(01-26-2015, 08:48 PM)Roger Hunter Wrote: Ideally I'd want them before the quakes happened so you couldn't be accused of selecting only good ones for testing.
Agreed, but I think we can still evaluate past data if made available. Although cherry picking is always a concern, I vote for innocent until proven guilty. That is, let's not assume the data is tampered with unless there's good reason to think it was. Just because some other quake predictors have played with the data doesn't mean Duffy has.
(01-26-2015, 08:48 PM)Roger Hunter Wrote: There are some problems with this, in that you aren't specifying date, mag. or location which makes it difficult to say that a given signal matches a particular quake.
I'd like to expand on this to make sure Duffy understands where you're coming from. To evaluate a possible prediction or precursory phenomena, it makes the math much easier and the analysis more robust if it can be said that a given precursor results in a quake of a given location, date/time, and place. All three of these variables can be quantized, and all three are part of the evaluation process.
The difference is in saying, "there's going to be a mag 8 quake in Japan" vs "there's going to be a mag 8 quake on the Ring of Fire". If the quake happens in Chile, the first statement is clearly false, but the second is true. However, the area of the Ring of Fire is much much larger than just Japan, therefore the second statement, although true, carries much less significance than if the quake had occurred in Japan.
Ideally we want to eliminate any fuzziness to the variables. If the dart lands in the outer ring of the dartboard, it's NOT a bulls eye. But if someone says "near the bulls eye", it then becomes an argument of "how near is NEAR"?
However, even saying that a quake of mag 7+ will occur somewhere on the planet within 5 days of the onset of a SID can still be evaluated. It just carries less significance per event, and therefore we'd need to study a much longer time period to tease out the true significance.
Anyway, an evaluation can still be done in most circumstances, and I agree with Chris that this VLF data sounds very interesting. It's hard data, replicable, testable, and definable. It's not fuzzy.
(01-26-2015, 08:48 PM)Roger Hunter Wrote: Ideally I'd want them before the quakes happened so you couldn't be accused of selecting only good ones for testing.
Agreed, but I think we can still evaluate past data if made available. Although cherry picking is always a concern, I vote for innocent until proven guilty. That is, let's not assume the data is tampered with unless there's good reason to think it was. Just because some other quake predictors have played with the data doesn't mean Duffy has.
(01-26-2015, 08:48 PM)Roger Hunter Wrote: There are some problems with this, in that you aren't specifying date, mag. or location which makes it difficult to say that a given signal matches a particular quake.
I'd like to expand on this to make sure Duffy understands where you're coming from. To evaluate a possible prediction or precursory phenomena, it makes the math much easier and the analysis more robust if it can be said that a given precursor results in a quake of a given location, date/time, and place. All three of these variables can be quantized, and all three are part of the evaluation process.
The difference is in saying, "there's going to be a mag 8 quake in Japan" vs "there's going to be a mag 8 quake on the Ring of Fire". If the quake happens in Chile, the first statement is clearly false, but the second is true. However, the area of the Ring of Fire is much much larger than just Japan, therefore the second statement, although true, carries much less significance than if the quake had occurred in Japan.
Ideally we want to eliminate any fuzziness to the variables. If the dart lands in the outer ring of the dartboard, it's NOT a bulls eye. But if someone says "near the bulls eye", it then becomes an argument of "how near is NEAR"?
However, even saying that a quake of mag 7+ will occur somewhere on the planet within 5 days of the onset of a SID can still be evaluated. It just carries less significance per event, and therefore we'd need to study a much longer time period to tease out the true significance.
Anyway, an evaluation can still be done in most circumstances, and I agree with Chris that this VLF data sounds very interesting. It's hard data, replicable, testable, and definable. It's not fuzzy.
Brian
I agree. It's not impossible, just more difficult.
If Duffy has a list of past signals I can get started. It will take some time as each case requires it's own program and upcoming eye surgury will put me out of commission for awhile.
