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 4     Next Page


  1. Comment by Linda, 24 Jun, 2011

    I think the moon has a lot to do with our weather or the farmers Almac would have stopped going to press every year.
    ultimately I believe God is in control of all things Heaven (being all stars and planets and earth. Earth being one of the planets
    I believe this earth is about to be cleaned by god ( example Noah and the Arc)

  2. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 25 Jun, 2011

    We're sorry Linda, but linking the moon and the weather with the publication of a farmer's almanac carries no more weight than linking the woes of the world with the publication of horoscopes. Likewise many Korans are published every year. Are you saying that the Islamic religion must therefore be true because of this? Is the one true religion the one that publishes the most books?

    People like Ring must show that the moon does influence the weather, and to date he has failed to do this. Merely publishing his almanac, or any other almanac, does not make what it claims true.

    Regarding your god being about to clean the Earth al la Noah and his ark, we think you'll find that he promised to never again cleanse the Earth with a flood. He said, 'I establish my covenant with you: Never again will all life be cut off by the waters of a flood; never again will there be a flood to destroy the earth.' We think your god is being disingenuous and deceptive if he however still plans to wipe us all out with earthquakes or fires or disease, offering the pitiful excuse, 'No, no no. I just promised I wouldn't use water again, not that I wouldn't kill you in other ways'. And regarding the recent tsunami in Japan (23,000 dead or missing), the 2004 Asian tsunami and Hurricane Katrina, we think that perhaps god has reneged a little on his promise to stop drowning us, especially since you claim that 'God is in control of all things'. We assume the oceans are not beyond his control?

  3. Comment by Dave, 29 Jun, 2011

    In today's edition of the Star Canterbury, page 3, there is an article titled "Moon Man Surfaces". The Star Canterbury is a free twice weekly newspaper delivered throughout Christchurch. The name of the journalist who wrote this article, is the same as that re the article in the Herald already referred to in this blog. However the content is not exactly the same. Here are some snippets from the article and quotes attributed to Ken — if he didn't say them then he needs to talk to the reporter who did the interview.

    After decades of research involving past moon cycles he turned his hobby into a career talking to farmers. "What I'm doing is science. I'm university trained and I've never done a horoscope for anyone in my life so no one can level the word astrology at me"

    The article then talks about threats made against him and Campbell making him out to be a charlatan fuelling public outrage. It then says "But the threats and publicity haven't slowed him down and so the predictions continued this week. Ring initially said there could be more quake activity this week given extremely low air pressures in the past few days." It then quotes him "You get strong earthquakes at that time which is why we had the one on the 21st (June)" The penultimate sentence then states "But Ring now says quake activity would more likely happen on July 1". Classic final sentence "Ring denied scaremongering and said he continued to use his readings to help others with his predictions"

    I'd appreciate your views here.

    1. The article says that Ken says that what he is doing is science but he is not referred to as a scientist — and in his quote he doesn't claim to be a scientist.
    2. To your knowledge has Ken ever referred to "air pressure" as being associated to earthquakes? Do we get strong earthquakes when the air pressure is low? I've never heard that before. It's normally been tides — or am I missing something?
    3. The articles says that Ken continues to use his readings to help others with his predictions? Article doesn't state what sort of readings — I'm assuming scientific ones — but what?
    4. Has Ken to your knowledge ever referred to himself as an astrologer in communications you have had with him — or has he ever said or agreed that what he does is astrology?

    I can't find a link to this article on the Star website to send you — just thought it may be of interest.

    Oh incidentally 1st July is tomorrow — it will be another day of earthquake activity here I suspect — but not based on what it is printed that Ring claims.

  4. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 01 Jul, 2011

    Hi Dave, we've been thinking about your queries and would offer the following comments.

    1. Ring is being very deceptive in claiming that 'What I'm doing is science. I'm university trained and I've never done a horoscope for anyone in my life so no one can level the word astrology at me'. He is not doing science, as we explained here, he has admitted that '...what I am doing is pre-science, and cannot fit present day rigor... I don't think weather is about science... any rigorous scientific assessment of the moon method is just not viable... My work... is not intended for the scientific community' etc. Also he is lying by claiming that he is 'university trained'. This claim is plainly designed to imply that he has a university qualification in the field of meteorology or seismology or some suitable field. We have shown here that Ring failed at university and he admits he has no qualifications. Not only that, Ring has lied as to how long he spent at university before dropping out, claiming 3 years, 4 years and even 9 years. Also he has lied as to what subjects he failed at, telling one person he took psychology and anthropology and another that it was physics, chemistry and zoology. And even if he were 'university trained' this would not mean he was necessarily qualified to discuss weather and earthquakes. Would a university degree in 17th century poetry or psychology make someone an expert in predicting earthquakes? Ring is being a typical charlatan and by using weasel words and lies is trying to fool a gullible public into thinking that he has scientific expertise.

    2. Ring has referred to air pressure regarding his weather predictions, for example when the moon is about Ring claims that: 'The Moon expands the air, raises the pressure... The higher pressure due to the greater volume clears the skies... The pressure increases because the volume increases'. Of course this is bogus since just the opposite will happen, increase the volume and the pressure will go down. But obviously Ring has now transferred these ideas to earthquakes as well, since he is now predicting quakes as well as drizzle based on the moon's position. We know of no correlation between low air pressure and earthquakes, and neither does Ring or he would have produced evidence. Because Ring is adamant that modern scientific theories on the cause of earthquakes are wrong, eg plate tectonics, he is forced to invent factors that make his silly claims sound plausible to a scientifically illiterate public.

    3. As to what readings Ring is using, we can only assume he means astrological readings rather than scientific ones. He says that to predict quakes 'A computer programme is required, astrologically-based and with fault lines loaded'. He states that to determine fault line potential 'An astrological fix would need to be done for each', and that 'Astrologers can already calculate the position and direction of of the moon's energies'. Regarding a quake in Iran, he tells people to 'Get hold of any astrology program and verify this for yourself'. Ring himself evidently uses 'three astrology programmes — Astrolog, Solar Fires De Luxe and Janus4'. He has told us that 'I admit I use the ancient astrology that was the forerunner of astronomy', and is on record stating that 'I use the ancient astrological energy grid of the constellations'. He has also written that 'Earthquakes are predictable... You only need one astrologer and one geologist working as a team'. We know he's not a geologist, so obviously Ring sees himself as the astrologer. It is clear that Ring's readings are based in astrology and not science.

    4. Following on from our last paragraph, has Ring ever referred to himself as an astrologer or said or what he does is astrology? We have no record of him saying 'I am an astrologer', but quite clearly he often implies that he is. Note the above quote where he says 'You only need one astrologer and one geologist working as a team', where clearly he is the astrologer. He says that 'when it comes to the influence of sun, moon and planets on Earth and everything on the earth, this has already been worked out in the old astrology'. Only an astrologer would insist on using astrology software rather than astronomy software. Only an astrologer would make statements such as: 'It is the old principles of Astrology that we should be turning back to... We are rediscovering answers about... the role that pre-Christian era astrology can still play... there's nothing wrong with basic good old working astrology... it is about time the truth got told'. Only an astrologer would say silly things like this: 'Cancer typically brings downpours [and] the Moon will be in Pisces, a wet sign'. When describing his predictions, or opinions, only an astrologer would say, 'All I have ever offered has been an interesting correlation between astrological factors...' And who but a believer in astrology would say this: 'For anyone to state they don't believe in astrology is to say they don't believe in the fact that stars are out there.'

    Of course when confronted with these embarrassing quotes, Ring tries to pretend that what he means by astrology and what the rest of the world means by astrology is two different things. He complains that 'I've never done a horoscope for anyone in my life so no one can level the word astrology at me'. He probably hasn't, but people only level the word astrology at him because he keeps using the word in relation to his method over and over again. When we say he probably means astronomy, he corrects us and says he most definitely means astrology. We have tried to get Ring to define exactly what he means by astrology, how it differs from astronomy (and it does, that's why he uses it), and why every other astrologer is evidently mistaken in how they view astrology. But he refuses. He claims that 'Modern astrology has been denigrated to a party and coffee table game', and that 'the ancient astrology is the closest I can get to my idea of astrology'. He falsely claims that ancient astrology was pure science and reason, and it's only the modern astrology found in newspapers and magazines that have incorporated this nonsense about horoscopes and that the planets and constellations can affect who we are and what might happen. We don't believe this for a minute, astrology has always been nonsense and its essence hasn't changed since it was invented thousands of years ago. And Ring, even though he denies it to us, knows this as well. Here he is acknowledging this fact in one of his own articles: 'The ancient teaching, astrologically, was that the phase you were born under is the most comfortable one for you and the one that best describes your personality... Some believe it, some don't...'

    The fact is that an astrologer is one who makes predictions based on the astrological method of charting the positions of the sun, moon and planets, guided by the belief that we are under the influence of these celestial bodies. And there is no denying that this is what Ring does, therefore Ring is an astrologer. He may not be writing horoscopes for a woman's magazine, although let's remember he did write his book 'Pawmistry: How to Read Your Cat's Paws', in which he used 'age old tools of divination to teach you what kind of cat owner you are, based on your astrological sign, and what kind of cat you have, based on its sign ...'. So he may not have written a horoscope for a specific person, but he has written broad horoscopes for people, and their cats.

    Ring is a charlatan, a con man and a scammer, saying whatever it takes to fool the media and the public. Bold faced lies, misleading statements, pure superstitious nonsense cloaked in scientific terms, crocodile tears in the eyes of a bullied old man, an ignorance of real science and no doubt a real belief in things mystical all come together as Ring surreptitiously opens his coat and whispers, 'Pssst... Want to buy a cheap earthquake or weather opinion?'

