[Roger Hunter]

(02-23-2015, 05:42 PM)Duffy Wrote: Had a terrible day yesterday, only hit wrong on two of my own predictions in the past 12 months, then the first one I posted fails dramatically, then I go to bed not fully understanding why (ever tried sleeping with mixed messages in your head). I ended up rising at 4am and went through the days posts and literally found mixed messages.

Rogers last statement of the day said "I mustn't object if the answer is wrong", which I fully agree with and had told him so. I don't want to be seen as a sore looser here, I'm not out to win a prize (the Noble maybe!), the data has been rejected and has already been overwritten in a 24 hour monitoring experiment. Your now talking about altering the prediction format to accomodate data from myself, or others with similar format predictions. I've been here a month now, and spent my time tutoring in VLF with consistancy, and after yesterdays performance, I fear it will be repeated unless I cover a couple of major points that have been over looked in past posts, and an overview of yesterdays dialogue.

The main feature of an image with an EM signal is the EM signal itself, it is the only thing that gives any indication of an impending Earthquake, there fore any VLF prediction can only start from this point. An EM signal never comes after a quake occurance, the energy has been depleated prior to rupture. If an Earthquake occurs at 9:00am and an EM signal appears at 9:30am, the two are not linked, the 9:00am quake will have released its own EM signature up to 48 hours earlier, the next quake after the 9:30am EM signal is linked.

As I've also mentioned in my previous posts, the system only records the primary quake event in a given region, and will not record aftershocks even if the magnitude is greater than the initial quake. The first Earthquake in the Honshu,Japan region occured on 7th Feb 06:19 UT,since then 24 aftershocks have been recorded upto prediction time, including the M6.0 at 10:13 UT on 21st Feb.

Overview of prediction posts

Duffy posted prediction at 8:09pm, comments on problems loading imput and data to site, and mentions the Honshu, Japan quake at 10:13 UT so others would not confuse it with EM signal at 10:30 UT.

12:34am Roger notices script problems regarding minimum magnitude values

12:45am Brian responds and repairs script

12:50am Roger questions possible mag values imputed by Duffy earlier

01:10am Roger tells Duffy about a quake near Honshu,Japan at 10:00:58

02:10am Mr spock arrives

11:10am Duffy notices there has been a glich with script , realises original 10:30 times now read 10:00 so corrects in text, not undully worried as image holds the real time, spends the next hour looking for 10:00:58 Honshu, Japan quake.

02:54pm Duffy discoveres he has a hit with M6.2 quake near Tomatlan, Mexico, a reason for celebration, so jests withTuquila hint wating for conformation from Roger.

03:18pm Roger tells Duffy, he's found the right quake, and asked about any signals from Mexico, Duffy's confused about the right quake and assumes it's the 10:00:58 Honshu, and wonderes why Roger didn't take the Tuquila hint, tries to find 10:00:58 Honshu again!.

04:31pm Duffy, now very confused, describes post procedure with regretable sartirical remark.

04:44pm Roger tells Duffy, quake came before he posted so doesn't count, Duffy only knows of 1 quake at 10:13am but thats not included, no EM signal for that one so no prediction

05:37pm Duffy accepts Rogers fail decision, on going broadband problems may be blocking USGS etc data regarding 10:00:58 quake, and new guy probably made mistake.

06:24pm Roger tells Duffy, one quake to early, Duffy realises he's included 10:13 Honshu, Japan quake, and there is no 10:00:5

Duffy, I'm sorry for my part in your confusion, by posting the wrong time for that quake. I do apologize.

You might want to get on the NEIC automatic notification list. It will notify you by email of any quakes you wish. You can specify location, magnitude and several other things and it's free.

Roger

Hi Roger:

Consider appology accepted, I said I wasn't very computer literate, so I'll see this as you giving me some unintentional practice. And I appologise for seeming to be disrespectfull with some of my sitirical remarks, they weren't warranted (felt good at the time though ). You had me going to bed thinking "this guy mustn't drink, and thinks a Tuquila must be an English herbal tea or something".

Whilst we're on the subject of Tuquila, have you reconsidered my prediction claim to the Mag 6.2 Tomatlan,Mexico quake at 14:23:13 UT. It did occur within 48 hours of the EM signal, and though I couldn't predict location (not possible with this "Yet") I did predict the magnitude within the posted limit, as attested by you during the script problem.[/quote]

Considering the mixup on my part I'll allow you a hit for the quake on the 21st.

Quote:As this is an unusual kind of prediction, it can't be placed in the little white boxes, the prediction relies soley on the EM disruption in the image. What concerns me most Roger, is that by your own admission, your not interested in the images, and its more Brians department. Don't worry Roger, I'm not try to pull you down again, but if you look at this logically (would have used Spock here, but someone beat me to it!) this isn't just a prediction is it!, it's also a theory, my theory.

