The Simpsons predictions: fact and fiction

The method: three questions and two drawing details

The verification protocol we apply to every screenshot cited on this page.

No image deserves your trust until it has passed this filter, and it takes two minutes flat. The good news: the show is one of the best-documented works on television. Every episode has a title, a season number and a first broadcast date you can look up online. A screenshot with no identifiable episode is a dead screenshot.

Three authentic predictions, with the evidence

Politics, money and screens: the three most cited hits in the world, put back into their writing context.

We start with the three cases you will see absolutely everywhere, and which stand up to verification. Each has an identifiable episode, a first broadcast date and a real event that followed. Each is also markedly more modest than it looks once you consider what the show already knew at the time of writing. Predicting, here, is above all observing your era attentively.

Three authentic predictions, from the lab

Particle physics, computing and animal mutation: when the writers' room brings out its degrees.

The second block is more technical, and that is where the show becomes really interesting. These three cases do not come from mystical intuition: they come from a desk of writers holding scientific doctorates, an encyclopaedic geek culture and an avowed taste for jokes four people will understand. Two of them are in fact less predictions than very well-told coincidences.

The rest of the record, with the caveats

Twelve cases that pass verification, ranked from the most unsettling to the most overrated.

All twelve of these pass the test: the episode exists, the date fits, the real event definitely came afterwards. What changes radically from one case to another is the merit. Some are genuine strokes of statistical luck, others reasonable bets on a news story already well under way, and one or two are outright parodies of past events turned the wrong way round.

Twelve false predictions still doing the rounds

Retouching, cropping, video montages and generated images: the catalogue of the most shared fakes.

Each of these twelve cases has been dismantled by professional fact-checkers, often within a few hours. The pattern is almost always identical: a disaster hits the news, an anonymous account produces a screenshot "from an old episode", and the sharing explodes long before the first check. The images are made after the event, never before. None has ever been found in an episode actually broadcast.

How a false prediction is made

Eight techniques, from the brushstroke to the generated image, recognisable at a glance.

Fakes do not come from nowhere: they follow a handful of recipes, and once you know them you spot them in three seconds. The show's visual style is a gift to forgers — flat colours, simple outlines, yellow characters recognisable among thousands — and at the same time a curse, because the slightest departure from the model leaps out at a fan.

Why the show sometimes gets it right

Volume, degrees and satire: three very down-to-earth reasons, zero crystal ball.

Once the fakes are set aside, a handful of authentic hits remain — and they need an explanation. It comes down to three words: volume, culture, satire. A show that writes hundreds of gags a season since 1989, with writers holding scientific doctorates, and that aims at lasting failings rather than precise facts, is bound to hit a few targets. The rest is our memory doing the sorting.

We answer your questions