Posts: 727
Threads: 202
Joined: Jan 2015
Prediction (J42)
Longitude .......... 130' 40' E
Latitude ............. 5' 30' S
Error .................. +/- 2'
Magnitude .......... 6 - 7
Location ............. Eastern Banda Sea Region
Start Date .......... 22:30 ut 5th Nov
Expiry Date ......... 00:00 ut 5th Dec
Duffy
Posts: 727
Threads: 202
Joined: Jan 2015
(11-05-2016, 10:30 PM)Duffy Wrote: Prediction (J42)
Longitude .......... 130' 40' E
Latitude ............. 5' 30' S
Error .................. +/- 2'
Magnitude .......... 6 - 7
Location ............. Eastern Banda Sea Region
Start Date .......... 22:30 ut 5th Nov
Expiry Date ......... 00:00 ut 5th Dec
Duffy
...................................................................................................................................................................................
Update ... New data relating to this prediction, now places latitude and longitude at 7' 50' N by 127' 0' E ... Location is Philippine Trench, Southeast Philippines.
Duffy (18:43 ut 9th Nov)
Posts: 727
Threads: 202
Joined: Jan 2015
(11-09-2016, 06:43 PM)Duffy Wrote: (11-05-2016, 10:30 PM)Duffy Wrote: Prediction (J42)
Longitude .......... 130' 40' E
Latitude ............. 5' 30' S
Error .................. +/- 2'
Magnitude .......... 6 - 7
Location ............. Eastern Banda Sea Region
Start Date .......... 22:30 ut 5th Nov
Expiry Date ......... 00:00 ut 5th Dec
Duffy
...................................................................................................................................................................................
Update ... New data relating to this prediction, now places latitude and longitude at 7' 50' N by 127' 0' E ... Location is Philippine Trench, Southeast Philippines.
Duffy (18:43 ut 9th Nov)
.............................................................................................................................................................................
Update ... new data now places longitude and latitude for this prediction at 125' 24' E by 11' 52' N
Location is Eastern Samar, Philippines.
Been predicting to a schedule ... it's now finished, so I'm cleaning up my mess ... little late here, but who know's !
Duffy ( 00:16 ut 3rd Dec)
Posts: 727
Threads: 202
Joined: Jan 2015
(12-03-2016, 12:16 AM)Duffy Wrote: (11-09-2016, 06:43 PM)Duffy Wrote: (11-05-2016, 10:30 PM)Duffy Wrote: Prediction (J42)
Longitude .......... 130' 40' E
Latitude ............. 5' 30' S
Error .................. +/- 2'
Magnitude .......... 6 - 7
Location ............. Eastern Banda Sea Region
Start Date .......... 22:30 ut 5th Nov
Expiry Date ......... 00:00 ut 5th Dec
Duffy
...................................................................................................................................................................................
Update ... New data relating to this prediction, now places latitude and longitude at 7' 50' N by 127' 0' E ... Location is Philippine Trench, Southeast Philippines.
Duffy (18:43 ut 9th Nov)
.............................................................................................................................................................................
Update ... new data now places longitude and latitude for this prediction at 125' 24' E by 11' 52' N
Location is Eastern Samar, Philippines.
Been predicting to a schedule ... it's now finished, so I'm cleaning up my mess ... little late here, but who know's !
Duffy ( 00:16 ut 3rd Dec)
........................................................................................................................................................................
M 5.7 Kepulauan Talaud, Indonesia 05:24 ut 4th Dec at bearing 127' 51' E by 4' 30' N
Came here yesterday to clean up my mess, and end up with a bigger one ... or so it would seem !
Scientifically, I made an error of judgement because re-checking the data today, a signal still remains for Eastern Samar 7 hours after this 5.7 event occurred. The area is highly active, so one close signal has been mistaken for another. I do have data to back this up, but nobody here bothers with data ... it's just a formality on my part to offer it for analysis.
Rationally, it would normally be seen as a strange move to alter a prediction after 29 days, with two days remaining, I have altered others before, that have turned out to be " correct answers ", but I have usually done this within a week or so of posting the prediction. If what I see on the screen before me is correct ... Samar, will go off in the next 30 days ! I'll not be predicting it this time, because my method puts the odds in my favour anyway.
