ironic that you accuse us, supporters of reason and science, of being myopic, while you embrace an astrologer, a man pushing ancient beliefs that for centuries kept society mired not in an ice age but the dark ages. And for the record, it is only people like Ring and yourself that believe the farting of sheep is causing global warming. A little science would tell you that their belching is the problem, not farting, no matter how much you may giggle over things anal, eg your love of colonic irrigation while drinking green tea.

    The fact remains that Ring has made as many successful predictions as the 'Sensing Murder' psychics have solved murder cases. None whatsoever.

  6. Comment by Carol, 23 Feb, 2011

    Just when you thought he couldn't get any stupider, Ken is now casting doubt on plate tectonic theory. FFS.


  7. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 24 Feb, 2011

    I had just read that article a little before we got your comment Carol. The trouble with Ring is that, like creationists who reject evolution, he must blindly reject all scientific theories that purport to explain the same things that he does with his 'astrological science'. If plate tectonics explain earthquakes then his moon theory is wrong, so Ring reaches the only obvious conclusion, plate tectonics must be wrong instead. That would have to be one of the most ridiculous of Ring's articles, and clearly shows his pseudoscience style. He quotes and obviously believes various scientific facts while calling these same scientists incompetent and stupid. And his sunburnt arm, china plate and Hiroshima bomb analogies are laughable, but then Ring has never been good at analogies. Indicative of his flawed knowledge, Ring states: 'Imagine an H-bomb the size of that which destroyed Hiroshima...'. It wasn't an H-bomb, it was an A-bomb. There's a big difference, both in size and physics. This is a typical Ring statement, he's simply not concerned with facts or accuracy. He simply weaves nonsense to fool the gullible, invents conspiracies and throws out vague predictions in the hope that one will hit paydirt.

    If a major earthquake does occur on March 20th as Ring predicts, then he will need to explain why his method couldn't predict any of the nearly four and half thousand that have occurred around Christchurch since Sept 2010. And not only that, but why his vindictive moon only caused earthquakes in Christchurch and failed to have any impact in other regions. Unfortunately many people put unwarranted importance on a single fluke while ignoring thousands of failures.

  8. Comment by Hayley, 24 Feb, 2011

    As a Christchurch resident I am incredibly tired of having the fears of my friends and family exploited by these predictions. Thank you for providing me with sound arguments against Ken Ring's claims and logic against these scare tactics.
    Ken Ring may believe in his theories but still has no right to throw them around as scientific fact, especially in instances such as this. He himself claims to be no earthquake expert and, therefore, it is only logical that he should stick to 'predicting' the weather where he is less likely to cause fear and add to the, already high, level of psychological stress in and around Christchurch.
    Thanks again.

  9. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 24 Feb, 2011

    Thanks Hayley, and you're quite right, Ring's bogus earthquake predictions are only adding to people's fears, and doing nothing whatsoever to help. In the past his claims to predict earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and whale strandings received little attention, even by Ring himself, but thanks to some in the media, his false claim to have predicted the Christchurch Sept 2010 earthquake has caused him to spend much more time scaring the vulnerable in Christchurch. All in a selfish bid to raise his profile and sell his silly weather almanac. Inventing a bogus explanation as to why the earthquakes occurred helps no one. Perhaps Ring should donate a percentage of the profits from his books to the relief effort if he really wants to make a difference.

  10. Comment by Steven, 24 Feb, 2011

    Hi John, I read through much of your article on Ken Ring and then some of the subsequent readers comments. I didn't read them all so i don't know if my point has been raised.

    Ken is fundamentally wrong on his theories about gravity and the moons influence on the earth.

    Ken claims that the moon sucks the water causing the tides. This is wrong because as you rightly point out it's an extremely weak force. What happens is that the moon subtly shifts the center of gravity of the earth towards the moon causing the oceans to bulge out towards the moon.

    I know you will all understand this but thought i would write anyway. It's what i would have said to Ken to highlight his lack of understanding.

    As a note, his latest post, (Earthquakes cause fault lines, not vice versa) is very funny. I'm a geologist and Ken doesn't understand the basics of earthquakes and tectonics. Brilliant

  11. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 24 Feb, 2011

    Personally we think it is a waste of time saying anything to Ken 'to highlight his lack of understanding'. His business only exists because of his lack of understanding, and you're right that Ken does appear to often botch the description of gravity and the tides. To be fair though, in his book 'The Lunar Code' he does correctly describe the tidal forces, mentioning that, unknown to many, that not only is there a high tide under the moon, but also on the opposite side of the earth at the same time, and he even notes that the tidal bulge is actually dragged ahead of the moon's position in the sky. However we've also found that when Ring's writing makes scientific sense there is a good possibility that he has stolen it from some other source and he has since forgotten what it said, or perhaps never fully understood it in the first place. For example, Ring claims the following: '[If the Moon were to be destroyed then] life on Earth would be impossible because there would only be atmosphere on the Sun side of the Earth. There would be no water, just one big stationary cloud'. This shows that Ring doesn't realise that there should be tidal bulges (or clouds) on both sides of the earth if this nonsense claim of his were true. Evidence that the knowledge of tides in his book was not his and that he didn't grasp its implications. [Update: Sure enough, we have since found that the text on tides from Ring's book was simply taken from the internet, and that it probably came originally from this article 'Earth Moon Mechanics'.] The fact is that it's not only gravity, tides and plate tectonics that Ring doesn't understand, the list could well be endless.

  12. Comment by Lindsay, 24 Feb, 2011

    Ok, have scanned your web site and as skeptic enjoy debate and Silly beliefs does make it all look like pseudo babble. That I understand. But this is the bit I want to know is where are your guys forecasts ? and are the CHCH earthquakes just good luck on Ken’s part?, and there is no correlation between earth, moon ,sun and tide? Is it entirely un reasonable to think that molten magma may slosh about and pressure crusty earth? I don’t recall any one other than Jules Verne taking a journey to the center of the earth and as a fact no one has. So just like the treatment for TB was to put patients in the cold and ice we have a geological view of what happens with out any one really accurately knowing. Who can contest science when there isn’t alternatives? That could be considered a silly belief with the benefit of hind sight. We know that putting TB patients on ice was not good for the patients health at all. And as a university trained and graduated historian I kept records of Ken’s published ramblings you may call them, yet they seemed to be accurate. Or is it like a fortune teller where the punter associates suggestion with experience? I’m not letting you have that one ! Or does it make sense to provide for the future as humanity has done for centuries by observing seasons ,but not moons ?Dunkirk invasion relied on a moonless night and that was forecast and prepared for months in advance. So in good humor I’m glad you guys exist and hold beliefs silly or otherwise to account. May be the primitive man in me has been exposed since living through these earthquakes.

  13. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 24 Feb, 2011

    Lindsay, you ask 'where are your guys forecasts?' What makes you think we are earthquake forecasters? That's what Ring claims to do, not us. Only deluded Ken Ring thinks that we are in competition with him. We're simply showing that Ring's claims are bogus, we are not out to show that we can do a better job at prediction, indeed we argue that longrange weather prediction is unrealistic. This challenge that we should offer forecasts or keep quiet is as silly as psychics demanding that we show we can glean more info from the dead than they can, otherwise shut up. Everyone is entitled to challenge someone's claims or skills without first proving they can do better. Would you let an incompetent surgeon continue to botch operation after operation, just because someone said, 'Well, could you do any better?'

    You also ask, 'are the CHCH earthquakes just good luck on Ken’s part?, and there is no correlation between earth, moon ,sun and tide?'. We wouldn't call predicting zero earthquakes out of nearly 4,500 quakes good luck, bad luck more likely, as even guessing should have given Ken more success than that. Even if one grants the three hits that Ken falsely claims, 3 out of 4,500 is still absolutely pathetic, and demonstrates that Ring is just guessing, and very badly. And yes there will be a gravitational influence from the sun and moon, just as an insect hitting a car's windscreen does slow it down slightly, but the influence is a minor factor rather than the major one, and not one that Ring can predict. And we do have alternatives to science, such as Ken's pseudoscience and religious, paranormal beliefs etc, but none have the reliability or success at describing the natural world that science does. If Ken could provide evidence that his method worked then the world would flock to his door, but remember that he is on record stating that he has not proven his method, and indeed insists that it can not be proven. You say that you have 'kept records of Ken’s published ramblings you may call them, yet they seemed to be accurate'. Funny you should say that when Ken himself says, when challenged to do so, that his accuracy rate is impossible to determine. Anyone that insists in the media that their method works, yet at the same time says they can't prove it or produce supporting evidence, needs to go back to the drawing board. Ring's point regarding earthquakes and tides is not ridiculous, but like everyone else, he needs to produce evidence before people should throw money at him. We demand evidence that new planes, new drugs and cell phone towers are safe and work as claimed, why do we let Ring get by without the same scrutiny?

  14. Comment by LUNAR TICK, 25 Feb, 2011

    Ken Ring predicted an earthquake on the 20th March at around midday. He said "it could be another one for the history books" He did not say Christchurch but he did say South Island. He did say an east west faultline or was it west east faultline. No matter, we got the day, time and direction, a pretty specific statement for 20 March. On Tuesday we had this catastrophic, tragic and sad quake in Christchurch where I live. Another one for the history books. Now Ken did not predict Tuesday's event. He may claim it fell within a new moon or full moon or whatever. I sincerely hope he does not claim he predicted it. I believe it was part of the aftershock sequence and the scientists told us months ago that a 7 mag quake could be followed at some point by a 6 mag aftershock but they couldn't say when or where - and we have just experienced it. They said it could be days, weeks or months down the track and they were right. Now heres the rub. When Ring's 20th March prediction/forecast/guess or what ever it was came out AFTER the 4 September event, many people I know took note of that - and believed it. Now those people are saying that we still have another one to go and it could be worse. Whilst Ring didn't say it would be Christchurch, people who have been through two traumatic events have in their minds that either the alpine fault will go or we will have another one here because the Greendale fault is an east west faultline or vice versa. They were relying on 20th March and bang its February!!!!

    I need to tell you that I know two people who are leaving Christchurch in the belief we will have another hit on the 20th March. I know others who can't but wish to. I was having afternoon tea at work today with some brave people who work in the business where I work and they are extremely worried about 20th March following Tuesdays events. My daughter dropped me off some things yesterday and she was worried about it. My bowling club mates know about the 20th March. My son is in the police and he knows about it. What I'm saying is that word has spread amongst many people here and it has just adds to their anxiety, particularly since Ring didn't predict this one. Oh he may say things about sun spots, the moon etc between the 18th and 24th but nothing specific. One person may have read what he wrote on his site about 20th March but it only takes one person to read it and word spreads, but as word spreads what was originally written may be exaggerated. The truth depreciates with repetition hence the danger in what he wrote. My point - for that very reason it is very dangerous to write what he did. His web site is a public site and yes he is entitled to write what he wishes. He has to realise that millions of people can access that. He needs to be responsible.

    I congratulate Silly Beliefs on your post number 147. Everything with Ring is "it could be", "possibly may be", and he is defensive when you debate with him on certain points. I am of the firm opinion that Ring needs to put his money where his mouth is re science and scientists and his theories, and New Zealanders, particularly Cantabrians, need to hear it. We need a debate in the public arena - TV is best - we need two, Sunday and Fair Go. Or will we be giving Ring more exposure.

    I will start taking steps to arrange it. So Ken will you be prepared to partake on a debate with scientists on TV on your moon earthquake theories and predictions? It needs to be done.

  15. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 24 Feb, 2011

    Inviting Ken to defend his claims on TV is like inviting a vampire into the sunlight. They both fear the certain outcome, and thus continue to lurk in the shadows, finding foolish victims where they may.

  16. Comment by Rex, 24 Feb, 2011

    I have been looking at the Ken Ring "stuff" and it just seems like crap.

    Can I ask Ken Ring why my cup of coffee is not moving across my desk as I type this. And Ken I live in Chch so don't give me any crap reply. If, as you state, the moon and now Jupiter and Saturn influence the earth etc etc (new theory coming) then why does my drink stay still. Or are the "forces" at work selective???

    Sorry if someone has asked this already.

    And another thing Ken. Get your ass down here in Chch and start living some of these quakes.

  17. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 25 Feb, 2011

    Last year Ring confidently gave this prediction for the future of the Christchurch quakes:

    ...my guess is that these aftershocks will end soon for Christchurch, probably around the end of November.
    Embarrassed by the latest devastating quake, now his website pretends that this has actually been his prediction all along:
    It started last September and should finish in May.
    This isn't prediction, this is lying. Ring should be ashamed of himself, and his supporters need to wake up to his lies.
  18. Comment by Jason, 25 Feb, 2011

    I have been doing a lot of research in the last 6 months regarding the “so called” 2012 Mayan prophecy and have found out a lot of information about mainstream science. I am not attempting to endorse Ken Ring or Silly Beliefs, but merely present what I have found so far as it relates to the moon/gravity debate, if you want to call it that.

    The development of science comes from theories, which on one hand is believed and backed by a group of scientists (in this example we will call the mainstream) and then there are the other scientists (which I will call the dissenting voices). As long as the mainstream has monopoly on current theory then they do not actively listen to the dissenting voices until eventually they have no choice and concede that the data the dissenting scientists present can no longer be ignored.

    The main thing that happens with theories is the fact that they are sold to such a degree (research grants, University appoinments etc) that the larger body of mainstream scientists have developed entire careers on said theories. Which is easier? Debunk the dissenting voices or give up your career??? I know what which path most take, the others that agree with the dissenting voices generally don’t have a job for long. This is, in fact bad for scientific advance.

    Let me see, the biggest advances we have had in scientific history come from those dissenting voices that were labelled mad men. Tesla, Copernicus, Galileo just to mention a few.

    In my view (from the research I have done and there are scientists who are backing this idea against the mainstream and who are not being listened to) the magnetic field of sun is doing some really strange things that we have not seen before in recorded history (Greenies will hate me for saying this) and the sun is not just warming up this planet, but also all of the other planets in the solar system (wait a minute, there are two rovers on mars. They must be warming Mars up. I think not.). We know so little about the magnetic fields of the sun, Jupiter and how our own planet interacts with these fields. Come to think of it, Einstein’s own relativity theory is just that, a theory.

    We actually know nothing about the gravitational and magnetic effects of other bodies in the solar system and to no lesser of an extent other bodies in our galaxy on our planet that no one on this planet has any authority to debunk theories purely based on other theories however flimsy or solid they may appear to be. All theories should actively be discussed and only when all of the data, and or our knowledge improves, can theories be categorically proven or disproven.

    The main problem with a lot of mainstream science is the fact that they do not collaborate across other disciplines. For example archaeologists, geologists and astronomers. If these disciplines had communicated with each other then we would have known ages ago how old some of the most well known ancient sites really were. I will not place arguments here as that is a completely different topic.

    Needless to say, with the sun having such an effect across the solar system I think we (the entire earth) are in for one hell of a ride for the next 18 months to 2 years. I apologise for going slightly outside the topic, but the background behind what I am trying to say was relevant.

    PS I also believe that we need sceptics, but I give no weight to those that attempt to debunk any theory based on no real evidence and debunk based purely on speculation, this makes some sceptics no better than the scammers out there trying to sell nothing.

    And to comment on the “silly beliefs” team about reason and science. Although your belching comment is tongue in cheek. This is also not the reason for global warming. And it was also religion that kept us in the dark ages not ancient beliefs. The ancients new a hell of a lot more than us modern folk about the cycles of the planets, the sun and the stars. Do not confuse this with astrology as the ancients were as scientific as we are now basing their knowledge on observation. Just remember the fact that the Mayans knew about the precession of the equinox. We just forgot to look up when computers came along.

  19. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 25 Feb, 2011

    Jason, due to the nature of our website, we guess you won't be surprised that we see no reason to be fearful of the 2012 Mayan prophecy. If you want our take on that prophecy, read this post. Also for the benefit of other readers, regarding your comments on mainstream verses dissenting scientists, lest they infer that this mirrors Ring's conflict we should note that Ring is not a scientist and what he does is not scientific, as he says: 'what I am doing is pre-science' and 'any rigorous scientific assessment of the moon method is just not viable'. It is not a conflict between science and fringe science, between a mainstream scientist and a dissenting scientist, but between science and non-science, as Ring describes it. Ring claims that 'My work... is not intended for the scientific community... I am claiming my method has use and could be explored, but not by scientists... That is why I don't claim that it can be tested and suggest it objectively can't be'. It is not scientists refusing to consider Ring's claims, but Ring himself refusing to engage with scientists, refusing to produce evidence or reasons for scientists to take him seriously. Unlike Copernicus and Galileo that you mentioned, Ring refuses to argue his case with those that he wishes to convince.