  5. Comment by Dave, 02 Jul, 2011

    Thank you for your response. The Christchurch Star article was similar to an article which appeared on the Herald website: Moon Man just wants chance to help people

    I have been forwarded on a series of e mails from Predictweather signed off "Ken". The series of e mails were forwarded on by senders in good faith, from a business, to alert recipients to early warning signals of earthquakes — being rapid air pressure rises. The e mails were unsolicited by me. The e mails related to questions asked of Ken by the recipient. To protect privacy I have not included those questions and have deleted the name of the recipient.

    Had I chosen to I could have shared the e mails on to people in my address book in keeping with the "please share the list" message below. Then those people may have forwarded them on to those in their address books and so on. What do we end up with — consternation and alarm for some in Christchurch given the 9 months of issues here. Yet the e mail writer has never said "where" the risk areas are and given the anxiety levels of people in Christchurch, even though he doesn't say where — some gullible people will assume Christchurch. Great!!!!!!

    On this web site — http://www.votemenot.co.nz/thread/744911/moon-mans-back/ — I note that post number 38 replicates the content of the second e mail below, interesting.

    From: Enquiries (enquiries@predictweather.com)
    To: Name Deleted For Privacy Purposes
    Subject: RE: Barometer
    Dear (Name deleted for Privacy Purposes)
    No more predictions because of the public gagging, and I have written to Dr Nick Smith and Sir Peter Gluckman asking them for clarification going forward. I don't wish to get offside with the government, nor to scare those who don't wish to hear certain things, nor on the other hand to let people down who are requesting certain dates.
    That said, if indeed I was to continue making predictions, which I'm not, if I was in Christchurch I would put a ring around these in May; 10th-11th, 17th-18th, 22nd-23rd. Naturally these would not be earthquake predictions, just good times to sit in a field away from certain buildings and read a good book. Along with many many other days. I would call these Field Days, which the media and government have shown we can all have on this subject..

    From: Enquiries (enquiries@predictweather.com)
    To: Name Deleted For Privacy Purposes
    Subject: RE: Barometer
    Hi (Name deleted for privacy purposes)
    I am not still allowed to make earthquake "predictions" in NZ because according to Dr Nick Smith and Sir Peter Gluckman I am unqualified to do so..
    But I have not been told that I cannot predict Rapid Air Pressure Rises, which are early warning signals for earthquake activity.
    In answers to individual emails over recent weeks some may already have had the May dates. This is more complete and constitutes the complete list for the year.
    Note that August may be an active month for RAPRs, because the Moon again comes closer to Earth. It means tides in land, sea and air speed up, putting more stress on the masses of land, sea and air. These stresses are universal, but these particular RAPR dates refer to our latitudes.
    Please share this list.

    May 10th-11th, 23rd-24th,
    June 1st-2nd, 12th-13th, 27th-28th,
    July 8th-10th, 17th-19th,
    Aug 4th-5th, 7th-8th, 16th-17th, 26th-27th,
    Sept 4th-5th, 15th-17th, 29th-30th,
    Oct 8th-9th, 18th-19th,
    Nov 7th-8th, 11th-12th,
    Dec 19th-20th

    Please note that these are not earthquake "predictions" but coincidences do often happen.
    Ken Ring

    Nowhere does 1 July appear on this list — but it is mentioned in the Herald article!!!!!
  6. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 02 Jul, 2011

    Thanks Dave for those earthquake predictions from Ring. Just how stupid does Ring think we all are? Unfortunately we must answer that some of us are extremely stupid, ie the ones that are still listening to him and emailing him for advice. And obviously Ring thinks that he himself is smarter than your average bear. He thinks that this silly ploy will fool us:

    'I am not still allowed to make earthquake "predictions"... But I have not been told that I cannot predict Rapid Air Pressure Rises, which are early warning signals for earthquake activity.'
    We evidently won't realise that it is simply an earthquake prediction in disguise, but all his silly followers will immediately get the subterfuge and act accordingly. He goes on:
    That said, if indeed I was to continue making predictions, which I'm not, if I was in Christchurch I would put a ring around these in May; 10th-11th, 17th-18th, 22nd-23rd. Naturally these would not be earthquake predictions, just good times to sit in a field away from certain buildings
    These dates for Rapid Air Pressure Rises are not earthquake "predictions", they are simply dates for early warning signals for earthquake activity, dates on which you should flee Christchurch for open fields, if you know what I mean, nudge, nudge, wink, wink, say no more, a nod's as good as a wink to a blind bat?

    Even the reporter in the Herald article was bright enough to see what Ring was still doing: 'the threats and publicity haven't slowed him down and so the predictions continued this week'.

    It's just one more of many, many examples of Ring's lies, telling one group one thing and another group a completely different thing. He assures us that there will be 'No more predictions because of the public gagging' but then adds, 'I don't wish... on the other hand to let people down who are requesting certain dates'. He won't make any predictions except for the ones he makes. This man can not be trusted.

    And yes Dave, since these astrological predicitons can be produced years ahead, why didn't July 1st appear on his list of days to go into the fields? Has the moon suddenly changed its orbit in the last few months? Why did he tell the Herald it was now a day to flee? Worse still, July 1st has past and nothing happened. And why in the Herald article did he mention a strong earthquake that struck Christchurch on June 21st, and not explain why that date wasn't on his list either? Thanks to Ken's bogus advice no one was safely in the fields on June 21st.

    We also note that Ring is still trying to garner sympathy by claiming that has he has been forbidden legally from speaking publicly about his method and his predictions. He claims that 'I am not still allowed to make earthquake "predictions" in NZ because according to Dr Nick Smith and Sir Peter Gluckman I am unqualified to do so... No more predictions because of the public gagging, and I have written to Dr Nick Smith and Sir Peter Gluckman asking them for clarification going forward. I don't wish to get offside with the government...' And yet nowhere have we seen where Ring has been prohibited from speaking out. Smith and Gluckman have merely criticised Ring, and rightly so, for his bogus and ill-considered predictions. And Ring keeps telling us that numerous media have begged and begged him to explain his stance, and he has refused. Ring gagged himself, fearful of making another fool of himself and further damaging his business, but now he tries to claim that unjust legal threats have silenced him instead.

    And what about this weird statement from Ring: "People say 'oh thank you, you saved my farm' "? How could any of Ring's bogus earthquake predictions have saved someone's farm? Can they move it out of harms way? And why are farms even in danger? Remember that Ring advises people to go out and stand in fields when earthquakes are expected. Why didn't the reporter ask, 'What do you mean by that exactly?', instead of just writing down whatever nonsense he spouts? It's easy to see why far too many people still believe in Ring when they get their information from flaky reports like this.

  7. Comment by Dave, 09 Jul, 2011

    In the content of one of the emails I forwarded to you [See Comment #282 above], the writer [Ken Ring] advises that Rapid Air Pressure Rises are early warning signals of earthquake activity. A list is provided of the rapid air pressure rise dates and the request made that the list be shared.

    Please find below a summary of earthquakes in New Zealand from the 10 May to the 5 July. This is the only period we can assess as the list started from the 10 May. 305 earthquakes happened on the dates listed in the email and mentioned in the Herald article (shown in yellow) = 19.25% of the total quakes over 22% of the total days. These predicted RAPR dates are represented as yellow boxes.

    These are for all earthquakes recorded by GEONET over the time frame and not exclusively Christchurch.


     Daily Quakes    

    Daily Quakes

    Daily Quakes









































































































































    This data was collated from data sourced from GEONET

    I make the following observations.

    1. 12 dates for May and June are listed in the two e mails and the Herald article mentions the 1st July which is not on the list, as Rapid Air Pressure Rise dates. (One e mail gives the 17th and 18th May — but that is not on the list on the other e mail — an oversight by the writer I can confirm). Of those 13 days, on 10 of them daily quake counts are amongst some of the lowest daily counts for the respective month. Some of those dates seem to be the period of less risk.

    2. There have been some very high daily quake counts for dates not on the list. Greater earthquake activity than on some predicted dates. I suppose one could say that some stated dates did not have a RAPR after all and that some non stated dates did — but after all the dates were given in advance. Can RAPR days be accurately predicted in advance? There were earthquakes every day so why didn’t every day appear on the list of RAPR days? If you follow what the writer has written that RAPR are early warning signals of earthquake activity then when an earthquake occurs there has to have been a RAPR. Can you have earthquake activity without there being an earthquake? If there was no RAPR on a day when quakes happened, then there should not have been quakes? Or does RAPR apply only to selective quakes and dates?

    3. The 1st July which does not appear on the list but which is referred to in the Herald article yielded 13 quakes that day — very low when compared to other “non predicted” dates on the summary. In fact for the period 27 June to 1 July there were in total fewer quakes than the daily total for the 4 July.

    4. From 10 May to 5 July there have been 80 quakes of magnitude 4 or above — here’s how these quakes shape up against the “rapid air pressure rises” dates:



    Occurred on a

    Did Not Occur on




    Predicted  Date

    Predicted Date

















    5. The writer's strike rate of major “coincidental” shakes on the predicted RAPR dates is thus 22.50%, which does tend to confirm the earthquakes were “coincidental” because the bulk of them occurred on non RAPR predicted dates. Hence does the statement of RAPR being an early warning signal for earthquake activity rely on “coincidence”? You can’t have earthquakes without their being a RAPR it seems, but if there is a RAPR, an earthquake is coincidental to it?

    6. The bulk of the major shakes of 4 or above over the time frame, did not occur on the quoted days of rapid air pressure rises. Hence I question the value of Rapid Air Pressure Rises, being an early warning signal for earthquake activity. Is the degree or rise of the pressure commensurate with the magnitude size of the earthquake? The larger and faster the pressure rise — the bigger the quake? The value of earthquake activity early warning signals is surely to warn of the ones of greatest risk — if earthquake activity means an earthquake. 77.50% of quakes over magnitude 4 occurred on non predicted RAPR days. Should there have been earthquakes at all on non predicted RAPR days? Could these earthquakes have happened by “accident” because they weren’t on a predicted RAPR date? Or did we have earthquakes when there wasn't earthquake activity?