I realise I have already been written off with my prediction technique ... again, I'm only here to put this in public record, so the future will at least have the chance to deliberate "my" mistakes !
Duffy
Posts: 379
Threads: 18
Joined: Nov 2013
(12-04-2016, 03:37 PM)Duffy Wrote: (12-03-2016, 12:16 AM)Duffy Wrote: (11-09-2016, 06:43 PM)Duffy Wrote: (11-05-2016, 10:30 PM)Duffy Wrote: Prediction (J42)
Longitude .......... 130' 40' E
Latitude ............. 5' 30' S
Error .................. +/- 2'
Magnitude .......... 6 - 7
Location ............. Eastern Banda Sea Region
Start Date .......... 22:30 ut 5th Nov
Expiry Date ......... 00:00 ut 5th Dec
Duffy
...................................................................................................................................................................................
Update ... New data relating to this prediction, now places latitude and longitude at 7' 50' N by 127' 0' E ... Location is Philippine Trench, Southeast Philippines.
Duffy (18:43 ut 9th Nov)
.............................................................................................................................................................................
Update ... new data now places longitude and latitude for this prediction at 125' 24' E by 11' 52' N
Location is Eastern Samar, Philippines.
Been predicting to a schedule ... it's now finished, so I'm cleaning up my mess ... little late here, but who know's !
Duffy ( 00:16 ut 3rd Dec)
........................................................................................................................................................................
M 5.7 Kepulauan Talaud, Indonesia 05:24 ut 4th Dec at bearing 127' 51' E by 4' 30' N
Came here yesterday to clean up my mess, and end up with a bigger one ... or so it would seem !
Scientifically, I made an error of judgement because re-checking the data today, a signal still remains for Eastern Samar 7 hours after this 5.7 event occurred. The area is highly active, so one close signal has been mistaken for another. I do have data to back this up, but nobody here bothers with data ... it's just a formality on my part to offer it for analysis.
Rationally, it would normally be seen as a strange move to alter a prediction after 29 days, with two days remaining, I have altered others before, that have turned out to be " correct answers ", but I have usually done this within a week or so of posting the prediction. If what I see on the screen before me is correct ... Samar, will go off in the next 30 days ! I'll not be predicting it this time, because my method puts the odds in my favour anyway.
I realise I have already been written off with my prediction technique ... again, I'm only here to put this in public record, so the future will at least have the chance to deliberate "my" mistakes !
Duffy
Duffy;
I understand your disappointment with your reception here but all you need to do is tighten your predictions from 30 days to 3 days, thus reducing the chance probability to believable levels.
Roger
Posts: 727
Threads: 202
Joined: Jan 2015
Roger,
I don't mean to sound juvenile over this ... and I am at least appreciative to you, for understanding my frustration. However, what you ask is currently impossible to achieve without better equipment and professional help, neither of which I am going to acquire any time soon. There are many, many factors involved in this, which can only be explained, once I get someone here ... then all will be understood when I do.
I hope you can also understand why you are not flavour of the month with me at the moment (probably goes both ways actually). It is one thing hitting targets in true or opposite longitude, as I was doing for the University. Law of averages could easily explain away these results ... I could live with this because numbers were all that mattered, dealing with principles would come later. But I don't understand why you could ask for correct answers, agree that I earned the NZ quake, and then rubbish my efforts by saying my signals have nothing to do with earthquakes ... it gives the impression I was being mislead. I changed tact to get latitude, and though I am getting a few hits, you make it sound like I'm getting these locations out of fortune cookies or something. I'm not being disrespectful, I'm just having trouble understanding why having provable, presentable data can be so easily dismissed with an analogy. A while ago, Brian gave me the lowdown on what to expect, should my hypothesis be tested ... this wasn't it !
You can probably see, I have just placed a prediction for the Kemadec Islands. In the last 5 months, there have been 19 events above mag 5 here , in a longitude corridor of 179' 30' W by 176' 14' W ... and latitude of 33' 30' S by 27' 25' S.