    Also for the record, Copernicus and Galileo were not really seen as dissenting voices or mad men among the scientific community, only from the viewpoint of religion. But looking at it from another angle, big advances in science have indeed come from radical ideas from scientists such as Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Darwin, Einstein etc. They are famous because they challenged contemporary ideas and convinced others that they were right. You do scientists a huge disservice by suggesting that most are moral cowards, in their career solely to earn a buck and toe the party line. Is that what you're doing in your job and your life? If you're not a spineless lackey, why do you believe scientists are, most of whom would have become scientists because of their desire to seek out new knowledge. Scientists strive to find new discoveries and explanations, and Nobel Prizes are awarded to those lucky few who succeed. Scientists are rewarded for revolutionary new ideas, not punished. Scientists aren't ignoring Ring's claims about the moon and weather and earthquakes because they fear it could lead to a Nobel Prize, fame and a superior forecasting system, they reject his claims because the see no evidence to support them. Only Ring sees their refusal to embrace him as an evil conspiracy.

    Also you say that 'Einstein’s own relativity theory is just that, a theory'. You appear to confuse the general and scientific use of the term 'theory'. The public says 'theory' to mean guess or hunch or belief, whereas scientists use 'theory' to mean, according to the National Academy of Sciences: 'a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses'. Where the public would most likely see facts and laws as more robust than theories, scientists place theories at the top, then laws, hypotheses and facts come last. To say relativity is just a theory, or evolution is just a theory, is as misleading as saying the theory of gravity, atomic theory or the germ theory of disease are just theories. You say that 'All theories should actively be discussed and only when all of the data, and or our knowledge improves, can theories be categorically proven or disproven'. As we've already said to Ken on this page (who also views a 'theory' as just another belief), is one belief, one 'theory', really as valid as another? Evolution or creationism, a round earth or a flat earth, a universe billions of years old or only a few thousand, presents delivered by Santa or by parents, insanity caused by mental illness or demons, lost keys just happen or are brought about by gremlins? We hope that you don't accept that these competing 'theories' are equally valid, equally likely to be correct? In each of these examples science has discounted one alternative 'theory' and adopted the one that serves as 'a well-substantiated explanation'. And the state of our knowledge will stay that way until others can produce good evidence and good reasons to revise it. Unsubstantiated beliefs such as Ring's claims have been considered and rejected, not simply ignored. The same with the doom and gloom predictions regarding 2012 or the claims of psychic detectives, if they want to be taken seriously then they must front up with the robust support that scientific theories have, and not just target the ill-informed man on the street.

    We also find it a little confusing when you state that 'In my view... and there are scientists who are backing this idea... the magnetic field of sun is doing some really strange things that we have not seen before in recorded history', but you then appear to contradict yourself by insisting that, 'We know so little about the magnetic fields of the sun, Jupiter and how our own planet interacts with these fields' and even, 'We actually know nothing about the gravitational and magnetic effects of other bodies in the solar system'. If science knows nothing about these gravitational and magnetic fields then how is it that you and your dissenting scientists know that they will wreak havoc leading up to 2012? In fact science knows a great deal about the gravitational and magnetic fields of the sun and the planets, having sent spacecraft to many of them to detect if they have magnetic fields and measure its strength if they do. And it is their knowledge of their gravity that allows them to place spacecraft in orbit and also use their gravity to slingshot spacecraft onto other destinations. While there is still much to learn, science knows much more these days than all the ancient civilisations combined ever dreamed of knowing.

    Which leads us finally on to your observation: 'And it was also religion that kept us in the dark ages not ancient beliefs'. By ancient beliefs we also include religion, since religion is nothing but ancient beliefs, and that along with the likes of astrology, magic and superstition has slowed our progress throughout the ages. The fact is that most ancients, even most ancient Greeks, were ignorant peasants, and the knowledge of most high school students today would put the ancients to shame, even the philosophers and intellectuals. Much of what the Greeks believed was wrong, although there is no denying that their inquiring minds and skepticism would eventually lead to what we now call science many centuries later. Although just as intelligent as 21st century man, the ancients did not have our knowledge, and contrary to your research, professional scholars do not believe that the Maya had knowledge of the precession of the equinoxes (See here, here and here.)

  20. Comment by Believer, 26 Feb, 2011

    John and Ken, I have read your entire exchange and wonder why two intelligent men cannot find some common ground on this. John, I suggest that you use your fervent enthusiasm to prove a point to investigate that a new possibility. Could it be that the reason Ken didn't predict this earthquake because it may have been a 'man-made' one. See the following:


    Tony (116) you're right - Sensing Murder forum is no different to this: sceptics on one side, believers on the other ... going round and round; no wonder you're comfortable here! Science versus inner belief will always create tension. Me, I'm truly a believer.

  21. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 26 Feb, 2011

    Believer, your suggestion that we can 'find some common ground on this' is no different from suggesting that evolutionists and creationists or mediums and skeptics find some common ground. Either Ring is correct or he's not, either god created life or he didn't, either dead people are chatting with mediums or they're not. There is no middle or common ground where both views are correct and can join forces. Either Ring produces evidence for his claims, which he says he can't, or else he must live with rational, intelligent people giggling at his revelations. If you have indeed read our entire exchange, perhaps you could point out where our criticisms of Ring's claims are flawed and so indicate that we might be mistaken in our view?

    Skeptics, scientists, rationalists etc deal in facts and knowledge and evidence whereas believers deal solely in beliefs, what you have when you have no evidence for your ideas. Once you have evidence beliefs become knowledge, and you change from believing things to actually knowing things.

    As for your belief that the Christchurch quake was 'man-made', again it is a belief since you have no evidence for this, and frankly the fact that you would even entertain this thought shows that you are right, 'Science versus inner belief will always create tension'. Science seeks truth not desire.

  22. Comment by Fionna, 26 Feb, 2011

    Hi there, I am writing from Otago south of Canterbury in New Zealand. I have 2 brothers, sisters in law and 2 nephews in Christchurch who have survived the recent horrific 6.3 Canterbury Earthquake. I am appalled to hear that Ken Ring (a fellow Kiwi), is using this terrible tragedy to promote his quackery. Also I was disturbed to notice a marked similarity between his predictions of another large quake on 20th March, and a rumor falsely attributed to scientists that has frightened many in Chch, including the traumatized 11yr old boy who was on Campbell Live (TV3) last night. This man needs not only to be less crass and avarice minded, but also to be aware of the effect that spreading these unfounded rumors can have on a terrified public, especially as a lot of people are still quite isolated by lack of electricity and the information resources the rest of us take for granted.
    I'm not sure of how to move forward with this, but I thank anyone that reads it for their time.

  23. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 27 Feb, 2011

    We agree with your comments wholeheartedly Fionna. Ring's greed and insensitivity has contributed nothing valuable, either to minimizing the disaster or recovering from it. His many, many vague predictions saved not one life and his new ones only serve to further traumatize people. And if you think people are now living in fear of March 20th, the really big one — 'It could be another for the history books' — if that doesn't eventuate, Ring has now changed his website prediction to this:

    'The latest earthquake has tragically happened as predicted. Now many eyes are upon 20 March, then 18 April.'
    Ring wants Cantabrians to live in perpetual fear. Worse is yet to come people!!! Flee. If not March then April. If not April then...

    If Ring had predicted either the Sept or Feb earthquake then we should take him seriously, but he didn't, thus his media grabbing tactics are nothing but scaremongering to promote his bogus business. And it's working, at a barbecue last night several people commented on how this Ken Ring guy had correctly predicted the earthquakes and is predicting worse to come. I set them straight. The number of gullible people in society is worrying, people who believe an astrologer over scientists, and empty rumors over evidence. And the media are contributing to the public's ignorance, with one reporter elevating his status with the statement: 'Lunar scientist Ken Ring'. Ring is no more a scientist than is SpongeBob SquarePants, and apparently knows even less science than SpongeBob. Why is there no one in the media, print or TV, that is willing to expose Ring as a fraud?

  24. Comment by Fionna, 27 Feb, 2011

    Surely there is some law against spreading panic in a civil defense emergency?

  25. Comment by Jonathan, 27 Feb, 2011

    Help SB Team! I'm in Christchurch and it seems everyone is talking about Ken Ring. When I finally tracked down my 13 year old daughter on the day of the earthquake she told me she was scared and wanted to leave Christchurch because other people had told her that March 20th is the date of the next big one. This was before I realised it was a Ken Ring prediction. Now this afternoon I've heard a friend of a friend talking about the guy who predicted this last earthquake, "He said the 15th to the 25th and it was smack dab in that range". Unfortunately hard data like the fact that there's no association between the position of the moon relative to the earth and earthquakes doesn't seem to get through to people. What can be done to stop Ken Ring?

  26. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 27 Feb, 2011

    Jonathan, there is nothing scientifically impossible with Ring's contention that the moon's gravity could at certain times, and no doubt does, increase the stress on earth's tectonic plates and could contribute to the cause of earthquakes, just as each bug that impacts your car's windscreen increases your fuel consumption. But is the moon's influence the major cause of earthquakes as Ring contends, one that can be accurately predicted, or is it just a very minor one that is swamped by other forces? As you say Jonathan, there is no hard data that supports Ring, while there is data that contradicts him (eg. see comments #82 & 83 above).

    Ring's claims are turning into urban myths, and gullible people are believing them and repeating them because they sound plausible. One has to analyse his claims to discover that there is no support for them, but unfortunately most people can't be bothered doing that. They hear of his apparent successful predictions, themselves bogus, but never hear of his numerous failures which would show that Ring's predictions are nothing but flukes. As 'Lunar Tick' suggested in comment #156, a TV debate could go some way in exposing Ring, as long as it wasn't run by idiots of the likes that made 'Sensing Murder' etc. The problem is, we believe, that there is no quick knock down to what Ring does, unless you already understand what astrology and tidal forces are all about, in which case you already know it's a scam. A lot of people believe in astrology — the horoscopes aren't in our papers and magazines because no one reads them — and thus you have to spend considerable time just convincing people astrology is bogus before you can even get onto the more complicated differences between gravitational forces and tidal forces. By which time people have already switched channels to watch 'Desperate Housewives' or 'When Animals Attack 3'. People concerned about Ring's scaremongering could try emailing the likes of 'Close-Up' and 'Campbell Live', but it's hard to say which approach they would take and they may just end up promoting him. Many people do say Ring (and psychics etc) shouldn't be believed, but often can't give enough reasons to convince believers to change their minds, so they need to research why Ring talks nonsense, and vocally explain it to others when they sing his praises. Knowledge is power as they say.

  27. Comment by Anonymous-9, 27 Feb, 2011

    What a total waste of time you guys — so many,many words of mockery and derision — no real debate at all, just a very rigid mindset on behalf of the SB team and others. There is pervasive attitude of bring down the heretic!

    I went to Ken Ring's website directly after I heard about the quake, and I'm not an avid follower, - and there it was as plain as day — the article written on 14/2 with a window from 15th — 25th. If I lived in Christchurch and had read that in advance I would have used this info to take some precautions (as many did — and have thanked him for it) — and got myself well prepared. Why wouldn't you?

    I can't imagine the terror that residents have gone through and I feel for them — but why does Mr Ring's information bring about any more fear than the "expert" (with all his millions of taxpayer funded technology) on TV who said "we didn't see this coming — we couldn't have predicted it — this could go on for two years". For myself and my family I would be more angry and fearful at this comment.

    It seems to me that the pattern of the last six months is clear — who cares if some of these patterns were discovered retrospectively? (and I'm not saying they were — I wouldn't have a clue - but I could see how that could happen) Isn't that how discoveries are made for the good of all?

    This planet is just a tiny pinprick in a vast universe — we all forget that as we sit at our computers being pedantic. Get up, go outside and look at the night sky — it so amazing and it might help relax you and save you from a catastrophic event within your own body brought about by your pressing need to be right.

    Let's all hope 20th March passes by uneventfully and let's just keep an open mind for the future.

  28. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 28 Feb, 2011

    To 'Anonymous-9', like 'Believer' of comment #162, you also imply that you have read our argument, our debate, and have determined it worthless. Yet you also don't bother to point out where our criticisms of Ring's claims are flawed and so indicate where we might be mistaken. Why not?

    Why would you believe this claim of Ring's: 'Earthquakes again in Christchurch? The 15-25 February window is coming. Watch out around the 18th', but seemingly you wouldn't believe this one: 'my guess is that these aftershocks will end soon for Christchurch, probably around the end of November', or this one: ' There is no reason to suppose any aftershocks of significance will occur', or this one: 'it seems unlikely that as large an earthquake (as 4 Sept) will occur in the same place'. A dozen plus predictions by Ring that Christchurch was safe and one that it possibly wasn't. A dozen plus failures are ignored and one apparent success highlighted. And let's remember that the quake didn't happen on the 18th. You say that experts didn't see it coming, and yet as we've already mentioned, even Ring in his ignorance criticised the 'seismology-department knee-jerk reaction that a 6+ mag. earthquake aftershock could be arriving in the district at any time'. The one Ring didn't expect was 6.3.

    If you are going to take seriously the patterns that Ring claims to have discovered, then you will be living in fear under your table for the rest of your life. Ring claims that "Big earthquakes usually happen around new moons and full moons, and a week either side'. The new and full moon periods cover two weeks of each month, and 'a week either side' covers the other two. Thus for every month of every year for the rest of your life Ring wants you to be wary of earthquakes. There is not one second of the day, any day, that you shouldn't expect a quake to strike according to Ring's patterns. Ring is making these predictions month in and month out, since the factors that Ring believes causes earthquakes happen every month, but he only publicises the odd one that coincides with a real earthquake, and buries the rest. Do you remember this one:

    'The next earthquake risk time will be around the full moon at the end of March, with areas along the equator most at risk. It is unlikely that New Zealand would experience a major earthquake but may be at risk of a tsunami, Ring said'.
    No, that's not Ring talking about March this year, that was his prediction for March last year. Sound familiar? Do you remember NZ being hit with a tsunami or earthquake last March? Why doesn't Ring run to the media with his failed predictions? Perhaps then people would realise that if you predict earthquakes and other disasters often enough, sooner or later you'll fluke one.

    Evidently to explain our ignorance, you say, 'This planet is just a tiny pinprick in a vast universe... Get up, go outside and look at the night sky...' For the record, I own an astronomical reflecting telescope and it is this interest in astronomy rather than Ring's astrology that helps us expose Ring's errors. It has nothing to do with a 'pressing need to be right', it is simply seeking the truth.

    Once again we ask, don't just insult us, just explain why our argument against Ring is flawed. As you say, our article is long, so there must be something you can find fault with. Anything?

  29. Comment by Chris, 01 Mar, 2011

    Well, John Campbell had a pretty good go at Ken Ring tonight (28th) on Campbell Live. He didn't pull any punches. Pointed out that Ring had predicted earthquakes on every day in February at one time or another, asked Ring what his scientific credentials were (Ring just tried to smokescreen that one), mentioned that they couldn't find one geologist or seismologist who agreed with Ring's theories. I don't think he could have done much more.

  30. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 01 Mar, 2011

    We were surprised to see Ring appear on 'Campbell Live' last night, but he's got books to sell so I guess he has to front even though we also thought he came off badly, especially his refusal to talk about his qualifications. He also lied several times, denying that quotes were his when they clearly were. But whether the viewers believed Ring or Campbell is debatable. I've been told of tweets where viewers thought Campbell treated Ring badly and refused to let him defend himself (read the next comment from a Ring groupie), others where they thought Ring came across as a complete charlatan. The trouble is that you can't settle a debate like this in a few minutes, especially when Ring can just say 'I never said that', to every damaging accusation. John Campbell was obviously not a believer and was clearly exasperated with Ring, and we were pleased that he took a clear stance — Ring is talking nonsense.

  31. Comment by Gerrit, 01 Mar, 2011

    Dear Ken Ring.