    7. Why did we have so many earthquakes on non RAPR dates — or were the dates provided the dates when the writer believed the earthquake risk was highest because of RAPR? The 13th June could be claimed as validating RAPR as an earthquake signal — but not validating the magnitude, location etc. So what’s the point of proffering risk days based on RAPR when location and magnitude is not provided to believers who then share e mails at the writer’s request? In fact 38% of quakes that occurred on the predicted RAPR days happened on the one day — the 13 June — but was that a day of a RAPR? I assume it was and that the RAPR was significant.

    8. Are rapid air pressure rises an early warning of earthquakes in general — or is it a selective theory that can only be applied to earthquakes that happen on a pre selected date. The 44 days not on the e mail list over this time frame account for 80.25% of total quakes. Thus if the statement in the e mail is correct — every day there is earthquake activity must be a day of rapid air pressure rises — or does the theory apply to only some earthquakes — and not all? If that is the case — how do we know which ones the theory does and doesn’t apply to? Is RAPR a theory or a scientific fact?

    9. Whilst I note that in the e mails no reference is made to the likely magnitude of any quakes that could occur coincidental to the rapid air pressure rises dates, the fact that reference is made to not being near buildings and to sit in a field with a book — implies to me coincidental quakes of magnitude 4 or above — which if you are in a building at the time — it is best not to be in. Purely based on my own experience of quakes here, anything under a 4 is still discomforting and can cause some concern but in most instances is unlikely to cause damage or harm unless a building is already damaged. Do we sit and wait in fields waiting for a large coincidental quake that may not happen?

    10. I’m also taking the dates in the e mail list to be exact as no reference is made to days + or - either side of the quoted dates. If the writer asks for the dates to be shared I would have thought that if the plus or minus factor was to be applied, the e mail would have stated so, particularly if persons relied on the information in the e mail.

    11. I note that in the e mails the writer says “Rapid Air Pressure Rises, which are early warning signals for earthquake activity.” It says are and not may be or could be — thus the writer has been specific. I am assuming there is some scientific evidence of this? The writer does not say that RAPR causes earthquakes, but if they area an early warning signal — one must assume a direct association. I can’t find many references on this, and those that I have found argue there is no association between air pressure rises and earthquakes — and if that is the case — how can an RAPR be an early warning signal? Is there anyone out there that can throw some light on this?

    12. I should mention that at first look at the dates and quakes in Christchurch, the hit rate of quakes on a number of the predicted RAPR days decreases. But I can confirm there has been an awful lot of earthquake activity here for 9 months and also a lot of earthquakes as well.

  8. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 09 Jul, 2011

    Thanks for the analysis Dave, and might we add that this is not the way to make friends with astrologers. We were going to make some additional comments on whether we should worry about Ring's RAPRs, but then felt that it would be just like considering whether we could lift a leprechaun's pot of gold if we ever found one. Ring's earthquake predicting 'Rapid Air Pressure Rises' are just as imaginary in our view, and until Ring and leprechauns give us good reason to believe in their fantasies, we will ignore them, and resist rushing into the nearest field.

  9. Comment by Alison, 22 Jul, 2011

    Hi guys — just following up on Dave’s comments [#280]. I blogged about this latest round of prognostications myself, a couple of days ago: the moon is a poor prognosticator.... This latest media outing reflects a lack of any real investigative journalism skills on the part of the reporter(s) concerned; it strikes me more like an ‘oh look, here’s a story!’ approach without any real drive to dig a little deeper.

    My memory is that Ken has referred to himself as an astrologer — but only after first defining astrology as a science J

  10. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 22 Jul, 2011

    Thanks Alison. We agree, the authority and trust that one assumed the newspapers had for investigative reporting is sorely lacking these days. Ring contradicts himself that often and spouts such nonsense it's a wonder that any reporter would give him the time of day, but they do. Maintaining a readership that's fed nonsense and celebrity gossip is obviously more important than publishing factual articles. You may have seen Ring interviewed by Mark Sainsbury on CloseUp recently, telling lie after lie? Unfortunately the viewer would not know that he was lying, such as denying he ever wrote that dolphins beam sonar signals to the moon. Ring relies on people not knowing or remembering what he might have said elsewhere. They obviously just had him on to bring in viewers, preferring viewer numbers over the truth. Will they be having witches and Creationists on next? Probably, if they think that's what their viewers want!

  11. Comment by Ken Ring, 23 Jul, 2011

    I have never written that dolphins beam sonar signals to the moon. The idea is from a Goon Show script, surely?

    Again and again and again you misquote, to cause mischief.

    What I said was, about 15-years ago on my first website

    It is conceivable that dolphins and whales use sonar systems to navigate
    Meaning it was conceivable that dolphins use sonar in a GPS-grid for navigation, which in turn would depend, as do migrating birds, on the Earth's magnetic field, which in turn COULD involve extraterrestrials like either sun or moon, for geomagnetism. I did not say they did it, I said it was CONCEIVABLE (by me) that they could do it. It is NOT the same as saying dolphins use themselves as a kind of ray gun and fire signals directly to the moon. That is just absurd!!

    The joke is back on you for not quoting correctly. When I try to correct the misquotes I am told I keep changing things, like the howler that I once read cats paws for a living, made up by publicity seekers Vicki Hyde and Dr Nick Smith, who used the earthquake tragedy again and again for their own desperately lacking public profiles.. You never seem to proofread your own waffle.

    I should be thankful for all the traffic that you drive to my website, which pushes up my book sales. Somehow you see me as some huge threat which is interesting. I don't exist to annoy you, but you exist to pester and belittle me. Having no original thoughts of your own, you seem to set out to sting and destroy others, a kind of suppressive literary version of the taliban. Anything you have decided you don't like, maybe the colour of someone's tie, becomes a huge vitriolic production. People have told me they feel they need a shower after visiting your website, you make them feel unclean and as if they have taken part in a gang rape. I wonder of you are proud of that.

    I stayed away from all media post 28 February and until a month ago, despite hundreds offers of articles and stories, including a 4-figure sum from New Idea, despite an offer from NBR that I write them an editorial — and in that absence the media made up whatever they wanted to, and Silly beliefs as usual salaciously lapped up every farcical word. Do you ever ask yourselves if there is more to life?

    And Alison is correct. I have also never done a horoscope for anyone in my life. I am not an astrologer in the modern sense of the word. I am only an astrologer inasmuch as all sciences were once under the umbrella label of astrology. There was once in Christendom only religion and astrology. One was of God and the other (including all of science) was supposedly of Satan. Perhaps it is the same today, who knows. The work of the Devil would be victimising someone endeavouring to run a small business, that tries to help people by giving away its products for free. Will Silly beliefs misquote? Of course. You will continue to claim that I make a living from being a children's entertainer or by predicting earthquakes. Why? Lies upon lies. My only living comes from weather, paid for by farmers and overseas television stations. It has been that way for some years.

  12. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 24 Jul, 2011

    Ken, you now claim that all you said was that 'It is conceivable that dolphins and whales use sonar systems to navigate'. But how does this statement make you appear knowledgable, that you might know what you're talking about? It's as silly as me saying, 'It's conceivable that the world is round and not flat after all'. Just as knowledgeable people know that the world isn't flat, we also know that dolphins do use sonar to navigate Ken, not just that they might.

    In trying to hide your past mistakes you then produce more nonsense by explaining that dolphins might 'use sonar in a GPS-grid for navigation, which in turn would depend, as do migrating birds, on the Earth's magnetic field...'. Sonar has nothing to do with the Earth's magnetic field, or with migrating birds. You seem to have a very poor grasp of basic science.

    But this new nonsense aside, you and I both know that it is you, not us, that is misquoting your article in an attempt to hide your past ignorance. Rather than 15 years ago as you claim, in your 2005 article entitled 'Why do dolphins and whales beach themselves?', you suggested that '...the answer may lie in the geomagnetic forces of the moon...'. You went on to state that:

    It is conceivable that dolphins and whales use sonar systems to navigate, beamed toward the Moon which provides them with a geomagnetic map, such that the creatures know where they have been and how far they have traversed in recent days and weeks and hours. It is also conceivable that in the lunar declination cycle at N or S declination this signal from the Moon is at its weakest, if not stopping altogether. It is further conceivable that when the creatures find themselves at or near areas rich in iron sands a latent signal emanating from the sands may be received which may fool the creatures' into thinking that the beach is in fact the open sea.
    Note that unlike you we provide your full quote. You clearly stated that sonar signals are 'beamed toward the Moon', and that at certain times 'this signal from the Moon' may even stop. By refusing to quote these specific phrases it is you that apparently has things to hide. And again you demonstrate your ignorance of science. You appear to believe that dolphin's sonar and the moon's geomagnetism somehow combine to guide dolphins, and yet as we've told you, the moon has a very weak external magnetic field in comparison to that of the Earth, and not a dipolar magnetic field like the Earth, so the answer can't 'lie in the geomagnetic forces of the moon' as you believe. This quote about dolphins and the moon may be embarrassing for you, but the undeniable fact is that you did write this, regardless of how many times you deny it.

