Has the media or fact-checkers evaluated Julie Green's political forecasts?
Executive summary
Rolling Stone reported that Julie Green’s public “prophesies” — including specific claims that “the real Joe Biden is dead” and that “CNN will claim bankruptcy” — are presented without independent fact‑checking and that her predictions include both vague and detailed assertions [1]. Other provided sources do not appear to assess Green’s forecasting track record directly (available sources do not mention systematic evaluations beyond Rolling Stone) [1] [2] [3].
1. Rolling Stone: media noted, but did not fact‑check the prophecies
Rolling Stone reviewed Green’s public statements and documented several striking claims — for example that Biden is “not alive anymore” and that an actor plays him, and that CNN “will have nothing left” — and explicitly observed that Green’s prophesies “are not fact checked” in their reporting [1]. The article frames Green as a prolific public figure who posts near‑daily messages through Julie Green Ministries International and highlights both vague forecasts (“Nicaragua: I say this name again will be in your news”) and specific predictions that are falsifiable, while noting Rolling Stone itself did not verify those prophecies [1].
2. No broad, independent fact‑check landscape shown in provided reporting
Among the sources you supplied, I found no systematic, independent fact‑checking project that tracks Julie Green’s predictions over time or rates their accuracy; Rolling Stone’s piece critiques the lack of fact‑checking around her claims but does not attempt a comprehensive verification database [1]. The other pieces in your results do not offer an organized tally of hits and misses for Green’s forecasts; one religious site engages in dispute over personal details and calls some critiques “fraudulent,” but does not present a neutral accuracy audit [2].
3. Partisan and testimonial reactions complicate assessment
The MarketFaith item in your results contains defensive commentary and disagreement over biographical details and the label “erroneous predictions,” showing that within sympathetic religious circles there is pushback against claims of error and contention about what counts as mistaken [2]. That indicates evaluations of Green’s prophecies can be interpreted very differently by audiences with ideological or religious commitments — a reason why independent, external fact‑checks would be valuable [2].
4. What Rolling Stone explicitly says — and what it does not
Rolling Stone documents Green’s specific, public statements and labels them un‑fact‑checked in mainstream media coverage; the report therefore functions as a journalistic flag that these claims exist and are circulating without verification [1]. Rolling Stone does not, however, provide a numerical accuracy score, a timeline of predictions and outcomes, or third‑party adjudication of each prophecy [1].
5. Other fact‑checking outfits in supplied results are unrelated
Your search results include a separate fact‑check on major claims from a Trump press gaggle, which demonstrates how fact‑checkers assess political claims in detail — but that item does not analyze Julie Green’s forecasts [3]. Its presence suggests a model for how a methodical evaluation of Green’s prophecies could be done, yet that sort of analysis is not present in the available reporting [3].
6. Bottom line for readers seeking verification
Available reporting documents high‑profile, specific claims by Julie Green and notes a lack of routine verification in mainstream coverage [1]. The sources you supplied do not include a dedicated, neutral audit of her forecast accuracy, nor do they present a consensus judgment across established fact‑check organizations (available sources do not mention a comprehensive fact‑check tally) [1] [2] [3]. Readers desiring an evidence‑based accuracy record would need an independent project that catalogs her dated predictions and verifies outcomes against contemporaneous records.