[Skywise]

Duffy, you may continue your postings as they are. I was not aware that you were actually working with a group to have your work evaluated. If this format is what they need to do a proper study, then I am willing to accommodate that. The guidelines I posted were not meant to be a hard rule for being allowed to post, but rather what I and others here have through years of experience in analyzing quake predictions found to be the necessary information to make quake predictions useful and allow them to be analyzed fairly and accurately.

I wish you luck and hope the folks at U of Manchester are able to do a fair assessment of your work.

Brian

[Duffy]

Firstly, let my apologies for going off the rails, I have been working on this in solitude for too long.  I recently had to put up a good fight to prove my method was worthy of investigation, because I am tired of being compared to the rest of the Roger Ram Jets that are abound on many sites, and I'm tired of fighting my way through them to be heard.   I was told here in my own locality (ironically) any success with multiple predictions is tantamount to throwing darts at a board, some will always find the target. The analogy is correct, but only in the context of accepted seismic forecasting, frequency detection is in a different category.  Unfortunately for me, it is as uncommon as meeting big foot on a Sunday morning walk. So I decided to put my money were my mouth is and show my hypothesis had substance, by running an experiment here, in plain sight and on public record.  
I posted under predictions "Long Shots Part Deux  3 / 9 / 2016" (my humour will be my undoing !) the idea with the experiment was to show you could select multiple co-ordinates of longitude and there opposites, and choose one without an opposite, then run them for a selected period of time. The longitudes were selected from both active and quiet regions, and the objective of this was to avoid any seismic events of 5 or above on any of the longitudes, except for the one without an opposite. The last one I determined latitude so included location. The 1 degree margin would obviously seem to work in my favour, but I used my own method to cheat. the longitudes were selected from space data that I interpreted as imminent events, I used the margin to sidestep them if you will !  The experiment was never  completed because things suddenly took an unexpected turn.  During August, an associate of the University (who I now consider a friend) had been sending my data to a professor of physics in London. I got a call one morning early last month, and within hours, the professor on my door step. One thing led to another and the rest is what I posted, so my current predictions have been under his guidance.   I never concluded the experiment because I had to focus on data for statistical analysis, and as nobody bothers with me here anymore I didn't see the need too. So apologies to Chris, because in it's unfinished state, this really would look like garbage.  If Roger wants to test this, I used published EMSC data,and I'll follow up with a conclusion if he so wishes.

As you can appreciate, my new found interest felt like a job interview, and I was keen to impress.  I found what I wanted in my data, so predicted J1 128' 40' W British Columbia on 14th September.  On the 17th, a 4.4 occurred in the region of Vancouver Island, Canada at bearing 128' 54' W.  EMSC records showed nothing above mag 3 had occurred in this region since a 5.4 at bearing 129' 51' W on 18th March.  The magnitude was not significant but the timing was, I've been here long enough to know a 4 is nothing, but for my purpose it felt like an 8. Unfortunately, it doesn't count because I agreed on 5 or above for analysis. The point is, its a personal achievement, but my work here is not monitored or followed, so it is irrelevant and I can accept that. Because I had purpose, I was putting more time into data analysis than I normally did, in effect, burning myself out with mathematics.   Chris then pointed out how things were going here, and you responded by re-iterating prediction protocol. You did right of course, but as tactful and discretionary your wording was, only two of us have been posting here for weeks. I took offence because again I felt like I had been tarred with the same brush in the public domain, when in fact  were not on the same planet.   Your darts analogy reminded me why I started my earlier experiment, and not wishing to offend you, I submitted to your reasoning.   Later, I was angry with myself for putting personal connection before scientific reasoning and then poor Roger came along and got the back lash.  Wishing to get my first big break right, combined with mental exhaustion, I reacted wrongly and miss-interpreted your words. I did not wish to cause offence here, my words were the  result of the latter stated reasons.  So begging your forgiveness, I would like to continue throwing my darts, I am a Yorkshire man, all Yorkshire men are raised on ale and darts, and some of us actually know how to hit the bull if we have too   .

Duffy

[Roger Hunter]

(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

Hi Brian;

I'd like to suggest two changes.

First, dump Richter. I've tested him before and he's just throwing darts blindfolded.

Second, change the description of the Prediction thread, omitting the wild guesses part.

Roger