[Roger Hunter]

(03-04-2017, 05:46 PM)Duffy Wrote: Roger;

I'm not very good at cutting to the chase ... I noticed three of my prediction locations in your selection, so It didn't take much to figure out rest were connected to post seismic events.  The words at the end of the result table, was my attempt at being respectfully subtle about your random selection.  I ran your numbers against the last test data, and you got one dawn and one dusk (said events hadn't gone off yet) ... Brian got 28, with a total of 54 hits out of 46 quakes. You guy's are scientists, so I figured you were trialling my original data ... I now see I figured wrong!

My scientific vocabulary is as you know some what limited, it doesn't mean my intelligence has to be regarded in the same manner.  I am not using tone here because I have to compensate for your short term memory problem, last week you claimed I had something worth investigating, this week it is a false method ... to much work has gone into this to be summed up with contradiction.   


Duffy

Duffy;

No, my assumption was that we were talking about the random selections.

I thought you had something worth investigating so that's what we were doing with the random dates.

It turned out that the random dates gave as many hits as your signal-based dates, thus showing your results were just chance.

If I'm wrong in any of this please point it out.

Roger