    As for you reading cat paws, we have never said that you read cat paws for a living. As you well know, we have simply revealed that you wrote a book called 'Pawmistry: How to Read Your Cat's Paws'. Like an embarrassed Miss Universe contestant trying to hide old nude photos, you are now trying to distance yourself from a time when you apparently believed in this New Age nonsense of palmistry, astrology and numerology etc. Let's remember that you considered yourself knowledgeable enough to write this book on these topics. You may now claim that it was all a joke to make fun of New Age believers, but those that bought your book took it seriously. By continually saying that it is a lie that you ever read cat paws for a living, you want people to infer that ALL this talk of you reading cat paws must be a lie. But we know that you probably did read cat paws, even if only while researching your book, which you no doubt hoped would be profitable, so you definitely tried to make a living from reading cat paws, even if indirectly. You may reply that you didn't sell enough books to make any money, but that's your problem in not writing a bestseller.

    You again admit that 'I should be thankful for all the traffic that you drive to my website, which pushes up my book sales'. So again we must ask, why then are you complaining if we are helping make your business successful? If true, our silence would see your profits and popularity go down, do you really want that?

    And you're right Ken, you don't exist to annoy us, but strangely you do. As do psychics, creationists, energy healers and others peddling nonsense. You feel driven to explain your view of the weather, religion, climate change, science, ancient history etc to the public at large through your books, internet articles, TV, newspapers, radio and public lectures, and we have a similar desire, although we don't have your resources, and unlike you, we're not trying to make money. But in your view, you have a right to your opinion, and to expressing it, but we seemingly don't have a similar right. When we challenge your claims we are accused by you of a crime on the level of gang rape. And don't expect us to believe that visitors to our site made this disgusting accusation and not you. What reader would be so incensed by our articles that rather than leaving a hateful or emotional comment, they would seek you out instead and cry on your shoulder? We respond to evidence Ken, not insults.

    You go on to say that you 'stayed away from all media post 28 February and until a month ago...'. The question is Ken, why have you returned when you clearly said that: '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'. Regarding earthquake predictions you also wrote that 'As this is an experiment, if I am incorrect in my dates then I am willing to bow my head in defeat and go back to the drawing boaed' [sic]. Your predictions were wrong, and there has been no 'media or politician-led change' to your astrological nonsense, so why aren't you remaining true to your word and keeping away from the media? Why can we not trust what you say you will do?

    And once again we must assure you that we are not sexually aroused by your media antics. Please go to a bookshop, buy a dictionary and look up 'salacious', or does this fantasy have something to do with your belief that you are being gang raped?

    You again attempt to fudge the meaning of astrologer with your claim that 'I am not an astrologer in the modern sense of the word. I am only an astrologer inasmuch as all sciences were once under the umbrella label of astrology'. Modern astrology and ancient astrology are essentially one and the same, except that modern astrologers know that astronomy and science claim that astrology is utter nonsense. Your ancient astrology was only different in that even intelligent, knowledgeable people once believed it made sense. Claiming that 'all sciences were once under the umbrella label of astrology', apart from being false, is misleading even if it were true. In ancient times, only what we now call astronomy was synonymous with astrology. And regardless of what once was, claiming that all sciences were once under astrology is as worthless as me claiming that I am a bacterium because all life in ancient times was once just bacteria. We have moved on Ken. We are no longer bacteria and we no longer use astrology to understand the universe. Your inability to accept this is your downfall.

    Regarding science, you say that once it 'was supposedly of Satan. Perhaps it is the same today, who knows'. Again this reveals your refusal to accept that science and reason and evidence have moved on from religious nonsense. You may not know Ken, but rational people do, science is not in league with Satan. Also your fictional Devil is not employing us to expose the fraudulent nature of your small business, where you now claim to be helping people by giving away your products for free. Yet you've already thanked us for boosting your book sales. Which is it Ken, are you selling them or giving them away for free?

    You finish by claiming that we 'will continue to claim that I make a living from being a children's entertainer or by predicting earthquakes. Why? Lies upon lies.' They're lies alright, but your lies, not ours. We don't claim that you're making a living as a children's entertainer, only that you once worked as a clown. However we do believe you are at least attempting to make a living by predicting earthquakes. We don't claim that you are necessarily selling earthquake predictions as you do weather predictions, but you are deliberately using the media exposure surrounding your earthquake predictions to boost your public image. Far more people now know of you than did so before you became infamous by telling people to flee Christchurch. In your recent media interviews you talk of earthquakes, not weather. If you don't understand that this helps your weather business then you are a fool. But of course you do, since you claim that even our criticism of your quake predictions is helping your book sales. If you don't want to be known as someone that makes a living with earthquake predictions Ken, then the solution is obvious, stop making them. Stop talking to the media, as you said you would.

  13. Comment by Nick, 24 Jul, 2011

    Hi John, firstly, great site! Your Ken Ring material has been of much use to me and helped me put quite a few people straight on the matter.

    Along those lines — earthquakes. Have you ever thought about writing an article on some of the whacky chemtrail/harp stories floating around cyberspace?

    I came across this nonsense: Major Earthquake Strikes Near Christchurch — Was HAARP Technology Responsible? in the off-topic forum of geekzone.co.nz, of all places (mostly a switched-on bunch.)

    Don’t bother commenting on that chemtrailsnorthnz site though — the chick that runs the site will delete anything that doesn’t fit in with her paranoid fantasy.

    I’ve had three comments deleted so far.

    Just putting it out there — it’d be great to see something showing up debunking this crap on a local level.

    Cheers mate

    Keep up the great work

  14. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 24 Jul, 2011

    Thanks for your comments Nick. No we hadn't thought about writing about chemtrails, but since there are now Kiwis buying into this nonsense perhaps we should have a closer look. We don't see them often in NZ compared to the likes of the States, but I guess with the internet it's inevitable that paranoid Kiwis that love a good conspiracy have latched on to them. I guess it's the 21st century version of evil trolls under bridges, something for silly people to fear.

    As for sites that delete negative comments, all it suggests to us is that they have something to hide, and that their arguments won't stand up to criticism. Unfortunately it is typical of many sites that think the world is out to get them.

  15. Comment by Nick, 24 Jul, 2011

    Thanks for your reply John.

    I think it’s still a "fringe" thing, like the occasional workmate who thinks they’re psychic, or the odd friend who is into UFO’s, but it’s out there and being passed around and resonating with certain people. You don’t have to look much further than http://uncensored.co.nz/ for a monthly dose of paranoid nonsense... and this stuff is available in most supermarkets I’ve been to in ChCh (sadly, on display next to New Scientist and National Geographic.)

    Since I last emailed you I’ve had a good look around Claire Swinney’s website and she is certainly "unhinged" to say the least. It’s hard to know just how many people are paying attention to this stuff because she’s clearly deleting the more disagreeable comments from her site. But, alas, as you say, it’s typical of sites that think the world is out to get them.

  16. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 25 Jul, 2011

    Hi Nick. Hopefully chemtrails stay a fringe thing too, but you're right, rubbish magazines like Uncensored and Nexus are making this nonsense more wildly available. Like you we're annoyed that these magazines are placed in the 'Popular Science' section, just as Ken Ring's books are. We often move them to the Fiction or Fantasy sections. We had a rant about the Uncensored magazine a while back — UNCENSORED conspiracy theories — and even rubbished the chemtrail paranoia. Unfortunately some people, often quite intelligent, happily buy into this conspiracy nonsense, so it's up to the more rational sections of the population to convince them that evil forces are not causing earthquakes, and astrologers are not predicting them either.

  17. Comment by Chris, 27 Jul, 2011

    To be strictly fair to Ken, he did say dolphin sonar was beamed 'toward' (not 'to') the Moon. Though none of the rest of the quote makes any sense at all. Ken is, at the very least, confusing sonar with electromagnetism.

    Oh, this 'geomagnetic map' reminds me of something — has anyone mentioned Captain Bruce Cathie and Harmonic 33 and his energy grid recently. I think I detect similarities — maybe the dolphins use that to navigate ;-)

  18. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 28 Jul, 2011

    Hi Chris. True, Ken did only say 'It is conceivable that dolphins and whales use sonar systems to navigate, beamed toward the Moon', but let's remember that sonar only works if it reaches and is reflected from the object it is beamed towards, back to the sender. But as you say, Ring just doesn't grasp the difference between sonar and electromagnetism, and hopes his clients don't either. As for Harmonic 33, I've seen this book many times but I've never felt the urge to read it. I only have room in my life for so much nonsense, and I've read nothing that might suggest Cathie was on to something.

  19. Comment by Nick, 24 Aug, 2011

    Hi again John. As less and less people pay less attention to Ken Ring, I've noticed this YouTube video showing up a LOT in my Facebook news feed, and seems to have people scared again.

    From: thebarcaroller — Volcano / Earthquake Watch Aug 23-27 , 2011

    To be honest I haven't looked closely at his hits & misses or any of the data, but right off the bat I don't buy the coronal hole and planetary alignment theory because, well, its completely unfounded.

    I wanted to see if he's in any way qualified to be giving out this information and was simply told that was "insanely funny" and presented me with this:

    From: followingtheplanets — thebarcaroller Predicts: 11 August 2011, or is the August 17?

    and From: followingtheplanets — Christchurch Earthquakes and Conjunctions of the sun and Mercury

    I'm not sure if this is a subject you'd like to tackle, but thought you might be interested.

  20. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 26 Aug, 2011

    Hi Nick. As Ken Ring is pushed slowly towards the looney bin there will always be other nutters out there that a gullible public will gravitate to. As you say, there is no reason to take this idiot's predictions seriously. Ring has also pushed the threat from planetary alignments and coronal mass ejections from the Sun causing earthquakes, with no evidence whatsoever, and a success rate of zero. You might want to refer people to this article:

    Bad Astronomy: Planetary alignments will cause earthquakes

    This is the danger with pseudoscience, where in today's world a scientifically illiterate and uncritical public has been superficially exposed to the power of scientific knowledge. The ignorant and gullible prefer to listen to the Ken Rings of this world who offer certainty wrapped up in simplistic explanations, explanations sprinkled with scientific sounding claims that they believe signal expertise. Ken Ring and his ilk and their followers are all equally ignorant of how the universe really works and prefer the simplicity and certainty of primitive superstition, cloaked with the veil of superficial science. They reject real science as overly complex and, regarding things such as earthquake predictions, unwilling to issue the certainty that they so desperately crave.