(01-26-2015, 12:27 PM)Island Chris Wrote: Work with Brian or Brian and Roger to figure out what form to post it, and on which of these sublists. It is related to prediction but I think you are not doing predictions.
The best place to post that information would be in "Prediction Evaluation", unless I made a new forum specific to VLF research, and that would just be a subforum of the above anyway.
Brian
Or he could send them directly to me. No need to clutter up the website unless you think others might be interested too.
Roger
Well, isn't that what this website is for? Unless he just doesn't feel comfortable posting them because this is a public forum. But at some point the data has to come out. Publishing a private evaluation is kinda moot because no one else can verify the analysis. No chance for peer review.
(01-26-2015, 12:27 PM)Island Chris Wrote: Work with Brian or Brian and Roger to figure out what form to post it, and on which of these sublists. It is related to prediction but I think you are not doing predictions.
The best place to post that information would be in "Prediction Evaluation", unless I made a new forum specific to VLF research, and that would just be a subforum of the above anyway.
Brian
Or he could send them directly to me. No need to clutter up the website unless you think others might be interested too.
Roger
Well, isn't that what this website is for? Unless he just doesn't feel comfortable posting them because this is a public forum. But at some point the data has to come out. Publishing a private evaluation is kinda moot because no one else can verify the analysis. No chance for peer review.
Hi again Duffy,
In the past, I have a different interest than Roger and some others. Roger (and others) have tended to make posts that a prediction has to be useful to people (to get them out of buildings or something). He and others would like magnitude range, date range, and location range. My read is that you should be only able to do date range. Logically, if there is an ionospheric signal, with a single recording station, that is all you should be able to do. Or, if I understand right, maybe you can see disturbances in reception from different transmitting stations so could get some regional path for the disturbance?
Anyhow, something like this can be useful for what triggers quakes. For example, if magnetic storms or earth tides triggered quakes, even with no location or particular magnitude, it would have been interesting that something that weak could induce forces in the earth enough to affect seismicity. Rogers analysis suggests no relation between magnetic storms or solar flares and large quakes. There have been some papers that show a limited affect of earth tides (Tolstoy, on the spreading ridge off of the USA Pacific northwest/Cascadia).
I don't have time, but it would not be a bad idea to find papers on ionospheric disturbaces on quakes. The AGU journals are open access after 2 years now.
Chris
(01-27-2015, 01:15 PM)Island Chris Wrote: Hi again Duffy,
In the past, I have a different interest than Roger and some others. Roger (and others) have tended to make posts that a prediction has to be useful to people (to get them out of buildings or something). He and others would like magnitude range, date range, and location range. My read is that you should be only able to do date range. Logically, if there is an ionospheric signal, with a single recording station, that is all you should be able to do. Or, if I understand right, maybe you can see disturbances in reception from different transmitting stations so could get some regional path for the disturbance?
Anyhow, something like this can be useful for what triggers quakes. For example, if magnetic storms or earth tides triggered quakes, even with no location or particular magnitude, it would have been interesting that something that weak could induce forces in the earth enough to affect seismicity. Rogers analysis suggests no relation between magnetic storms or solar flares and large quakes. There have been some papers that show a limited affect of earth tides (Tolstoy, on the spreading ridge off of the USA Pacific northwest/Cascadia).
I don't have time, but it would not be a bad idea to find papers on ionospheric disturbaces on quakes. The AGU journals are open access after 2 years now.
Chris
You're right, Chris. Even saying "mag 7+ within the next 72 hours" is testable.
Also, although magnetic disturbances in the ionosphere may seem weak, there is in reality a lot of energy there. It's just spread out over half the planet.
Anyway, the idea is testable. We just need the data. Kind of hard to confirm if you've got enough milk in the fridge for mac&cheese if you're not allowed to look in the fridge.
(01-26-2015, 08:48 PM)Roger Hunter Wrote: Ideally I'd want them before the quakes happened so you couldn't be accused of selecting only good ones for testing.