These figures show an event at this location averages 1 every 8.4 days because they are "averaged" out as a number. In reality, 2 occurred on 18th August, 3 occurred on 24th September and so on. Going off these figures, my prediction has a 90% chance of being successful, it has a 2' margin and a 30 day window, which endorses your reason why it would not be deemed a worthy hit. In-fact, get on the right side of dumb luck, and you wouldn't need much else to get a quake here. Your principle is sound ... as a numbers guy, but in my last 4 days of data, I have recorded a sunset signal on the 1st at 06:30 ut, through to today (4th) at 06:32 ut . Simple analysis shows this is Southern hemisphere because the nights are still getting shorter, combine this with online data, and the program formula I showed you, it lands on the Kermadec's. My data shows an event will occur here, the numbers show an event happens here every 8.4 days ... how do we resolve this ? Numbers mean little if the data shows different ! and I can't prove this if you don't test it !
I've grown up quite a lot here, I have learnt a lot ... by explaining this, you should be satisfied that I know the difference between high and low probability area's. I have also recently placed a prediction in Zambia, using the same method of detection I have just described. During the same period stated with the Kemadec's, Zambia has had zero events of 4 and above. No average and no reason why one should occur in the next 30 days. If I get it right, would it not give reason to consider my hypothesis has potential, backed up with data ?. If you still insist on averages, would I not have earned the right to have legible reason why it is not so ? rather than analogies! Obviously, it has to go off first !!
Duffy
Posts: 379
Threads: 18
Joined: Nov 2013
(12-04-2016, 10:13 PM)Duffy Wrote: Roger,
I don't mean to sound juvenile over this ... and I am at least appreciative to you, for understanding my frustration. However, what you ask is currently impossible to achieve without better equipment and professional help, neither of which I am going to acquire any time soon. There are many, many factors involved in this, which can only be explained, once I get someone here ... then all will be understood when I do.
I hope you can also understand why you are not flavour of the month with me at the moment (probably goes both ways actually). It is one thing hitting targets in true or opposite longitude, as I was doing for the University. Law of averages could easily explain away these results ... I could live with this because numbers were all that mattered, dealing with principles would come later. But I don't understand why you could ask for correct answers, agree that I earned the NZ quake, and then rubbish my efforts by saying my signals have nothing to do with earthquakes ... it gives the impression I was being mislead. I changed tact to get latitude, and though I am getting a few hits, you make it sound like I'm getting these locations out of fortune cookies or something. I'm not being disrespectful, I'm just having trouble understanding why having provable, presentable data can be so easily dismissed with an analogy. A while ago, Brian gave me the lowdown on what to expect, should my hypothesis be tested ... this wasn't it !
You can probably see, I have just placed a prediction for the Kemadec Islands. In the last 5 months, there have been 19 events above mag 5 here , in a longitude corridor of 179' 30' W by 176' 14' W ... and latitude of 33' 30' S by 27' 25' S.
These figures show an event at this location averages 1 every 8.4 days because they are "averaged" out as a number. In reality, 2 occurred on 18th August, 3 occurred on 24th September and so on. Going off these figures, my prediction has a 90% chance of being successful, it has a 2' margin and a 30 day window, which endorses your reason why it would not be deemed a worthy hit. In-fact, get on the right side of dumb luck, and you wouldn't need much else to get a quake here. Your principle is sound ... as a numbers guy, but in my last 4 days of data, I have recorded a sunset signal on the 1st at 06:30 ut, through to today (4th) at 06:32 ut . Simple analysis shows this is Southern hemisphere because the nights are still getting shorter, combine this with online data, and the program formula I showed you, it lands on the Kermadec's. My data shows an event will occur here, the numbers show an event happens here every 8.4 days ... how do we resolve this ? Numbers mean little if the data shows different ! and I can't prove this if you don't test it !
I've grown up quite a lot here, I have learnt a lot ... by explaining this, you should be satisfied that I know the difference between high and low probability area's. I have also recently placed a prediction in Zambia, using the same method of detection I have just described. During the same period stated with the Kemadec's, Zambia has had zero events of 4 and above. No average and no reason why one should occur in the next 30 days. If I get it right, would it not give reason to consider my hypothesis has potential, backed up with data ?. If you still insist on averages, would I not have earned the right to have legible reason why it is not so ? rather than analogies! Obviously, it has to go off first !!
Duffy
Duffy;
>>I don't mean to sound juvenile over this ... and I am at least appreciative to you, for understanding my frustration. However, what you ask is currently impossible to achieve without better equipment and professional help, neither of which I am going to acquire any time soon. There are many, many factors involved in this, which can only be explained, once I get someone here ... then all will be understood when I do.
