This post is not directed at anyone in particular. It applies equally to current posters and any future posters and is based on what I and others have argued for years past.
I would like to advise caution to anyone who does quake predictions. Posting a bunch of predictions doesn't make you a predictor. It's tantamount to throwing a bunch of darts while blindfolded - eventually you'll hit the bulls-eye - but you're not going to make it in a professional competition.
A few high quality predictions backed by a reasoned methodology is far more useful than what on the other end might just be a bunch of random guesses.
It's simple statistics and probability. And I don't mean a probability that the predictor places on the prediction. In reality it means nothing unless that probability is actually derived from a statistical analysis of quake history.
A quality prediction has at a minimum the following information:
a well defined time window - quite simply, a precise start and end time.
a well defined location - one should be able to unambiguously draw the prediction region on a map with no argument.
a well defined magnitude range - at least a minimum magnitude and optionally a maximum or "greater" can be used.
Predictions should also be useful. To use an extreme example, saying there will be a magnitude 2.5 or greater quake in a region covering the west coast of the United States for a time period of several weeks is NOT useful. For one thing it's pretty much guaranteed to happen. Further, what good is it to anybody? Unless you are literally sitting right on top of it no one will even feel it. (I've felt quakes as small as 1.2 within miles of me)
On the other hand, predicting a magnitude 5 or greater in a circular region only 300 miles across centered on a specific latitude/longitude with a short time frame such as one week is useful. First off, mag 5 quakes and bigger don't happen very often, even in very active areas (minus aftershock sequences from even larger quakes). There is an historically low probability of a successful prediction in such a case. Continued success with such predictions implies a valid methodology and warrants further investigation. Keep in mind that even if you do have a hit on such a prediction, one time can still be dumb luck.
Another issue to address is the methodology. If the way one comes up with the prediction is, to be blunt, just plain silly, it's not useful and likely to garner harsh criticism and possibly ridicule. Sorry, but we don't accept tea leaf reading or crystal balls as a valid prediction methodology. How one determines the prediction should be unambiguously definable such that another person reading those instructions would come up with the same prediction.
And secret methods are not acceptable. What good is it if no one else can use the method to protect themselves from a potentially damaging quake?
"Work in progress" methods are fine so long as the predictor is open to changing their method when it is shown to have errors. That's the "progress" part. Otherwise it's just being closed minded and a waste of time.
I would like to continue to have this prediction forum, but I'd like for there to be quality content.
(10-10-2016, 12:55 AM)Skywise Wrote: This post is not directed at anyone in particular. It applies equally to current posters and any future posters and is based on what I and others have argued for years past.
I would like to advise caution to anyone who does quake predictions. Posting a bunch of predictions doesn't make you a predictor. It's tantamount to throwing a bunch of darts while blindfolded - eventually you'll hit the bulls-eye - but you're not going to make it in a professional competition.
A few high quality predictions backed by a reasoned methodology is far more useful than what on the other end might just be a bunch of random guesses.
It's simple statistics and probability. And I don't mean a probability that the predictor places on the prediction. In reality it means nothing unless that probability is actually derived from a statistical analysis of quake history.
A quality prediction has at a minimum the following information:
a well defined time window - quite simply, a precise start and end time.
a well defined location - one should be able to unambiguously draw the prediction region on a map with no argument.
a well defined magnitude range - at least a minimum magnitude and optionally a maximum or "greater" can be used.
Predictions should also be useful. To use an extreme example, saying there will be a magnitude 2.5 or greater quake in a region covering the west coast of the United States for a time period of several weeks is NOT useful. For one thing it's pretty much guaranteed to happen. Further, what good is it to anybody? Unless you are literally sitting right on top of it no one will even feel it. (I've felt quakes as small as 1.2 within miles of me)
On the other hand, predicting a magnitude 5 or greater in a circular region only 300 miles across centered on a specific latitude/longitude with a short time frame such as one week is useful. First off, mag 5 quakes and bigger don't happen very often, even in very active areas (minus aftershock sequences from even larger quakes). There is an historically low probability of a successful prediction in such a case. Continued success with such predictions implies a valid methodology and warrants further investigation. Keep in mind that even if you do have a hit on such a prediction, one time can still be dumb luck.