    What a performance tonight on Campbell live.
    Why did you sit out the time ?
    I would have walked out and let him alone with his arrogance and stuttering interruptions.
    Has this Idiot not had any education or learned any manners ???
    I felt very sorry to see you sitting there and not being able to say one word I could understand, because of that stutterer interrupting you all the time.
    Hope you carry on with predicting weather and disasters, as I myself also belief that another one will occur.
    For gods sake I hope we are both wrong, because of the pain we already have from these first two.
    There is a saying that all bad things come in three and I believe they do.
    Hope you will say no when that annoying idiot asks you again to come to the studio.

    Greetings from a reader of your book.


  32. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 01 Mar, 2011

    Dear Gerrit, please keep your undying love for Ken between yourselves. That said, we hope you have recovered from your traumatic experience of seeing a loved one making a fool out of himself, and that you haven't run out of tissues. Richie McCaw hasn't got any qualifications — Geez!! And frankly, anyone that predicts disasters by believing they come in threes is well suited to be a Ring groupie.

  33. Comment by Hannah, 01 Mar, 2011

    I've just been looking at a cached copy of your excellent expose on Ken Ring. Perhaps you could look at dusting it off in light of the fact that he is trying to profiteer on the back of the Christchurch earthquake? Slimy snakeoil salesman that he is! He received a thorough dressing down on Campbell Live last night!

  34. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 01 Mar, 2011

    Thanks Hannah, and we did just by coincidence update and add nine new sections to our Ring article on the date of the Christchurch earthquake. However due to Ring's increased celebrity we're going to shortly add another section dedicated to his claim to predict earthquakes, bringing together the debunking comments we've already made elsewhere.

  35. Comment by Anonymous-10, 01 Mar, 2011

    This must be John Campbells page hahaha

  36. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 01 Mar, 2011

    Sorry, but like Ken Ring you are mistaken in your beliefs, and need to do a little more research.

  37. Comment by Rob-2, 01 Mar, 2011

    Hello Sillybeliefs team... I have been away from reading Sillybeliefs for a while...(been busy)

    Like Ken Ring, I don't have a degree, but unlike him, I don't claim to have studied at University. Ken needs to get some self confidence and to stand by his convictions and not flip flop depending on what what time the moon rises.

    I have come back though, because of Ken Rings recent predictions... I first heard about this on the weekend regarding the March 20th date. He should make some form of agreement, if he is wrong about this date, he will never make dumb predictions again using his fake--scientific method about anything. (Weather, Earthquakes or Lotto numbers).

    It's not only his views which are insensitive, but the influence he has over people, who don't always follow logical thought. Take for example Lindsay's comments on the blog:

    "But this is the bit I want to know is where are your guys forecasts ? and are the CHCH earthquakes just good luck on Ken's part?"
    Thats just the saddest thing I have read.

    Surely we should just reply, "Extraordinary Claims need Extraordinary proof." Not babling and psycho bable... You were right to point out in reply to Ken, that no-one ever attacked him for being a clown,... but he seems to be doing it 24 hours a day.

    Anyway, I just want to congratulate you guys on your hard work... and if it helps people point out how much of a snake oil salesman Ken Ring is, all the better. It would be funny, if it wasn't based on the emotions of people in a tragic situation already.

  38. Comment by Brent, 01 Mar, 2011

    Hi, Sorry but aftershocks are not "earthquakes" they are after shocks. You seem intent on debunking him based on failure to predict minor aftershocks.

    I haven't been following him re earthquakes but when I lived down south I used him rather than scientific sites to predict weather and he was far, far, far, far more accurate than any scientific weather sources online. Now as much as you will try to say otherwise, that is the case as it happened as I needed long term weather facts at the time.

    How can you debunk that when personal experience shows he was more accurate?

  39. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 01 Mar, 2011

    We're sorry Brent, but aftershocks are earthquakes. My dictionary defines an aftershock as 'A quake of lesser magnitude, usually one of a series, following a large earthquake in the same area'. Technically this means the Feb 22 quake was an aftershock, but of course aftershocks are still earthquakes. Ring predicts earthquakes, he does not differentiate between earthquakes and aftershocks, except to explain after-the-fact why his predictions fail.

    Our personal experience shows that Ring is wildly inaccurate, in everything he predicts. You say that you have proven that Ring's weather forecasts are 'far, far, far, far more accurate than any scientific weather sources online', and yet Ring himself denies this. Ring insists that regarding his method, 'I never claim I am more accurate than the metservice...', and that '[my method] won't stand the kind of rigid day-by-day analysis of daily forecasting' and ' my business, cannot be proven'. Rather than trying to convince us of Ring's accuracy, perhaps you should be debating with him instead?

  40. Comment by Rex, 01 Mar, 2011

    Hello, I've been watching his website closely

    The other day he had on his site the dates and times of events that where going to happen. This included the 27th Feb, 5th March, 19 March, 20 March, 17 April and 18th April.

    He makes note of times and predicts between Hanmer and Amberly for the epicentre of the March earthquake. Note: he stated "our pick". Working with more than one person ah !!

    I have sent a screen shot to verify this to Silly Beliefs.

    Now there was no significant activity for the 27th Feb. 13 3's and 11 2's from the Canterbury Quake site that gets its data from Geonet.

    Down on the 26th and as of yet a couple of 4's for today with 3's as well. Nothing out of the unexpected as of yet. Touch wood.

    The thing is today (28th) he has changed this page again. No longer has these times (dates only) and has taken away his prediction of between Hanmer and Amberly for the epicentre of the March earthquake.

    Now if you are doing the maths right, and he has stated in the pass that you can forecast these things as the data is known. i.e the moon's orbit, planet alignments etc, then why is this data changed again. His he doing the maths wrong or is he not so confident??

    So NO increased activity for the 27th Feb.
    Science 1    Ken Ring 0

    Next update on the 5th March. (of course that may change as Kenny boy changes his mind.)

  41. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 01 Mar, 2011

    Yes Rex, you've got to hide those mistakes to make your 'predictions' look good.

  42. Comment by Richard, 01 Mar, 2011

    I've had many years of fun debunking the "moon landing hoax", Scientology, astrology and other farcical and wacky beliefs. Reading your site is the source of much amusement and sanity. A big thank you.

    You may be interested to know that NewstalkZB was talking about the Campbell Live story where they interviewed Ken Moon (28 Feb). NewstalkZB (Christchurch) briefly mentioned the interview this morning. I txt'd them with your website. I hope they read it out to the listeners.

    People like Ken Ring aren't just silly — they are dangerous. Why do I say dangerous?

    After thousands of years not understanding how the world and the universe works, we are now starting to make some progress in the last 200-300 years. Now we have a pack of clowns that spread garbage because they don't, can't, or do not want to understand the science, even at a basic level. It's involving our kids, our future generation. They don't have the means to separate the myth from the fact because they are impressionable. We may as well throw the text books away and start our de-evolution, and bring back our average lifespan to the age of 30 years as it was just a few hundred years ago.

    We now have scaremongers like Ken Ring exploiting people who are now feeling the most vulnerable — the people who have gone through trauma in the most recent earthquake. It's nothing short of evil and callous.

    Thank you for your site. PS — "Palmistry for Cats"? Oh my God!

  43. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 01 Mar, 2011

    You're quite right Richard, we're being dragged back into the dark ages, surrounded by ignorant medieval peasants carrying cell phones who receive predictions from an astrologer. And they then spread these myths, doing far more harm than good. People are spreading these fears through ignorance, but Ring is doing it for profit.

  44. Comment by Rob-2, 01 Mar, 2011

    Hello Sillybeliefs team...

    I hope supporters of Ken Ring can learn some basics before they try and argue...

    I think the statement by Brent today:

    "Sorry but aftershocks are not "earthquakes" they are after shocks. You seem intent on debunking him based on failure to predict minor aftershocks"
    shows the ignorance of people who choose to follow things blindly, and not question what they were told. Once again, it would be funny, if it wasn't so tragic.
  45. Comment by Geoff, 01 Mar, 2011

    Can the science community please tell me when the next large earthquake is going to happen? I am sure with all of your knowledge, wisdom, scientific instruments and empirical studies that you should, in the 21st century, be able to perform this task. Please respond, our lives may depend upon your knowledge.

  46. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 01 Mar, 2011

    So if we read your sarcastic comment correctly Geoff, you're saying that if scientists can't reliably predict earthquakes, and they admit they can't, then it's only natural that an astrologer should be employed? Should we also ask a witch when the next asteroid might strike, and a priest when the next serious flu epidemic will hit? Should we get African witchdoctors in to work our cancer wards?

    Modern science can't yet cure AIDS, fly man to Mars or predict earthquakes, but just because science has limitations, that's no excuse to throw up our arms and revert back to primitive superstitions. And that's just what Ring employs to make his predictions, ancient astrology, not some sort of science as many supporters call it. Sure he uses a computer, but he runs astrology programs on it, not astronomy and seismology programs.

    You obviously don't believe that science with all its 'knowledge, wisdom, scientific instruments and empirical studies' has a hope of predicting earthquakes, so why do you firmly believe that an unqualified ex-school teacher and part time clown using nothing but debunked astrology can? We don't understand people who say, if science can't explain it or fix it, then let's bring in the soothsayers, let's lay on some leeches and let's look at some chicken entrails to see what wisdom they reveal. Can't you see that people like Ring are just exploiting a gap in scientific knowledge, fulfilling a public desire to know the future, and feeding nonsense to the gullible, for a price? Do you seriously believe that scientists wouldn't be utilising Ring's method if it worked?

  47. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 02 Mar, 2011

    Regarding the fallout following Monday night's 'Campbell Live' segment on Ken Ring, Gabby has sent us the following link to an article by Peter Griffin:

    Running rings around the Moon Man?

    We agree with Peter's conclusion: 'The overall impression for those who had only vaguely heard of Ken Ring then was that of a poor old man sitting alone in a TV studio being shouted at by a flustered and clearly angry John Campbell. Tragically, people are flocking to Ring's defence as a result'. Unfortunately much of the public debate that this interview has created has been around how the interview was conducted, not on whether Ring is talking nonsense. People that know nothing of Ring's claims are supporting the man himself, and this could lead them to be more sympathetic to his silly claims. We said earlier that these types of shows could end up promoting him more than debunking him, and it appears that this is the case. Like debating politicians talking over each other, this may make for great TV, but nothing is solved, the truth is not reached. I remember often watching the wizard debating with people in the Christchurch Square years ago, and noticed that even when his opponents in the crowd had a better argument, he always appeared to win because he spoke the loudest, the fastest and the longest. Again, you can't settle a debate like Ring's claims in a few minutes when each side just denies what the other is saying. Because we've researched Ring's claims, we know categorically that Ken Ring told several lies in the 'Campbell Live' interview, which is amazing since he said very little, but the viewer would not know they were lies. The media feel they have to give balance, equal time to both sides of a debate as if they both have an equal chance of being right. For example, for such a short piece, 'Campbell Live' wasted far too much time on letting the public tell us what they thought of Ring's 'science' and what they were going to do. It's not about whether the public believes him, but whether what Ring claims is true. Concentrate on examining Ring's claims and leave the public's opinions out of it. By all means interview Ring himself, but remember that Ring will only divulge what he wants the public to know. Interviews are not the best way to expose Ken Ring, unless the interviewer is very well prepared and the interview lengthy. A better way would be an hour long documentary with explanatory graphics and the ability to state Ring's claims one by one and immediately show why they are false. You need the freedom to be able to edit the program, to connect relevant pieces including responses to claims made by Ring. Interviews fail because people say I wish I knew that beforehand or I didn't have the document on hand or I wish I had had time to give a clearer reply. Documentaries give you the time to get it right. But no one will waste time making a doco on Ken Ring, except perhaps '60 Minutes', they might make a half-hearted attempt that based on their past efforts would probably end up giving him the gold seal of approval.

    We believe it will be left up to intelligent, rational skeptics to debunk Ken Ring. So spread the word.

    Also well worth a read is this article by David Winter: Ken Ring can't predict earthquakes either

  48. Comment by jH, 02 Mar, 2011

    why don't sillybeliefs use their names so people will know who they are with thier equall y silly beliefs

  49. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 02 Mar, 2011

    Oh what a powerful argument. We can literally see our criticisms of Ring's claims crumbling as we write this. If only people knew our names were Smith and Jones then they would clearly see that our arguments are bogus and without foundation. You use the flawed reasoning called ad hominem, where you attack the person rather than their argument. Please explain if you can why our arguments against Ring's method are flawed and try to avoid fixating on what we look like.

    Also, when you talk about our 'equally silly beliefs', is this you admitting that Ring's beliefs are indeed silly?

  50. Comment by jH, 02 Mar, 2011

    they said Einstein Joseph Banks and Hawkins, were mad with their predictions, but it turned out they were right, probably also with Ken Ring

  51. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 02 Mar, 2011

    Who said Einstein was mad because of his theories? Some layman who didn't understand relativity? And what predictions are Joseph Banks or Hawkins famous for? Who is Hawkins? Do you mean physicist Stephen Hawking? If you're referring to his latest book where he predicted that there is no god, then yes, he was right. As for Einstein and scientific theories, all theories should make predictions to be considered useful. For example, the theory of gravity predicts that when you drop an object it will fall at a predictable rate. It's how the theory can be tested for correctness.

    But the fact is that most people that made predictions throughout history — either scientific, astrological, magical, religious etc — were wrong, and only a handful were correct, hence the reason you can list some of their names. But importantly all those that did make predictions that turned out to be correct only reached their famous status because they PROVED that their predictions were correct. Ring refuses to prove his method, and in fact insists that it can't be done. We should put our faith, our lives and our money on people who are willing and able to prove their claims, not those that hide from the glare of science. You say that Ring is probably right, but the man on the street once said that the world was definitely — not probably — flat and the centre of the universe, that Adam and Eve were real and mental illness was caused by demons. They were all wrong. We should not believe Ring simply because you think he is probably right. Again, be a little more specific and explain to us why our criticisms of his method are wrong. We're not handing over money or fleeing our city on the basis of 'probably'.

  52. Comment by Dave, 03 Mar, 2011

    The content in the attached links put Rings claims into perspective. No more needs to be said.


    Ken Ring can't predict earthquakes either

  53. Comment by Lindsay, 03 Mar, 2011

    Well you could be right, that ChCh lies in ruins and Ken Rings forecasts were uninformed hocus pocus. From reading the skeptics web sites defense is the better form of attack. Yeah sure he may be completely wrong and out of it but it do you really think that that the planets and stars around earth are not influenced by other planets and stars ? May be your galaxy is so small that God filled your void? Silly beliefs is really good at deconstruction of arguments but small on alternatives .Your skeptics are single minded and ability to reason is based on subjective semantics. What's wrong or not scientific that the stars moon and sun influence us here on earth? Oh john have no idea where you live but please feel free to peddle your line.

  54. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 03 Mar, 2011

    Yes Lindsay, we believe we are right, 'Rings forecasts were uninformed hocus pocus'. And let's be clear, Christchurch would still be in ruins whether or not Ring had made his forecasts. Ring only appeared on national TV a week AFTER the earthquake, not before. He made no real effort to warn Christchurch folk to flee their city on the 22nd. He even admitted on 'Campbell Live' that he missed the earthquake by one day (the 18th +/- 3 days), so even if Christchurch had heeded his vague warning and stayed home under the table on those days, they would still have been back at work on the 22nd.

    You ask, 'do you really think that that the planets and stars around earth are not influenced by other planets and stars?' What you have just described is pure astrology, which is pure nonsense, and no, there is negligible influence on earth from other planets and stars. As for, 'May be your galaxy is so small that God filled your void?', what galaxy do you live in? Let's keep on topic, is it planets and stars that cause earthquakes or your god? One bogus belief is enough for the moment.