As I understand it you are dealing with specific patterns in the signals, patterns which repeat for specific regions and the expected quake may occur at any time within a month.
>>I hope you can also understand why you are not flavour of the month with me at the moment (probably goes both ways actually). It is one thing hitting targets in true or opposite longitude, as I was doing for the University. Law of averages could easily explain away these results ... I could live with this because numbers were all that mattered, dealing with principles would come later. But I don't understand why you could ask for correct answers, agree that I earned the NZ quake, and then rubbish my efforts by saying my signals have nothing to do with earthquakes ... it gives the impression I was being mislead.
You may be being misled in thinking the hits support your hypothesis when they are simply due to chance.
>> I changed tact to get latitude, and though I am getting a few hits, you make it sound like I'm getting these locations out of fortune cookies or something. I'm not being disrespectful, I'm just having trouble understanding why having provable, presentable data can be so easily dismissed with an analogy. A while ago, Brian gave me the lowdown on what to expect, should my hypothesis be tested ... this wasn't it !
Getting a few hits proves nothing. You must get more hits than chance would allow and with 90% odds, that's hard to achieve.
>>You can probably see, I have just placed a prediction for the Kemadec Islands. In the last 5 months, there have been 19 events above mag 5 here , in a longitude corridor of 179' 30' W by 176' 14' W ... and latitude of 33' 30' S by 27' 25' S.
>>These figures show an event at this location averages 1 every 8.4 days because they are "averaged" out as a number. In reality, 2 occurred on 18th August, 3 occurred on 24th September and so on. Going off these figures, my prediction has a 90% chance of being successful, it has a 2' margin and a 30 day window, which endorses your reason why it would not be deemed a worthy hit. In-fact, get on the right side of dumb luck, and you wouldn't need much else to get a quake here.
That's correct.
>>Your principle is sound ... as a numbers guy, but in my last 4 days of data, I have recorded a sunset signal on the 1st at 06:30 ut, through to today (4th) at 06:32 ut . Simple analysis shows this is Southern hemisphere because the nights are still getting shorter, combine this with online data, and the program formula I showed you, it lands on the Kermadec's. My data shows an event will occur here, the numbers show an event happens here every 8.4 days ... how do we resolve this ? Numbers mean little if the data shows different ! and I can't prove this if you don't test it !
How else can I test it? If you have a 90% chance of success and it's correct it proves nothing. If you had a 3 day window a hit would mean something.
>>I've grown up quite a lot here, I have learnt a lot ... by explaining this, you should be satisfied that I know the difference between high and low probability area's. I have also recently placed a prediction in Zambia, using the same method of detection I have just described. During the same period stated with the Kemadec's, Zambia has had zero events of 4 and above. No average and no reason why one should occur in the next 30 days. If I get it right, would it not give reason to consider my hypothesis has potential, backed up with data ?. If you still insist on averages, would I not have earned the right to have legible reason why it is not so ? rather than analogies! Obviously, it has to go off first !!
Exactly right. Those sort of hits mean something. The best possible prediction would be to correctly predict a quake where none had ever occurred before.
Roger
Posts: 727
Threads: 202
Joined: Jan 2015
Roger,
There are two kinds of signals in the patterns, sunrise / sunset signals that occur in any VLF monitoring system, and structure in the noise band ... which does not !. Sunrise and set signals normally happen when the sun drops or rises on the horizon, local to the antenna being used. I am recording on average 20 such signals a day, 24/7 which by all accounts shouldn't be possible. The signals are global, I record them overnight which defies understanding of how VLF signals propagate. The structures in the noise band always start appearing 3 or 4 days after new moon ... "always". I have already shown you how I use these structures to find longitude. All I do then is match sunrise / sunset signal to a chosen longitude, and it gives true longitude and latitude. If sunrise occurs in a given location today at 09:00 ut, I can go back in my data to yesterday and find the same signal. If I go back several days, I can see if the signal has advanced or retarded, which gives indication of which hemisphere the signal originates from. If I go back far enough, I can find out when the signal first appeared. Stress does not instantly appear on a fault line ... it accumulates over a period of time, I believe this is the generally accepted reason. The signals I record are doing the same, they grow bigger, and more defined over time. However, in most cases they all look the same, because they are being governed by the ionosphere. This is why I am not able to determine magnitude with any degree of accuracy. Also, there is a limit to which my equipment will not go beyond ... brief example, I spent 12 months tracking satellites with a 2 metre and a 70 cm antenna, the 2 metre could pick up signals at 300 MHz, the 70 cm picked up signals at 600 MHz plus. But neither antenna could pick up both frequencies, same applies here, the energy output of a given anomaly can exceed what I am able to detect, only this will remain speculative until I get someone here !. It is strange that my predictions from J1 to J30 produced 26 passable numbers for the spreadsheet, two failed to reach magnitude, and one occurred 50+ hours after expiry. The only one that didn't produce anything was 174' E !
