(10-03-2018, 06:33 PM)Island Chris Wrote: That is the first prediction here in a very long time. If there was more interest (and posts) on earth science including earthquakes that have already occurred, I would post more. For instance, the M7.5 left-lateral quake with tsunami (and gravity-driven deformation and liquefaction?), in Indonesia, is interesting.
Chris
Yes and if there were more predictions posted here I would have more evaluations to do.
Win win situation!
Roger
Data Correlation... M 3.9 4km SW of Tres Pinos, CA - 121.359'W - 36.765'N
I included a data correlation location in this prediction as an indicator for conformation or adjustment purposes. On 2nd October at 12:38 UTC, it was dawn in San Leandro, San Francisco Bay area, and sunrise in Coahuayutla de Jose on the co-ordinates of this prediction. As of 12:38 UTC today (5th Oct), it was dawn in Tres Pinos on the USGS co-ordinates posted above, yet it was still sunrise at this time in Coahuayutla de Jose. This data correlation relates to a parallel terminator threshold connection, and indicates no adjustment is necessary to the prime prediction location (sunrise is holding where it should be... and the dawn threshold is adjusting in relation to the suns southward motion).
Tres Pinos will stay in sync with Coahuayutla de Jose until 8th October.
Duffy
Ok but I still don't understand the logic of your method.
Quakes do not happen more often at dawn or sunset so why is the correlation significant?
Roger
The terminator thresholds bear no relation to actual event times, they are simply a means of gathering data. I use them as a tool of my hypothesis, for the detection of pre-seismic locations... please observe
This is a screen shot taken from the ACE satellite MAG data display at the times show. Each aspect change or Phi contact has the potential to relate to a pre determined seismic location. The one that has got my attention here, is the significant data compression and aspect change at 13:22 UTC.
This sun map relates to 13:22 UTC today (5th Oct). The idea is to check all the usual seismically active areas on the displayed terminator thresholds... this also includes the longitude positions of the sun and moon. My assessment of this image concludes that it is sunrise in the Gulf of California, and not much else on this threshold apart from the pacific-Antarctic Ridge region. Sunset in Pakistan, Afghanistan and possibly the Indian Ocean Triple Junction Region. Dusk (night) through Nepal, China and so on. The moon is located on the same longitude as Potosi, Bolivia... however, the sun is not in a favourable position at this time. It was located on longitude 23'24'W, which as you know is just short of being in an influential longitude position for the South Sandwich Islands Region.
The nature of this particular aspect change from my hypothetical experience is telling me, this little guy is on a serious mission, and that it is related to the sun or moons geocentric position... but not necessarily at this time or location !
This sun map relates to 01:22 UTC 6th October... exactly 12 hours later. The sun is now located on longitude 156'34'E, which also includes such locations on this longitude as Bougainville and Kamchatka Peninsula. However, "note" where the moon is located... it shares the same longitude as Sulawesi and the Sumba region !. From this one ACE image, I speculate that a significant aftershock, possibly in the 6+ range may occur in this region, in the next 48 hour period from the time the aspect change was recorded. It is speculative because no further corroborating data was used. You also have to take into account variables of error... did I determine the correct time in the image... is there any time delay in the ACE transmission... do I have to allow for a refracted difference over a 12 hour period etc.
Data correlation occurs when you amass data for two different locations, which in this case have a parallel terminator connection. One location will supersede the other by accumulating more data, or by regional history. My data did not support a 6+ in the San Francisco region, and Guerrero is no stranger to 6+ events.
Data correlation works best over a 30 day period, but I am not here to resurrect my past preaching's... only to try and hit a 6+ in 7 days. The times relate to threshold locations, not time of occurrence.
(10-03-2018, 06:33 PM)Island Chris Wrote: That is the first prediction here in a very long time. If there was more interest (and posts) on earth science including earthquakes that have already occurred, I would post more. For instance, the M7.5 left-lateral quake with tsunami (and gravity-driven deformation and liquefaction?), in Indonesia, is interesting.