    You then asked 'What's wrong or not scientific that the stars moon and sun influence us here on earth?' Why have you missed out planets this time? The simple answer is that most are too far away. Only astrologers believe that the positions of the planets and stars have a real impact on earth and its inhabitants. If you believe they do, please explain what force is acting, how and with what strength. The moon and sun do of course have a very real influence, noticeably in this context with gravity and the tides. This is Ring's argument with weather forecasting as well, if the moon is in the sky, then it is causing the weather. Yes the moon's tidal forces will be affecting the atmosphere and the earth's crust, the question is whether this influence is powerful enough to cause earthquakes (and the weather), and is so dominant that it can be clearly predicted when and where earthquakes will occur. Just because something might be possible, doesn't mean that it actually happens. Just because it is possible that orange sheep exist in the wild, doesn't mean they really exist. There is no evidence that they do, and this is Ring's problem too. Although it is plausible that the moon's gravity has an impact on earthquakes, there is no good scientific evidence that it has such an impact that it can be used to predict when and where they will occur. And Ring has failed to produce any data of his own that would support his claims. We repeat, he did not in any real sense predict either the Sep or Feb earthquakes in Christchurch. He merely threw out numerous vague predictions applicable over a large area and a wide time frame and waited until the inevitable happened. He then highlighted his flukes and buried his failures. Make enough guesses and one or two are bound to be right.

    And why didn't he predict the magnitude 4.5 in Wellington this week? Doesn't the moon make an appearance in Wellington skies? Are they in another galaxy too, or is it simply that Ring is focusing on Christchurch because with 5,000 plus earthquakes he can't help but guess a couple?

    You say that 'Silly beliefs is really good at deconstruction of arguments but small on alternatives', which we take to mean that we are good at showing where Ring's arguments are flawed, but hopeless at providing earthquake predictions ourselves. Again we ask you, what makes you think we are earthquake forecasters?

    You claim that 'Your skeptics are single minded and ability to reason is based on subjective semantics'. If by single minded you mean we refuse to use methods other than reason, say emotion or wishful thinking, to discover how the world works, then yes, we are single minded. But we don't understand what you mean in that our 'ability to reason is based on subjective semantics'. Please explain with examples. Also we don't understand this observation: 'From reading the skeptics web sites defense is the better form of attack'. Ring certainly believes we are attacking him rather than concentrating on our own defence.

    We have criticised Ring's method because is uses bogus astrology, because he has a flawed understanding of the science involved, because he will provide no evidence that his method has validity, and because he is continually presenting the public with bogus arguments and false claims in an attempt to promote his business. If Ring had discovered a method to reliably predict earthquakes and/or the weather we would support him with open arms, but we will not support someone who is merely pushing nonsense at a gullible public desperate to foresee the future.

  55. Comment by Jeff, 03 Mar, 2011

    I note that the Oxford dictionary describes 'silly' as "weak-minded"... Your use of Silly is so apt.
    I wish more people would read your site.

  56. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 04 Mar, 2011

    Thanks Jeff, but unfortunately a lot of people just want to believe, and not be burdened with all the reading and thinking that goes along with separating fact from fantasy.

  57. Comment by Natasha, 04 Mar, 2011

    just, thank you. i had to spend valuable time arguing the merits of Ken’s crackpot theories, (in the wake of the earthquakes here in NZ) with a couple of my good friends (who are, unfortunately, all too willing to be duped by people like this and unwilling to accept the science in situations like this).

    i expect to have more “conversations”. good to know you guys have my back.

  58. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 05 Mar, 2011

    We're glad we could help Natasha. It's depressing to think that we still need to have "conversations" to convince people that we have moved on from astrology.

  59. Comment by Pikey, 05 Mar, 2011

    Hello i have been reading your site along with Ken Rings, Geonets and the Cambell live interview and have found this both interesting and entertaining. I live in Christchurch and was dirrectly effected by last weeks Quake including injuries to myself and sadly the loss of a work colleage. Due to my injuries i am unable to work so for the last 2 days have found myself trying to work out how this contraption works with limited success and alot of circles being completed. If possible can you please answer a question for me as it appears to me that you guys have alot more resources at your dispossle than i which is. Is there any scientific evidence that proves 100% that the Moon, Sun and Planets can in no way effect the Earths crust and if so where can i find this evedence. I am not a believer or disbeliever in Kens theories and what ever the answer is will not change the way i live my life unless it has been proven beyond a shadow of doubt !00% to be the case until that time i like to keep an open mind to all possibilities. His preddictions dont scare me as i dont see the point in being affraid of something we have no control over fear is a negative and counter productive emotion and a waste of time. Tommorow is the Today we worried about Yesterday.

  60. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 05 Mar, 2011

    Hi Pikey, first we probably have no more resources at our disposal than you do, only Ken Ring himself believes we are backed by a huge corporation bent on his destruction.

    You ask: 'Is there any scientific evidence that proves 100% that the Moon, Sun and Planets can in no way effect the Earths crust?'

    Science can never prove anything 100%, they can only speak of increasing confidence. Scientists can provide evidence that it is extremely likely that the sun will rise tomorrow, but they can never prove it. Furthermore, it is not the job of science to prove that the moon isn't causing earthquakes, it is Ring's job to show that it is. Ring is making a claim that contradicts modern knowledge, it is his responsibility to prove his case. This he has failed, and even refused, to do.

    That said, scientific evidence shows that the moon and the sun (and maybe even some planets) definitely DO have an affect on the earth's crust. The major planets such as Jupiter and Saturn are quite distant and their ability to create tidal forces on earth would be negligible, even though technically their gravity, like their reflected light, does reach us. But both the moon and the sun, the moon because it is close and the sun because it is huge, cause the tides in the world's oceans, and they also cause tides in the earth itself, but they are difficult to notice. Ring is absolutely correct on this point. The question is not do they have an affect — they do — but whether this affect is massive enough to cause major earthquakes. And more importantly, whether we can predict when the moon and sun would cause these earthquakes.

    Ring's belief is that since the moon does have an affect on the earth's crust, then this affect is so powerful that it causes the crust to rupture resulting in earthquakes. Ring believes, contrary to science, that 'Earthquakes cause fault lines, not vice versa'. By this he seems to mean that there are no existing faults in the crust that might break, the ground is pristine until the moon passes over head and rips it apart. And he believes he can predict where and when this will happen.

    There is some evidence that the tidal forces of the sun and moon do contribute to earthquakes, and there is nothing implausible or surprising about this. The study described in this article 'Are Earthquakes Encouraged by High Tides?' found that 'very high tides, rather than a normal tide cycle, seemed to coincide with seismic activity'. This was the concluding paragraph: 'all we're really saying is that if earthquakes are going to occur anyway, [high tides] may be adding a little extra force. So we might [someday] be able to say that a quake could be more likely during a morning tidal period, for example, but not be able to know which specific morning'. They don't see the moon as causing earthquakes, but maybe giving them an extra nudge in rare cases, and note that they say this knowledge doesn't assist in predicting exactly when they will happen. This article 'Sun and Moon Trigger Deep Tremors on San Andreas Fault' makes the following comments:

    'Though tides raised in the Earth by the sun and moon are not known to trigger earthquakes directly, they can trigger swarms of deep tremors, which could increase the likelihood of quakes on the fault above the tremor zone, the researchers say.'

    "But it seems like it must be very subtle, because we actually don't see a tidal signal in regular earthquakes. Even though the earthquake zone also sees the tidal stress and also feels the added periodic behavior of the tremor below, they don't seem to be very bothered."

    'In fact, the shear stress from the sun, moon and ocean tides amount to around 100 Pascals, or one-thousandth atmospheric pressure, whereas the pressure 25 kilometers underground is on the order of 600 megaPascals, or 6 million times greater.'

    They say the sun and moon contribute to deep tremors, not that they are the direct cause of major earthquakes. They see no evidence for that. They note that the ground pressure is 6 million times greater than that contributed by the sun and moon, so this would swamp the moon's tidal influence. Ring, and many of the public, believes that if the moon can cause small tremors, then it must obviously be able to cause huge tremors. It's 'common sense'. But think of this analogy. If a young mother can easily push a baby in pram, can she also push an 18-wheeler truck loaded with logs? One does not automatically lead on to the other. The moon can influence baby tremors, but there is no evidence that it has the power to override the forces of plate tectonics and cause major quakes.

    We must also remember that the tidal forces that Ring claims are causing our earthquakes happen twice a day. We have two high tides every day which bring increased risk of earthquakes according to Ring. As for the main factors, Ring says earthquakes will cluster around the full moon and perigee, the point when the moon is closest to the earth in its orbit. Full moon and perigee occur every month. Ring also says there is increased risk of earthquakes at new moon (every month), low tide (twice a day), mid-tide (several times a day), apogee (once a month), during solar activity (daylight hours), when the moon is on the horizon (all the time), at midday and midnight, etc etc. The point is, if the moon is causing major earthquakes due to the factors that Ring pushes, then it is causing them all the time, day in, day out, month in, month out. No time is safe. The sun and moon's tidal forces don't switch on and off, they are there all the time, although they do increase and decrease based on the position of the earth to the sun and moon. Ring believes that by plotting these changes in position, eg full moon, perigee etc, that it will be shown that major earthquakes occur around these times of maximum pull. Unfortunately for Ring there is no scientific evidence to support his view. Earthquakes do not cluster around the times that he believes the moon is having it disastrous influence. His theory has been falsified. We are in the process of plotting the 20 largest earthquakes that have occurred in NZ, and only one happened on a full moon and perigee. Only one out of 20! No others even fell within a week of a full moon, when they all should have according to Ring. In fact our research (which we hope to put online shortly) shows that nearly all these earthquakes happened when there was no full or new moon, just the opposite to what Ring claims should have happened. But there is no obvious pattern between earthquakes and full moons and perigee, they appear to occur with no regard to what the moon is doing. Of course Ring can continue to say that the moon's position does influence earthquakes, just as some people say that having sex with virgins cures AIDS, but neither has done anything to prove their claims. Ring needs to convincingly demonstrate — to scientists, not the man on the street — why he can see patterns in earthquakes that no one else can.

    As the 'Campbell Live' interview stated, not one single scientist they could find supports Ring's views. Why is the public saying that the views of an astrologer are somehow equal to that of the world's scientific community? Ring believes that Maori were brought to NZ as slaves, that human civilisation existed 120 million years ago (ie with the dinosaurs) and that we can discover our cat's character and destiny by reading its paw. People shouldn't be demanding that science waste time proving Ring wrong, they should be demanding that Ring front up with evidence of his claims. Note that he refused a longer interview and another chance to explain his method on 'Campbell Live'. This is not the sign of someone desperate to get his story across, more like someone with something to hide. If you ignore the way the interview was conducted, Ring actually came off very badly, lying several times, and all this would come out in a more detailed interview. It is no wonder that Ring has refused a rematch.

    But you're quite right Pikey in that it is non-productive to worry over things that we have no control over. Even if Ring was on to something regarding the moon, if all he can say is that earthquakes are more likely around midday and midnight and the hours in between, and most days every month, then they are completely worthless. We can't spend the rest of our lives cowering under the table, fearing things that thankfully don't happen every month, or even every decade.

  61. Comment by Ross, 05 Mar, 2011

    Pssssssst... hey John, don't like to be too pedantic about things but I was reading out to my partner why Ken Ring shouldn't be bothered with and came across the date errors in your article: comments #149 and #151 by 'the Team' both attribute the Christchurch Sept Quake to 2009. Should of course be 2010!

    Other than that, I continue to love the site and advertise for you (word of mouth only of course... I'm not made of money!) on a nearly daily basis!

    Cheers, and keep up the good work.

  62. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 06 Mar, 2011

    Excellent, thanks for pointing that out Ross. We like to keep things accurate, and I've corrected the dates to 2010. I lie awake at night worrying what errors might have slipped in (no, not really). There's probably a mountain load of grammatical errors, but hopefully not too many factual ones. Or at least none that Ken Ring and his supporters have pointed out. Thanks for your support.

  63. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 06 Mar, 2011

    The following are links to some interesting articles relating to Ring's latest earthquakes predictions:

    Learning from America's Ken Ring moment

    Predicting earthquakes: Ring hedges his bets

    Scientists back Campbell in Moon Man quake prediction row

    Civil Defence refuses comment on Moon Man's March 20 quake prediction

    And on the Weatherwatch.co.nz site they're running a poll that asks this question:

    'Whether you liked or hated the interview is irrelevant — we want to ask you this question — Do you believe Ken Ring is a credible source for earthquake predictions?'
    When I entered my answer the poll was indicating that the public does indeed, by a narrow margin, believe that Ring can predict earthquakes. It was Yes = 51.47% and No = 48.53%. Or to put it another way, does the modern world with its science and facts confuse you, and do you find comfort instead in simple if erroneous answers from astrologers? And to think that many of these 'Yes' people are allowed to vote and decide on public policies, guided by nothing but belief in nonsense.
  64. Comment by Carol, 06 Mar, 2011

    The results of that poll are truly horrifying, although respondent self-selection bias should probably be kept in mind. As you folks well know, Ken Ring's belief systems don't stand up to any scrutiny whatever. This is a guy who thinks ice thaws at 4C and that CFCs can't cause ozone depletion as they are too heavy to travel to the stratosphere... his grasp of science is not even primary school level.

  65. Comment by Peter, 07 Mar, 2011

    I've just spent about 6 hours reading your site and the comments. It's 2 am. My eyes are sore and I'm tired. But it's been well worth it. Thanks for a very entertaining read, especially the exchanges between yourself and the guru himself. I'm still amazed at how many believers there are out there in forum land. It's like if anyone questions anything, all these people in denial jump out of cyberspace.

    Anyway, just wanted to make sure you've listened to Ken's interview he did with Marcus Lush after the September quake which you can listen to by googling Marcus Lush Ken Ring. He quite clearly says here there will be an earthquake on a specific faultline on a specific date and even gives an approximate time. There didn't seem any doubt. He also says that earthquakes can be predicted and he's the man to do it.

    Now I see, as the date approaches, he has changed his tune completely. It's now only an 'opinion', and he doesn't know whether it will happen, and it will only be a small one.

    It makes me so sad that so many have been terrorised by this man. And it's also sad the number of media people who have fallen for this man (in particular a seemingly intelligent broadcaster on ZB mornings based in Auckland), which have given him some credibility.

  66. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 07 Mar, 2011

    Yes Peter, Ring is a real Jekyll and Hyde character, making contradictory claims and predictions. No matter what happens he will be able to point people to one of his many media claims that exactly matches reality, while hoping the same people will be ignorant of the opposite ones. And he's right, and you too, believers come out of nowhere to support him, ignorant of both science and of what Ring does.

    Prior to the Feb quake Ring quite clearly noted on his website that regarding what might happen: 'These are opinions and not predictions', but once a devastating quake did strike, on his website he told the world that 'The latest earthquake has tragically happened as predicted'. As predicted. Once he had seen it happen he changed it from an opinion to a prediction. He knew all along. Those that reinvent the past are not to be trusted.

  67. Comment by Matt , 07 Mar, 2011

    It works

  68. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 07 Mar, 2011

    Sorry Matt, but what works? Ken's weather predictions, his earthquake predictions, his whale stranding predictions, his ability to scare the vulnerable, his ability to turn a long debunked superstition into a money making business, his ability to read the paws of cats? What exactly works?

  69. Comment by Anonymous-12, 07 Mar, 2011

    Of all the things I have read in this blog, I think the thing that struck me the most was Ken Ring's comment #130 that he was not prepared to put in the time and effort to come up with more precise earthquake predictions as he doesn't get paid for it. You would think, that if he was so sure he was right, at this terrible moment in Canterbury's history, that this is exactly what he should be doing. If right, he could save hundreds of lives and then I am sure, he would get his precious money to further his hours of computer study etc, that he needs to put in. He would be a hero nationwide and the world would be falling over themselves to get his knowledge. So either he is just too modest to want the attention, or he simply doesn't care enough about human life to put the effort in, or maybe he is just not confident in his predictions.

  70. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 07 Mar, 2011

    I think we all know which of those three options is most likely preventing Ring from putting in the time and effort to accurately predict earthquakes and save lives, and it's not modesty. If no money is changing hands then Ring won't even try.

  71. Comment by Graeme, 08 Mar, 2011

    I believe the poll on the WeatherWatch site has been impacted by multiple votes — the poll uses a cookie to track users who have voted rather than IP addresses. This can be tested using a browser in 'private' mode eg Chrome or Firefox where multiple votes are allowed.

    A more conventional poll on a forum which is by registered users and only allows one vote showed only 8% support for Ken Ring — see http://www.vorb.org.nz/ken-ring-total-arsehole-knowledgeable-fellow-t111146.html

  72. Comment by Dave, 08 Mar, 2011

    I refer to your post 205, final paragraph re the on line poll. I fear the poll will not be in favour of science — we will miss out by a a couple of % points but if we do here is why.