Agreed, but I think we can still evaluate past data if made available. Although cherry picking is always a concern, I vote for innocent until proven guilty. That is, let's not assume the data is tampered with unless there's good reason to think it was. Just because some other quake predictors have played with the data doesn't mean Duffy has.
(01-26-2015, 08:48 PM)Roger Hunter Wrote: There are some problems with this, in that you aren't specifying date, mag. or location which makes it difficult to say that a given signal matches a particular quake.
I'd like to expand on this to make sure Duffy understands where you're coming from. To evaluate a possible prediction or precursory phenomena, it makes the math much easier and the analysis more robust if it can be said that a given precursor results in a quake of a given location, date/time, and place. All three of these variables can be quantized, and all three are part of the evaluation process.
The difference is in saying, "there's going to be a mag 8 quake in Japan" vs "there's going to be a mag 8 quake on the Ring of Fire". If the quake happens in Chile, the first statement is clearly false, but the second is true. However, the area of the Ring of Fire is much much larger than just Japan, therefore the second statement, although true, carries much less significance than if the quake had occurred in Japan.
Ideally we want to eliminate any fuzziness to the variables. If the dart lands in the outer ring of the dartboard, it's NOT a bulls eye. But if someone says "near the bulls eye", it then becomes an argument of "how near is NEAR"?
However, even saying that a quake of mag 7+ will occur somewhere on the planet within 5 days of the onset of a SID can still be evaluated. It just carries less significance per event, and therefore we'd need to study a much longer time period to tease out the true significance.
Anyway, an evaluation can still be done in most circumstances, and I agree with Chris that this VLF data sounds very interesting. It's hard data, replicable, testable, and definable. It's not fuzzy.
Brian
I agree. It's not impossible, just more difficult.
If Duffy has a list of past signals I can get started. It will take some time as each case requires it's own program and upcoming eye surgury will put me out of commission for awhile.
Roger
Hi Roger, thanks for the welcome (same goes for Chris)
Sorry for any late replies, I have a small business to run,family duties to attend to, on going astro projects and now corresponding with you guys, I'm sure you can appreciate you get days when free time is a bit limited. First off, I've noticed that after only 2 posts I'm stiring up a bit of a Hornets nest and I'm not entirely comfortable with were this is going, so I'm going to take Chris's advice and approach things realisticaly. I'll speak (type) plainly so there'll be no missinterpritation and I won't pretend to understand all scientific dialog, any miss quoted references interpreted as disrespectful or unprofessional are purely unintensional and if a little humour pops up now and again its just my way of taking the edge off. I'd like to step back a bit here and re-asses what I've stated and remove any asumptions I or anyone else may have and stay with the facts. The 2 antenna's mentioned are of the loop design but have been upgraded from a basic model, the primary Ant has been kitted with aditional non-ferous componants and the secondery with ferous componants, these relay signals to 2 old tec Toshiba laptops (no sub-surface EM signals with new tec, not figured that one out yet) which display real time 10 second time laps data onto a plot screen. Recordings of selected vlf stations are displayed as coloured lines (a bit like a seismometer I would imagine) however one line records the Noise ratio level which Brian might be familiar with by now and this shows if any man made or natural signal disruption has occured. Any inactive stations will reside at the bottom of the screen with the noise line, EM signals from lightning for example would produce short/sharp peaks in the noise line, interactions of Earth's magnetic field with the solarwind under certain conditions would show as a saw tooth effect and so on. In all cases only the noise line asends or desends accordingly whilst the inactive lines remain undisturbed. When a hypothetical subteranian EM signal (as only I can verify this at the moment) does occur the noise line and inactive signals are raised to a higher level and continue to record a disruptive pattern untill the initial EM burst shuts down (usually in a matter of seconds), the noise and inactive station lines return to the bottom of the screen and continue recording as normal. The second monitor is there for diagnosis of battery problems or feed line contamination from water etc, it also monitors the same signals for comparison which are identical to the last peak except when a hypo EM strikes, it continues as normal, no EM signal. I then remove the whole day's data to memory, print it off and splice together to produce one whole day in scroll format. I also print off the area of interest separately along with Satellite enviroment data and laminate them together. For the next 24-48 hours its a waiting game untill a mag 6+ appears on the USGS website, if one occurs and you stick to the facts it has to be verified by other parties, even then it could only be categorised as a coincidence untill further occurances could also be witnessed by said parties.
