|
Having Turkey for Xmas, hope it's not this one !.
|
 
12-11-2015, 12:20 AM
My prediction this time is for Turkey, possibly the central region ... 7.5 - 8.5 within 40 days of the time of this post (00:20 UT 20th Jan 2016)
Preferred dates include, Sat 12th Dec / Mon 21st Dec / Sun 10th Jan 2016. Thank you, Duffy,
12-30-2015, 01:51 PM
(12-11-2015, 12:20 AM)Duffy Wrote: My prediction this time is for Turkey, possibly the central region ... 7.5 - 8.5 within 40 days of the time of this post (00:20 UT 20th Jan 2016) My equipment recorded a major aspect change overnight, which seemed worthy of posting, ... signal started at 04:25 UT, increasing from -125 Db to -85 Db, and the signal strength is still holding, to time of this post. Timing of signals indicates coordinates of 35 - 40 degrees latitude, with two possible longitudes of 70 - 80 degrees E ... 110 - 100 degrees W. These coordinates relate to first point contact ... If I was to introduce an untested calculation, I would subtract 30 and 40 degrees retrograde East, and add the same retrograde West. Unfortunately, I've been unsuccessful in re-starting one of my systems, which would have helped in gauging a better longitude figure. The same signal has been repeating in short intervals since 26th Dec, with a signal strength no higher than -110 Db will post again if any significant changes occur. Duffy,
12-30-2015, 04:38 PM
(12-30-2015, 01:51 PM)Duffy Wrote:OOPS ! again, latitude should read "North".(12-11-2015, 12:20 AM)Duffy Wrote: My prediction this time is for Turkey, possibly the central region ... 7.5 - 8.5 within 40 days of the time of this post (00:20 UT 20th Jan 2016)
12-31-2015, 11:08 AM
Hi Duffy, since I post here, and some people know who I am, and I work in Turkey among other places, and I have friends and professional colleagues in Turkey, I have to post the following. Sorry. Keep posting please, we love you, but, there is a tiny chance your prediction will get out and cause panic. Past earthquakes in Turkey have caused tens of thousands of fatalities. We work with a group in Izmir, Turkey, and there may have been a quake there with 100,000+ fatalities a few centuries ago. Now your prediction is confused, with longitudes far east of Turkey.
Everyone else. I have seen no evidence that Duffy can predict earthquakes. Recently he has been posting one prediction after the other, with no evaluation of the previous prediction by Duffy (I need to read Roger's). From what I have seen, none of these predictions could be matched with a significant earthquake. Yes, there are places in Turkey that can have M7.5 earthquakes, with the maximum magnitude maybe to 8. But there is no particular reason to think one of these will occur in January (beyond the long-term odds). So, yes, get your buildings safer, and share data better!
01-01-2016, 06:52 PM
Hi Chris, Firstly, I'd like to wish you and everyone else my best for the new year, ..... I've been reviewing your comments, and decided I like and respect you because your not afraid to speak your mind. Likewise, I'm not afraid to address any issues others may have with me, so I'll start with apologising for the miss use of "Theory", I now have a note taped on my laptop to remind me in future correspondents.