Chris
Yes and if there were more predictions posted here I would have more evaluations to do.
Win win situation!
Roger
Data Correlation... M 3.9 4km SW of Tres Pinos, CA - 121.359'W - 36.765'N
I included a data correlation location in this prediction as an indicator for conformation or adjustment purposes. On 2nd October at 12:38 UTC, it was dawn in San Leandro, San Francisco Bay area, and sunrise in Coahuayutla de Jose on the co-ordinates of this prediction. As of 12:38 UTC today (5th Oct), it was dawn in Tres Pinos on the USGS co-ordinates posted above, yet it was still sunrise at this time in Coahuayutla de Jose. This data correlation relates to a parallel terminator threshold connection, and indicates no adjustment is necessary to the prime prediction location (sunrise is holding where it should be... and the dawn threshold is adjusting in relation to the suns southward motion).
Tres Pinos will stay in sync with Coahuayutla de Jose until 8th October.
Duffy
Ok but I still don't understand the logic of your method.
Quakes do not happen more often at dawn or sunset so why is the correlation significant?
Roger
The terminator thresholds bear no relation to actual event times, they are simply a means of gathering data. I use them as a tool of my hypothesis, for the detection of pre-seismic locations... please observe
This is a screen shot taken from the ACE satellite MAG data display at the times show. Each aspect change or Phi contact has the potential to relate to a pre determined seismic location. The one that has got my attention here, is the significant data compression and aspect change at 13:22 UTC.
This sun map relates to 13:22 UTC today (5th Oct). The idea is to check all the usual seismically active areas on the displayed terminator thresholds... this also includes the longitude positions of the sun and moon. My assessment of this image concludes that it is sunrise in the Gulf of California, and not much else on this threshold apart from the pacific-Antarctic Ridge region. Sunset in Pakistan, Afghanistan and possibly the Indian Ocean Triple Junction Region. Dusk (night) through Nepal, China and so on. The moon is located on the same longitude as Potosi, Bolivia... however, the sun is not in a favourable position at this time. It was located on longitude 23'24'W, which as you know is just short of being in an influential longitude position for the South Sandwich Islands Region.
The nature of this particular aspect change from my hypothetical experience is telling me, this little guy is on a serious mission, and that it is related to the sun or moons geocentric position... but not necessarily at this time or location !
This sun map relates to 01:22 UTC 6th October... exactly 12 hours later. The sun is now located on longitude 156'34'E, which also includes such locations on this longitude as Bougainville and Kamchatka Peninsula. However, "note" where the moon is located... it shares the same longitude as Sulawesi and the Sumba region !. From this one ACE image, I speculate that a significant aftershock, possibly in the 6+ range may occur in this region, in the next 48 hour period from the time the aspect change was recorded. It is speculative because no further corroborating data was used. You also have to take into account variables of error... did I determine the correct time in the image... is there any time delay in the ACE transmission... do I have to allow for a refracted difference over a 12 hour period etc.
Data correlation occurs when you amass data for two different locations, which in this case have a parallel terminator connection. One location will supersede the other by accumulating more data, or by regional history. My data did not support a 6+ in the San Francisco region, and Guerrero is no stranger to 6+ events.
Data correlation works best over a 30 day period, but I am not here to resurrect my past preaching's... only to try and hit a 6+ in 7 days. The times relate to threshold locations, not time of occurrence.
Duffy
This is a screen shot of the proceeding 6 hours of ACE MAG data related to the previous image. This image shows the data stream changed aspect again at 20:54 UTC. The moon was located on longitude 176'32'W at this time (Tonga !)… and it was moonrise on co-ordinates 85'26'E - 28'06'N Bagmati, Nepal (data correlation to Oaxaca).
