VLF Earthquake Prediction - Printable Version +- Earthwaves Earth Sciences Forum (http://www.earthwaves.org/forum) +-- Forum: Earthwaves (http://www.earthwaves.org/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=16) +--- Forum: Earthquake Predictions (http://www.earthwaves.org/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=8) +--- Thread: VLF Earthquake Prediction (/showthread.php?tid=199) |
RE: VLF Earthquake Prediction - Duffy - 02-25-2015 (02-23-2015, 06:08 PM)Roger Hunter Wrote:(02-23-2015, 05:42 PM)Duffy Wrote: Had a terrible day yesterday, only hit wrong on two of my own predictions in the past 12 months, then the first one I posted fails dramatically, then I go to bed not fully understanding why (ever tried sleeping with mixed messages in your head). I ended up rising at 4am and went through the days posts and literally found mixed messages. Hi Roger: Consider appology accepted, I said I wasn't very computer literate, so I'll see this as you giving me some unintentional practice. And I appologise for seeming to be disrespectfull with some of my sitirical remarks, they weren't warranted (felt good at the time though ). You had me going to bed thinking "this guy mustn't drink, and thinks a Tuquila must be an English herbal tea or something". Whilst we're on the subject of Tuquila, have you reconsidered my prediction claim to the Mag 6.2 Tomatlan,Mexico quake at 14:23:13 UT. It did occur within 48 hours of the EM signal, and though I couldn't predict location (not possible with this "Yet") I did predict the magnitude within the posted limit, as attested by you during the script problem. As this is an unusual kind of prediction, it can't be placed in the little white boxes, the prediction relies soley on the EM disruption in the image. What concerns me most Roger, is that by your own admission, your not interested in the images, and its more Brians department. Don't worry Roger, I'm not try to pull you down again, but if you look at this logically (would have used Spock here, but someone beat me to it!) this isn't just a prediction is it!, it's also a theory, my theory. When I first joined Earthwaves over a whole month ago now (how the time flies!) Brian told me when a scientist puts forward a theory, it only becomes reality when its survived all attempts to disprove it, I believe his exact words were "tearing apart". I'm not a scientist, and though I have tried for over 2 years to find a comparison with this theory, it would appear that I'm the only one in authority here to either move it forward or tear it apart. The theory being of course, a particular kind of disruption in the noise line of a VLF monitor plot screen, is related to an impending Earthquake. Prediction is an everyday occupation for you guys, you've been doing it for years, my family have been walking past these images in my house for years, so when I finally put one out in the open, they think I've entered the finals in the soccer world cup (someone get the tissues ready), they thought I'd scored a goal, only to find an hour later, the refferee had disallowed it because he was a basketball coach and didn't know the rules!. A couple of things to concider here, The site administrator (Brian) gave authorisation to the predictee (me) to dispence with usual prediction formalities and allow the theorised EM signal in the image to be used as the starting point of prediction. (Whats that old saying;.. a picture paints a thousand words), the rest that followed is on record. Now, I still detect a hint of sceptisism , even though I've been here over a whole month (sorry, have I said that already), I realise all predictions have to go through a formality for them to be authentic. Has it crossed anybodies mind that if I wanted to be devious about this, why didn't I just complete the official form required with a start time of 8:09pm (the time I posted the prediction). That way, I would have predicted a Mag 6+ quake, 11 hours 14 minutes later using official site protocol, instead of the 27 hours 53 minutes that I honestly predicted. If the adjudicator (your self) only used the officially posted information in the provided boxes to determine a viable prediction, and the predictee couldn't appeal to the administrator about script problems because of global time zone difference (as the adjudicator was able to) then his only option is to highlight the problem in his next post, which is automatically time stamped. Unfortunately, the said quake occured whilst the administrator was in bed (presumably), the point being, I could dispence with the images, and have you guys thinking I've got my crystal ball out of the drawer again. Please don't take this as a personal attack against you Roger, as Brian has also said, "Earthwaves" is a site for science and debate", I've brought my science to the table and I'm defending it by debating its rejection on the grounds of insurficiant understanding by the adjudicator. Also, as Chris has broched the subject of the many years of critisism I may have to endure, I didn't think I would have to give a little of my own, after being here just over a month (sorry, again!!) so I hope he was suggesting it works both ways. As I mentioned earlier, you have been doing this for years, as have the people you deal with, so everybody is use to a certain rytheme, and you get around the net quite abit, so its understandable how busy things can get. So when the new guy comes along with his very first prediction, its hard for him to understand were things are going wrong when its explained to him in less than 20 words. It's not really a critisism, more of an observation and in time I hope I'll fit into the rytheme aswell. Remember Roger, we're just debating here and no offence is