At this point it an hypothesis. And as you know, hypotheses have to go thru the fire to become a theory.

Quote:When I first joined Earthwaves over a whole month ago now (how the time flies!) Brian told me when a scientist puts forward a theory, it only becomes reality when its survived all attempts to disprove it, I believe his exact words were "tearing apart". I'm not a scientist, and though I have tried for over 2 years to find a comparison with this theory, it would appear that I'm the only one in authority here to either move it forward or tear it apart. The theory being of course, a particular kind of disruption in the noise line of a VLF monitor plot screen, is related to an impending Earthquake.

You aren't the only one. I'm helping someone who goes by EQF or EDG. He has advice which gives him a signal of some sort, a single trace I think and he's convinced it's quake related.

Quote:Prediction is an everyday occupation for you guys, you've been doing it for years, my family have been walking past these images in my house for years, so when I finally put one out in the open, they think I've entered the finals in the soccer world cup (someone get the tissues ready), they thought I'd scored a goal, only to find an hour later, the refferee had disallowed it because he was a basketball coach and didn't know the rules!.

I understand how you feel. You offered a diamond and was told it was glass - mistakenly. I'd be pissed too.

Quote:A couple of things to concider here, The site administrator (Brian) gave authorisation to the predictee (me) to dispence with usual prediction formalities and allow the theorised EM signal in the image to be used as the starting point of prediction. (Whats that old saying;.. a picture paints a thousand words), the rest that followed is on record.

And I agree. I think we should go thru a practice period before starting any testing.

Quote:Now, I still detect a hint of sceptisism , even though I've been here over a whole month (sorry, have I said that already), I realise all predictions have to go through a formality for them to be authentic. Has it crossed anybodies mind that if I wanted to be devious about this, why didn't I just complete the official form required with a start time of 8:09pm (the time I posted the prediction). That way, I would have predicted a Mag 6+ quake, 11 hours 14 minutes later using official site protocol, instead of the 27 hours 53 minutes that I honestly predicted. If the adjudicator (your self) only used the officially posted information in the provided boxes to determine a viable prediction, and the predictee couldn't appeal to the administrator about script problems because of global time zone difference (as the adjudicator was able to) then his only option is to highlight the problem in his next post, which is automatically time stamped. Unfortunately, the said quake occured whilst the administrator was in bed (presumably), the point being, I could dispence with the images, and have you guys thinking I've got my crystal ball out of the drawer again.

But we (I, anyway) don't care about the image, only the date/time/mag.

Quote:Please don't take this as a personal attack against you Roger, as Brian has also said, "Earthwaves" is a site for science and debate", I've brought my science to the table and I'm defending it by debating its rejection on the grounds of insurficiant understanding by the adjudicator. Also, as Chris has broched the subject of the many years of critisism I may have to endure, I didn't think I would have to give a little of my own, after being here just over a month (sorry, again!!) so I hope he was suggesting it works both ways. As I mentioned earlier, you have been doing this for years, as have the people you deal with, so everybody is use to a certain rytheme, and you get around the net quite abit, so its understandable how busy things can get. So when the new guy comes along with his very first prediction, its hard for him to understand were things are going wrong when its explained to him in less than 20 words. It's not really a critisism, more of an observation and in time I hope I'll fit into the rytheme aswell. Remember Roger, we're just debating here and no offence is given, but if it's taken then its off to Oceanography I go . My theory is out now in black and white (or Red in this case) for everone to see, and it's being put to the test, and hopfully it will pay off.

Nope, none taken. I have a very thick skin. You might want to take a look at my prediction rules, posted in here somewhere.

Quote:I'll finish here with a couple of small items that my interest you, and I think I'm running out of megabites on this borrowed netbook anyway.

My wife and I have decided to put off buying a new car for a year, so I'm now looking to invest in modern, low draw monitors and high capacity batteries for 24 hour monitoring, and she mentioned about sending you the bill in your Christmas card (that was a joke!).

Seriously, look into digital recording. Then you can send files that others can plot and do computer analysis on.

Quote:I and a friend have started a new antenna project, which is desighned soley for the purposs of Earthquake detection, using advanced componants modeled on similar used on the original antenna, he said he's sending you, his bill in the same Christmas card, (don't think that was a joke though!!) should have it online in 2 weeks.

It better be a joke as I just got hit with $3000 worth of cataract surgery and over $8000 in home repairs so I'm pretty broke at the moment.

Quote:Think I'll go now, appreciate the appology, and hope you'll reconsider what I've said so I can finish off this bottle of Tuquila, and put the Mexican quake on my wall, before Mother-in-law finds a bird picture to put in its place . If you want to debate this further, then I'm game, after all there's time before the next big one.

No debate needed at this point. Just keep the predictions coming so we can tell if it's skill or chance.

Roger