[Roger Hunter]

(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