given, but if it's taken then its off to Oceanography I go . My theory is out now in black and white (or Red in this case) for everone to see, and it's being put to the test, and hopfully it will pay off. I'll finish here with a couple of small items that my interest you, and I think I'm running out of megabites on this borrowed netbook anyway. My wife and I have decided to put off buying a new car for a year, so I'm now looking to invest in modern, low draw monitors and high capacity batteries for 24 hour monitoring, and she mentioned about sending you the bill in your Christmas card (that was a joke!). I and a friend have started a new antenna project, which is desighned soley for the purposs of Earthquake detection, using advanced componants modeled on similar used on the original antenna, he said he's sending you, his bill in the same Christmas card, (don't think that was a joke though!!) should have it online in 2 weeks. Think I'll go now, appreciate the appology, and hope you'll reconsider what I've said so I can finish off this bottle of Tuquila, and put the Mexican quake on my wall, before Mother-in-law finds a bird picture to put in its place . If you want to debate this further, then I'm game, after all there's time before the next big one. Duffy; RE: VLF Earthquake Prediction - Roger Hunter - 02-25-2015 (02-23-2015, 05:42 PM)Duffy Wrote: Had a terrible day yesterday, only hit wrong on two of my own predictions in the past 12 months, then the first one I posted fails dramatically, then I go to bed not fully understanding why (ever tried sleeping with mixed messages in your head). I ended up rising at 4am and went through the days posts and literally found mixed messages. Hi Roger: Consider appology accepted, I said I wasn't very computer literate, so I'll see this as you giving me some unintentional practice. And I appologise for seeming to be disrespectfull with some of my sitirical remarks, they weren't warranted (felt good at the time though ). You had me going to bed thinking "this guy mustn't drink, and thinks a Tuquila must be an English herbal tea or something". Whilst we're on the subject of Tuquila, have you reconsidered my prediction claim to the Mag 6.2 Tomatlan,Mexico quake at 14:23:13 UT. It did occur within 48 hours of the EM signal, and though I couldn't predict location (not possible with this "Yet") I did predict the magnitude within the posted limit, as attested by you during the script problem.[/quote] Considering the mixup on my part I'll allow you a hit for the quake on the 21st. Quote:As this is an unusual kind of prediction, it can't be placed in the little white boxes, the prediction relies soley on the EM disruption in the image. What concerns me most Roger, is that by your own admission, your not interested in the images, and its more Brians department. Don't worry Roger, I'm not try to pull you down again, but if you look at this logically (would have used Spock here, but someone beat me to it!) this isn't just a prediction is it!, it's also a theory, my theory. At this point it an hypothesis. And as you know, hypotheses have to go thru the fire to become a theory. Quote:When I first joined Earthwaves over a whole month ago now (how the time flies!) Brian told me when a scientist puts forward a theory, it only becomes reality when its survived all attempts to disprove it, I believe his exact words were "tearing apart". I'm not a scientist, and though I have tried for over 2 years to find a comparison with this theory, it would appear that I'm the only one in authority here to either move it forward or tear it apart. The theory being of course, a particular kind of disruption in the noise line of a VLF monitor plot screen, is related to an impending Earthquake. You aren't the only one. I'm helping someone who goes by EQF or EDG. He has advice which gives him a signal of some sort, a single trace I think and he's convinced it's quake related. Quote:Prediction is an everyday occupation for you guys, you've been doing it for years, my family have been walking past these images in my house for years, so when I finally put one out in the open, they think I've entered the finals in the soccer world cup (someone get the tissues ready), they thought I'd scored a goal, only to find an hour later, the refferee had disallowed it because he was a basketball coach and didn't know the rules!. I understand how you feel. You offered a diamond and was told it was glass - mistakenly. I'd be pissed too. Quote:A couple of things to concider here, The site administrator (Brian) gave authorisation to the predictee (me) to dispence with usual prediction formalities and allow the theorised EM signal in the image to be used as the starting point of prediction. (Whats that old saying;.. a picture paints a thousand words), the rest that followed is on record. And I agree. I think we should go thru a practice period before starting any testing. Quote:Now, I still detect a hint of sceptisism , even though I've been here over a whole month (sorry, have I said that already), I realise all predictions have to go through a formality for them to be authentic. Has it crossed anybodies mind that if I wanted to be devious about this, why didn't I just complete the official form required with a start time of 8:09pm (the time I posted the prediction). That way, I would have predicted a Mag 6+ quake, 11 hours 14 minutes later using official site protocol, instead of the 27 hours 53 minutes that I honestly predicted. If the adjudicator (your self) only used the officially posted information in the provided boxes to determine a viable prediction, and the predictee couldn't appeal to the administrator about script problems because of global time zone difference (as the