The following 3 screen shots were obtained from 3 different monitoring devises I am currently operating. Each devise utilises Spectrum lab software, but use different elemental methods for detection. The screen shots were recorded this afternoon (my time) and correspond with the 13:22 UTC ACE data aspect change.
At this point, I can honestly say that I am unsure where these images or the ACE data refers too (in reference to my hypothesis)… but "they are" an indication that a 6+ is highly likely to occur in the next 24 hours. And it will likely be related to the times mentioned and sun / moon maps posted above.
(10-03-2018, 06:33 PM)Island Chris Wrote: That is the first prediction here in a very long time. If there was more interest (and posts) on earth science including earthquakes that have already occurred, I would post more. For instance, the M7.5 left-lateral quake with tsunami (and gravity-driven deformation and liquefaction?), in Indonesia, is interesting.
Chris
Yes and if there were more predictions posted here I would have more evaluations to do.
Win win situation!
Roger
Data Correlation... M 3.9 4km SW of Tres Pinos, CA - 121.359'W - 36.765'N
I included a data correlation location in this prediction as an indicator for conformation or adjustment purposes. On 2nd October at 12:38 UTC, it was dawn in San Leandro, San Francisco Bay area, and sunrise in Coahuayutla de Jose on the co-ordinates of this prediction. As of 12:38 UTC today (5th Oct), it was dawn in Tres Pinos on the USGS co-ordinates posted above, yet it was still sunrise at this time in Coahuayutla de Jose. This data correlation relates to a parallel terminator threshold connection, and indicates no adjustment is necessary to the prime prediction location (sunrise is holding where it should be... and the dawn threshold is adjusting in relation to the suns southward motion).
Tres Pinos will stay in sync with Coahuayutla de Jose until 8th October.
Duffy
Ok but I still don't understand the logic of your method.
Quakes do not happen more often at dawn or sunset so why is the correlation significant?
Roger
The terminator thresholds bear no relation to actual event times, they are simply a means of gathering data. I use them as a tool of my hypothesis, for the detection of pre-seismic locations... please observe
This is a screen shot taken from the ACE satellite MAG data display at the times show. Each aspect change or Phi contact has the potential to relate to a pre determined seismic location. The one that has got my attention here, is the significant data compression and aspect change at 13:22 UTC.
This sun map relates to 13:22 UTC today (5th Oct). The idea is to check all the usual seismically active areas on the displayed terminator thresholds... this also includes the longitude positions of the sun and moon. My assessment of this image concludes that it is sunrise in the Gulf of California, and not much else on this threshold apart from the pacific-Antarctic Ridge region. Sunset in Pakistan, Afghanistan and possibly the Indian Ocean Triple Junction Region. Dusk (night) through Nepal, China and so on. The moon is located on the same longitude as Potosi, Bolivia... however, the sun is not in a favourable position at this time. It was located on longitude 23'24'W, which as you know is just short of being in an influential longitude position for the South Sandwich Islands Region.
The nature of this particular aspect change from my hypothetical experience is telling me, this little guy is on a serious mission, and that it is related to the sun or moons geocentric position... but not necessarily at this time or location !
This sun map relates to 01:22 UTC 6th October... exactly 12 hours later. The sun is now located on longitude 156'34'E, which also includes such locations on this longitude as Bougainville and Kamchatka Peninsula. However, "note" where the moon is located... it shares the same longitude as Sulawesi and the Sumba region !. From this one ACE image, I speculate that a significant aftershock, possibly in the 6+ range may occur in this region, in the next 48 hour period from the time the aspect change was recorded. It is speculative because no further corroborating data was used. You also have to take into account variables of error... did I determine the correct time in the image... is there any time delay in the ACE transmission... do I have to allow for a refracted difference over a 12 hour period etc.
Data correlation occurs when you amass data for two different locations, which in this case have a parallel terminator connection. One location will supersede the other by accumulating more data, or by regional history. My data did not support a 6+ in the San Francisco region, and Guerrero is no stranger to 6+ events.
