[Roger Hunter]

(09-30-2018, 06:38 PM)Duffy Wrote:

(09-30-2018, 02:14 PM)Roger Hunter Wrote:

(09-30-2018, 01:17 PM)Duffy Wrote:

(09-25-2018, 02:36 PM)Duffy Wrote:

(09-25-2018, 01:35 AM)Roger Hunter Wrote: Hi Duffy;

Good to see you again!

Roger

Thanks Roger... likewise!

Duffy

This is one of the data set images I used to try and determine co-ordinates for Banda Sea prediction. The image shows a significant aspect change in the magnetometer readings at 21:10 UTC 23rd September.




This is a sun map image from http://www.timeanddate.com showing relevant terminator positions at 21:10 UTC 23rd September. Please note the sunrise terminator is located South of Maluku Island, Banda Sea region at this time.




This is the equivalent moon map for 21:10 UTC 23rd September... note that the lunar terminator was located on Palu and Dongala, Sulawesi at this time, on this day.

Combined with other accumulated online data, and comparisons with my own recorded data, I made a calculated decision to go with the solar map. The evidence seemed 90/10 in my favour, and prompted me to post a prediction here after an 18 month absence... however, the 50/50 sun / moon chance I had, was apparently not in my favour !



This is a magnetometer image covering 23rd - 24th September... the same 21:10 "lunar contact" can be seen left of image. However, the beginnings of a second aspect change can be seen at 18:10 UTC 24th September.



This sun map relates to 18:10 UTC 24th September... the sun was located on longitude 94'33'W at this time (solar noon Offshore Oaxaca, Mexico !).

Apologies for the absence of time stamps on the maps, I have not done this for some time, so the fault may be mine... please verify with the website posted above.


Duffy

OK Duffy, this gives me a better grip on what you're doing.

It's similar to what Ben Davidson is doing. You might check him out.

I don't see any reason for why it would work but results count. If you can show success THAT'S what counts.
Statistically significant success rate, that is. 

Roger

Duffy;

>>> As per your query of 11:19 pm 27th Sept (Mexico prediction), I supplied a visual account of how I use sourced data to formulate a prediction. I first posted this kind of material on this site nearly 4 years ago... and continued to do so for the next 2.5 years !

Yes I recall you doing it but not the details of how you were doing it.

>>> I also supplied images which I perceived to be "circumstantial" correlations related to the Palu event in Indonesia... I highlight circumstantial because it is up to the individual how they wish to perceive these images.

Agreed but I still don't understand how yoiu get a prediction out of it.

>>> Ben Davidson formulates his alert maps using TEC, OLR and EM data sourced from other online servers. He also incorporates hurricane related pressure readings, planetary alignments and unprecedented precipitation in his model... I don't recall ever seeing him incorporating solar / lunar terminator positions in said model !

Nor do I. I just meant he was using sun/moon data.

>>> On 28th September, the KP index indicated level one at the time of the Palu event... NT and flux readings were normal... no planetary alignments were subject to this time period... the nearest hurricane was located 1000 miles East of the Philippines... and it was not raining in Palu, Indonesia. The only constant is that the sun and moon did and will rise and set on this and other pre-seismic epicentres "every day". 

None of which can be shown to relate to quakes.

>>> I posted a circumstantial analysis in the Mexico prediction, relating to the Palu event. I emphasised a solar /lunar convergence on this epicentre on 24th September... does this occur every lunar cycle at this location?, or every year at this time ? or every five years ?. The data posted above can also be regarded as circumstantial. Data required to procure a prediction can be acquired over an unspecified number of days or weeks if you know what to watch for (and believe in what you watch for) .

That's fine if you can do it successfully at a significant level

>>> Maintaining a "statistically significant success rate" by predicting 6+ earthquakes, during a 7 day period which is what is required here, is something I am unlikely to achieve. 

Nor is it required. All I require is that your predictions are correct more often than chance would allow.

Roger