    Subjective validation, sometimes called personal validation effect, is a cognitive bias by which a person will consider a statement or another piece of information to be correct if it has any personal meaning or significance to them. ...
    (Dictionary Definition)

    Hence in a general sense some pseudo scientists, soothsayers, tea leaf readers, spoon benders, crystal ball readers, ghost hunters, paranormal consultants, witch doctors, psychics, para-psychologists, palmistry practitioners, tarot card readers, numerologists, astrologers, witch doctors, flamboyant deceivers, charlatans, tricksters, and those that indulge in quackery and other forms of hocus pocus and prophecies maybe don't want scientific validation of their practices, theories or accuracy of their predictions tested, because gullible people already validate it for them in their own minds and 'spread the word'. Many will confirm subjective validation in a number of ways, for example by writing charitable and grateful e mails to predictors, voting on internet polls because they like the person, or posting uninformed criticism of science and scientists on innumerable blogs advising where science has got things wrong in order to justify why the types named above have got it right. Some will provide hollow reasoning to justify support of such nonsense. Others are true believers. People are perfectly entitled to believe what they want to believe, and good on them, that's their right — however some of the clever practitioners no doubt rely on subjective validation and gullibility as a business tool.

    Scientific thinking is not biased as some of these practitioners may claim, it's the thinking of the gullible that is biased, and it is the thinking of some of the purveyors of these practices that is biased against science because by necessity for the good of their business — it has to be.

    Hence I believe Silly Beliefs serves a useful purpose by demonstrating critical thinking processes and logic to debate, dispel and accept (when proof is provided) some of these adventures into nonsense.

  73. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 08 Mar, 2011

    We agree Dave, subjective validation can be a powerful thing. We suspect that many psychics and the like only come to believe in their 'powers' because idiots keep telling them how good they are. They're not deliberately lying, they're simply deluded. Others though take advantage of their clients gullibility and rely on them to 'spread the word'.

    Remember that book called 'Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus'? Perhaps there should be another written entitled 'Skeptics are from Earth, Believers are from Another Dimension'.

  74. Comment by David, 08 Mar, 2011

    Hi, The biggest problem I have with Ken Ring is that he is spreading fear and panic in an already vulnerable community.

    Only a few days ago I had an absolutely panic-stricken acquaintance wanting me to help her out on 20 March. It took me 20 minutes to calm her down to a point where I could get off the phone. She was clearly having a panic attack.

    Your opponents don't seem to understand that theories become accepted when the hard evidence matches those theories. Ken Ring does not provide any evidence his theories are correct, and what evidence we can find clearly shows that his theory is not supported by the evidence, saves for some possible extremely minor effect, which you acknowledge anyway!

    i.e. science is prepared to consider Ken Ring's theory, but he rejects it's without consideration, even though there is a large amount of evidence to back it up.

    Ken — the world is not flat, the sun does not revolve around the earth. Gravity makes the world go round and tektonics causes earthquakes!

  75. Comment by Carol, 09 Mar, 2011

    Ken is reaching new heights of hypocrisy here:


    Without a trace of irony, it is called 'The ethics of warning'. I am, for once, actually speechless.

  76. Comment by Eyes wide open-Dunedin, 09 Mar, 2011

    Come on Ken, don't be a hold out, give us the Big Wednesday numbers! what do you mean you might only be guessing?

  77. Comment by Pikey, 09 Mar, 2011

    Hi guys, you all know my stand on Ken Rings Theories which he can not support with any substantial evidence, but maybe he can put his money where his mouth is. i am sure he is benefitting financialy from his so called predictions. Today has been the first time after my injuries that i have been able to venture out in my city that i love and we dont need his opinions, we need his money, that he is probably counting as we speak. Take care and keep up the good site.

  78. Comment by Mike, 10 Mar, 2011

    Love it! Somebody at talk.origins wonders why there are /two/ of these kooks called Ken Ring...
    See: http://www.near-death.com/experiences/reincarnation02.html

    I reckon it's probably a conspiracy by lizard-aliens.

  79. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 10 Mar, 2011

    We would say it's definitely the lizard-aliens Mike, it has their scaly MO all over it. And there's actually three 'Ken Ring's' out there with a slightly raised public profile. We have Ken Ring the astrologer, then we have Dr Ken RIng, the nutter that pushes near-death experiences and reincarnation that you mentioned, and there is also a Ken Ring who is evidently a Swedish hip-hop artist. Multiple Ken Ring's all cunningly designed to confuse us I'm sure.

  80. Comment by Anonymous-13, 11 Mar, 2011

    wow u have lots of time.. bet your kicking yourself now after he acuratly predicted febs earthquake huh? you really should have a more open mind.. maybe if we all stopd ARGUING ken rings theories, alot of lives could have been saved. if people actualy listened to him they might have double checkd their buildings were earthquake proof, but no, we were all to buisy proclaiming how wrong he was!!

  81. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 011 Mar, 2011

    What rubbish, Ring no more predicted the Feb quake than your local witch predicted the demise of the dinosaurs. Believing in the superstitious nonsense that Ring spouts is not being open minded, it's being naive, unworldly, gullible and foolish. The fact that intelligent people long ago were prepared to challenge the astrologers, witches and priests over how they thought the world worked has given us the advanced and safer society that we now have. If we again start believing in astrologers, next thing we will be sacrificing virgins to ward of flu epidemics. Listening to Ken Ring will only lower your IQ and give you the beliefs of a medieval peasant.

    And to suggest that our criticism of Ring's silly claims might have contributed to the deaths in Christchurch is frankly quite insulting.

  82. Comment by Marc, 11 Mar, 2011

    Thought you may find a posting on Ring's Facebook Predict weather wall [interesting]:

    Ken Ring
    Mike it's nothing personal. We can't have negativism nor any questioning of my right to be doing what I am doing. I am here to provide information so people can be informed, for their own safety. There are other blogs for being narky at me,... questioning my credentials, arguing over small points that don't mean anything, and trying to trap me on what I said/didn't say. I'm not running a cult and I find that suggestion offensive. People only have a short attention span. I will not let the blog get bogged down in stuff that isn't relevant. Please understand I seem to be the only one providing definite pre-event information. The "experts" all come on after the event with a whole lot to say. I don't get to speak in any media, so this is my platform. Keep it tight and you'll earn my respect. It's not a chat group, it's a fact and act group.See More 9 hours ago ·
    Also, here's the [lack of] response to a question I asked of Ring on his personal FB profile — in typical Ring style, he obfuscates once again:
    Spot on? Read Ring's writings from October 18th:
    "I would still not consider that another massive earthquake is certain, in fact I think it’s more likely not to be the case in Christchurch. I can only repeat that other well-known earthquakes ...in NZ’s history have not, as a rule revisited the same site."
    http://www.predictweather.com/ArticleShow.aspx?ID=306&type=homeSee More
    Tuesday at 4:32pm
    Ring's Response:
    Ken Ring
    Hi Marc, at that stage, the earthquakes were diminishing and following the normal pattern and it did appear that therefore it would be like other New Zealand high profile shakes - Napier, Edgecombe etc. But things changed in December and a ...new pattern emerged which indicated that Christchurch activity wasn't finished yet. A point which is always forgotten is that the moon method is best suited for timing of events and there is lesser accuracy on depth, magnitude and location. So where I might suggest location, that is only based on the recency of the pattern and little else. However, the timing is based on the moon.See More
    Tuesday at 11:42pm
    To which I put further questioning of Ring's ramblings:
    Ken, I respect the fact you replied, however you're not making any sense.
    1. What 'normal' pattern — according to what theory? It is well known that aftershocks (i.e.mag 5 aftershocks some months later are expected) and occur following a large earthquake! You are suggesting the contrary.

    2. What changed in December? What pattern are you referring to? Again, large aftershocks (1.2 less) are possible following such an event as the 7.1.

    3. Of course "Christchurch activity wasn't finished yet" —— yet you claimed it so on October 18th.

    4. Using your 'moon method' why do you not publish your 'lesser accuracy' locations and magnitude.

    5. Re timing based on moon — can you explain why you miss events using your 'moon method' where *nothing* happens combining your method of new moon, perigee etc?

    The following used as sources make sense, why cant you?
    Source: Dr. Mark Quigley http://drquigs.com/
    Source: http://www.sillybeliefs.com/ring-rc.html#commentring-1 See More
    Wednesday at 4:08pm

    In response Ring is blocking 'non-believers' and has tightened his FB privacy settings to only allow comments by 'Friends.'

    Many thanks for providing such an informative site — and debunking this charlatan.

  83. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 11 Mar, 2011

    Thanks for that Marc. As you say it's typical Ring, saying a lot but really saying nothing. We note he mentions people 'questioning my credentials', but he still makes no effort to explain what they might be. And we love when he says that 'People only have a short attention span'. Obviously he's talking about his supporters and peer group. It's such arrogance, almost as insulting as his 'Some of these farmers can't even read or write' claim.

    And what about this lie:'I don't get to speak in any media'? 'Campbell Live' invited him back onto the show for an extended interview, guaranteeing him time to explain his method. Ring refused. If he's not in the media then it is his choice. Also, he's usually going on to us about how he is always in the media (and we're not) — TV, radio and print — so again this is just Ring lying to his deluded supporters.

    Ring says 'Keep it tight and you'll earn my respect'. OK then Ken, you're an astrologer who knows nothing about predicting the weather or earthquakes. Do we have your respect now?

  84. Comment by Pikey, 15 Mar, 2011

    Hi Guys, cant believe Ken is going to get more air time. Have talked to alot of people over the last few days and they are all planning to be out of town over the next few days and think i am mad not to do the same. So i thought it might be an interesting test for Ken if he can predict the following as i know my partner would be most appreciative. Tonight i had a huge meal of curried eggs both of which dissagree with me terribly,can he predict with any accuracy when they might erupt so my partner can make sure she is out of the room at this time. She would be most grateful and prepared to donate the cost of such a prediction to the earthquake fund.

  85. Comment by Anonymous-14, 15 Mar, 2011

    Gidday Silly Beliefs Team. Well done on a great site. I believe this Ring fellow has sat down and thought "How can I make a huge wad of cash and be famous?" And so by taking historical weather and lunar reports he has attempted to predict the weather. Many people crticised John Campbell for climbing into Ring and not letting him speak. What Campbell did was a brilliant job at 'testing' the evidence. In my job, I have spent countless hours in the District Court over the last 21 years. I have been subjected to many a cross examination by Christchurch's top Barristers including a Queens Counsel. I have always told the truth but have had to have my evidence tested. This is what Campbell did. If Ring thinks he can say what he likes without scrutiny then he better think again. I don't like Paul Holmes at all but the man was very good at climbing into the bullshitters on his show. We need more 'pitbulls' like Holmes and Campbell to sort the wheat from the chaff.

  86. Comment by Terry, 19 Mar, 2011

    Wow coming across your website and hearing your bitchy attacks i wish i had never found it.
    Get your head outta your arses.
    You pull up all this stuff that he's been wrong on and dismiss his correct ones by belittling it
    What is your beef.....
    I Have been using his almanacs for 15 odd years as with many friends. It works far better than what the met service can produce.
    I can see why you would attack Ken, as anyone working outside the norm becomes fair game for petty minded folk.
    Ken obviously has a passion for the moon and such things an opinion he asks you to believe or not.
    You folk degrade this into a money making venture and see only money..... making Ken appear evil.

    What is wrong with making money from something you have a passion for........ Is his information hurting anyone?
    History is full of people who have been ridiculed for their beliefs only to be proven right later...... Maybe Ken will maybe not.....

    sillybeliefs.com should be just silly

  87. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 21 Mar, 2011

    Terry, you're quite right, there's nothing 'wrong with making money from something you have a passion for', as long as you aren't harming people. But when priests terrify children with stories of hell and torture and fool adults into continuing belief in this nonsense, then they are being harmed both emotionally and by being denied the truth. When psychic mediums charge people hundreds of dollars by pretending to talk to dead people they are harming people. When astrologers take money to plot someone's destiny, they are harming them. When Reiki therapists, homoeopaths and crystal healers charge people for their nonsense and often prevent people from seeking real treatments, they are harming them.

    Ring is harming Christchurch people emotionally by telling them that a killer earthquake would happen on the 20th Mar (it didn't), and that they should flee the city. Now he is warning about the killer quake that will strike on the 18th April. He is hampering Christchurch's recovery by telling people not to go there. He is harming those who buy his almanac financially and intellectually by convincing them to believe in his nonsense.

    You're just like Ring himself, insistent that he should be able to travel the world, sell his books and appear on the media promoting his view, but look out anyone that should express a contrary view. We have a passion for something too, and unlike Ring we aren't trying to make money from it. That passion is to expose woolly thinking and people who sell products based on nonsense. So we put your questions to you: What is wrong with doing something you have a passion for? Is our information hurting anyone? Are we not doing the same as your master, expressing a view on how the world works? Why should Ring be left alone and yet we should be challenged, insulted and told to keep quiet? Is it one rule for your friends and a different rule for everyone else Terry?

    You also claim that Ring's almanac 'works far better than what the met service can produce', and yet Ring himself disagrees with you. He continually tells people that 'I never claim I am more accurate than the metservice...'

    You say that 'History is full of people who have been ridiculed for their beliefs only to be proven right later'. This is nonsense. Nearly everyone who was ridiculed for their beliefs truly did have silly beliefs. No doubt you're thinking of a mere handful of people out of millions whose beliefs were challenged, such as Copernicus, Galileo and Darwin. But you need to remember that these few people were promoting science and were often supported by those that understood science. They were ridiculed by those mired in ancient and false beliefs. Ring is not proposing some new revolutionary scientific theory, he is proposing that we reject 'corrupt' science and return to long debunked astrology. And unlike the scientists I mentioned, Ring is unable and unwilling to provide evidence that his method works. Ring is not a scientist being ridiculed by witches and priests and astrologers, he is an ancient astrologer being ridiculed by modern scientists.

    You insult us with this silly claim: 'I can see why you would attack Ken, as anyone working outside the norm becomes fair game for petty minded folk'. Again this is rubbish. Where we live there are more Reiki practitioners than oncologists and neurologists. We know of no one that is searching for quarks or dark energy, but many that have already found God. People who read horoscopes or are religious are the norm, not skeptics and atheists. We are the minority, so by your flawed logic we should be picking on ourselves, as well as the work of cosmologists and neurologists. We challenge Ring because what he claims is nonsense and he can't support it. Like Ring you insist that we only point out his many flaws because we are petty, whereas our criticisms would be ignored if Ring would only stand up and prove his claims. Like psychics etc, Ring could prove us wrong and make us eat our words, but skulks away instead, throwing insults over his shoulder. You talk about our 'bitchy attacks' on Ring, which we deny, and we remind you that the insults and intimidation were directed at us by Ring, such as calling me a 'white supremacist red-neck jack-booted fascist nazi'. Only in Ring's mind is this the way to settle a debate, silence your opponents with insults and threats of lawyers.

  88. Comment by John, 21 Mar, 2011

    loved reading the ripostes but our office was frustrated that you hadn't described him as a 'lunar-tic'

    great work

  89. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 21 Mar, 2011

    Thanks John, and while we knew that lunatic derived from lunar, it hadn't occurred to us to refer to him as a lunar-tic, although a poster recently used the name 'Lunar Tick'. It is an apt description, perhaps brought on by staring at a full moon for too long?

    We did giggle though when the TV3 newsreader last week described all the people fleeing Christchurch over the weekend as 'Moonies'. It was meant as a put down, likening them to the Moonie cult, but no doubt Ring will be thrilled that he has followers obeying his every command, no matter how silly.

  90. Comment by Anonymous-15, 21 Mar, 2011

    "You also claim that Ring's almanac 'works far better than what the met service can produce', and yet Ring himself disagrees with you. He continually tells people that 'I never claim I am more accurate than the metservice&'
    I've read a lot of your critique of, and arguments with, Ken Ring. I only want to comment on this comment above. Ken doesn't claim he is more accurate (imagine the torrent that would be unleashed upon him if he did!), he just makes his predictions. The reality seems to be, when people who follow his weather predictions speak, that he is more accurate. Does he get credit for that on sites such as these? Hell no.
  91. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 21 Mar, 2011

    Well, Ken would disagree with you on two points. First he doesn't make predictions at all, he merely offers opinions, and opinions according to Ring can't be wrong!