Another issue to address is the methodology. If the way one comes up with the prediction is, to be blunt, just plain silly, it's not useful and likely to garner harsh criticism and possibly ridicule. Sorry, but we don't accept tea leaf reading or crystal balls as a valid prediction methodology. How one determines the prediction should be unambiguously definable such that another person reading those instructions would come up with the same prediction.
And secret methods are not acceptable. What good is it if no one else can use the method to protect themselves from a potentially damaging quake?
"Work in progress" methods are fine so long as the predictor is open to changing their method when it is shown to have errors. That's the "progress" part. Otherwise it's just being closed minded and a waste of time.
I would like to continue to have this prediction forum, but I'd like for there to be quality content.
I'd like to add, I am very open to the possibility of quake prediction. As far a I know there is no data to show that it's impossible. Although, it may be a stochastic process - that is it may have some random variables that we cannot predict. In that case it may become like weather prediction. Right now we have 30 year forecasts. In the future we may have 10 year, 1 year, maybe 1 month forecasts. I'm sure of this because unless we stop doing seismology altogether, we will inherently get more data and information about how things work under our feet. We will have a better understanding and therefore be able to say more accurately what is going on.
Until there is some elegant solution that flat out says prediction is impossible, I feel it is a worthy area of study. Within reason, of course.
(10-10-2016, 12:55 AM)Skywise Wrote: This post is not directed at anyone in particular. It applies equally to current posters and any future posters and is based on what I and others have argued for years past.
I would like to advise caution to anyone who does quake predictions. Posting a bunch of predictions doesn't make you a predictor. It's tantamount to throwing a bunch of darts while blindfolded - eventually you'll hit the bulls-eye - but you're not going to make it in a professional competition.
A few high quality predictions backed by a reasoned methodology is far more useful than what on the other end might just be a bunch of random guesses.
It's simple statistics and probability. And I don't mean a probability that the predictor places on the prediction. In reality it means nothing unless that probability is actually derived from a statistical analysis of quake history.
A quality prediction has at a minimum the following information:
a well defined time window - quite simply, a precise start and end time.
a well defined location - one should be able to unambiguously draw the prediction region on a map with no argument.
a well defined magnitude range - at least a minimum magnitude and optionally a maximum or "greater" can be used.
Predictions should also be useful. To use an extreme example, saying there will be a magnitude 2.5 or greater quake in a region covering the west coast of the United States for a time period of several weeks is NOT useful. For one thing it's pretty much guaranteed to happen. Further, what good is it to anybody? Unless you are literally sitting right on top of it no one will even feel it. (I've felt quakes as small as 1.2 within miles of me)
On the other hand, predicting a magnitude 5 or greater in a circular region only 300 miles across centered on a specific latitude/longitude with a short time frame such as one week is useful. First off, mag 5 quakes and bigger don't happen very often, even in very active areas (minus aftershock sequences from even larger quakes). There is an historically low probability of a successful prediction in such a case. Continued success with such predictions implies a valid methodology and warrants further investigation. Keep in mind that even if you do have a hit on such a prediction, one time can still be dumb luck.
Another issue to address is the methodology. If the way one comes up with the prediction is, to be blunt, just plain silly, it's not useful and likely to garner harsh criticism and possibly ridicule. Sorry, but we don't accept tea leaf reading or crystal balls as a valid prediction methodology. How one determines the prediction should be unambiguously definable such that another person reading those instructions would come up with the same prediction.
And secret methods are not acceptable. What good is it if no one else can use the method to protect themselves from a potentially damaging quake?
"Work in progress" methods are fine so long as the predictor is open to changing their method when it is shown to have errors. That's the "progress" part. Otherwise it's just being closed minded and a waste of time.
I would like to continue to have this prediction forum, but I'd like for there to be quality content.
Brian
===================================================================
My predictions are many, but results will come out at the end of the year. As for the method of forecasting, I am obliged to convey. I wrote about it in the press in Bulgaria. A variation of the method: getting signals from space in the constellation Orion. For those signals written by Prof.. Henry Brock from Nice, France. It can be checked. He holds my collection with forecasts in the newspapers.