This is the best I could describe my equipment and data logging prosess on a "public forum" so I hope you could follow it ok, my next post I'll upload a couple of plot screen images for a better understanding of the text.
I respect and understand your need for data to incorporate it in your model for analysis but I've been modeling this for 2 years 3 months 1 week and 2 days including today which is a long time for a non-scientist to be sitting around waiting for Earthquakes. I'm not known here so I could be a fraud, would be easy enough to leave a chainsaw running next to the antenna for an hour creating a passable EM signature and altering the time/date stamp and passing it of as a PQ signal. This is why I made the suggestion to Brian about posting anomolous readings that I'm familiar with on the day they occur, If for example after 4 posts are verified within a 48 hour window and a link is established with a 6+ Earthquake then my model will be complete and I'll give you all I have by special delivery.
I agree with Chris that this is not prediction based, its more like a warning with a 48 hour sell by date, so I'll put my vlf crystal ball back in the drawer and wait to be proven "innocent" of any misgivings.
I have my own theories from observing what I've recorded so far but would'nt be prudent to mention just now, however I can tell you there's a notable difference in the dB range between PQ's of 8,7 and 6th magnitude, there's possible corolation between EM output v distance v signal duration, I can elaborate more once you've seen the plot images, though more years of data as Chris sugested may be required. What I can't tell you is were the quake would occur which would'nt fit with your perameters.
finaly thanks for you patience and I have'nt done this much typing since I did my thankyou speech for my wedding 30 years ago, I'll go back in the house now and look at the (now) 18 laminated coincidental plot screen images adorning my wall, Quite a colourfull collage really, a bit retro though!.
(01-26-2015, 08:48 PM)Roger Hunter Wrote: Ideally I'd want them before the quakes happened so you couldn't be accused of selecting only good ones for testing.
Agreed, but I think we can still evaluate past data if made available. Although cherry picking is always a concern, I vote for innocent until proven guilty. That is, let's not assume the data is tampered with unless there's good reason to think it was. Just because some other quake predictors have played with the data doesn't mean Duffy has.
(01-26-2015, 08:48 PM)Roger Hunter Wrote: There are some problems with this, in that you aren't specifying date, mag. or location which makes it difficult to say that a given signal matches a particular quake.
I'd like to expand on this to make sure Duffy understands where you're coming from. To evaluate a possible prediction or precursory phenomena, it makes the math much easier and the analysis more robust if it can be said that a given precursor results in a quake of a given location, date/time, and place. All three of these variables can be quantized, and all three are part of the evaluation process.
The difference is in saying, "there's going to be a mag 8 quake in Japan" vs "there's going to be a mag 8 quake on the Ring of Fire". If the quake happens in Chile, the first statement is clearly false, but the second is true. However, the area of the Ring of Fire is much much larger than just Japan, therefore the second statement, although true, carries much less significance than if the quake had occurred in Japan.
Ideally we want to eliminate any fuzziness to the variables. If the dart lands in the outer ring of the dartboard, it's NOT a bulls eye. But if someone says "near the bulls eye", it then becomes an argument of "how near is NEAR"?
However, even saying that a quake of mag 7+ will occur somewhere on the planet within 5 days of the onset of a SID can still be evaluated. It just carries less significance per event, and therefore we'd need to study a much longer time period to tease out the true significance.
Anyway, an evaluation can still be done in most circumstances, and I agree with Chris that this VLF data sounds very interesting. It's hard data, replicable, testable, and definable. It's not fuzzy.
Brian
I agree. It's not impossible, just more difficult.