adjudicator was able to) then his only option is to highlight the problem in his next post, which is automatically time stamped. Unfortunately, the said quake occured whilst the administrator was in bed (presumably), the point being, I could dispence with the images, and have you guys thinking I've got my crystal ball out of the drawer again. But we (I, anyway) don't care about the image, only the date/time/mag. Quote:Please don't take this as a personal attack against you Roger, as Brian has also said, "Earthwaves" is a site for science and debate", I've brought my science to the table and I'm defending it by debating its rejection on the grounds of insurficiant understanding by the adjudicator. Also, as Chris has broched the subject of the many years of critisism I may have to endure, I didn't think I would have to give a little of my own, after being here just over a month (sorry, again!!) so I hope he was suggesting it works both ways. As I mentioned earlier, you have been doing this for years, as have the people you deal with, so everybody is use to a certain rytheme, and you get around the net quite abit, so its understandable how busy things can get. So when the new guy comes along with his very first prediction, its hard for him to understand were things are going wrong when its explained to him in less than 20 words. It's not really a critisism, more of an observation and in time I hope I'll fit into the rytheme aswell. Remember Roger, we're just debating here and no offence is given, but if it's taken then its off to Oceanography I go . My theory is out now in black and white (or Red in this case) for everone to see, and it's being put to the test, and hopfully it will pay off. Nope, none taken. I have a very thick skin. You might want to take a look at my prediction rules, posted in here somewhere. Quote:I'll finish here with a couple of small items that my interest you, and I think I'm running out of megabites on this borrowed netbook anyway. Seriously, look into digital recording. Then you can send files that others can plot and do computer analysis on. Quote:I and a friend have started a new antenna project, which is desighned soley for the purposs of Earthquake detection, using advanced componants modeled on similar used on the original antenna, he said he's sending you, his bill in the same Christmas card, (don't think that was a joke though!!) should have it online in 2 weeks. It better be a joke as I just got hit with $3000 worth of cataract surgery and over $8000 in home repairs so I'm pretty broke at the moment. Quote:Think I'll go now, appreciate the appology, and hope you'll reconsider what I've said so I can finish off this bottle of Tuquila, and put the Mexican quake on my wall, before Mother-in-law finds a bird picture to put in its place . If you want to debate this further, then I'm game, after all there's time before the next big one. No debate needed at this point. Just keep the predictions coming so we can tell if it's skill or chance. Roger RE: VLF Earthquake Prediction - Duffy - 02-26-2015 (02-25-2015, 03:39 AM)Roger Hunter Wrote:(02-23-2015, 05:42 PM)Duffy Wrote: Had a terrible day yesterday, only hit wrong on two of my own predictions in the past 12 months, then the first one I posted fails dramatically, then I go to bed not fully understanding why (ever tried sleeping with mixed messages in your head). I ended up rising at 4am and went through the days posts and literally found mixed messages. Considering the mixup on my part I'll allow you a hit for the quake on the 21st. Quote:As this is an unusual kind of prediction, it can't be placed in the little white boxes, the prediction relies soley on the EM disruption in the image. What concerns me most Roger, is that by your own admission, your not interested in the images, and its more Brians department. Don't worry Roger, I'm not try to pull you down again, but if you look at this logically (would have used Spock here, but someone beat me to it!) this isn't just a prediction is it!, it's also a theory, my theory. At this point it an hypothesis. And as you know, hypotheses have to go thru the fire to become a theory. Quote:When I first joined Earthwaves over a whole month ago now (how the time flies!) Brian told me when a scientist puts forward a theory, it only becomes reality when its survived all attempts to disprove it, I believe his exact words were "tearing apart". I'm not a scientist, and though I have tried for over 2 years to find a comparison with this theory, it would appear that I'm the only one in authority here to either move it forward or tear it apart. The theory being of course, a particular kind of disruption in the noise line of a VLF monitor plot screen, is related to an impending Earthquake. You aren't the only one. I'm helping someone who goes by EQF or EDG. He has advice which gives him a signal of some sort, a single trace I think and he's convinced it's quake related. Quote:Prediction is an everyday occupation for you guys, you've been doing it for years, my family have been walking past these images in my house for years, so when I finally put one out in the open, they think I've entered the finals in the soccer world cup (someone get the tissues ready), they thought I'd scored a goal, only to find an hour later, the refferee had disallowed it because he was a basketball coach and didn't know the rules!. I understand how you feel. You offered a diamond and was told it was glass - mistakenly. I'd be pissed too. Quote:A couple of things to concider here, The site administrator (Brian) gave authorisation to the predictee (me) to dispence with usual prediction formalities and allow the theorised EM signal in the image to be used as the starting point of prediction. (Whats