Receive signals from an alien who says Admiral Csaba / Chaba /
No Secrets ! ... For the last six weeks, I have been under the directive of the physics department, University of Manchester. The J series is a catalogue allocation I must use for compiling a spread sheet, which I must then produce for statistical analysis. Like most scientific research, I had the option of carrying out this requirement behind closed doors, I opted to continue on Earthwaves because most of my previous work is here. And as a non-scientist, I am not afforded the protection given to professional doctrines, so my protection is actually being out in the open (garbage and all !). The format I have adopted of late, and use in my predictions is the result of the guidance I have been given. I was told the period required for analysis was 12 months, the rate to which my postings have increased were negotiated by myself, accepted, and the term was to expire on the last day of this year ( for reasons I have posted about many times here). If my current efforts are to be compared to throwing a bunch of darts, then I have no objection to it being so. I have tried to post and explain my data here many times, and have often tried to encourage participation with respect to it's meaning. I am usually rewarded with "meaningless" and "gibberish", the University has had the advantage of being able to scrutinise my data in full. As a requirement of their protocol, they did not wish to view any of my equipment until said analysis warranted it so. The minimum requirement needed to warrant further investigation is an acceptable percentage in longitude. To try and stay within the prediction protocol required of this site, I opted to replace latitude with best guess. "Wild guess" and "informal" were added to the main forum page after I was granted membership in order to encompass my particular method of prediction. Chris has now brought before members, a grievance, which the administrator has addressed by re-iterating prediction requirements, thus jeopardising what I have striven to achieve for nearly four years, the attention of a professional body to either confirm or rebuke my claims of seismic detection. I can of course continue with option A, but I am compelled to stay, due to a small degree of loyalty to individuals here who have helped me, and unfinished business I feel the need to complete. I am aware there has been history here before my time, which is why I believed the subject of the grievance was of historical relevance. His reference to myself has left me no wiser to it's meaning, as it lacks clarity, which I have no compunction to address if he so wishes. I have to admit, I thought his request for the site to be dis-continued rather extreme, however, a previous post in this thread has left me with no doubts to the motives of his suggestion ! it grieves me to think I could be categorised, or am categorised within the same realms. What worries me most is, if I am J series, there are 9 more before me, and how many of them do I have to compete with before my sincerity is accepted.
I have no fondness for Chris, to me, he is akin to an oil Barron, to whom I have been trying to sell my water powered engine design too. But I have mentioned to him before that I respect him for being forthright in speaking his mind. I cannot continue to predict here under the confines of historical seismic forecasting and a one week event period. If the prediction protocol has to be adhered to, then I too have to side with Chris with regards his suggestion.
In the matter of "quality of posted content", I hope I can be forgiven with respect to a learning curve over the past nineteen months. I have not known how things should be presented, frustration has sometimes led to mis-guided assumptions, and the lack of interaction with other members has resulted in having to produce my own interpretations, of something I still do not fully understand. In my defence, my data has been posted in pieces (for means of a better word), they need to be followed to give meaning to my project, if one chooses to occasionally glance at the odd post ... one will only see garbage !, people can change !
My current results if I may call them that, are what ever members want to make of them, I have tried to be professional with this J series, and what ever the outcome, they were first and foremost published on Earthwaves. I have hoped my progress may incite interest in my water powered engine, but I also know it is the way of science that some will never see the wood for the tree's, and fear it will remain so until one day I get a direct hit on somewhere like "Parkfield".
I was compelled to respond here, because this distraction is the last thing I needed, If I am allowed to continue, Parkfield will become secondary to where I will be looking in future !!!