The key to finding the bigger quakes is the ACE satellite ... I can read the same signals in it's data, as I can in mine. I can spot significant changes in it's varied formats, because it is in orbit, and thus not being restricted by ionospheric levels. I have given several warnings (within " 3 " days) of imminent seismic activity, by determining it's differing structure. The signals on my monitors develop over weeks, the signals in the ACE data develops in days ... closest your ever going to get to determining time of event !
Simply due to chance ... I continue to try and give a good account of how I do this, and you always find a one liner to answer with, and expect me to understand that your words fully explain why this is " simply due to chance ". Twelve months ago, I was predicting quakes in Brazil, which actually when off in the Mariana Trench or somewhere like it. I knew the signs, but didn't know the place, my track record here shows this. I am now landing within 2 degree margins of event ... if this is simply due to chance, why was I not doing this 12 months ago ?.
A 90% chance only relates to the Kermadec region, for the reasons given, a 90% chance of getting Zambia right would be a ridicules claim to make !, I told you how you could test this, but you said it wouldn't work because you could find corridor's where no quakes ever happen. Personally, I don't see the logic in testing a hypothesis for the detection of earthquakes, where earthquakes never occur, that's a challenge ... not a test.
I can see on the EMSC site, a shallow 1km 4.7 event has been felt in Puerto rico. last event to reach close to this magnitude was a 4.6 on 2nd October, before that it was a 4.9 on 13th Aug 2014. The magnitude in this case is relivant, because of the timming. I placed a prediction for this location 3 days ago on the 2nd Dec with a 7 day window. I found sunset signals in my own data, but only after I found location in the satellite feed. I don't use 7 day windows with my own data, and I don't claim significance unless I have cause to do so. Ironically, I believe " simply due to chance " may soon be tested itself !
I found the following on the net, which may give an idea of the potential I keep mentioning; http://www.researchgate.net/ publication/ 240934689_unusual_sunset_behaviour_of_VLF_signals_at_17KHz_during_the_Earthquake
Whilst typing this, a 5.1 has occurred in Iran at 59' 11' E ... my hypothesis claims an opposite longitude reaction will occur on 120' W ........ Parkfield is on 120' W is it not ?
Duffy
Posts: 727
Threads: 202
Joined: Jan 2015
(12-04-2016, 03:37 PM)Duffy Wrote: (12-03-2016, 12:16 AM)Duffy Wrote: (11-09-2016, 06:43 PM)Duffy Wrote: (11-05-2016, 10:30 PM)Duffy Wrote: Prediction (J42)
Longitude .......... 130' 40' E
Latitude ............. 5' 30' S
Error .................. +/- 2'
Magnitude .......... 6 - 7
Location ............. Eastern Banda Sea Region
Start Date .......... 22:30 ut 5th Nov
Expiry Date ......... 00:00 ut 5th Dec
Duffy
...................................................................................................................................................................................
Update ... New data relating to this prediction, now places latitude and longitude at 7' 50' N by 127' 0' E ... Location is Philippine Trench, Southeast Philippines.
Duffy (18:43 ut 9th Nov)
.............................................................................................................................................................................
Update ... new data now places longitude and latitude for this prediction at 125' 24' E by 11' 52' N
Location is Eastern Samar, Philippines.
Been predicting to a schedule ... it's now finished, so I'm cleaning up my mess ... little late here, but who know's !
Duffy ( 00:16 ut 3rd Dec)
........................................................................................................................................................................