    Second, Ring does make accuracy claims for his method, eg his 2011 'Predict Weather Almanac' claims '85-91% accuracy'. What Ring claims re the MetService is that based on how accurate his method is, he knows that it is not more accurate than the MetService. You say that Ring's clients give him a much better accuracy than the MetService, however Ring claims that the accuracy rates he quotes are based on reports from his clients. Why are they telling us that Ring's predictions are far superior to the MetService and yet they're only telling Ring that his predictions are as good as the MetService? Are they lying to us or to Ring? And if Ring has evidence from his clients that his method works and is far superior to the MetService, why is he pretending that it's not? Ford are prepared to say their cars are better than Holden and vice versa, why is Ring not willing to tell the truth about the accuracy of his method? Ring supposedly has data from hundreds of clients and is thus far more believable when he says his method is not superior, rather than one client who has only his own experience to judge Ring's success by. When Ring himself starts claiming that he has data from his clients that show the success of this method, then we might start believing some of his clients, but while Ring himself doesn't believe, neither will we.

  92. Comment by Tammy, 22 Mar, 2011

    I have no words to describe this guy.... clearly living in his own little delusional fantasy world where fairies live at the bottom of the garden. Cannot believe he actually has people believing this total and utter shit.

  93. Comment by David, 22 Mar, 2011

    Talking of Ken Ring, you did a deserved demolition of him, but he is a trickster, and like most tricksters his patter is based on believable propositions — I think that the proposition that the moon imposes gravitational forces on the atmosphere is most believable. What we need is a scientific experiment to the extent of the influence. I would not be surprised if there was a modest impact which would explain theories about planning by the moon. But I wouldn’t be surprised if it proved that there is no effect at all. His proposition that the location of the moon influences the size of earthquakes is also believable — in fact I saw one site that plotted earthquakes against distance to the moon which showed a very small correlation. Showing that there is a germ of truth but the main proposition is bunkum is actually better than just saying its bunkum.

    Anyway keep up the good work, I enjoyed your articles.

  94. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 22 Mar, 2011

    You're right David that 'the proposition that the moon imposes gravitational forces on the atmosphere is most believable'. As we said in our article: 'It's well known that the Moon's gravity causes tidal forces to act on the Earth and the atmosphere, as well as the more obvious oceans. The question regarding the atmosphere is not whether there is an affect, but how much?' Research has failed to show that moon's gravity is a dominant force that causes (or even influences) the weather. As we also noted, 'a mosquito would exert more gravitational pull on your arm than the moon would'. Our article is primarily about Ring's weather claims rather than earthquakes (we're planning more on his earthquake claims following recent events), but we did note on our comments page that scientists acknowledge that the moon does have an effect on the crust, but that this knowledge can't be used to predict major earthquakes.

  95. Comment by Dave, 22 Mar, 2011

    Um — did anything happen on the 20th like the South Island splitting in half? Was there a moonshot straight through the centre of the earth targetting New Zealand just before midday on an east west faultline in Marlborough or North Canterbury? Was history made? I confess I haven't noticed or heard anything — but I live in Christchurch so it is hard to tell whether a quake here is local or more remote. I did notice a very brief jolt at about 9.47pm that night but it didn't strike me as being of history book making proportion and it was well after midday. Possibly the moonshot designated pre midday missed, and came back for a second attempt that evening? Oh well — just a thought. In one news article I read re Kens prediction it stated Ken wouldn't comment until after the 20th March. Do we know if Ken has made any comment since the 20th March.

  96. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 22 Mar, 2011

    Yes Dave, just where is Ken and why hasn't he commented on his predictions? Even his website has gone into hibernation. He was happy to talk the media prior to the event. Shouldn't he be warning us of the next quake in April? Or has the moon's gravity suddenly lost its mojo?

  97. Comment by john-2, 22 Mar, 2011

    Hi silly beliefs team. I have just finished reading 200+ comments on your page regarding Kens ability to 'predict' earthquakes. Quite an interesting selection as well as plenty of babble from both sides. Personally I felt too much was directed at Ken's qualifications and his virtues or lack thereof. Whether or not Ken forgets what he might have said in the past or happens to update his predictions, or is not up to date with correct definitions of words, or the eating patterns of whales does not prove that his general ideas are wrong.

    I started reading the comments section with the view that it made sense that if the moon affected the tides then it could also affect the mantle and thus increase the chance of earthquakes at certain times. I think you might also agree with that statement. But obviously such statements can be misleading if you don't quantify. (a 0.1% increase for example isn't going to change the status quo and would be better not mentioned)

    I especially enjoyed the comments from dave who tried his best at least at the start to be as cordial in his questions and comments as possible. One question to Ken was about probabilities he might attribute to his earthquake predictions (comment 107) to which Ken replied "that is a nonsense question and a waste of my time.". My opinion on this is that it is a reasonable question. A person who writes for the general population might consider upgrading his system by looking at some past predictions to see which ones worked and which ones didn't and try to figure out what was different, especially for serious events like earthquakes.

    dave also suggested Ken have his methods validated by some kind of earthquake prediction center in comment 123. I understand that Ken is busy but this might be worth his time and effort not for his personal glorification but for the good of mankind and also perhaps to help hone his system which is obviously lacking at this time. I spent hours reading through this stuff so will keep my 2cents worth short.

    I still believe that the moon in conjunction with other unknown factors may be one cause or increase the chance of earthquakes but I am not convinced from the results of Ken's data or his comments to this page. The weatherwatch poll is now 57% to Ken Ring. Good on ya mate i figure you'll probably win this unless something changes in which case there's a good change you'll lose. I would also like to add a link to a very good page outlining how to test probabilities of Ken's success. I'm sorry if it was already posted here somewhere.


  98. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 23 Mar, 2011

    Hi John. You noted that 'Personally I felt too much was directed at Ken's qualifications and his virtues or lack thereof', and many stated this view after the 'Campbell Live' interview. You're correct that Ring's qualifications are irrelevant in one sense. If he's right about the moon then he's right, regardless of whether he has the qualifications. However the reason we have questioned Ring's qualifications is because he tries to shut down criticism by implying that he is eminently more qualified than his opponents. He compares what he does with doctors and lawyers with qualifications and expertise. As we said in our article, we don't have the appropriate qualifications either, but we don't appear in the media and travel the world promoting a product and pushing a particular view of science, telling all who will listen that corrupt government-paid scientists are 'frauds and liars', that science and weather organisations are 'corrupt' and 'much science has become quackery'. We don't insist that science has been 'relegated... to the status of religion' and 'gone are the times when science could predict anything useful'. We don't claim that we're promoting a product 'as a scientist', or insist that 'I can take criticism, but not from someone who is not a scientist', or group ourselves with 'climatologists and meteorologists', all which imply Ring is a scientist, an expert in science. We don't insist that meteorologists are 'people who don't know what the heck they are talking about' and that farmers are 'the only people who know anything at all about weather'. We don't claim to know more about science than scientists, issuing such statements as, 'I have pointed out before that the mathematics of the moon's gravitation is poorly understood and wrong in many cases'. We don't chide people when they question our claims with: 'Perhaps you forget that I have a university science education'. If Ring wants to pretend he's a scientist and that he alone understands why science has got it wrong, then it is appropriate to ask what qualifications give him this expertise. He wants to be known as a lunar scientist, so it is appropriate to ask why he can call himself a scientist and a plumber can't.

    You also mentioned Ken updating his predictions. This shows Ken is dishonest, but you're right, it doesn't necessarily show his basic belief is wrong. It does show he doesn't understand how to use this belief to predict earthquakes though, otherwise he wouldn't need to alter his predictions to match what actually happened.

    And we agree that he should have answered Dave's questions, rather than just saying 'that is a nonsense question and a waste of my time'. But that is how Ring responds to questions that might show up flaws in his method. And as you say, if Ring is doing all this for the 'good of mankind', as he implies in the media, you'd think he'd be spending the time proving to the scientific community that his method has merit, rather than just targeting the man on the street who has little understanding of the science.

  99. Comment by Garth, 23 Mar, 2011

    I'm from Christchurch, and in my opinion, which apparently cant be wrong (according to ring) he needs a bullet. My wife left Christchurch taking our son with for fear of rings "prediction". The fact that he spurts out his inane babble with nothing to back it up and is surprised when people challenge him about it shows how full of shit he is. If his method works, why not PROVE it and shut everyone up?

  100. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 23 Mar, 2011

    Indeed Garth, why won't Ring prove his method works and make us skeptics and the scientists that he ridicules admit that we are wrong? We've asked the same of psychics and mediums. They claim to be able to prove their claims and they hate that we call them frauds and deluded, and yet they won't make any real attempt — apart from insults — to prove us wrong and shut us up. What are they afraid? The worldwide fame and wealth that would come with proving their claims true?

  101. Comment by Garth, 23 Mar, 2011

    I remember a comment that someone made on the other ken ring blog about using his almanac for 15 years, checking the wikipedia link and then doing my own research in this i discovered that he has only 10 almanacs not 15, so this person is obviously lying.
    Also, my wife took our son to palmerston north last week due to fear of ken's prediction's, now i hear he's made another one april sometime, and this has prompted my wife to stay in palmerston north for fear of ken's prediction, which has resulted in her losing her job as her workplace was unaffected by the quakes. in all honesty ken ring needs to shut up with his lies, bullshit and moneygrubbing and leave us alone.
    apologies if this comes across as ranting i typed this at 6:21 Am after working in the CBD of Christchurch.
    i think you guys do a wonderful job at this and you should keep it up.

  102. Comment by Madeleine, 23 Mar, 2011

    I have just found your blog! Fabulous stuff.

    After February's quake and March's prediction, I reviewed Ring's chart of predictions oh sorry I mean opinions for 2011, noting that he had opined earthquakes of 6+ for a total of 55 days of the year, and compared this with the worldwide occurrence of 6+ earthquakes of about 130 per year. I did not doubt that he would eventually get one right, especially if you allow +/- 3 days as that ought to cover most of the year.

    Soon after the Japan earthquake I tried his site to see if he'd actually picked that as one of the 7+ days. However, to my dismay, his website was down. How...suspicious.

    I very much wish I had saved his calendar of predic...opinions.

  103. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 23 Mar, 2011

    Well Madeleine, it seems you're being naughty, and doing something that Ring doesn't what people to do, and that is to check his claims against reality. You're just supposed to believe!

    And yes, his website is still missing the crucial documents. I mean, we're sometimes slow at doing things on ours, but Ring is running his as a business, not a hobby.

  104. Comment by Garth, 23 Mar, 2011

    Actually i was wrong about the other blog, it was this one "I Have been using his almanacs for 15 odd years as with many friends. It works far better than what the met service can produce."

  105. Comment by Garth, 23 Mar, 2011

    This comment was made by ken ring:

    "Christianity decreed that all scientific prediction was anti-God"
    Hey Ken, you do realize that there are Christian scientists right ?
    and they scientifically predict
    so are these christian scientists anti-god ??
    and it was the christian scientists that discovered how Moses was able to part the river and it was not the divine power of god
    it was nature.
  106. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 24 Mar, 2011

    For people to believe him, Ring has to expound on a theory that explains why astrological predictions are ignored by scientists, and his claim is that 'Christianity decreed that all scientific prediction was anti-God'. It didn't, but even if it did, does Ken actually believe that the Vatican controls what scientists do in their labs as they did in the days of Galileo? And as you say Garth, there are plenty of Christian scientists, so are they about to face the Inquisition? Prediction is an important part of any scientific theory, and scientists openly do it every day. Scientists ignore astrological predictions because they are based on nonsense, because they don't work, not because they are 'predictions'.

  107. Comment by Anonymous-16, 24 Mar, 2011

    I am stunned and amazed that there are still people out there with the logic and critical thinking skills to put together such a detailed and comprehensive blog.
    I have just spent the last day and night reading the Ken Ring topic and I think it's brilliant how you have collected all the relevant information together so that people can make up their own minds.

    You my friend, have given me back my faith in human intelligence. The whole Ken Ring thing and his misguided supporters has put a bad taste in my mouth for quite sometime now and I was beginning to despair that civilization was falling back into the dark ages and that soon I would be seeing my astrology trained doctor for a course of leeches.

    Your argument against Mr Ring's methods has no holes that I can find and now that I've read this I will be sending everyone I know to the Silly Beliefs — Ken Ring page.

    P.S To all the people who bleat about the cruel defamation of Ken Ring; It isn't defamation if it is true. And to be honest I think that Silly Beliefs has been totally restrained in both their presentation of the information and in their replies to the man himself.

    Long live Silly Beliefs, a voice of reason in an overly credulous and ignorant world.

  108. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 25 Mar, 2011

    For those needing another resource to point Ring supporters to, this is worth a read:

    "The NZ Skeptics website now has a section on it looking at the claims by Ken Ring with regard to earthquake prediction. Check it out here:


    We've taken the seemingly novel approach of seeing how the claims stack up, what the support is for them, how good the predictive value is. While it may not convince his supporters and celeb endorsers, we think the evidence speaks for itself..... "

  109. Comment by Dave, 25 Mar, 2011

    I posted the following on Brian Edwards Media site and he suggested it was a gem and I should send it to the Listener or a Metro Paper. I thought, no Silly Beliefs can have it:

    My Diary — Christchurch — Sunday 20th March — Weather Wet — Prediction Was Fine.

    Had a great nights sleep, not a thing worrying me and yep the Crusaders won. Got up at 8.00am, had a shower (damn — the waters still pretty cold — when is that guy coming to fix my hot water cylinder again? Wasn’t it last week? Texted apologies re Highlanders loss to friend in Dunedin then read the Sunday Times. Geez it was in the gutter again — wiped off dirty silt. Checked lotto numbers — an Aucklander won it. Typical. I needed the dosh to do a few house repairs to the roof, windows, walls and foundations, and to replace my second replacement beer fridge in six months (plus contents thereof — it’s entirely inappropriate to go and ask the Red Cross or Sally Army for funds to replace my beer fridge and contents) — and they say lightening never strikes twice in the same place — well bloody earthquakes do. Can’t anyone predict earthquakes correctly? Should know the answer just before midday.

    10.00am picked up the phone and rang around friends to see who was still left in town. They all were. Invited them over for an impromptu “celestial tomfoolery” party. We’ll start just after midday I said because there was an event I wanted to check out just prior to.

    11.00am — prepared some food and a leg of lamb for the BBQ and threw her in. Couldn’t get any rosemary for the lamb from the garden though — forgot — there is now no garden. Damn. Cracked open a white — lovely — bit earlier than usual I confess but it needed to be saved from further potential quake damage just before noon, and besides could it be the last Marlborough vintage after today. I have two bottles of it — what will the second fetch on Trade Me if Marlborough slides into the ocean today. Hope is not yet lost for the beer fridge replacement.

    11.30am got dressed in my disaster clothes of lounge slippers, blue jeans and crusaders t shirt. Hope the moonshot straight through the centre of the earth doesn’t come up through the floor of the one undamaged room in the house. The garage would be preferable — right where the beer fridge used to be would be acceptable to me. It seems to be the target zone.

    11.40am — it’s just before midday now. Must go outside. Get camera. May be able to record the looming disaster and sell footage to TV3 if still alive or competent to negotiate. (further beer fridge replacement option — desperate stuff) Stepped through gap in wall covered by blue warehouse tarpaulin. What a bargain — keeps the rain out but not the cold — still can’t have it both ways. Was it a door or window that used to be there?

    11.45am house shook slightly — a quake — no — that damn earthmoving truck full of silt was going down the street again. Something touches head. Where did THAT bit of tile come from. Told my wife if she sees me running just before midday trying to avoid a moonshot- best for her to try and keep up with me. Stood outside till 12.10pm when first guest arrived carrying Steinies in a large bucket of ice. Bless him. I’ve had enough of waiting for something to happen that’s not going to happen I thought. Back to the white wine. Hopes of profiting from the predicted disaster are dashed. I feel guilty at my callousness. Need to save empty white wine bottle as a candle holder — had plenty of candles in disaster kit but no holders on the 22nd. Very bad planning.

    Texted friend in North Canterbury. Had anything untoward happened up there — had he noticed if the South Island had split in half. All’s well and not that he had noticed he responded. Texted friend in Blenheim — was he okay or was Blenheim now a suburb of Waikanae? We’d never give a Crusaders franchise region to Wellington he responded. Great — Marlborough is more disaster resistant than I thought.