(10-13-2016, 05:50 PM)Duffy Wrote: No Secrets ! ... For the last six weeks, I have been under the directive of the physics department, University of Manchester. The J series is a catalogue allocation I must use for compiling a spread sheet, which I must then produce for statistical analysis. Like most scientific research, I had the option of carrying out this requirement behind closed doors, I opted to continue on Earthwaves because most of my previous work is here. And as a non-scientist, I am not afforded the protection given to professional doctrines, so my protection is actually being out in the open (garbage and all !). The format I have adopted of late, and use in my predictions is the result of the guidance I have been given. I was told the period required for analysis was 12 months, the rate to which my postings have increased were negotiated by myself, accepted, and the term was to expire on the last day of this year ( for reasons I have posted about many times here). If my current efforts are to be compared to throwing a bunch of darts, then I have no objection to it being so. I have tried to post and explain my data here many times, and have often tried to encourage participation with respect to it's meaning. I am usually rewarded with "meaningless" and "gibberish", the University has had the advantage of being able to scrutinise my data in full. As a requirement of their protocol, they did not wish to view any of my equipment until said analysis warranted it so. The minimum requirement needed to warrant further investigation is an acceptable percentage in longitude. To try and stay within the prediction protocol required of this site, I opted to replace latitude with best guess. "Wild guess" and "informal" were added to the main forum page after I was granted membership in order to encompass my particular method of prediction. Chris has now brought before members, a grievance, which the administrator has addressed by re-iterating prediction requirements, thus jeopardising what I have striven to achieve for nearly four years, the attention of a professional body to either confirm or rebuke my claims of seismic detection. I can of course continue with option A, but I am compelled to stay, due to a small degree of loyalty to individuals here who have helped me, and unfinished business I feel the need to complete. I am aware there has been history here before my time, which is why I believed the subject of the grievance was of historical relevance. His reference to myself has left me no wiser to it's meaning, as it lacks clarity, which I have no compunction to address if he so wishes. I have to admit, I thought his request for the site to be dis-continued rather extreme, however, a previous post in this thread has left me with no doubts to the motives of his suggestion ! it grieves me to think I could be categorised, or am categorised within the same realms. What worries me most is, if I am J series, there are 9 more before me, and how many of them do I have to compete with before my sincerity is accepted.
I have no fondness for Chris, to me, he is akin to an oil Barron, to whom I have been trying to sell my water powered engine design too. But I have mentioned to him before that I respect him for being forthright in speaking his mind. I cannot continue to predict here under the confines of historical seismic forecasting and a one week event period. If the prediction protocol has to be adhered to, then I too have to side with Chris with regards his suggestion.
In the matter of "quality of posted content", I hope I can be forgiven with respect to a learning curve over the past nineteen months. I have not known how things should be presented, frustration has sometimes led to mis-guided assumptions, and the lack of interaction with other members has resulted in having to produce my own interpretations, of something I still do not fully understand. In my defence, my data has been posted in pieces (for means of a better word), they need to be followed to give meaning to my project, if one chooses to occasionally glance at the odd post ... one will only see garbage !, people can change !
My current results if I may call them that, are what ever members want to make of them, I have tried to be professional with this J series, and what ever the outcome, they were first and foremost published on Earthwaves. I have hoped my progress may incite interest in my water powered engine, but I also know it is the way of science that some will never see the wood for the tree's, and fear it will remain so until one day I get a direct hit on somewhere like "Parkfield".
I was compelled to respond here, because this distraction is the last thing I needed, If I am allowed to continue, Parkfield will become secondary to where I will be looking in future !!!
Duffy
Duffy, if you are compelled to leave (and I see no reason why you would) I will be happy to accumulate your predictions and evaluate them for you.