Data correlation works best over a 30 day period, but I am not here to resurrect my past preaching's... only to try and hit a 6+ in 7 days. The times relate to threshold locations, not time of occurrence.
Duffy
Duffy;
OK, color me stupid because I still don't understand, but I don't need to understand because it's the hit and miss record that matters.
You tell us when, where, and how big with whatever ranges you need and I'll figure out the evaluation details.
(10-03-2018, 06:45 PM)Roger Hunter Wrote: Yes and if there were more predictions posted here I would have more evaluations to do.
Win win situation!
Roger
Data Correlation... M 3.9 4km SW of Tres Pinos, CA - 121.359'W - 36.765'N
I included a data correlation location in this prediction as an indicator for conformation or adjustment purposes. On 2nd October at 12:38 UTC, it was dawn in San Leandro, San Francisco Bay area, and sunrise in Coahuayutla de Jose on the co-ordinates of this prediction. As of 12:38 UTC today (5th Oct), it was dawn in Tres Pinos on the USGS co-ordinates posted above, yet it was still sunrise at this time in Coahuayutla de Jose. This data correlation relates to a parallel terminator threshold connection, and indicates no adjustment is necessary to the prime prediction location (sunrise is holding where it should be... and the dawn threshold is adjusting in relation to the suns southward motion).
Tres Pinos will stay in sync with Coahuayutla de Jose until 8th October.
Duffy
Ok but I still don't understand the logic of your method.
Quakes do not happen more often at dawn or sunset so why is the correlation significant?
Roger
The terminator thresholds bear no relation to actual event times, they are simply a means of gathering data. I use them as a tool of my hypothesis, for the detection of pre-seismic locations... please observe
This is a screen shot taken from the ACE satellite MAG data display at the times show. Each aspect change or Phi contact has the potential to relate to a pre determined seismic location. The one that has got my attention here, is the significant data compression and aspect change at 13:22 UTC.
This sun map relates to 13:22 UTC today (5th Oct). The idea is to check all the usual seismically active areas on the displayed terminator thresholds... this also includes the longitude positions of the sun and moon. My assessment of this image concludes that it is sunrise in the Gulf of California, and not much else on this threshold apart from the pacific-Antarctic Ridge region. Sunset in Pakistan, Afghanistan and possibly the Indian Ocean Triple Junction Region. Dusk (night) through Nepal, China and so on. The moon is located on the same longitude as Potosi, Bolivia... however, the sun is not in a favourable position at this time. It was located on longitude 23'24'W, which as you know is just short of being in an influential longitude position for the South Sandwich Islands Region.
The nature of this particular aspect change from my hypothetical experience is telling me, this little guy is on a serious mission, and that it is related to the sun or moons geocentric position... but not necessarily at this time or location !
This sun map relates to 01:22 UTC 6th October... exactly 12 hours later. The sun is now located on longitude 156'34'E, which also includes such locations on this longitude as Bougainville and Kamchatka Peninsula. However, "note" where the moon is located... it shares the same longitude as Sulawesi and the Sumba region !. From this one ACE image, I speculate that a significant aftershock, possibly in the 6+ range may occur in this region, in the next 48 hour period from the time the aspect change was recorded. It is speculative because no further corroborating data was used. You also have to take into account variables of error... did I determine the correct time in the image... is there any time delay in the ACE transmission... do I have to allow for a refracted difference over a 12 hour period etc.
Data correlation occurs when you amass data for two different locations, which in this case have a parallel terminator connection. One location will supersede the other by accumulating more data, or by regional history. My data did not support a 6+ in the San Francisco region, and Guerrero is no stranger to 6+ events.
Data correlation works best over a 30 day period, but I am not here to resurrect my past preaching's... only to try and hit a 6+ in 7 days. The times relate to threshold locations, not time of occurrence.
Duffy
Duffy;
OK, color me stupid because I still don't understand, but I don't need to understand because it's the hit and miss record that matters.