    12.15pm to 9.30pm. Lost time but lot’s of fun. The Celestial Tomfoolery Political Party was formed. Executive decision was not to offer earthquake predictors the opportunity to stand in Christchurch seats because that would be political suicide. Anyone can be a member though — sceptics and predictors and even scientists and broadcasters and journos. All are welcome. Subs are 10 bucks a head — first purchase on the books will be party beer fridge. Still short though — need a recruiting drive.

    9.47pm. What the hell was that — a quake or that damn silt truck again. Must have been a quake or aftershock — one or the other. Few things tipped over but it didn’t last for long. Seemed pretty mild but judgement may be impaired by the whites and steinies. In fact was it me that was wobbly or the house? However best off to bed now and check to see if the 9.47pm quake was the one for the history books. Best to check tomorrow as it takes time to rewrite history. Can’t anyone predict earthquakes accurately?

  110. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 26 Mar, 2011

    Excellent Dave, but do we detect a little sarcasm creeping into your diary?

  111. Comment by Garth, 26 Mar, 2011

    It has taken me a while to decide to actually type this reply as i consider the great loss of life and how it could effect some of your readers, i have obviously decided to go ahead with typing and sending it, and would like to say that i do not disrespect the people that have died nor do i disrespect their loved ones.

    I had a thought last night, that IF ken ring had prior knowledge to the Feb 22 earthquake and had evidence as he claims to and considering his "ethics of warning" shouldn't he have gone to the PROPER authorities and said the he believed that there would be a massive earthquake on Feb 22 and say here is my evidence. Had he gone to say, the E.Q.C, civil defense and the mayor with said evidence something could have been done to reduce the loss of life. Since he did not do this and instead went to the media and the public and not the people that could have done something about it, logically is not the blood of all the people that died on ken ring's hands ??

  112. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 26 Mar, 2011

    The problem is Garth that Ring will (and does) adopt the same weak defence that the psychics from 'Sensing Murder' use, and that is that the powers that be, those that could take action, won't take any notice of him. They claim that his evidence is worthless, and so Ring would place any responsibility solely at their feet for ignoring his pleas.

    Ring needs first to convince scientists of his evidence, and they could convince civil authorities. This he has failed to do. Like most pushing pseudoscience, Ring relies on the scientific illiteracy of the man and woman on the street to sell his ideas.

  113. Comment by Garth, 26 Mar, 2011

    Yes you are right john, he also needs to man-up and admit he was soooo completely and utterly wrong, scientists admit when they were wrong, why can't ring? The way i see it the fact that he has been quiet would/should hopefully suggest the he has come to realize that he has been wrong and with any luck we wont be hearing from him again.

  114. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 26 Mar, 2011

    He has been very quiet, and his website is still sans the crucial documents. We can't see him admitting that he's wrong, that would be like getting the Pope to admit that god doesn't exist. Ring will just be lying low and hoping that this embarrassing episode hasn't affected the sale of his weather prediction almanacs (which also use astrology), and that news of his public failure and ridicule hasn't reached his clients in Aussie and Ireland. We suspect it has, or soon will.

  115. Comment by Garth, 26 Mar, 2011

    I consider myself to be on the harsher side of giving my opinion (i dont sugar coat things) so i sincerely hope that ring has learned his lesson and keeps quiet, i make no attempt to hide the fact that i dont like him as a person, and am justified in saying so by the way he responds to criticism (personal attack and threats of legal action), i also believe he MUST be held accountable for the things he has said, be they predictions or forecasts or opinions, he should be held accountable for the things he writes and for all the threats he has made against the people that have exposed him for the fraud he is.

    This will be my last post about ken ring, as every time a talk about him i get more and more pissed off, unless he comes out of hiding to make more fake predictions and false forecasts.

    You at sillybeliefs.com have done a wonderful job at not only exposing ken ring, but all the other topics you cover as well, i will be reading more of them and sending people your way at every chance i get.

  116. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 27 Mar, 2011

    Thanks Garth, and yes, let's hope we can now all get on with coping with the problems of the real world without having to worry about Ring's predictions of doom from the stars.

  117. Comment by Anonymous-17, 27 Mar, 2011


    You are a freak that cannot predict correctly and IF you could Christchurch citizens would be in a better place!! However we are in a better place, so go to HELL where you belong.

  118. Comment by Rob-3, 30 Mar, 2011

    I came across your blog while attempting to find out more about Ken Ring, he was in the news a bit lately, and have been pleasantly surprised by the quality of argument ­ well, from one side at least. It is reassuring to know that there are still rational people around.

    The point I would like to make, there are almost too many to choose from, is Mr Ring's insistence that he is not making predictions, merely offering opinions. Now correct me if my logic is flawed here but if I go to a web site with the address www.PredictWeather.com I'm pretty sure I know what I'm going to get. It would be akin to going to extremeporn.com and instead finding a collection of 1970's bedroom-farce plays, with Richard Briars as the vicar. I think anyone would be a little disappointed.

    The only person who really knows if Ken Ring is being purposefully deceitful is Ken Ring, but he doesn't help his case at all with his slippery, evasive and disingenuous literary contortions over what exactly the service is that he is providing. Has anyone checked to see if www.weatheropinions.com is available?

    Neither is it a surprise that his first resort to any questioning of him or his methods that are not to his liking is vituperative invective. It only exposes the paucity of his argument.

  119. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 31 Mar, 2011

    Yes Rob, only the dull of mind are fooled by Ring saying he is only offering opinions and not predictions, but depressingly we have seen a number defend him on this point. But these types of scams only survive by targeting those unwilling or unable to think rationally. Like religion, you can't get rid of it, only try and limit its influence.

  120. Comment by Fred, 31 Mar, 2011

    Hey guys, just want to say how tremendously valuable I find your site to be. I have referred people to your site via on blog and will do so when someone needs a quick reference on the cranks in our country (yes I am a Kiwi). Loving the coverage of Ken Ring on your guys site. I threw together a post on him recently:

    I also see Garth George is at his anti-women's rights best again today in the Herald. As for Wishart, not sure what he's up to — seems he has tamed his pro-christain rants in Investigate (the further you go back, the more Fox News like that mag was).

    Anyway, keep up the good work. Your efforts are important and appreciated.

  121. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 31 Mar, 2011

    Thanks Fred. We suspect Ring thought that his earthquake predictions would elevate him to celebrity status in NZ, when in fact the increased public exposure may well have fatally damaged his business. So it's good to see people like yourself clearly explaining why it's all nonsense. The more skeptical coverage Ring receives, the less support he'll get. We also note that you have some interesting posts on skepticism and religion on your blog, so we must find time to read more.

  122. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 01 Apr, 2011

    Today MikeC sent us the following link on a great deal for Ken RIng supporters:

    Ken Ring Deal

    This is how it begins:

    Today you will pay just $29 for an entry to Ken Ring's one day only weather and earthquake prediction seminar on May 16, PLUS an advance copy of his book, "Ken Ring: How I predict things science can't" (worth $149). And as an added bonus, you will also receive his new audio series on how to read your dog's mind...
    OK, so it's an April Fools joke, but it's so close to reality that it could almost be true!
  123. Comment by David, 02 Apr, 2011

    Here is a Discussion Article I have posted on Geonet:

    "Reflections after 20 March" - This is the Title of Ken Ring's subsequent article (dated 2 April 2011) on his website http://www.predictweather.com/ArticleShow.aspx?ID=346&type=home

    "The correlation was there, of solar activity combined with unusual moon-closeness between February-April of this year, to bring about very extreme events in nature. The moon was at its closest for 19 years. Christchurch and Japan have shown what can happen when this occurs. "

    But wait a minute, the mag 9.0 Japan quake occurred at 5:46UTC on 11 March. At that time, the moon was 396,496km away or 12,097 km further away that it's average midpoint of 384,399km. So the moon was not even "close" at the time of the Japan quake - it was still approaching. Furthermore, the moon was a waxing crescent, approx 6 days old - almost half way between new moon and full moon!

    As for the 5.1 Christchurch quake on 20th March - it was an aftershock, and one that Geonet correctly forecasted was due to occur, based on years of data on earthquake aftershocks.

    Mr Ring forecasted a mag 7+ quake for 20th March. It did not happen. Anywhere. According to USGS data, 5.9 was the strongest on 19 March, and 6.0 on 20 March.

    To date this year, there has been only one day (27th Feb) where there has NOT been an earthquake of at least Mag 5 somewhere in the world. The largest on Feb 27th was 4.9.

    Mr Ring has repeatedly denied that he “predicts” earthquakes. But see Mr Ring’s chart “Earthquake Timings 2011” in his article “How to Predict Earthquakes” on his “Predict Weather” website. Now Mr Ring says, “... I am no longer prepared to issue predictions of potential earthquake timings.”

    In his latest article “Reflections after 20 March”, Mr Ring states, “I will post more about the lunar theory in a general way, but from now onwards, to find out suggested at-risk days, readers will have to go to offshore sites that are still predicting the likelihoods of earthquake events for NZ, run by scientists who like myself are using lunar indicators, and yet are not labelled scaremongers. There is the excellent 'thebarcaroller' website, Amit the Indian scientist, and Richard Nolle, also Piers Corbyn of the UK's WeatherAction.”

    Thebarcaroller uses SimSolar charts that are not to scale, draws straight lines on them, and incorrectly claims that they are planetary alignments. He then predicts massive earthquakes based on his alignments. Please see my 3 Youtube videos where I expose Thebarcaroller’s non-existant “planetary lineups”, part 3 is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPHVrT4ViWQ

    If Thebarcaroller qualifies as a “scientist” then there is no hope for anyone! But I certainly would label him as a “scaremonger”.

    Mr Ring says, “Sadly, until the media and scientific climate in NZ changes, it is unsafe and unwise for me to issue opinions on future earthquake potential timings, regardless of their accuracy.” I think it is fair to say there is now a wealth of analysis of Mr Ring’s “forecasts” that show that there is no accuracy at all. An analysis of the first 3 months of his chart “Earthquake Timings 2011” shows that he has failed completely — not just in New Zealand, but worldwide. The chart is clearly of no value whatsoever.

    When I first heard of Mr Ring and his “forecasts”, I approached his theory with an open mind. His theories seemed to make sense to me. We know that the moon does in fact influence the Earth by causing the tides that move millions of tons of ocean every day. So I decided to test Mr Ring’s theories against the record of major quakes in New Zealand since 1843. I found that out of 29 major quakes, only one coincided with a full moon (perigee/full tide event). Statistically, this is to be expected, as there are 29.53 days in a lunar month. Please see my discussion article on Geonet: Actual Data NZ Quakes and the Moon

    I published by research online, and as a result, my earthquake chart was actually used by Mr Ring in his subsequent article “The Ethics of Warning” (8 March 2011). Mr Ring modified the 4th column of my chart to show “Moon” data. In this column, Mr Ring uses “+/- 4 days” applied to full moon, new moon, king tides, perigee and apogee. By doing so, Mr Ring’s “forecasts” cover 80 to 100 percent of the month. Please see my Youtube video: What Is Wrong With Ken Rings Forecasting Charts? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9sq6M--MyQ

    If ever there was a time when Mr Ring’s Moon theory would be tested, it was on 20 March when the so-called “supermoon” event occurred. We had all the factors important to Mr Ring’s theories — a moon that was the closest to the Earth it had been for 18 years, a full moon and a king tide. Yet nothing significant happened anywhere. Just the usual aftershocks and small magnitude quakes. Nothing like the massive Mag 7+quake that Mr Ring had forecast.

    Mr Ring has denied making claims that there world be a massive quake in Christchurch on 20 March, but the fact that he did can not be disputed.

    Mr Ring is on record as stating "the morning of 20 March 2011 sees the South Island again in a big earthquake risk", and, "All factors should come together for a moon-shot straight through the centre of the earth and targeting NZ. The time will be just before noon. It could be another for the history books."

    In a discussion on one of his Facebook pages, Mr Ring responded:
    “I have refined the article so it more palatable for the media..., should they decide to look. My guess would be that the death count will double or triple when they realise how many people just walking along the street would have been drawn under by liquefaction. The media is still intent on showing a sugary version but the horror is still hanging in the air. The tragedy is that the town planners have known for decades that this would happen one day; there were seismic impact reports done in the 1990s. Another thing, an aftershock is another earthquake. No piece of a new high tide is a left-over from a previous high tide.” (25 February 2011)

    And of course we have seen the Australian Television interview where Mr Ring recommended that people stay away from Christchurch on 20 March.

    Now that 20 March has passed without significant event, and we have allowed the suggested +/- 4 days, I believe that Mr Ring’s moon theory can well and truly be buried. There is clearly no need for any already fragile Christchurch residents to be worried with each new approaching full moon.

    Thankfully, we can now all put this “luna-cy” behind us.

  124. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 03 Apr, 2011

    Oh, if only Ring's lunacy was all behind us David. The fact that he has come out of hiding and is posting new articles defending his astrological method and his actions indicates that he has learnt nothing.

    In the very first paragraph of his latest article he tries to claim that an earthquake in Twizel on Mar 20 proves him right after all: 'some might say close to the initial suggestion of 'around lunchtime' and possibly close enough to location to add credence to the lunar/earthquake/kingtide theory'.

    He admits that there is also no science for earthquake prediction', and yet contradicts himself further on by insisting that 'Overseas, studies are well advanced linking lunar and seismic activity'. He blantently claims that 'It has been eye-opening to realise that there is no NZ media prepared to discuss the lunar theory in a calm objective way', and yet in the next paragraph he admits that 'I was offered 5 mins of unedited time each on Campbell Live and then on Close Up, and invitations to write editorials for both Herald-on-Sunday and NBR. There were offers from RadioLive (to be in the studio with Willie and JT), RadioNZ, and for unedited articles and interviews for NZ Herald, Dominion, The Press and the ODT... I declined all...'

    Ring pleads that 'All I have ever offered has been an interesting correlation between astrological factors... I will post more about the lunar theory in a general way for those still interested in understanding what is a complex science'. Ring is still trying to pretend to his gullible supporters that astrology is a science.

    It's just lie after lie with Ring, and he finishes with more pleading: 'Smear campaigns and finding scapegoats never rebuilt a city'. Or in other words, you've got better things to do than picking on little ol' me, so please leave me alone. I've got nonsense to peddle.

  125. Comment by Phill, 03 Apr, 2011

    Ken Ring may finally have his first victim - according to various news outlets this week. Hawkes Bay teen Lachan Kelly-Tumarae killed in a police shooting was originally sent to Christchurch to get him clear of the gangs in his home town. His mother, bless her, believed Ken Ring's prediction of another killer earthquake on the 20 March and sent him back home. Sadly it seems back into the clutches of the gangs and finally into an armed confrontation with police. The reality is believing in silly things can get you killed.

  126. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 03 Apr, 2011

    Yes, we saw that item Phill but never made the connection, but you're right, if not for Ring's scaremongering, that youth might well still be alive.

  127. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 03 May, 2011

    More often than not media headlines deliver only bad news, but occasionally we read some that bring long awaited good news. For example yesterday we read that Osama bin Laden, Muslim terrorist, mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, founder and head of Al Qaeda had finally been located and was killed in a firefight.

    But as one man comes out of hiding, another goes in. Late last month these headlines were also appearing in papers around the country:

    Ken Ring now fears for his life
    'Moon man' in hiding after death threats
    'Moon man' fears breaking law
    'Moon man' hides
    We can be flippant about these headlines because we don't for a moment believe Ring is in any real danger, except from his own ego and sense of celebrity.