(10-13-2016, 05:50 PM)Duffy Wrote: No Secrets ! ... For the last six weeks, I have been under the directive of the physics department, University of Manchester. The J series is a catalogue allocation I must use for compiling a spread sheet, which I must then produce for statistical analysis. Like most scientific research, I had the option of carrying out this requirement behind closed doors, I opted to continue on Earthwaves because most of my previous work is here. And as a non-scientist, I am not afforded the protection given to professional doctrines, so my protection is actually being out in the open (garbage and all !). The format I have adopted of late, and use in my predictions is the result of the guidance I have been given. I was told the period required for analysis was 12 months, the rate to which my postings have increased were negotiated by myself, accepted, and the term was to expire on the last day of this year ( for reasons I have posted about many times here). If my current efforts are to be compared to throwing a bunch of darts, then I have no objection to it being so. I have tried to post and explain my data here many times, and have often tried to encourage participation with respect to it's meaning. I am usually rewarded with "meaningless" and "gibberish", the University has had the advantage of being able to scrutinise my data in full. As a requirement of their protocol, they did not wish to view any of my equipment until said analysis warranted it so. The minimum requirement needed to warrant further investigation is an acceptable percentage in longitude. To try and stay within the prediction protocol required of this site, I opted to replace latitude with best guess. "Wild guess" and "informal" were added to the main forum page after I was granted membership in order to encompass my particular method of prediction. Chris has now brought before members, a grievance, which the administrator has addressed by re-iterating prediction requirements, thus jeopardising what I have striven to achieve for nearly four years, the attention of a professional body to either confirm or rebuke my claims of seismic detection. I can of course continue with option A, but I am compelled to stay, due to a small degree of loyalty to individuals here who have helped me, and unfinished business I feel the need to complete. I am aware there has been history here before my time, which is why I believed the subject of the grievance was of historical relevance. His reference to myself has left me no wiser to it's meaning, as it lacks clarity, which I have no compunction to address if he so wishes. I have to admit, I thought his request for the site to be dis-continued rather extreme, however, a previous post in this thread has left me with no doubts to the motives of his suggestion ! it grieves me to think I could be categorised, or am categorised within the same realms. What worries me most is, if I am J series, there are 9 more before me, and how many of them do I have to compete with before my sincerity is accepted.
I have no fondness for Chris, to me, he is akin to an oil Barron, to whom I have been trying to sell my water powered engine design too. But I have mentioned to him before that I respect him for being forthright in speaking his mind. I cannot continue to predict here under the confines of historical seismic forecasting and a one week event period. If the prediction protocol has to be adhered to, then I too have to side with Chris with regards his suggestion.
In the matter of "quality of posted content", I hope I can be forgiven with respect to a learning curve over the past nineteen months. I have not known how things should be presented, frustration has sometimes led to mis-guided assumptions, and the lack of interaction with other members has resulted in having to produce my own interpretations, of something I still do not fully understand. In my defence, my data has been posted in pieces (for means of a better word), they need to be followed to give meaning to my project, if one chooses to occasionally glance at the odd post ... one will only see garbage !, people can change !
My current results if I may call them that, are what ever members want to make of them, I have tried to be professional with this J series, and what ever the outcome, they were first and foremost published on Earthwaves. I have hoped my progress may incite interest in my water powered engine, but I also know it is the way of science that some will never see the wood for the tree's, and fear it will remain so until one day I get a direct hit on somewhere like "Parkfield".
I was compelled to respond here, because this distraction is the last thing I needed, If I am allowed to continue, Parkfield will become secondary to where I will be looking in future !!!
Duffy
Duffy, if you are compelled to leave (and I see no reason why you would) I will be happy to accumulate your predictions and evaluate them for you.
Let me know.
Roger
PS: That spreadsheet format should work for me too. Can you email me a copy?