You tell us when, where, and how big with whatever ranges you need and I'll figure out the evaluation details.
Roger
I don't normally do this kind of presentation anymore because "it takes a lot of "time and effort" to analyse, format and post. I was responding to your request of trying to gain a better understand of my method. And I was trying to portray the complexities of trying to eliminate multiple threshold contacts in order to focus on real potential targets... kind of like playing tic tac toe with 60 squares.
However, as you pointed out it is the hit and miss record that counts. So in effect, I don't need to elaborate on my hypothesis on this site anymore... I don't actually need to talk to anyone, which is probably a good thing because I'm afraid I am still as "left field" as I was 18 months ago. I don't want ranges, all I want to do is try to hit a "6+ in 7 days", something I have not been able to achieve on this site (in a 7 day period)... I'm just here to post predictions !
I was something of a green horn when I was last here, I have been around the block since, and discovered anywhere else you go it is just a game. Nobody wants to hear the science aspects, they just want to get the dart in the bulls eye... it was refreshing for someone to actually ask how my method worked.
(10-05-2018, 03:03 PM)Duffy Wrote: Data Correlation... M 3.9 4km SW of Tres Pinos, CA - 121.359'W - 36.765'N
I included a data correlation location in this prediction as an indicator for conformation or adjustment purposes. On 2nd October at 12:38 UTC, it was dawn in San Leandro, San Francisco Bay area, and sunrise in Coahuayutla de Jose on the co-ordinates of this prediction. As of 12:38 UTC today (5th Oct), it was dawn in Tres Pinos on the USGS co-ordinates posted above, yet it was still sunrise at this time in Coahuayutla de Jose. This data correlation relates to a parallel terminator threshold connection, and indicates no adjustment is necessary to the prime prediction location (sunrise is holding where it should be... and the dawn threshold is adjusting in relation to the suns southward motion).
Tres Pinos will stay in sync with Coahuayutla de Jose until 8th October.
Duffy
Ok but I still don't understand the logic of your method.
Quakes do not happen more often at dawn or sunset so why is the correlation significant?
Roger
The terminator thresholds bear no relation to actual event times, they are simply a means of gathering data. I use them as a tool of my hypothesis, for the detection of pre-seismic locations... please observe
This is a screen shot taken from the ACE satellite MAG data display at the times show. Each aspect change or Phi contact has the potential to relate to a pre determined seismic location. The one that has got my attention here, is the significant data compression and aspect change at 13:22 UTC.
This sun map relates to 13:22 UTC today (5th Oct). The idea is to check all the usual seismically active areas on the displayed terminator thresholds... this also includes the longitude positions of the sun and moon. My assessment of this image concludes that it is sunrise in the Gulf of California, and not much else on this threshold apart from the pacific-Antarctic Ridge region. Sunset in Pakistan, Afghanistan and possibly the Indian Ocean Triple Junction Region. Dusk (night) through Nepal, China and so on. The moon is located on the same longitude as Potosi, Bolivia... however, the sun is not in a favourable position at this time. It was located on longitude 23'24'W, which as you know is just short of being in an influential longitude position for the South Sandwich Islands Region.
The nature of this particular aspect change from my hypothetical experience is telling me, this little guy is on a serious mission, and that it is related to the sun or moons geocentric position... but not necessarily at this time or location !
This sun map relates to 01:22 UTC 6th October... exactly 12 hours later. The sun is now located on longitude 156'34'E, which also includes such locations on this longitude as Bougainville and Kamchatka Peninsula. However, "note" where the moon is located... it shares the same longitude as Sulawesi and the Sumba region !. From this one ACE image, I speculate that a significant aftershock, possibly in the 6+ range may occur in this region, in the next 48 hour period from the time the aspect change was recorded. It is speculative because no further corroborating data was used. You also have to take into account variables of error... did I determine the correct time in the image... is there any time delay in the ACE transmission... do I have to allow for a refracted difference over a 12 hour period etc.