    The article, they all seem to have derived from a WAIRARAPA TIMES-AGE interview, tells us that Ring has 'has gone into hiding after receiving death threats' and has 'quit his Auckland home amid fears for himself and his family'. Note that Ring claims that there are people that want to kill, not just him, but his family as well. Ring is an old man and yet he evokes the image that he is a young family man, surrounded by terrified young children likely to be killed in the crossfire. And this delusional fear for himself and his family is not new, before the earthquake predictions Ring was using the same accusations to intimidate those who criticised his astrological weather predictions. Responding to criticism on the internet, in one comment he said: 'My family and I are as hurt as if you all went on a killing rampage of us for sport'. In another he moans that 'It has been a group conspiracy to cause me and my family, and our business and livelihood, grief'. What a disgusting assertion that criticising his belief in astrology is just as hurtful to him as if we slaughtered his family, and that his critics might even contemplate such a heinous act. Could it be that Ring truly can't understand the difference between mass murder and intellectual debate, that he sincerely believes people are as obsessed about his failed astrological predictions as he is that they are willing to commit murder? I'm sure there are people who would verbally abuse Ring in the street and might even throw an ice cream at him, but we doubt there is a terrorist cell plotting to assassinate him and his family. Ring cries that 'It's like I'm being burned at the stake like a witch. I thought those days were over.' Again Ring appears to have no comprehension of what 'being burned at the stake' actually means, again implying that challenging his astrology claims is the same as physically trying to kill him. All these tearful claims of violent persecution are merely a blatant attempt to garner sympathy.

    But we do like the thought of Ring hiding in some shady motel under the name Mr Green, wearing a trench coat, hat and dark glasses, afraid to answer the door and jumping every time the phone rings. Although knowing Ring he probably couldn't resist giving himself the title of Professor Green.

    But is Ring really in hiding, or has he just gone on holiday or on business overseas and decided to use his absence as a publicity stunt? Ring is famous for exaggeration, misdirection, fudging the facts and outright lies. In the article he moans that 'I've been virtually told by [ACC minister] Dr Nick Smith and Sir Peter Gluckman [the prime minister's scientific advisor] that I'm not qualified to put statements out about earthquakes. They will have me legally if I do that. Until they reverse that, I'm completely bound to silence. I don't want to go to jail'.

    We see this excuse as nothing more than Ring being fearful of further public ridicule and needing to find someone to blame for his own retreat from the public glare. Ring is claiming that he wants to continue warning us about earthquakes but Big Brother's threat of incarceration is the reason for his silence. This is rubbish. Note that Ring has said that he has 'shunned all interview requests' since the Campbell Live interview, which occurred before the comments from Smith and Gluckman. Fear of prosecution hasn't shut Ring up, fear of further damage to his reputation and business has. Yes he has gone into hiding, deleting all his earthquake prediction articles from his website and cancelling engagements and interviews, but in an attempt to limit damage to his brand. Ring didn't go back on Campbell Live or the other shows when invited because he knew his nonsense would be exposed. In the comments we've read from Smith and Gluckman none have threatened Ring with jail, they merely criticised his predictions, the nonsense he used to arrive at them and the stress and fear he was generating in gullible minds.

    And if Ring really had 'shunned all interview requests' as he claims, fearful of breaking the law, then how does he explain the interview that generated this article about his going into hiding and the reasons for it? Ring is still granting interviews, but only on his terms, with media that he feels he can fool. In the interview that he supposedly hasn't made, Ring ends by informing us that 'He will continue making astrological weather forecasts for New Zealand but will for now hold his tongue about earthquakes in the Shaky Isles'. Is he telling the truth, is he fearful of going to jail as he claims? Of course not since he concludes the interview and article with yet more earthquake predictions: 'Scientists are now saying it'll be February 2013 before it stops but they're just making it up. After this month the moon moves away, the Jupiter Saturn effect moves away that's been causing solar activity, and it'll be the end of the main part of the earthquake sequence. Things will die down then.' As usual with Ring, it's just nonsense, lies and more lies, and it's worrying that the reporter didn't notice.

    Ring also claims that he 'has had to cancel live engagements in Christchurch'. But that can only be a good thing right? Haven't Christchurch folk suffered enough? Note also that Ring wants our sympathy because he has been forced to seek 'medical help for stress'. One astrologer suffers stress after causing stress for thousands of Cantabrians, perhaps he now has some inkling of the psychological harm he has caused, but we doubt it.

    Ring also states that 'I've not made a penny from earthquake predictions — it's not my business. I do it to help people'. Does he really believe this, or just hope that we will? This is like a celebrity saying they make no money from signing autographs and being friendly with fans. They don't, but they know only too well that it is their positive public image that keeps their fans loyal. They need to keep their face and their name in the public arena and they know that this will lead to sales down the track. If it hadn't badly backfired on Ring, his free media exposure regarding earthquakes would have been the best publicity his weather prediction business had ever received. Unfortunately for Ring the world wasn't ready for a return to ancient soothsaying and superstition, and following the very public failure of his predictions, Ring fled into hiding, dragging his protesting family with him.

  128. Comment by Dave, 20 Jun, 2011

    Oh dear — add another headline to your list John — "Ring's quake-call right on"


    Be interested in your views on this wee gem.

    Ah well — the adventures into this moon stuff and nonsense continue.

  129. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 21 Jun, 2011

    The media just don't learn do they Dave? They rightly criticise Ring for his pseudoscience and expose him as one of the biggest idiots in the public eye for 2011, then after chasing him into a cave somewhere, they then coax him out and hand in hand assist him in rebuilding his fan base. Even if most readers only glance at the article's headline, they are fooled into thinking that Ken Ring has got it right yet again: 'Ring's quake-call right on', and that perhaps we were all wrong to condemn him. Obviously the Herald believes that nonsense sells more papers than does rational reporting of the facts.

    And not surprisingly Ring himself has willingly reneged on his promise to stop making earthquake predictions. Let's recall what he vowed to the NZ public:

    In a recent article on my website I expressed that because of the way some were misinterpreting my intentions, albeit accelerated by the media, it would be best stop talking about potential earthquake timings after April... I gave that assurance and unless there is some media or politician-led change I do intend to be true to that word.
    To our knowledge no media or politician have changed their view of Ring, none have openly admitted that they were wrong and that Ring might actually know what he's talking about. In another article on his website he states:
    I undertook not to speak to any media from 28 February onward and I have remained true to this.
    So if Ring can be trusted, if he is true to his word, why then is he again making earthquake predictions on RadioLive and talking to the Herald on Sunday? Regarding Monday, June 13, 2011, when Christchurch was hit by a 6.3M earthquake, two days prior on RadioLive Ring evidently said:
    I'm still expecting a bit of earthquake risk around, or on, Monday to come from that in the Christchurch to Wellington region, plus or minus a day or so.
    And thus the Herald on Sunday entitles their article following an interview with Ring as 'Ring's quake-call right on'. Ring has sworn not to predict quakes or do media interviews, and yet here he is pretending to predict quakes and doing interviews. He has lied to us on two counts. Actually three counts, because he gave the interview from his Auckland home, so he's not in hiding, as he claimed to be, after all. In fact in another article on his website he implies that reports of his going into hiding, the death threats and stress were all lies invented by the media: 'The media seem to be at it again... This is ludicrous... the media nonsense that has Ken Ring hiding in secret locations, claiming continuing death threats, seeking medical help for depressions... The NZ Herald asked me for an interview 3-days ago, about where I was supposed to be "hiding". Last week New Idea Magazine wanted the exclusive on the "death threats".' And yet strangely Ring has not officially complained about this 'false' media reporting or told the police that someone pretending to be him made false complaints about death threats. Why might that be? He has threatened us with legal action, so why has he not accused the media of libel?

    In the interview he had promised not to make, he told the Herald on Sunday that he was 'not back in the game of forecasting what was going to happen to Christchurch', and that he'just mentioned it as a global thing'. What utter bullshit, are reporters and editors not able to see this? He clearly forecast an earthquake risk, around Monday, for the Christchurch and Wellington regions. It was a prediction, which the Herald acknowledges because they are now highlighting it, and there's nothing 'global' about specifying Christchurch.

    But did Ring truly predict the June quake in Christchurch as the article implies, or is it again Ring and the media conspiring to simply make it appear that way, as they have done for his previous claims of success?

    In his article 'How To Predict Earthquakes' Ring sets out his predictions for major earthquakes (mag 5 and above) for 2011. He predicted a magnitude 7+ for Sunday 12th, not Monday 13th. It was only 6.3M, and while it may not seem like it's much of a difference, remember that the magnitude scale is logarithmic, so 7 is considerably more powerful than 6.3. But you may still believe that this is still very close to what did happen. Yes it is, but only if you ignore all the other predictions that Ring made for June that failed, and weren't mentioned. He also predicted a 7+ quake on the 9th, another 7+ quake on the 15th, a 6+ quake on the 16th, and 5+ quakes on the 2nd, the 22nd, the 24th and the 29th. That's eight major quakes predicted for June alone, and Ring insists that we add at least one day either side of these dates, which gives us 21 days out of 30 that we are at risk of a major quake. Elsewhere he claims that 'the seismic window may open up to three days before new or full moon', and that gives us 14 days or around half of the month, and that's every month of the year, where we can expect major earthquakes. As we have said elsewhere, Ring predicts that quakes will happen that often that by chance alone he will appear to get it right occasionally. But only if he hides all his many failures. And that's also what the Herald on Sunday article did, they trumpeted his apparent success with Monday 13th, and never mentioned that he gets his predictions wrong far, far more often than he gets them right. In other words he's just guessing, and quite badly.

    And even when major earthquakes happen that don't match any of Ring's numerous predictions, and in fact happen when he insists we are quite safe from earthquakes, such as the devastating 9.0M quake in Japan on March 11th, he deviously tries to pretend he did actually predict them. In one of his articles he is now making this claim:

    Just a week before [20 March], when the moon was already in nearly in perigee and sitting directly above Japan, the two 7+ earthquakes struck. That was one for the history books. Perhaps not so for us but as I said many months ago, it could have been, given the position of the moon.
    Note how he says 'when the moon was already in nearly in perigee... one for the history books ... as I said many months ago'. He wants to give readers the false impression that he predicted the Japan quake. Also the quake was mag 9, not 7, a huge difference, and in his predictions for major earthquakes (mag 5 and above) for March 2011, he made no mention of any quake anywhere near that magnitude around that time. And the moon was not 'sitting directly above Japan'. That's as silly as that claim that the Star of Bethlehem lead the Three Wise Men and then sat directly above the stable where Jesus wasn't born. The moon is above the entire earth, and its evil earthquake rays would target the earth's surface like a Mexican wave as it rotated under the moon every 24 hours. For some weird reason this doesn't happen.

    Remember that Ring claims that 'Earthquakes occur when there are maximum astronomical tidal stresses on the earth' and 'On averages, it has been found that full moons are usually the most potent time for earthquakes'. That's 'tidal stresses on the earth', not just on Japan or poor old Christchurch. But the fact is that these statements by Ring are bullshit, there is no evidence whatsoever that major earthquakes occur at these times. As even our simple graphs show, major quakes can and do happen at any time, not just when Ring puts a ring around a date on his calender.

    We know that many of the public say that Ring's claim that the moon causes the tides and so therefore could also cause earthquakes does seem reasonable. But remember that it also seems reasonable that the earth is flat and that the sun revolves around us. Unfortunately common sense is not always a reliable guide as to how the world really works. But again unfortunately, many people would rather accept the simplistic, and false, explanation offered by a superstitious astrologer than try and comprehend the more complex explanations offered by science. And they are encouraged to believe in nonsense by a media interested only in profit at the expense of enlightenment. A media that once again takes Ring to their bosom and helps him spread his ignorance.

  130. Comment by Jamie, 21 Jun, 2011

    Hi John, I thought you might find these charts interesting: Jan-Mar 2011 and Apr-Jun 2011.

    I've been checking Ring's 2011 Earthquake timings dates from his own chart and comparing them to the recorded maximum quakes each day as reported by USGS (global) and GNS (NZ).

    We're now half-way through the year and (surprise,surprise) the results are looking pretty dismal to say the least!

    Note: I've highlighted a day either side of his dates in the Ken column to allow for UTC time variations, as he suggests in his article.

  131. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 21 Jun, 2011

    Thanks for those comparisons Jamie, excellent work.

    Your charts also show how easy it really is for the likes of Ring to appear to predict a major earthquake. Every single day for five and a half months, a quake of around magnitude 5 and above occurred somewhere on the earth, somewhere under the moon. No matter what day some moron or their mentally challenged pet rat blindly pick, they'll appear to have correctly predicted an earthquake. The embarrassing thing for Ring is that your charts show that even with his shotgun approach he still did worse than the mentally challenged rat, wrongly predicting that many days would have no earthquakes.

    It would be interesting (or most likely humorous) to hear Ring's explanation as to why major earthquakes keep happening every single day even though the moon keeps moving between full moon and new moon and perigee and apogee. It's almost as if the moon isn't the cause of earthquakes after all?

    Could it be that the great astrologer is wrong, that perhaps we need to swap astrology for witchcraft, and see how accurate witches are at predicting earthquakes?

  132. Comment by Graham, 22 Jun, 2011

    Hi John, excellent work. You may be interested to know that Ken is no longer an astrologer. The editors of his Wikipedia page have agreed to call him a writer. He seems so have won that argument, but they couldn't bring themselves to call him a forecaster or predictor since this implies the use of science. But of course we know he only sells opinions, so Ken Ring (opinionator) is probably more appropriate.

    The talk page is good for a laugh http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ken_Ring_(astrologer). Apparently Kanola51 (aka Ken Ring) has been going through and deleting the bits he didn't like and eventually got himself blocked:

    I'd also like to voice my disappointment at the NZ Herald article praising Ken Ring. I thought that if anything good could have come out of the earthquake prediction hoax it was that the media would be a bit more critical and less willing to give pseudoscience a free ride. But we shouldn't tar all reporters with the same brush and I can only assume the NZ Herald reporter was the work experience kid with no real research skills. The editor should have picked up on it though.

  133. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 22 Jun, 2011

    Thanks for the links Graham. Ring is evidently infamous on the internet for entering forums and the likes under false names to promote 'Ken Ring's' method and business.

    And you're right that we shouldn't stereotype reporters, at the end of the day it's the editors that decide what stories they run.

  134. Comment by Dave, 21 Jun, 2011

    Thank you for your response to my post 270. An excellent summary. I also felt Jamie and Graham hit the nail on the head with their information. Now looking at what Graham has written, if Ken is an opinionator which is a very valid question he raises — I am compelled to ask whether Ken's opinions are expert or non expert — qualified or unqualified and whether certain persons in the media know the difference — or have tested that question.

    I suppose for some of the media it is a case finding another slant to just keeping driving a story going till something else comes along. Fully agree with Graham re being dissapointed at the Herald article referred to. The Herald's daily summary re the Ch Ch earthquakes has been of value to many people here, and often factual and a sound information source — then they print that?

    June has been a very very active month re earthquakes here. Didn't I read somewhere that it was opinioned that it would all be over by May — or was that a month or two either side?

  135. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 21 Jun, 2011

    Yes Dave, you're kind of correct, Ring the opinionator said that the Christchurch quakes would be over by May, to quote him he said:

    'Scientists are now saying it'll be February 2013 before it stops but they're just making it up. After this month [April]... it'll be the end of the main part of the earthquake sequence. Things will die down then.'
    We say you're 'kind of correct' because we must remember that Ring also confidently predicted that the quakes were to end last year:
    '...my guess is that these aftershocks will end soon for Christchurch, probably around the end of November [2010].'
    Obviously the opinionator doesn't know what he's talking about and just parrots whatever is happening in reality, changing his opinions and hiding his failed predictions to keep selling his snake oil to the gullible.

    Re the media, in an ideal world we would have confidence in media reports, knowing that their best minds had researched a topic and were giving us an honest, factual appraisal, that their goal was to inform. Unfortunately in the real world they publish nonsense alongside excellent articles and sometimes without specialist knowledge it is difficult to tell the two apart. Their goal is profit, and true knowledge is in the back seat and has been told to keep quiet. Some in the media obviously have no problem printing vaguely worded nonsense if they think it will keep a story alive and sell more copies.

    It's also surprising that Wikipedia won't accept or quote, say a scientist that critiques Ring on the internet, but they will quote a journalist that has no science qualifications if she appears in a newspaper. They will also quote Ring if his comments are published, even if it is his own press release, but again they won't quote a scientist if they self-published a book critical of Ring. Wikipedia will link to a media article where we can read comments by 'Kathleen, of Christchurch' written on a Trade Me forum, but not to our website where we provide legitimate quotes from Ken Ring. They seem to have this naive belief that simply appearing in the media gives a report or opinion legitimacy, and unfortunately far too many people agree with them.

Previous Page     Next Page

Index Return to Article

Add a Comment

| Homepage | Links | Book & TV List | Top of Page | Blog |
Support Science Not Superstition


Last Updated Jun 2011