(10-13-2016, 05:50 PM)Duffy Wrote: No Secrets ! ... For the last six weeks, I have been under the directive of the physics department, University of Manchester. The J series is a catalogue allocation I must use for compiling a spread sheet, which I must then produce for statistical analysis. Like most scientific research, I had the option of carrying out this requirement behind closed doors, I opted to continue on Earthwaves because most of my previous work is here. And as a non-scientist, I am not afforded the protection given to professional doctrines, so my protection is actually being out in the open (garbage and all !). The format I have adopted of late, and use in my predictions is the result of the guidance I have been given. I was told the period required for analysis was 12 months, the rate to which my postings have increased were negotiated by myself, accepted, and the term was to expire on the last day of this year ( for reasons I have posted about many times here). If my current efforts are to be compared to throwing a bunch of darts, then I have no objection to it being so. I have tried to post and explain my data here many times, and have often tried to encourage participation with respect to it's meaning. I am usually rewarded with "meaningless" and "gibberish", the University has had the advantage of being able to scrutinise my data in full. As a requirement of their protocol, they did not wish to view any of my equipment until said analysis warranted it so. The minimum requirement needed to warrant further investigation is an acceptable percentage in longitude. To try and stay within the prediction protocol required of this site, I opted to replace latitude with best guess. "Wild guess" and "informal" were added to the main forum page after I was granted membership in order to encompass my particular method of prediction. Chris has now brought before members, a grievance, which the administrator has addressed by re-iterating prediction requirements, thus jeopardising what I have striven to achieve for nearly four years, the attention of a professional body to either confirm or rebuke my claims of seismic detection. I can of course continue with option A, but I am compelled to stay, due to a small degree of loyalty to individuals here who have helped me, and unfinished business I feel the need to complete. I am aware there has been history here before my time, which is why I believed the subject of the grievance was of historical relevance. His reference to myself has left me no wiser to it's meaning, as it lacks clarity, which I have no compunction to address if he so wishes. I have to admit, I thought his request for the site to be dis-continued rather extreme, however, a previous post in this thread has left me with no doubts to the motives of his suggestion ! it grieves me to think I could be categorised, or am categorised within the same realms. What worries me most is, if I am J series, there are 9 more before me, and how many of them do I have to compete with before my sincerity is accepted.
I have no fondness for Chris, to me, he is akin to an oil Barron, to whom I have been trying to sell my water powered engine design too. But I have mentioned to him before that I respect him for being forthright in speaking his mind. I cannot continue to predict here under the confines of historical seismic forecasting and a one week event period. If the prediction protocol has to be adhered to, then I too have to side with Chris with regards his suggestion.
In the matter of "quality of posted content", I hope I can be forgiven with respect to a learning curve over the past nineteen months. I have not known how things should be presented, frustration has sometimes led to mis-guided assumptions, and the lack of interaction with other members has resulted in having to produce my own interpretations, of something I still do not fully understand. In my defence, my data has been posted in pieces (for means of a better word), they need to be followed to give meaning to my project, if one chooses to occasionally glance at the odd post ... one will only see garbage !, people can change !
My current results if I may call them that, are what ever members want to make of them, I have tried to be professional with this J series, and what ever the outcome, they were first and foremost published on Earthwaves. I have hoped my progress may incite interest in my water powered engine, but I also know it is the way of science that some will never see the wood for the tree's, and fear it will remain so until one day I get a direct hit on somewhere like "Parkfield".
I was compelled to respond here, because this distraction is the last thing I needed, If I am allowed to continue, Parkfield will become secondary to where I will be looking in future !!!
Duffy
Duffy, if you are compelled to leave (and I see no reason why you would) I will be happy to accumulate your predictions and evaluate them for you.
Let me know.
Roger
PS: That spreadsheet format should work for me too. Can you email me a copy?
Roger
Not compelled Roger ... This site serves as public record and proof of my predictions, it is also were my seismic roots are. Nineteen Months, "NINETEEN MONTHS" Roger, I have had semi-achievement carrots dangled in front of me and left at the seismic alter more times than I can remember ... yet I'm still here. Any other crystal ball seeing, tea leaf reading ##### would have been long gone by now ... or so I thought !.
No accumulation necessary, I already did that to gain interest at the University.
No problem, first spreadsheet goes in after 25th of this month, and dependant on weather I completed it correctly, I'll send you a copy. However, you do realise the format is based on a one month period, weather you get it is up to Brian !