I had already assumed (correctly) that Solar and Lunar triggering had been covered extensively during the sites history, in fact, I would imagine every aspect of Earthquake science has been scrutinised here more than once. So, like myself, why would new members or existing members want to join in discussions on topics were we've already been there, or done that! ... the change comes when there is a significant scientific development, or a different approach with new science. Now, if I haven't misinterpreted past postings, I believe I have introduced a new science here, be it armature at the moment ... it is still a different approach, and if it leads me to a conclusion that requires covering old ground, then that's what I have to do to test it. It's true that I don't know enough about Earthquakes, but I am trying to make an effort ... I'm no expert with radio, but I observe these gibberish lines more than the average person watches TV, and the data on the screens conflicts with the accepted reason for tectonic movement. Also, your right, it does sound like pseudo science ... but I ask that you be a little open minded here, and put yourself in my position ... lets say you've discovered a new method for quake detection, which far exceeds anything before, you spend the next three years developing it yourself because nobody believes you, then just when you have it as efficient as your limits will allow, who would you approach?. This is the stage that I'm at now !!, Nobody know's me, I don't have professional colleagues to turn to, I have no qualifications so no credibility in the scientific community, and no like minded friends to help guide me with what I have !!. I would say my options are rather limited, so I have to try predicting Earthquakes, better than I have been in order to get noticed (Apparently, it has worked with you for the wrong reason  ). This is still new to me, but the more I work the data, the more I understand it. Two days ago, I reported recording a strong signal on my monitor ... at the time I could have simply predicted a 6+ quake in the next 48 hours, as it happens .. a mag 6.3 occurred this morning on the Antarctic ridge, aprox 45 degrees East of signal position (which" isn't" associated with the data I'm working on) I was told here, that the art to prediction is to evaluate and determine weather coincidence or skill is the deciding factor with any posted prediction. Thus, I am trying to portray skill by including coordinates and actual positions, as I am "still" on my own with this, only I can determine where and when this prediction will be by how much I have understood the data !. In the real world, this is pseudo science, but in my world, the data shows the quakes are not in a steady state below the surface, that's why I have been adjusting my predictions. This is a prediction site, one of many online, I can't see how any prediction of mine would be taken seriously to cause panic anywhere !!, it's not likely that anyone will actually predict an Earthquake when and where it actually happens, but it sounds like my method of detailed prediction is making some people uncomfortable ! .. I came on here today to give a final up date, and came across your posts, so today, I'll simply say " big signal on the magnet monitor ( only responds close to an event), signal finished at 10:17 UT, I've come to regard this as Solar noon time in the event area !!! I don't mind any questions Chris, and don't mind debating any relevant subjects ... But, this month I will have been here one year, in that time I have found nobody asks questions ... nobody debates anything ... and nobody does a follow up evaluation on any predictions I've placed, I tried to speculate on some of mine, but in true science it's for others to speculate, not me!, the opportunity has been there but once you have cried wolf a few times, nobody is interested, apart from Roger, who at least is getting some mental exercise from me !. I flipped out a few weeks ago because the significance of what I think I have, made me act that way, I've come to terms with the fact that I'm going to be on my own with this a lot longer than I expected, so I was hoping this past year I would be at least credited with attempting prediction, rather than crying wolf and scaring off the town folk As I said, I like you because your the genuine article, and look forward to us both being on the same frequency, and shaking hands some day  .Hope you enjoy the rest of the holidays, Duffy
01-02-2016, 11:09 AM
Dear Duffy,
I like your post! That is a post from the old Duffy we love! Yes, I am blunt/honest. Probably I should have toned it down a little bit. Poor old Earthwaves page has been suffering from way too few scientists and amateur scientists posting the last few years. Now, Brian has not been posting and he would be, and has been in the past, the best person to work with you on your approach. I think your work is interesting, but I know too little about it, and really cannot evaluate it. My problem lately has been that a couple of weeks ago you did a stream of predictions in a short period, and since no one was doing evaluations for you, and you did not do it yourself, I saw it as not so good. It would be best if, if you make a prediction on this page, you then post an evaluation on what actually happened. I don't have time, and really don't have skill. But, if you claim success for some M5 or 6 when they occur all the time in the area you predict for, I am liable to comment, and Roger is liable to evaluate. Where I thought you were going way too far in direction of pseudo-science was the fine details of moon rise etc. It came across as something you thought was real. I suggest you stick with your electronics (?) measurements, maybe predictions related to these, and some reasonable hypotheses (or even speculation) as to what is causing the signals you record. When people with a lot of expertise (Roger, Brian, or I) suggest you are way out in left field on speculations you may have (like the moon stuff), that you pay attention to us. I'm working towards being happy in the New Year. I had real problems in my personal life in 2015. I am already much happier. It will be a good year. "It will be OK". Chris