If Duffy has a list of past signals I can get started. It will take some time as each case requires it's own program and upcoming eye surgury will put me out of commission for awhile.
Roger
Hi Roger, thanks for the welcome (same goes for Chris)
Sorry for any late replies, I have a small business to run,family duties to attend to, on going astro projects and now corresponding with you guys, I'm sure you can appreciate you get days when free time is a bit limited. First off, I've noticed that after only 2 posts I'm stiring up a bit of a Hornets nest and I'm not entirely comfortable with were this is going, so I'm going to take Chris's advice and approach things realisticaly. I'll speak (type) plainly so there'll be no missinterpritation and I won't pretend to understand all scientific dialog, any miss quoted references interpreted as disrespectful or unprofessional are purely unintensional and if a little humour pops up now and again its just my way of taking the edge off. I'd like to step back a bit here and re-asses what I've stated and remove any asumptions I or anyone else may have and stay with the facts. The 2 antenna's mentioned are of the loop design but have been upgraded from a basic model, the primary Ant has been kitted with aditional non-ferous componants and the secondery with ferous componants, these relay signals to 2 old tec Toshiba laptops (no sub-surface EM signals with new tec, not figured that one out yet) which display real time 10 second time laps data onto a plot screen. Recordings of selected vlf stations are displayed as coloured lines (a bit like a seismometer I would imagine) however one line records the Noise ratio level which Brian might be familiar with by now and this shows if any man made or natural signal disruption has occured. Any inactive stations will reside at the bottom of the screen with the noise line, EM signals from lightning for example would produce short/sharp peaks in the noise line, interactions of Earth's magnetic field with the solarwind under certain conditions would show as a saw tooth effect and so on. In all cases only the noise line asends or desends accordingly whilst the inactive lines remain undisturbed. When a hypothetical subteranian EM signal (as only I can verify this at the moment) does occur the noise line and inactive signals are raised to a higher level and continue to record a disruptive pattern untill the initial EM burst shuts down (usually in a matter of seconds), the noise and inactive station lines return to the bottom of the screen and continue recording as normal. The second monitor is there for diagnosis of battery problems or feed line contamination from water etc, it also monitors the same signals for comparison which are identical to the last peak except when a hypo EM strikes, it continues as normal, no EM signal. I then remove the whole day's data to memory, print it off and splice together to produce one whole day in scroll format. I also print off the area of interest separately along with Satellite enviroment data and laminate them together. For the next 24-48 hours its a waiting game untill a mag 6+ appears on the USGS website, if one occurs and you stick to the facts it has to be verified by other parties, even then it could only be categorised as a coincidence untill further occurances could also be witnessed by said parties.
This is the best I could describe my equipment and data logging prosess on a "public forum" so I hope you could follow it ok, my next post I'll upload a couple of plot screen images for a better understanding of the text.
I respect and understand your need for data to incorporate it in your model for analysis but I've been modeling this for 2 years 3 months 1 week and 2 days including today which is a long time for a non-scientist to be sitting around waiting for Earthquakes. I'm not known here so I could be a fraud, would be easy enough to leave a chainsaw running next to the antenna for an hour creating a passable EM signature and altering the time/date stamp and passing it of as a PQ signal. This is why I made the suggestion to Brian about posting anomolous readings that I'm familiar with on the day they occur, If for example after 4 posts are verified within a 48 hour window and a link is established with a 6+ Earthquake then my model will be complete and I'll give you all I have by special delivery.
I agree with Chris that this is not prediction based, its more like a warning with a 48 hour sell by date, so I'll put my vlf crystal ball back in the drawer and wait to be proven "innocent" of any misgivings.