Data correlation occurs when you amass data for two different locations, which in this case have a parallel terminator connection. One location will supersede the other by accumulating more data, or by regional history. My data did not support a 6+ in the San Francisco region, and Guerrero is no stranger to 6+ events.
Data correlation works best over a 30 day period, but I am not here to resurrect my past preaching's... only to try and hit a 6+ in 7 days. The times relate to threshold locations, not time of occurrence.
Duffy
Duffy;
OK, color me stupid because I still don't understand, but I don't need to understand because it's the hit and miss record that matters.
You tell us when, where, and how big with whatever ranges you need and I'll figure out the evaluation details.
Roger
I don't normally do this kind of presentation anymore because "it takes a lot of "time and effort" to analyse, format and post. I was responding to your request of trying to gain a better understand of my method. And I was trying to portray the complexities of trying to eliminate multiple threshold contacts in order to focus on real potential targets... kind of like playing tic tac toe with 60 squares.
However, as you pointed out it is the hit and miss record that counts. So in effect, I don't need to elaborate on my hypothesis on this site anymore... I don't actually need to talk to anyone, which is probably a good thing because I'm afraid I am still as "left field" as I was 18 months ago. I don't want ranges, all I want to do is try to hit a "6+ in 7 days", something I have not been able to achieve on this site (in a 7 day period)... I'm just here to post predictions !
I was something of a green horn when I was last here, I have been around the block since, and discovered anywhere else you go it is just a game. Nobody wants to hear the science aspects, they just want to get the dart in the bulls eye... it was refreshing for someone to actually ask how my method worked.
No worries Roger...
Duffy
I should add, I have placed 5 predictions here and hit nothing yet... so I actually have nothing worth talking about anyway
(10-05-2018, 03:19 PM)Roger Hunter Wrote: Ok but I still don't understand the logic of your method.
Quakes do not happen more often at dawn or sunset so why is the correlation significant?
Roger
The terminator thresholds bear no relation to actual event times, they are simply a means of gathering data. I use them as a tool of my hypothesis, for the detection of pre-seismic locations... please observe
This is a screen shot taken from the ACE satellite MAG data display at the times show. Each aspect change or Phi contact has the potential to relate to a pre determined seismic location. The one that has got my attention here, is the significant data compression and aspect change at 13:22 UTC.
This sun map relates to 13:22 UTC today (5th Oct). The idea is to check all the usual seismically active areas on the displayed terminator thresholds... this also includes the longitude positions of the sun and moon. My assessment of this image concludes that it is sunrise in the Gulf of California, and not much else on this threshold apart from the pacific-Antarctic Ridge region. Sunset in Pakistan, Afghanistan and possibly the Indian Ocean Triple Junction Region. Dusk (night) through Nepal, China and so on. The moon is located on the same longitude as Potosi, Bolivia... however, the sun is not in a favourable position at this time. It was located on longitude 23'24'W, which as you know is just short of being in an influential longitude position for the South Sandwich Islands Region.
The nature of this particular aspect change from my hypothetical experience is telling me, this little guy is on a serious mission, and that it is related to the sun or moons geocentric position... but not necessarily at this time or location !
This sun map relates to 01:22 UTC 6th October... exactly 12 hours later. The sun is now located on longitude 156'34'E, which also includes such locations on this longitude as Bougainville and Kamchatka Peninsula. However, "note" where the moon is located... it shares the same longitude as Sulawesi and the Sumba region !. From this one ACE image, I speculate that a significant aftershock, possibly in the 6+ range may occur in this region, in the next 48 hour period from the time the aspect change was recorded. It is speculative because no further corroborating data was used. You also have to take into account variables of error... did I determine the correct time in the image... is there any time delay in the ACE transmission... do I have to allow for a refracted difference over a 12 hour period etc.