01-03-2016, 01:14 AM
Hi Chris,
I to was a little heavy handed with my response .. but Hey! .. it's a new year, lets make it a good year as you suggested .. Besides, its not a good idea rubbing me up the wrong way, especially when I'm polishing off the last of the Christmas Sherry  . Also, apologies to other members, its you right to join in, when and where you wish to contribute .. but lately, it just seems all contributors this past year would fit in a six man tent (or perhaps Rogers new car, if he managed to find one  , though, this year, we are missing our driver a little more than usual !! ).As strange as it seems, I am trying to follow all advice given (thanks Brian for your resent post), and I am following the data .. the problem is, sometimes the data leads me away from the advice given !, For example ... Wednesday 30th Dec, signals recorded during the day showed extreme and abnormally high levels in the dB range .. after three hours of analysis .. no explanation of causality was found through normal search procedure. so this would generally be logged as unexplained. Also that day, I noted that a small quake occurred in Eastern Turkey at 6:11:08 UT .. the next one didn't occur until 18:11:54, I found this a little unusual as I've been monitoring activity there .. prediction and all. As you know yourself, quakes in Turkey have been quite abundant lately, with daily counts in the mid-teens to low 20's, for some reason, this day there was only 8, this is also the day the great storm in Southern US finally stopped!. I calculated the period between quakes at 11h 57m 58s, I didn't think this had any relevance to anything until the day after, when I discovered it matched the time of Lunar day across the central belt of Turkey "exactly to the minute " . The timings fit with the data I have, even the lunar timing, which is probably making you cringe again reading this !!, Now , I think of myself as being as factual as the next would be scientist, but I have come across four such instances in as many weeks. If this was Earthquake prediction, I have been told here .. first hit could be coincidence .. second hit could be a fluke .. third hit, people start paying attention .. fourth hit, your onto something!. But I couldn't test these curiosities here because it's regarded as pseudo !!. This does leave me with a slight dilemma .. Am I reading to much into this ? .. maybe I am, but the hypotheses fits the data ... Do I follow the advice given ? .. yes I should, but the advice conflicts with the data at hand. To give myself a helping hand, I decided to evaluate my own predictions as you suggested. 22nd Nov .. Alaska 24 hrs .......................................................................................................... 23rd Nov .. Caribbean sea 48 hrs ................................................................................................ 24th Nov ................................................................... M7.6 Iberia, Peru ....................................................................M7.6 Tarauaca, Brizil 25th Nov Caribean sea 24 hrs .................................................................................................... ..................................... M6.7 Tarauaca, Brizil (05:45 UT 26th Nov) 26th Nov Dominican Republic 24 hrs ............................M6.0 Mariana region 27th Nov Sonora, Mexico ............................................................................................................ 7th Dec Oklahoma ................................................................................................................... My own conclusion suggests that I didn't get location right, Magnitude is questionable due to wrong location, percentage of hits using aspect change data 50%. Over the four days between 22nd - 26th Nov, I posted four predictions, over the same period there was 3 significant quakes, and 1 unlisted significant quake. I remember Brian mentioning if a significant quake occurred within a 7 day period of a prediction, and could be repeated, it would be a very interesting development!. The mistake I have made here is overconfidence in trying to portray skill (as mentioned), if I had stuck to predicting time period and magnitude like I should have done, the odds would have been in my favour (big signal = Antarctic ridge etc). Even if the prediction details are wrong, you have to admit that I maybe onto something here !! ... If we do have a good year, and I do manage to increase my odds at prediction by simply giving period and mag estimates, how else would I explain this other than being able to match Solar and Lunar data to my own data !!!, so you see, here lies my dilemma. I would gladly welcome a second opinion of my evaluation, the problem with doing it yourself is, your less inclined to criticise your own work. I think for now, I'll stay with times and mag until I have sufficient experience at plotting position. As far as my present prediction is concerned, my systems are telling me there is still a heavy magnetic presence, 70 -30 it's in the Northern hemisphere, 70 - 30 that its between 30 - 40 degrees North latitude, 70 -30 for Mag 7+ ( as compared to data from the resent Afgan quake), location based on my "scientific" interpretation of available data, Afgan region, Iran, Turkey and Greece. Location based on comparable Lunar data (used for this prediction) Turkey, and/or Aegean Sea region. Ok! that's out of the way .. after this prediction lapses, no more pseudo !! . Sorry to here you were having personal issues, but sounds like your heading in a positive direction now! .. no big problems here apart from quake studies keeping me from maintaining my house (and chores for Mother-in-law  ). I do miss my beloved astronomy though, I need AC power for that, but I can't chance disrupting the signals .. that many cobwebs in my observatory now that its starting to resemble the lower galley of the Marie Celeste  .Thanks Chris, Duffy, |
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
Logout 
Portal 
Forum
Search
Members
Help 