Which past prophecies from Julie Green have been evaluated for accuracy by independent fact-checkers or journalists?
Executive summary
Independent news organizations and commentators have reported on Julie Green’s public prophecies — calling attention to specific claims such as assertions about Joe Biden, CNN, and members of the British royal family — but the reporting in the provided sample does not show a systematic, independent fact‑checking body that has validated or chronologically verified a list of her prophecies and their outcomes [1] [2]. Advocates say third‑party trackers and archived timestamps exist for comparison, but the sources provided do not document peer‑reviewed or mainstream fact‑checker verdicts on particular prophecies [3] [4].
1. Journalistic coverage has cataloged controversial claims, not completed formal fact‑checks
Major outlets and cultural commentators have documented specific, headline‑grabbing statements attributed to Green — for example, reports that she claimed the “real Joe Biden is dead” and that CNN would “have nothing left,” and coverage highlighting a claim tied to Prince Charles and Queen Elizabeth — but those pieces report and contextualize the claims rather than present independent, item‑by‑item rulings on whether each prophecy came true [1] [2].
2. Rolling Stone and similar reporting framed prophecies as unvetted public speech
Rolling Stone’s reporting highlighted a range of Green’s pronouncements and explicitly noted that many of her prophecies “are not fact checked,” signaling journalistic skepticism while cataloging the content and political connections of those remarks [1]. That coverage functions as investigative journalism and critique rather than the sort of fulfillment audit produced by fact‑checking organizations.
3. Critics and sympathetic commentators differ on what counts as “evaluation”
Cultural critics like Diana Butler Bass treat Green’s prophecies as social and political phenomena — arguing the accuracy question is less salient than the movement they energize — which is a form of evaluation about impact and plausibility rather than a forensic truth‑test of discrete predictions [2]. Conversely, some supporters and hobbyist trackers claim a record of specific fulfilled items and public timestamps that could be used for verification, but those claims in the record provided are primarily community‑sourced and not the product of independent, mainstream fact‑checkers [3] [4].
4. Accusatory and defensive sources complicate a clear accounting
A hostile blog tied to a religious organization labels mainstream critiques as “fraudulent” and asserts that criticisms misstate Green’s record — demonstrating that available evaluations are contested and sometimes polemical rather than neutral audits [5]. This dispute highlights that the existing material is a mix of journalistic cataloging, ideological rebuttal, and community tracking, with no clear, neutral ledger of prophecy outcomes cited in the supplied reporting [5] [3].
5. Bottom line: documented journalistic scrutiny exists, systematic independent fact‑checks do not (in the provided record)
The sources show journalists and commentators documenting and criticizing Green’s specific claims (e.g., Biden/Obama body‑double claims, CNN bankruptcy predictions, political prophecies tied to Doug Mastriano and royal‑family rumors) but do not present an authoritative third‑party fact‑checker that has systematically evaluated a roster of her prophecies for accuracy; supporters point to archived timestamps and tracker sites as potential evidence for such an audit, but those are not independently validated in the material provided [1] [2] [3] [4].