I have my own theories from observing what I've recorded so far but would'nt be prudent to mention just now, however I can tell you there's a notable difference in the dB range between PQ's of 8,7 and 6th magnitude, there's possible corolation between EM output v distance v signal duration, I can elaborate more once you've seen the plot images, though more years of data as Chris sugested may be required. What I can't tell you is were the quake would occur which would'nt fit with your perameters.
finaly thanks for you patience and I have'nt done this much typing since I did my thankyou speech for my wedding 30 years ago, I'll go back in the house now and look at the (now) 18 laminated coincidental plot screen images adorning my wall, Quite a colourfull collage really, a bit retro though!.
Duffy
Hi Duffy;
I hope I haven't upset you with my comments. My concern is related to what would happen if we can establish a significant correlation between your signals and quakes. Data selection would be the first objection others would raise.
If you're interested in getting your data examined I'd be most happy to undertake the task. I'd just need a list of signal date/times and any size indicators you might have.
You'll have to forgive any impression of accusing you of improprieties with your data. It's nothing personal. Just the nature of scientific debate. Science works backwards in a way, in that a theory is proven right by failure to prove it wrong. So what happens is everyone jumps on the theory and tries to tear it apart. After enough failures to tear it apart, it then becomes accepted as likely correct.
I think the best solution at the moment, Duffy, is to just post as soon as possible when you have one of these signals you think might be a precursor to a quake. I recommend posting those messages to the prediction forum as the most appropriate place, even though they're not predictions per se. There are forms on that forum for prediction details, but you do not have to use them to post a message there.
I do have a question. In your expanded description of your detection process you make mention of a "hypothetical subterranean EM signal". I'm a little confused by the subterranean part. I thought you were detecting changes to the ionosphere. Did I misunderstand something?
(01-28-2015, 10:44 PM)Skywise Wrote: You'll have to forgive any impression of accusing you of improprieties with your data. It's nothing personal. Just the nature of scientific debate. Science works backwards in a way, in that a theory is proven right by failure to prove it wrong. So what happens is everyone jumps on the theory and tries to tear it apart. After enough failures to tear it apart, it then becomes accepted as likely correct.
I think the best solution at the moment, Duffy, is to just post as soon as possible when you have one of these signals you think might be a precursor to a quake. I recommend posting those messages to the prediction forum as the most appropriate place, even though they're not predictions per se. There are forms on that forum for prediction details, but you do not have to use them to post a message there.
I do have a question. In your expanded description of your detection process you make mention of a "hypothetical subterranean EM signal". I'm a little confused by the subterranean part. I thought you were detecting changes to the ionosphere. Did I misunderstand something?
Brian
Hi Brian,
There's really nothing to forgive, my highlighting may have given the wrong impression to you, I'm not used to forums and was mearly trying to show that I was paying attention, I'm a farmer's son born and raised and in general a light hearted humourus kind of guy, I have a few certificates from studies with the OU, and a couple of observation awards, so I know a little science, and understand that with any theory there has to be a process of elimination, If I tell you the sky is green because of a,b and c, as scientists you have to disprove my theory to retain the fact that it really is blue (it is blue isn't it ?). Being sceptical is part of the vetting process, We're debating a serious subject so untill I'm shown to be the real deal I expect more scepticism. So tell Roger no harm done, lay off the big words a little, and I'll hopefully have some thing together for him in a few days. Apologies for any late replies, frustratingly busy at the moment and time is a bit limited, so I'll try to address any questions with you.
THe answer to your question Brian is yes and no, there are two kinds of phenomenon related to vlf propagation and Earthquakes which I can explain better when I send a couple of plot screen images to Roger. One is atmospheric, and one is subterranian, the latter is the one I'm hoping to verify. I found some old published research online from the 80's about rock stress testing, and how rock reacts under extreme pressure, they found that for a given bar reading the rock released "radon gas", a kind of EM aerosol. It was hypothesised that if large amounts of radon could be detected eminating from plate boundaries in Earthquake zones prior to a major event, they could precuring a prediction. The vlf link here is, radon interacts with the lower atmosphere, particulally the D-layer that vlf waves use to propagate around the globe, if some one like myself is monitoring x number of vlf stations they would record a signal drop off at a particular station of a given country, or several at once depending on the amount of radon released. I believe this research is still on going at CERN but I've not followed the radon trail for a while. I've experienced this several times, mostly signals from Iceland and Italy as radon is also asssociated with volcanic activity, it is this phenomena that introduced me to Earthquakes in the first place, but its not the reason I'm here.