    Many people are naturally worried about future quakes, and gain some comfort when the likes of Ring or one of these nutters confidently predict when they should next flee their city. But this is no different from someone who hates his boss believing that things will soon improve, because they have paid a local witch to put a curse on them. These are people with a medieval worldview trying to make their way in a scientific and technological age that they barely comprehend. They want simple answers, and the likes of Ring claims to offer those answers. Of course it is as silly to believe in the likes of Ring as it is to believe in mediums talking to the dead or that energy healers or homoeopathic water can cure disease, but this is the fantasy world inhabited by those that choose superstition and ignorance over reason and evidence.

    Ring and those making similar earthquake predictions base their claims on astrology and other nonsense combined with a flawed knowledge of science gleaned not from scientists but from the world of entertainment. Furiously taking notes while watching 'Dr Who' and 'Star Wars' etc, completely oblivious as to what the word 'fiction' in the genre 'science fiction' means. We are swamped by movies that wrap a real piece of science with layers of nonsense, and much of the public can't tell the difference. We have untold disaster movies — 'Armageddon', 'The Core', 'The Day after Tomorrow' etc, and the recent movie '2012' predicting the end of the world — all brainwashing a gullible public with nonsense views of science. From memory 'Lara Croft: Tomb Raider' also involved planetary alignment and the end of the world. It is little wonder that people are receptive to the nonsense from Ring and his fellow charlatans, since it takes little intelligence to understand and it provides answers (albeit false answers).

  21. Comment by Nick, 26 Aug, 2011

    Ahh, yes, Bad Astronomy — most useful!

    The "total pull of the planets being less than 2% of the Moon's pull" fact pretty much destroys "Joe's" theory. As for the coronal hole stuff — I haven't looked much into it (it's painfully time consuming going over this stuff.) My hunch it will be the usual correlation/causation bias issue that we know all too well. And, as usual, I expect the "I'm merely putting this out there, you can take or leave it" defence. *yawns*

    These quakes have really brought out some interesting things about people I know. I normally ignore these things when they pop into my news feed but they've been far too numerous and need to be shown for what they are. Most people accept a quick, logical explanation, but there's a small group who are in la-la land when it comes to science — and they're all otherwise bright, nice people.

  22. Comment by Sam, 01 Dec, 2011

    Hi, I'm a long time reader and an amateur Ken Ring debunker (as are many in my office). Unsurprisingly, I wasn't too impressed with his "Planetquakes" article.

    On close reading parts of it seemed to coherent and didn't match his writing style. Of course it turns out he didn't write them. A quick google search, using some suspect phrases, turned up this site:


    The image attached shows, for the Venus section, how much he has directly lifted from that website. I found a bunch of others without too much effort.

    Just thought you might be interested.

    Love your work.

  23. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 02 Dec, 2011

    Thanks Sam. It's always good to hear that there are others out there debunking Ken Ring. And yes, Ken is a great proponent of stealing the work of others. In January 2010 we also noticed that much of what Ken wrote didn't match his normal pseudoscientific nonsense, and like you, quickly discovered he just steals all the technical and academic passages and weaves his astrology around it. See our blog post: Ken Ring - King of Plagiarism. In response Ken replied: 'Thank you for pointing out the websites I had quoted from. I have now included the references...' And yet once again Ken is stealing the majority of his article from others and not one note of the references that he used that he promised to add in future articles. Ken wants his readers to believe that he's actually writing this stuff, and be impressed by his knowledge.

    Revealingly, the opening sentence in his article that you linked to — 'Planetquakes?' — provided the answer as to why Ken steals the work of others and turns it into superstitious nonsense: 'The human mind is lazy and wants easy answers'. That sums up his entire body of work perfectly, whether it be weather prediction, earthquake prediction or predicting cat futures.

    A quick look at his article shows that he once again wants people to believe that our weather has nothing to do with our atmosphere, stating that: 'The thought doesn't often occur that perhaps the weather is there first and impacts on the rest, e.g the air... If it could be demonstrated that weather preceded atmosphere, then the whole of meteorology might be turned on its head'. This is like saying, 'If it could be demonstrated that evil trolls live under bridges, then the whole notion of natural disasters might be turned on its head'. But like evil trolls, no one has demonstrated the validity of his silly beliefs. He goes on to again claim that 'Weather simply cannot arise from air because there is weather on other planets, yet no air'. The lack of understanding in matters of science by Ring is simply astounding. Again we repeat that Ken is right that 'The human mind is lazy and wants easy answers' and he's more than happy to give people those easy answers since they are all he understands.

  24. Comment by Alison, 16 Dec, 2011

    "If it could be demonstrated that weather preceded atmosphere..."

    Seriously? How can you possibly have weather without an atmosphere?? No, really, how could anyone take this as serious commentary?

  25. Comment by Dave, 19 Dec, 2011

    Why is it that pseudo-scientists, astrologers, palm readers, tea leaf readers, psychics and those that indulge in even more abstract types of hocus pocus — are the only people that will consistently incorrectly predict what is unpredictable?

    Just a thought.

    The mind boggles.

  26. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 20 Dec, 2011

    As Alison said Dave, how can people take what Ring says as serious commentary? Those that do take these idiots seriously seem oblivious to their consistent, obvious and embarrassing failures. To paraphrase a computer term: nonsense in, nonsense out. Or to butcher another saying, you can lead a man to the truth, but you can't make him think.

  27. Comment by Miles, 30 Dec, 2011

    Hi, John. I came across the blog with Ken Ring and you (and a few others) discussing the accuracy of Ken's "predictions." It took me several hours to read the whole thing, but it was fascinating.

    I have to say that I think you were very patient and reasonable. You gave him plenty of opportunities to explain his method but he didn't. It made him look a complete clot. Yet there are people who still "believe in" him. "Belief" is possible even in the total absence of fact and/or logic.

    I have had discussions with other people about why they believe strange things: they tell me it's "easier" to understand superstitions and junk science than it is to think rationally. It has led me to the view that perhaps people believe only what they can get their heads around. It's all very well to be critical of or impatient with such people, but perhaps they are doing what they can. That probably sounds arrogant, but it's not meant to.

    One of the posters mentioned that for someone who has no knowledge of (say) maths finds it terribly difficult to get excited about cosines: you have to do an awful lot of patient explaining to fit "cosines" into a framework that they can understand, whereas someone who is familiar with a bit of geometry will understand it straight off. I think that trying to get some of Ken's supporters to look rationally at his ideas is a bit like lobbing cosines into a conversation, and it's just too difficult for them.

    There is no solution, of course, except education, and we will always have the gullible (in the nicest possible way) and the scammers to take advantage whether they do it with good intentions or bad.

    Anyway, I have found dozens of other articles to read on sillybeliefs, and I have visited predictweather too and downloaded a few interesting (but weird) articles.

    Thanks for the interesting website.

  28. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 05 Jan, 2012

    Hi Miles. Thanks for the comments, and yes, for many it is 'easier' to understand superstitions and junk science than real science, and unfortunately, common sense often appears to support simple nonsense rather than complex science. The world does look flat. Not only that, superstitions and junk science are often structured to match one's desires rather than fit in with a reality that cares not a jot about the whims of humans. A silly belief that promises you ever-lasting life, a miracle cure or knowledge of next year's weather is far more attractive than a natural, indifferent universe.

    And just as I spend no time thinking about ballet or 'Coronation Street', many people spend no time thinking about why science doesn't support charlatans like Ken Ring. And of course Ring doesn't want them to think about it either. He has the easy answers and that's all they need. It's a shame his answers are wrong.

  29. Comment by Laurie, 11 Jan, 2012

    Hi. As a farmer I would find great value in long term weather predictions. Several years ago I bought Ken Rings book (2005 I think). He had 2 maps for each day, in the introduction he said there were 6 possible maps but he only produced two for the book. Each night I compared them with the TV1 weather map for that day. I gave a tick if he was close, a half tick if he was 1-2 days out and a cross if he was way off. After 6 weeks I threw his book away. His predictions were meaningless.

  30. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 12 Jan, 2012

    Needless to say Laurie, we have found exactly the same thing whenever we check his predictions with the real world. What can we say? There are just a lot of gullible people out there who can't recognise when they are being fed nonsense, take those that pay mediums to be told lies. Some people are just great at deluding themselves, seeing what they want to see and ignoring the mistakes, and Ring plays both sides of the field, deluding himself and others.

  31. Comment by Miles, 19 Jan, 2012

    Hi. I, like most civilised people, had a thought while singing in my shower this morning. I have just started reading a book about cells — their discovery and capabilities and chemistry and all — and it occurred to me (apropos my previous email that people will just believe what they can ... what they are capable of getting their heads around) that ...

    When we find something that piques our interest, it's nice to be able to tear down to the library or jump on the interweb and dig up a bit more on it. But I wonder if that occurs to people who follow "alternative science"? One of the reasons for the junk is that it is "easier" to believe, in the sense that it is "simpler" and so it may not even appeal to look deeper into it. One of the sad effects of superstitions is that they discourage investigation by assigning a power to some other object, real or imagined.

    On the other hand, if it *does* occur to them (to follow up), then there are metres of shelves or dozens of webpages that they *can't* refer to — it's no good looking at the 500s (in the Dewey system). So, where do they look? Easier to not bother, I suspect.

    Anyway, my 2 cents worth.