that old saying;.. a picture paints a thousand words), the rest that followed is on record. And I agree. I think we should go thru a practice period before starting any testing. Quote:Now, I still detect a hint of sceptisism , even though I've been here over a whole month (sorry, have I said that already), I realise all predictions have to go through a formality for them to be authentic. Has it crossed anybodies mind that if I wanted to be devious about this, why didn't I just complete the official form required with a start time of 8:09pm (the time I posted the prediction). That way, I would have predicted a Mag 6+ quake, 11 hours 14 minutes later using official site protocol, instead of the 27 hours 53 minutes that I honestly predicted. If the adjudicator (your self) only used the officially posted information in the provided boxes to determine a viable prediction, and the predictee couldn't appeal to the administrator about script problems because of global time zone difference (as the adjudicator was able to) then his only option is to highlight the problem in his next post, which is automatically time stamped. Unfortunately, the said quake occured whilst the administrator was in bed (presumably), the point being, I could dispence with the images, and have you guys thinking I've got my crystal ball out of the drawer again. But we (I, anyway) don't care about the image, only the date/time/mag. Quote:Please don't take this as a personal attack against you Roger, as Brian has also said, "Earthwaves" is a site for science and debate", I've brought my science to the table and I'm defending it by debating its rejection on the grounds of insurficiant understanding by the adjudicator. Also, as Chris has broched the subject of the many years of critisism I may have to endure, I didn't think I would have to give a little of my own, after being here just over a month (sorry, again!!) so I hope he was suggesting it works both ways. As I mentioned earlier, you have been doing this for years, as have the people you deal with, so everybody is use to a certain rytheme, and you get around the net quite abit, so its understandable how busy things can get. So when the new guy comes along with his very first prediction, its hard for him to understand were things are going wrong when its explained to him in less than 20 words. It's not really a critisism, more of an observation and in time I hope I'll fit into the rytheme aswell. Remember Roger, we're just debating here and no offence is given, but if it's taken then its off to Oceanography I go . My theory is out now in black and white (or Red in this case) for everone to see, and it's being put to the test, and hopfully it will pay off. Nope, none taken. I have a very thick skin. You might want to take a look at my prediction rules, posted in here somewhere. Quote:I'll finish here with a couple of small items that my interest you, and I think I'm running out of megabites on this borrowed netbook anyway. Seriously, look into digital recording. Then you can send files that others can plot and do computer analysis on. Quote:I and a friend have started a new antenna project, which is desighned soley for the purposs of Earthquake detection, using advanced componants modeled on similar used on the original antenna, he said he's sending you, his bill in the same Christmas card, (don't think that was a joke though!!) should have it online in 2 weeks. It better be a joke as I just got hit with $3000 worth of cataract surgery and over $8000 in home repairs so I'm pretty broke at the moment. Quote:Think I'll go now, appreciate the appology, and hope you'll reconsider what I've said so I can finish off this bottle of Tuquila, and put the Mexican quake on my wall, before Mother-in-law finds a bird picture to put in its place . If you want to debate this further, then I'm game, after all there's time before the next big one. No debate needed at this point. Just keep the predictions coming so we can tell if it's skill or chance. Roger [/quote] Hi Roger; Not only do you have thick skin, you have a big heart, thankyou for allowing me the Mexican quake of 22nd Feb (the EM signal was 21st), now we've got that cleared up, it should be just routine from now on. Thankyou for correcting "hypotheses", I'm just a country boy and was quoting from someone else's post. Must remember to reffer to this dictionary I bought when corresponding with you in the future. When I stated leading authority, I was reffering to this site, I was mearly defending my "hypothesis" and no big headedness was intended (couldn't find EDG anywhere !). Speaking of EDG, finally!!!, someone has answered my first question" Is this a common occurance or worthy of further investigation" boy, you guys certainlly keep things close to your chest here !. I can appreciate you not being interested in the images, now it has been explained to me, as I'm on a practice run, I feel the same way about the rules, and I don't trust the script anyway. I'm going to continue posting images because there could be other people like myself (and EDG) who my not know what they have, because there are no comparisons on the web, and they may benefit from knowing this isn't as common as they think. Sorry to here of you unfortunate and recent expendature, you'll be pleased to know, I've double checked with my friend, and he say's he was only joking, it was my wife who wasn't (I get things wrong too ). Thanks again for the computer practice, the quake and for being a good sport, hope to provide you with plenty of Dates/times/mags so keep the file open. A good debate, nobody really came out on top, and the only casualty was wasting a perfectlly good Dr McCoy picture (sacrilege if your a Trekky ). Duffy |