A lot of research in the 80's and 90's focused on magnetic phenomena, a hypothesis that a surge of EM radiation in the Earths crust could precede the onset of an Earthquake. Plainly speaking, it was theorised that if for a given amount of energy released, and a frequency could be obtained, it would be possible to detect Earthquakes before they occured. But it was found to be unworkable, alot of projects claimed to have had success when their predictions of an Earthquake became reality, but were unable to repeat the process satisfactorily so their original claims were regarded as either flukes or false sensor readings.
This is the reason I'm here, to establish weather I'm receiving an EM signal hours before an Earthquake strikes, I believe I am but it has to be proven and I need the right kind of people (yourselves) to act as witnesses. Its not prediction, but I need prediction before It can move on to research.
I appologies if this has sounded like the non-scientist giving the scientist a science lesson but your all experts in your own particular field, so I can't assume you know everything, and just so everybody is on the right track here, I'm talking about EM signals from the Earth, the ground under my feet, the only connection with the Sun is I built this system to receive signals from it, but its also receiving signals from the Earth.
Roger was concerned about what would happen if a significant corrolation was established (I wouldn't be the only one loosing sleep for starters), and the issue of data selection. My system has been revamped three times since I started , the last time was October last year, when the first signal came in I nearly fell out of my chair. So I've started a new file on my project and bringing you along for the ride so to speak. Past data is pale in comparison and I see it as a test bed for what's hopefully to come. I'll do as you sugested, Brian, When a recognisable signal appears, I'll post in predictions, if I get a hit then were off the starting blocks, but if I win a few races, well, you'll been there with me, in real time, data selection shouldn't be a problem, assuming I've understud it correctly (still a bit of farmers son up there I'm afraid).
As Chris suggested earlier, you have to be realistic, well the reality is this, I'm an astro guy and love all things astronomy, in the past I've covered Planetary science, Cosmology and a little Earth science. I have no elusions of becoming a scientist, I mearly wanted to understand what I was looking at through the scope. When the signals started and I realised their significance, I had the foresight to contact what I thought were the right people, the rest you know, that was me being realistic then. Now I find myself with signals trying to come out of the top of the monitor (due to a bit of tinkering) and again I'm in a similar position, for all I know this could be a common occurance (as I originally asked). This kind of research was dead in the water by the mid 90's so I can understand it not being considered, or its like you've been looking for Amelia Earharts plane for the last 20 years, the garbage man turns up, gives you a map, and says I've worked on this a few weeks and x marks the spot.
I mean no disrespect or offence to anyone, especially Chris, and value any advice given, I was a little angry at the time, I'd forsaken a holiday to get that data together because I thought it might be important. I'm not claiming to have found the plane, but there might be something here to tell us which direction to look.
As for data theft, my data is very simplistic, basic and mostly monitor printouts, which I don't mind sharing at the right pace, however, receiver schematics is another story. I have a couple of trophies for shooting which means I have a gun, two big dogs and a mother-in-law in the house, so if you did try to run off with my work, Chris, I can only imagine which obsticle would be the hardest to deal with.
I'll finish here by saying again, there's no harm done, we're working at different ends of the Earthquake spectrum, and if all goes well maybe we'll meet in the middle. Sorry if I've upset anyone with my comments, being un-scientific, my Yorkshire dialog, and writing another novel again (all these apologies, sounds like a tennis match). I will post again as soon as I'm able, and will finish now with a bit of astro trivia for all cat loving Earth scientists.
Sir Issac Newton not only discovered gravity, he was also credited with inventing the "Cat Flap" (Wickapedia).
Logout 
Portal 
Forum
Search
Members
Help 