  32. Comment by Paul, 24 Jan, 2012

    Scam or no scam his predictions in my area of nsw are uncannily accurate giving me an advantage in my farming operation
    As well as being a farmer I happen to be a scientist holding a PhD!

  33. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 24 Jan, 2012

    Well Paul, Ken makes that many predictions, in Australia, in NZ and in Ireland, we're sure by pure chance alone he must appear to get a few right now and again. If his method worked, it would consistently work for everyone, not just a farmer with a PhD in NSW. His prediction success would be obvious to all — not just supporters, but meteorologists, climate scientists and naysayers — and he wouldn't still be running his business from his kitchen.

  34. Comment by Baldrick the 3rd, 25 Jan, 2012

    Paul, Ken has been completely inaccurate with earthquake and some weather predictions here.

  35. Comment by mikey, 20 Feb, 2012

    Surely Paul, as a scientist, could present a measurement of this claimed uncanny accuracy? Is it 50%, 75%, or some other number? Scientists are not defined by their degrees, but by their behaviour, so give us some verifiable empirical data Paul, not just vague claims of uncanny accuracy. Ken's whole business is based around vague claims unsupported by scientific method or verifiable independent data.

  36. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 04 Mar, 2012

    Saturday, March 3rd, and a weather bomb predicted by the MetService hits much of the lower North Island. The TV evening news tells us that high winds and driving rain has left a trail of destruction, with 25,000 households losing electricity, roofs being torn off, trees being uprooted, and ferries and flights cancelled.

    So how did Ken Ring, infamous long-range weather and earthquake astrologer, perform? Did the Almanac that he sells to the credulous give value for money? Did Ring provide a warning of this extreme weather, a clear warning that your typical Kiwi who isn't a weather expert could quickly and easily discern on consulting his Almanac?

    Well, if you know anything factual about Ken Ring's past prediction record, you'll naturally assume that the answer is no, Ring did not know that this extreme weather was coming, and hence provided no clear warning to his clients. And you would be right. We guess that on a failure level Ring is at least consistent and predictable.

    So, if Joe or Josephine Bloggs has foolishly wasted good money on Ring's Alamanc, what weather, if not extreme weather, did Ring forecast for the weekend of March 3-4? If we flick to the appropriate days, here is what we are told to expect:

    March 3, Saturday
    Isolated showers in Southland, Otago and South Canterbury. Showers in the North Island but scattered to the east. Fine elsewhere.

    March 4, Sunday
    Mainly fine, but isolated showers still possible.

    Honestly now, would that forecast see you cancelling ferries, flights and festivals? Would you be checking your disaster insurance, securing your loose roofing iron, staying away from large trees and power lines and preparing for a weekend without electricity? Of course not, who's afraid of the possibility of a few showers?

    Of course Ken will now argue that what he provided in his Almanac were not weather forecasts or predictions, but merely opinions, and as such, according to Ken's otherworldly reasoning, can't be wrong. Of course they obviously are wrong, and embarrassingly wrong, when compared to reality. So does Ken not understand what reality is, and how it should match his predictions? Apparently not, and nor does he seem to care. But why do some of the public support his fantasy?

    To us it appears that Ring's Almanac is similar to the ubiquitous Bible, a book that some people have in their possession but have never really read. They just assume that what it says is correct, and that if they did read it, it would support their beliefs. Furthermore, we know people that promote Ring, and yet they have never bought his Almanac, and thus are definitely speaking from hearsay and ignorance. Ring appears to attract gullible and unsophisticated followers that have apparently just stepped out of a rip in the time continuum linked to the Middle Ages. They find science complex and confusing and instead find comfort in the thought that an astrologer working in his kitchen, can discern mystical patterns in the heavens that can warn us of approaching drizzle or a slight earth tremor. But do most of us really worry about slightly annoying weather?

    We've asked it before and we'll ask it again, what use is an Almanac of weather forecasts if these predictions consistently fail to correctly predict extreme weather? The fact is that Ring's weather 'opinions' are considerably less reliable than those produced by a Ouija board operated by a drug-addled hamster. And the hamster isn't asking for money.

  37. Comment by Anonymous, 04 Mar, 2012

    Great. No doubt Ring will point to an obscure reference somewhere in his almanac. Ring is a fraud and needs to be constantly exposed as such.

  38. Comment by Ken Ring, 04 Mar, 2012

    May I draw readers’ attention to p132 of the 2012 almanac


    1st Possible heavy rain in Wellington.

    1st-4th A depression develops and becomes slow moving over the SI, bringing electrical storms with hail and high rainfall to Nelson. Heavy falls may also occur in South Canterbury and Otago with the possibility of hail south of Ashburton and Nelson.

    Also p133 and 134 for the heavy rainfall at start of March for the top of the SI and Taranaki.

    That was all written two years ago, as all the almanacs are, to fit publisher’s deadlines. I’d say the reading was spot on the money. You, yet again, would probably say coincidence, or take issue with one of the full stops or commas — you will find something wrong. But anyone who read that may indeed have been warned. I think this time you picked the wrong example, and you have been caught out.

    So please Silly People bullies, stop your outright lying of my successes. It proves yet again your usual vindictiveness and negative bias. You didn’t even read that page, and it pertained to what you were criticising! We have discussed before how you view me as competition, simply because you still supply organisations with recycled weather data, something you will probably deny. And if I wasn’t accurate you wouldn’t need to worry about me, but you do, hence all the vitriol. Well, many view you as a laughing stock, but aptly named. If you have anything to contribute to society, publish your own almanac. Otherwise give credit where credit’s due.

    As to earthquake predictions, my twitter record speaks for itself. I have twittered warnings between a few days to a week before every next largest Christchurch earthquake. Everyone knows already of the "Valentines Day tweet" of 14 Feb tweet warning of a big one expected in a week’s time. It was that which caused all the media fuss, because so many left the CBD for a few days around the 22nd. And my tweet in Sept 2010 warning of the big one in 6 months time was for the same event period.

    Try to understand that predictions are opinions based on analysis. Many predicted the outcome of the General Election well beforehand, but they were not the subject of Silly Beliefs witchhunts. They were not evil Satanists. Why the inconsistency? There are many who find the almanacs helpful to their business because they are making decisions and our accuracy is about 85-90%. Who are you to attempt to dissuade them just because of your bias towards anything alternative? Have you ever heard of live and let live? This is a free society and we are allowed to make choices. You are not the Thought Police, although you clearly think you have been given that watchdog role.

  39. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 05 Mar, 2012

    Who do you think is reading your reply Ken, the children from the local playschool, since they're the only ones that just might — I repeat, might — be naive enough to be fooled by your argument?

    Taranaki is saying that Saturday's weather bomb is the worst storm they've experienced in living memory. The main weather element that caused the devastation was gale force winds. Did any of your forecasts even mention wind for the lower North Island, no matter where you hid them? No, they didn't. Not your daily forecasts, not your monthly summary, not your Severe Weather section, nor your Extreme Weather Event Potentials section. They talk of showers. Your reply now says you predicted electrical storms, hail and heavy rain in Nelson, and heavy rain in South Canterbury and Otago. You claim that 'I'd say the reading was spot on the money... anyone who read that may indeed have been warned'. Don't you understand Ken, Taranaki got gale force winds, Nelson did not get electrical storms, hail and heavy rain etc. They are different places. How, even in your most delusion state, can you believe that people will read 'hail in Nelson' and immediately understand that this really means 'gale force winds in Taranaki'? Is there an appendix for your Almanac explaining all this that got left out?

    There is NO WAY WHATSOEVER that your quoted forecasts could have warned the lower North Island to expect gale force winds on the 4th.

    We love the way you hide contradictory forecasts throughout your Almanac. The sign of a true scammer. Do you not understand Ken that when a typical reader of your Almanac wants to know what weather to expect on a specific day, they are simply going to turn to your 'detailed' day forecasts, where you devote an entire page to every day of the year? Isn't that what you provide them for? They are not going to reread your summary for the month or your entire book every day just in case you've given a different forecast for that day. Why mention electrical storms and hail in the summary and then neglect to mention them on the actual days they are to occur? We see this at best as incompetent and at worst deceptive. Deceptive in that if electrical storms and hail do occur you can point people to your prediction in the summary. If instead it's fine weather, you point them to your daily forecast that has a completely different forecast. And unfortunately Ken, every time someone challenges one of your forecasts, this is exactly what you do, you seek to find and ineptly reinterpret a hidden forecast.

    As to your silly earthquake predictions, we've already debunked your claims over the Christchurch quakes. I see you're now claiming to have saved lives in the Feb 22 quake because of your tweet warning: 'It was that which caused all the media fuss, because so many left the CBD for a few days around the 22nd'. This is bullshit and you know it. People died because they didn't leave the CBD. The public and the media in general didn't know of your tweet until AFTER the quake, and as we've explained, even if they had known and taken your tweet seriously, they would still have been in the CBD on the 22nd. Your devious need to falsely weave yourself into history as a hero is despicable.

    You again claim that your 'accuracy is about 85-90%'. Please tell us all what qualified, independent testing body verified that accuracy. We know you won't because we know you are just making this number up. But feel free to prove us wrong.

    You again push the lie that 'We have discussed before how you view me as competition, simply because you still supply organisations with recycled weather data, something you will probably deny'. Again, you've said you have evidence of this, so why won't you produce it? Is it written in crayon?

    You ask, 'If you have anything to contribute to society, publish your own almanac. Otherwise give credit where credit's due'. You sound like one of those stupid psychic mediums that say, if you think all this is a scam, then you do a better psychic reading. We believe psychic claims are nonsense, and yours as well, so we aren't going to start giving psychic readings or astrological based weather forecasts ourselves. We don't claim to be able to forecast the weather, can't you comprehend that? We merely say you can't either. And we are very happy to give credit to people we believe deserve it, but you don't, by any stretch of the imagination.