(10-13-2016, 05:50 PM)Duffy Wrote: No Secrets ! ... For the last six weeks, I have been under the directive of the physics department, University of Manchester. The J series is a catalogue allocation I must use for compiling a spread sheet, which I must then produce for statistical analysis. Like most scientific research, I had the option of carrying out this requirement behind closed doors, I opted to continue on Earthwaves because most of my previous work is here. And as a non-scientist, I am not afforded the protection given to professional doctrines, so my protection is actually being out in the open (garbage and all !). The format I have adopted of late, and use in my predictions is the result of the guidance I have been given. I was told the period required for analysis was 12 months, the rate to which my postings have increased were negotiated by myself, accepted, and the term was to expire on the last day of this year ( for reasons I have posted about many times here). If my current efforts are to be compared to throwing a bunch of darts, then I have no objection to it being so. I have tried to post and explain my data here many times, and have often tried to encourage participation with respect to it's meaning. I am usually rewarded with "meaningless" and "gibberish", the University has had the advantage of being able to scrutinise my data in full. As a requirement of their protocol, they did not wish to view any of my equipment until said analysis warranted it so. The minimum requirement needed to warrant further investigation is an acceptable percentage in longitude. To try and stay within the prediction protocol required of this site, I opted to replace latitude with best guess. "Wild guess" and "informal" were added to the main forum page after I was granted membership in order to encompass my particular method of prediction. Chris has now brought before members, a grievance, which the administrator has addressed by re-iterating prediction requirements, thus jeopardising what I have striven to achieve for nearly four years, the attention of a professional body to either confirm or rebuke my claims of seismic detection. I can of course continue with option A, but I am compelled to stay, due to a small degree of loyalty to individuals here who have helped me, and unfinished business I feel the need to complete. I am aware there has been history here before my time, which is why I believed the subject of the grievance was of historical relevance. His reference to myself has left me no wiser to it's meaning, as it lacks clarity, which I have no compunction to address if he so wishes. I have to admit, I thought his request for the site to be dis-continued rather extreme, however, a previous post in this thread has left me with no doubts to the motives of his suggestion ! it grieves me to think I could be categorised, or am categorised within the same realms. What worries me most is, if I am J series, there are 9 more before me, and how many of them do I have to compete with before my sincerity is accepted.
I have no fondness for Chris, to me, he is akin to an oil Barron, to whom I have been trying to sell my water powered engine design too. But I have mentioned to him before that I respect him for being forthright in speaking his mind. I cannot continue to predict here under the confines of historical seismic forecasting and a one week event period. If the prediction protocol has to be adhered to, then I too have to side with Chris with regards his suggestion.
In the matter of "quality of posted content", I hope I can be forgiven with respect to a learning curve over the past nineteen months. I have not known how things should be presented, frustration has sometimes led to mis-guided assumptions, and the lack of interaction with other members has resulted in having to produce my own interpretations, of something I still do not fully understand. In my defence, my data has been posted in pieces (for means of a better word), they need to be followed to give meaning to my project, if one chooses to occasionally glance at the odd post ... one will only see garbage !, people can change !
My current results if I may call them that, are what ever members want to make of them, I have tried to be professional with this J series, and what ever the outcome, they were first and foremost published on Earthwaves. I have hoped my progress may incite interest in my water powered engine, but I also know it is the way of science that some will never see the wood for the tree's, and fear it will remain so until one day I get a direct hit on somewhere like "Parkfield".
I was compelled to respond here, because this distraction is the last thing I needed, If I am allowed to continue, Parkfield will become secondary to where I will be looking in future !!!
Duffy
Duffy, if you are compelled to leave (and I see no reason why you would) I will be happy to accumulate your predictions and evaluate them for you.
Let me know.
Roger
PS: That spreadsheet format should work for me too. Can you email me a copy?
Roger
Not compelled Roger ... This site serves as public record and proof of my predictions, it is also were my seismic roots are. Nineteen Months, "NINETEEN MONTHS" Roger, I have had semi-achievement carrots dangled in front of me and left at the seismic alter more times than I can remember ... yet I'm still here. Any other crystal ball seeing, tea leaf reading ##### would have been long gone by now ... or so I thought !.
No accumulation necessary, I already did that to gain interest at the University.
No problem, first spreadsheet goes in after 25th of this month, and dependant on weather I completed it correctly, I'll send you a copy. However, you do realise the format is based on a one month period, weather you get it is up to Brian !
Duffy
Glad to hear you have a cumulative list, that would be tedious to compile.
What do you mean by "one month"? Predictions last a month maybe? That's ok.
Brian has no influence over email and wouldn't interfere anyway. Why do you think he would?
Logout 
Portal 
Forum
Search
Members
Help 