M 5.7 Kepulauan Talaud, Indonesia 05:24 ut 4th Dec at bearing 127' 51' E by 4' 30' N
Came here yesterday to clean up my mess, and end up with a bigger one ... or so it would seem !
Scientifically, I made an error of judgement because re-checking the data today, a signal still remains for Eastern Samar 7 hours after this 5.7 event occurred. The area is highly active, so one close signal has been mistaken for another. I do have data to back this up, but nobody here bothers with data ... it's just a formality on my part to offer it for analysis.
Rationally, it would normally be seen as a strange move to alter a prediction after 29 days, with two days remaining, I have altered others before, that have turned out to be " correct answers ", but I have usually done this within a week or so of posting the prediction. If what I see on the screen before me is correct ... Samar, will go off in the next 30 days ! I'll not be predicting it this time, because my method puts the odds in my favour anyway.
I realise I have already been written off with my prediction technique ... again, I'm only here to put this in public record, so the future will at least have the chance to deliberate "my" mistakes !
Duffy
M 5.1 Samar, Philippines at 03:02 ut 22nd Dec at bearing 11' 33' N by 125' 38' E ... Old news, but keeps things in perspective
Duffy
Posts: 379
Threads: 18
Joined: Nov 2013
(12-22-2016, 11:01 AM)Duffy Wrote: (12-04-2016, 03:37 PM)Duffy Wrote: (12-03-2016, 12:16 AM)Duffy Wrote: (11-09-2016, 06:43 PM)Duffy Wrote: (11-05-2016, 10:30 PM)Duffy Wrote: Prediction (J42)
Longitude .......... 130' 40' E
Latitude ............. 5' 30' S
Error .................. +/- 2'
Magnitude .......... 6 - 7
Location ............. Eastern Banda Sea Region
Start Date .......... 22:30 ut 5th Nov
Expiry Date ......... 00:00 ut 5th Dec
Duffy
...................................................................................................................................................................................
Update ... New data relating to this prediction, now places latitude and longitude at 7' 50' N by 127' 0' E ... Location is Philippine Trench, Southeast Philippines.
Duffy (18:43 ut 9th Nov)
.............................................................................................................................................................................
Update ... new data now places longitude and latitude for this prediction at 125' 24' E by 11' 52' N
Location is Eastern Samar, Philippines.
Been predicting to a schedule ... it's now finished, so I'm cleaning up my mess ... little late here, but who know's !
Duffy ( 00:16 ut 3rd Dec)
........................................................................................................................................................................
M 5.7 Kepulauan Talaud, Indonesia 05:24 ut 4th Dec at bearing 127' 51' E by 4' 30' N
Came here yesterday to clean up my mess, and end up with a bigger one ... or so it would seem !
Scientifically, I made an error of judgement because re-checking the data today, a signal still remains for Eastern Samar 7 hours after this 5.7 event occurred. The area is highly active, so one close signal has been mistaken for another. I do have data to back this up, but nobody here bothers with data ... it's just a formality on my part to offer it for analysis.
Rationally, it would normally be seen as a strange move to alter a prediction after 29 days, with two days remaining, I have altered others before, that have turned out to be " correct answers ", but I have usually done this within a week or so of posting the prediction. If what I see on the screen before me is correct ... Samar, will go off in the next 30 days ! I'll not be predicting it this time, because my method puts the odds in my favour anyway.
I realise I have already been written off with my prediction technique ... again, I'm only here to put this in public record, so the future will at least have the chance to deliberate "my" mistakes !
Duffy
M 5.1 Samar, Philippines at 03:02 ut 22nd Dec at bearing 11' 33' N by 125' 38' E ... Old news, but keeps things in perspective
Duffy
Duffy;
You keep saying you've been "written off" in here but that's totally wrong.
You haven't even been examined thus far.
I'm still waiting for a comprehensive list of your predictions in some computer-readable format.
Once I get that I'll be able to tell you if you're wrong and why you're wrong (if you are).
Until that happens I can only offer my opinions, such as that opening a 30 day window in a seismic zone and claiming a 5.1 quake as a hit is unlikely to stand up to even a simple statistical examination.
Roger
|
Logout 
Portal 
Forum
Search
Members
Help 