    You're right Ken, 'Many predicted the outcome of the General Election well beforehand', and we're not criticising their analysis simply because their predictions were correct. We criticise yours because they are always wrong. There is no inconsistency. We criticise the clowns, not the experts.

    You accuse us of being biased towards anything alternative, but this is demonstrably false. We're atheists, which is the alternative to the religious majority view. In a recent post we supported the creation of nude beaches in NZ, which is another minority alternative view. We support the alternative view of voluntary euthanasia. We have nothing against alternative views, and indeed we support many, what we rail against is stupid, ignorant, superstitious views. As we've said, religion is not an alternative view, so why in your opinion do we challenge it? Your accusation fails. You again plead with us, 'Have you ever heard of live and let live?' We could ask you the same question regarding your challenge of climate change claims. You correctly consider it is your right to challenge a view you believe is false. You would reject their request of 'live and let live', so why be a hypocrite and use it on us? You also go on to state that 'This is a free society and we are allowed to make choices'. So why do you deny us our freedom of choice? Our choice is to critique your publicised weather forecasting method, results and claims, and to freely state our conclusions to those that are interested. You appear to insist that in this free society of yours, you have the right to publicise your views, and charge for them, in books, on the Internet, radio and TV, and to vociferously criticise those you disagree with, eg climate change scientists, politicians and us, but we must remain silent. How is this a free society for all? Your stance seems a little one sided Ken, but perhaps you can explain why we should be denied our voice, but not you?

    We await your answers Ken. We're sure they'll be enlightening, or at least cringe-worthy.

  40. Comment by Anonymous, 06 Mar, 2012

    I knew Ken would find an obscure reference somewhere in the almanac! ‘Silly Beliefs’ response was excellent, clearly rebutting each of Ken’s ‘points’... from a debating point of view however, it was not difficult.

    Where are you Ken? What’s your response? Time for first affirmative to sum up!

  41. Comment by Ken Ring, 08 Mar, 2012

    No, I’m here alright. But no point speaking to someone called Anonymous, strawman for Silly Beliefs. It’d be like talking to a big hole. Real people please.

    "perhaps you can explain why we should be denied our voice, but not you?"
    Oh well, I’ll try, but the problem is that bullies never do understand that they are the ones that start fights. Then they get surprised when the attacked retaliate. Bullies assume the ethical right to order their victims what to do, believe or what not to do and believe. They think the world is against them and the undefended are fair game and deserve to be attacked because they, the bullies, are smarter. They hide behind anonymous names and like a dog with a bone that they can’t release (here) they produce multi-webblogs dedicated to the ruination of someone whose business they take some atheistic dislike to, because they want it to be about astrology (which it is not) so they can vent their anti-astrological spleens. You ask for the difference. That’s it. I do not have a blog dedicated to criticising Silly Beliefs existence. The world knows who the bullies are, just by their actions. SB has a blog dedicated to critically discussing my business, from every angle you can find. You epitome intolerance. You incite hatred. That’s why, in the name of decency, democracy and discrimination you should be curbed, but being a free society the market will sort that, because the public are not all SB groupies. There is nothing wrong with opinions, and everything wrong with enforcing your own (in SB case you only exist to attack others) under the pretence of being moral intellectual watchdogs. What do you contribute to society? What pride of accomplishment will you carry to your graves? That you criticised well and spread lots of good hate? But I suppose SB has nothing better to do than create dissent under their Anonymous aliases. Meanwhile, just ask yourselves one question. Why would it be that the biggest TV network employs me and has done for the past 5 years, as longrange weather consultant, and only this morning on air at prime breakfast time, the host on the biggest radio network in the biggest city called my contributions the most accurate of all their weather forecasting people?
  42. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 09 Mar, 2012

    'no point speaking to someone called Anonymous... It'd be like talking to a big hole. Real people please.'
    Now see Ken, that's what we see as one of the many flaws in your worldview. Your apparent belief that posters that make comments on Internet forums aren't real people. Are they machines perhaps, or spooks, or aliens from another dimension? But seriously, why your insistence on always knowing who is asking a question, needing to know their full name and colour of underwear? Why do you fixate on the person rather than their question? How might their identity make a difference to the answer you'd give? You happily sell your Almanac to people you don't know — completely anonymous. But they give you money and that seems to make a difference. When you speak on TV and radio you're communicating with faceless people. In fact you don't even know that anyone is listening. Why can you explain your method to them without thinking you're talking to a big hole and imaginary people, but not to someone on the Internet? Perhaps because the Internet can be interactive, these faceless people can ask you questions, whereas your readers, viewers and listeners can't. And questions scare the hell out of you. You apparently have no idea on how to deal with an audience that can talk back, and you respond by ignoring them, claiming that they're not real people. Your insults, lies and pleading are merely a ploy to avoid showing a losing hand. You won't answer because we all know that there are no believable answers.

    But unlike you Ken, we will respond to the points you've raised.

    Contrary to your belief, we're not at all surprised that you respond to our debunking of your silly belief, scammers naturally try to silence those that attempt to expose their scam. But we are dumbfounded that you retaliate, as you call it, not with evidence and reason to our challenges, but with immature and venomous insults. We asked several things of you, and as usual, you refuse support to your claims and accusations. You won't reveal who verified your claimed forecast accuracy and you won't provide evidence that we are in competition with you. Instead you simply argue — again — that we should not be allowed to criticise your method. Your argument: anyone that criticises climate change or accepted NZ history is expressing free speech, but anyone who criticises Ken Ring is a bully. Why have you singled yourself out as a special case Ken? And how many times do we have to explain that a bully is not defined as someone 'who starts fights'. Please buy a dictionary. A bully is one who victimises a much weaker opponent, knowing that they don't have the skills or strength or intellect to fight back. Is that how you see yourself Ken, as a weak victim unable to muster a defence? Apparently so.

    So instead you just spew more lies and nonsense. You say that we 'produce multi-webblogs dedicated to the ruination of someone whose business they take some atheistic dislike to', implying that we have created multiple sites all designed to bring about your ruin. You know this is false, and only your arrogance and inflated ego leads you to believe that our sole website is all about you. You are only a bit player on our website, and given a choice of scams and silly beliefs we would like the public to realise are bogus, your's would be near the bottom of a long list. And what does 'atheistic dislike' mean? Just a meaningless insult I guess, as what does atheism have to with you pretending to forecast the weather? Do you see yourself as a god that an atheist would want to challenge?

    You go on to say that 'I do not have a blog dedicated to criticising Silly Beliefs existence'. No you don't, instead you come to our website and criticise us here. You may not do it on your own website (no doubt because you don't want your readers to know of our existence), but don't pretend that you don't criticise us, or that you hold the high moral ground. Furthermore, you do have a website and books and a view of the universe that criticises reality as we see it. While you may not name us, your crusade to drag people back to our ignorant, primitive and superstitious past is insulting and worrying to all who seek progress. You continually insult scientists and academics and everyone who takes issue with your beliefs. You don't have to dedicate your insults and criticisms to 'Silly Beliefs', the fact is that your business is dedicated to criticising rational people everywhere.

    Then we have the usual insults: 'You epitome intolerance. You incite hatred. That's why, in the name of decency, democracy and discrimination you should be curbed'. Do you even understand what you write, or are your tears of anger and victimhood blinding you? You accuse us of intolerance, and yet that means being 'unwilling to tolerate differences in opinions or beliefs'. You then go on to say that our opinion should be curbed — silenced — which, on your part, is the very definition of intolerance. Just as you say claims of climate change are bullshit Ken, we say your weather forecast claims are bullshit. This is not intolerance Ken, it is freedom to hold an opinion and freedom to express it. Do you not understand this? But this comes back to the question you've failed to answer, why can you have a website, books, radio and TV spots etc. dedicated to pushing your opinions, but we can't even have a website that expresses our opinions? That sounds like intolerance and discrimination in our view, and not at all democratic. You accuse us of being Nazis and Stalinists and yet it appears it is you that inhabit their ugly world. And to say that we 'incite hatred' is another vile and false accusation. Most people pity you Ken, they don't hate you. Perhaps one or two do, but it's most likely your earthquake scare mongering that has brought this about, not our website. When you fled into hiding last year, neither you nor the media claimed that pitchfork-wielding mobs were incited by hate speech on our website.

    'There is nothing wrong with opinions, and everything wrong with enforcing your own', you say. This is true Ken, but it becomes malicious with your accusation that we are somehow enforcing our opinion onto others. Tell us Ken, how do we force and compel the public to adopt our opinions? To you we are Nazis and Stalinists and worse, but if we are using their intimidation tactics, why aren't you reporting us to the authorities? We're sure that this will be yet another question you will ignore.

    You ask us, 'What do you contribute to society? What pride of accomplishment will you carry to your graves?' To society we contribute a voice of reason, and assist others in debunking your forecasting method. We provide a service to those with curious and open minds that want access, not just to your website, books and interviews, but to a website with a skeptical view of your claims. Reading opposing views lets people decide whose claims have validity and whose don't. Without us and other skeptics, there is no informed choice. We can't force people what to think any more than you can, but we do give the public a choice. A choice you would deny them if you could. If we can help convince just one person that your beliefs are nonsense and unfounded, then we will have a sense of accomplishment. The fact is we know we've already done this many times over, and they'll tell two people, who will tell two people... So we're happy with how things are going, in case you're worried that we might be feeling despondent. You help give our life meaning Ken, you give us purpose. And many of your claims provoke laughter, which evidently is beneficial too. So thankyou, you are helping people after all, not just in the way you thought.