Data correlation occurs when you amass data for two different locations, which in this case have a parallel terminator connection. One location will supersede the other by accumulating more data, or by regional history. My data did not support a 6+ in the San Francisco region, and Guerrero is no stranger to 6+ events.
Data correlation works best over a 30 day period, but I am not here to resurrect my past preaching's... only to try and hit a 6+ in 7 days. The times relate to threshold locations, not time of occurrence.
Duffy
Duffy;
OK, color me stupid because I still don't understand, but I don't need to understand because it's the hit and miss record that matters.
You tell us when, where, and how big with whatever ranges you need and I'll figure out the evaluation details.
Roger
I don't normally do this kind of presentation anymore because "it takes a lot of "time and effort" to analyse, format and post. I was responding to your request of trying to gain a better understand of my method. And I was trying to portray the complexities of trying to eliminate multiple threshold contacts in order to focus on real potential targets... kind of like playing tic tac toe with 60 squares.
However, as you pointed out it is the hit and miss record that counts. So in effect, I don't need to elaborate on my hypothesis on this site anymore... I don't actually need to talk to anyone, which is probably a good thing because I'm afraid I am still as "left field" as I was 18 months ago. I don't want ranges, all I want to do is try to hit a "6+ in 7 days", something I have not been able to achieve on this site (in a 7 day period)... I'm just here to post predictions !
I was something of a green horn when I was last here, I have been around the block since, and discovered anywhere else you go it is just a game. Nobody wants to hear the science aspects, they just want to get the dart in the bulls eye... it was refreshing for someone to actually ask how my method worked.
No worries Roger...
Duffy
I should add, I have placed 5 predictions here and hit nothing yet... so I actually have nothing worth talking about anyway
Duffy
Ok Duffy, that's up to you.
But you're always welcome here (as long as Skywise agrees!)
(10-06-2018, 12:51 AM)Roger Hunter Wrote: But you're always welcome here (as long as Skywise agrees!)
I'm good with things so far.
And, I also do not fully understand your method, Duffy. But I got part of it. But like Roger said, it's not important at this time. No need wasting your time trying to explain things. Save your energy on working out the kinks in your system. Once you start making regular statistically good hits, then we'll start bugging for the details.
(10-06-2018, 12:51 AM)Roger Hunter Wrote: But you're always welcome here (as long as Skywise agrees!)
I'm good with things so far.
And, I also do not fully understand your method, Duffy. But I got part of it. But like Roger said, it's not important at this time. No need wasting your time trying to explain things. Save your energy on working out the kinks in your system. Once you start making regular statistically good hits, then we'll start bugging for the details.
(10-06-2018, 12:51 AM)Roger Hunter Wrote: But you're always welcome here (as long as Skywise agrees!)
I'm good with things so far.
And, I also do not fully understand your method, Duffy. But I got part of it. But like Roger said, it's not important at this time. No need wasting your time trying to explain things. Save your energy on working out the kinks in your system. Once you start making regular statistically good hits, then we'll start bugging for the details.
Brian
Yes, that is sound advice... thank you.
Apologies Roger... "my bad" as they say.
Duffy
No problem Duffy, just glad you're back.
Do you have a cumulative list of past predictions that I can start working with?
(10-06-2018, 12:51 AM)Roger Hunter Wrote: But you're always welcome here (as long as Skywise agrees!)
I'm good with things so far.
And, I also do not fully understand your method, Duffy. But I got part of it. But like Roger said, it's not important at this time. No need wasting your time trying to explain things. Save your energy on working out the kinks in your system. Once you start making regular statistically good hits, then we'll start bugging for the details.
Brian
Yes, that is sound advice... thank you.
Apologies Roger... "my bad" as they say.
Duffy
No problem Duffy, just glad you're back.
Do you have a cumulative list of past predictions that I can start working with?
Roger
I did not retain my prediction records after 2016... old news you understand.
The original post are still recorded here though, might be best with a fresh start !
Logout 
Portal 
Forum
Search
Members
Help 