    You finish by asking us to ponder on why 'the biggest TV network employs' you and why 'the host on the biggest radio network in the biggest city' has declared you 'the most accurate of all their weather forecasting people?' And yet strangely, even though we have ready access to TV and radio, and hear several weather reports every day, you are never the one delivering them. If you are so valued Ken, why in the end do they always go with the other guys, the ones that have science and technology behind their forecasts? If these claims were true you would have named the TV and radio networks. Why didn't you Ken? Not in NZ perhaps? But more importantly, you fail to understand that rational people do not ask the popular media to decide on matters of science. What confidence should we have in TV networks that buy 'Sensing Murder' and 'Destiny Television With Bishop Brian Tamaki' and radio networks that read us our horoscopes?

    Only supporting evidence will convince us Ken that your method is anything but nonsense, but you offer nothing but personal insults, threats and a tearful plea that we stop thinking critically about what you say in public.

  43. Comment by Alison, 12 Mar, 2012

    OK, Ken — your almanac apparently said 1st-4th A depression develops and becomes slow moving over the SI, bringing electrical storms with hail and high rainfall to Nelson. Heavy falls may also occur in South Canterbury and Otago with the possibility of hail south of Ashburton and Nelson.

    How does this translate into a warning of the highly destructive weather that hammered South Taranaki (especially Patea) that weekend? Hmmm?

  44. Comment by Dave, 15 Mar, 2012

    Ken, if you put yourself out in front of the public and make predictions/forecasts/expressive opinions or whatever you term them, on weather and particularly earthquake events, and are wrong, expect public questioning as to why — 20th March 2011 major earthquake for example which caused huge alarm in Canterbury (and don't drop the BS line about a 4 mag at Twizel).

    If you don't like public opinion — don't make the comments/predictions or whatever it is you do. If you talk to the public via the media expect public questioning — it goes with the territory. Expect it from what you publish on your web site or tweets and what ever other media you use. SB are quite correct — you can make statements on major TV channels and radio stations ( you haven't said what ones of course — so please elaborate if you will) and unless it is talkback radio no one can question you. Hence if someone challenges you on what they have heard you say, or read what you have written it's not the name of the person that is important — it is the question that counts and more importantly the answer!!!!!. Grasp that fact if you can.

    If you promote yourself in the media you will promote probing questions from the public. Do you actually understand that?

    I am not a member of the SB team. I am simply a member of the public who has used this SB forum to ask questions of you. Please advise what other forums people like me can use to do that? Do you have one on your web site — can't find it. In answer to questions I have asked you in this forum you have been evasive, defensive, and attacking of the question. If you think SB is destroying your credibility or your business, in my view you are doing that yourself.

  45. Comment by Ian, 26 Mar, 2012

    The irony regarding Ken's insanely inaccurate predictions/forecasts is that as an avid climate change denier, he demands peer reviewed, empirical scientific evidence. When it comes to his own "science" however, this no longer applies.

  46. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 26 Mar, 2012

    You're right Ian, but unfortunately this subterfuge, this insistence an different rules for opposing claims is the only way that promoters of nonsense such as Ring can operate. The religious demand a guarantee when they buy a new TV and psychic mediums demand evidence of safety when a cellphone tower goes up nearby, but demand a guarantee or evidence from a priest or psychic and they plead ignorance, quickly changing the subject or running away. Ring should rise to the evidential standard he correctly expects from scientists, but this is like asking a magician if we can look up his sleeve. Ring's trick would be revealed, and his business and flimsy credibility would collapse. Like priests and psychics, Ring won't be forthcoming with evidence to support his silly claims. His job, he believes, is to make silly claims, not to support them.

  47. Comment by Carol, 23 Apr, 2012

    This is so silly it's kind of awesome.

    "Earth tides are the reason for soil in the ground, as the constant heaving of the land over thousands of years grinds up rocks like cutting knives. By the seashore the same process enables shells to be ground into fine sand over millions of years. It is why ground and grind are connected. Otherwise we might ask, how do soil and sand get formed?" [Ken Ring]
  48. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 23 Apr, 2012

    The embarrassing thing for Ken is that he doesn't realise how silly much of what he says is.

  49. Comment by Ian, 30 Apr, 2012

    Just out of curiosity, I visited Ring's website. At the bottom right hand corner, there's a video link which says "Listen to Ken's daily forecast". As most of the north island is in being pummelled by heavy rain, I thought I would indeed listen to Ring's forecast. Hello? What forecast? Ring immediately launched into a diatribe on the emissions trading scheme, with no reference to today's weather, or any weather for that matter!

  50. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 01 May, 2012

    Surely you're not expecting Ring to be completely truthful in what he promotes on his website? He's like those other scams that proclaim, You've won a million dollars!!!! Click here to collect.

  51. Comment by G. Ullible, 02 May, 2012

    I've just clicked on the bit above that says I've won a million dollars and nothing has happened. Where is my million dollars?

    Yours, G. Ullible

  52. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 03 May, 2012

    Dear Mr G. Ullible, fear not, our system has registered your claim. And as soon as we receive your $1,000 to cover legal fees and lunch, one million dollars will be deposited into your account.

    Yours, A. Lawyer

  53. Comment by G. Ullible, 03 May, 2012

    Goody! On its way.

    This is unbelievable!

  54. Comment by Graeme, 07 May, 2012

    Hi John. Just a heads-up. Ken Ring was just on Radio Rhema and was more insane than usual. Perhaps he was playing to the perceived audience as he often does. He was brought on as a Moon "expert" and went randomly sideways immediately. Really. It’s gold, in a very tinny way. He added up the first 144 digits of Pi to get 666. Also... the diameter of Stonehenge is 144 feet! I didn’t know the Neolithics used foot rulers.

    Hopefully they’ll post it for a relisten.

    Also... on another subject... how on Earth does Radio Rhema get charitable trust status? They are a charity for themselves, surely.

  55. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 07 May, 2012

    Thanks Graeme. Always nice to hear what the nutter is up to, and who is helping publicise his brand of nonsense. He does play to his perceived audience as you say, and being on a Christian radio station we doubt he mentioned his accusation that Christians slaughtered his ancestors and are still actively painting him and his astrology as tools of Satan. His greed for sales obviously allows him to bury this festering hatred for the duration of the interview.

    Ring is not a Christian, and therefore the fact that the first 144 digits of pi add up to 666 should be meaningless to him. Christians believe that 666 is 'the Mark of the Beast', of Satan. Of course this is utter superstitious nonsense, based on a form of Biblical numerology. But that aside, 666 only has importance and meaning to silly Christians, for everyone else it's just the number between 665 and 667. That Ring would mention this bullshit just exposes a dishonest and devious con man trying to get on side with his potential marks.

    Ring has shown an interest in numerology in the past, for example in his book Pawmistry: How to Read Your Cat's Paws, but there is no evidence that he supports Biblical numerology. But regardless, this silly attempt to find hidden truths embedded in ordinary things is really quite childish. It's like me saying that if Ken Ring's name is converted to Klingon, and then we add the average weight of an adult leprechaun to each letter, then add them all together and divide this number by the number of angels on a pin head, we will get a specific number. If we then numerologically covert this number back into English we get the phrase: DELUDED MORON. This of course might be amazingly true, just like pi and 666 is true, but it's just a coincidence. If you perform enough mental gymnastics, and ignore all the approximations, you can derive spooky coincidences from almost anything. For example, we believe that to count the first 144 digits of pi and get 666, you have to ignore the first digit — 3 — and just count the decimal digits.

    However Ring is actually an advocate of many silly pseudo-history theories, believing that ancient civilisations worked out how the universe functioned long ago, and we've foolishly replaced their advanced knowledge with our erroneous scientific theories. In our arrogance and hubris we've replaced Ken Ring's beloved astrology with astronomy. Shame on us. Ring has made silly claims like this: 'ancient maps, said to be 120 million years old have been recently discovered'. Drawn by intelligent dinosaur explorers no doubt! It appears that Ring's clients must be as ignorant and gullible as he is, otherwise why support him?

    And you're right Graeme, the builders of Stonehenge would have had no knowledge of British Imperial System measurements. 144 feet would have had no meaning to them. If this Stonehenge measurement is indeed 144 feet, then it must be a complete coincidence. However we even doubt that it is exactly 144 feet, since based on other spooky measurements claimed for the Egyptian pyramids and the Washington Monument etc, the truth is usually that measurements have been fudged to reach the desired results. A quick search on the Internet only reveals websites as ridiculous as Ring's pushing these hidden cosmic messages. Saying that the Stonehenge builders used feet and inches is as silly as that story about the Christian protesting that modern translations of the King James Bible were being produced, arguing that: 'If King James English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for us'.

    And what's with the number 144 anyway? Apart from some bogus mystical importance, it's just another embarrassing example that Ring's beliefs are far removed from reality.

    I guess being on Christian radio Ring considers that he can reveal more of his silly beliefs than normal, since he is surrounded people that have already demonstrated a willingness to believe really silly things that go against all scientific and historical knowledge. Considering what Christians believe, they can hardly accuse Ring of being a nutter without appearing rather hypocritical.

  56. Comment by Graeme, 08 May, 2012

    Disappointingly, Radio Rhema did not post the Ken Ring interview on their page for a re-listen despite the host, Pat Brittenden, promoting it frequently beforehand.

    It makes me wonder why they made the effort to get him on in the first place.

  57. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 09 May, 2012

    Perhaps in hindsight Graeme they realised that Ring's view on how the world works doesn't support theirs after all. Maybe he surprised even them with the weird things he believes, and they rightly thought that convincing listeners that their Christian beliefs are true is enough of a struggle with out adding Ring's nonsense to the mix.

    Frankly we wonder why anyone would entertain Ring and his views. We suspect that those that do, do so through ignorance and/or greed, using his minor celebrity to promote their own product.

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 May 2012