EQF;

> There is probably a little overlap between Amit Dave's programs and mine in that both use sun and moon data. But other than that they are dramatically different. So you really can't compare them. And you also can't compare my programs with those of anyone else on the planet. They are unique. Only the output data can be compared.

I'm not comparing your methods, I'm comparing your attitudes. Amit is convinced his works despite statistical proof that it does not. You're convinced yours works with no evidance at all.

> If you can't see from that chart that earthquakes can be easily predicted then you need to see the eye doctor for a prescription upgrade in my opinion. Just look at those Solomon Islands earthquake data. You know from your statistics background that data like that cannot be generated by coincidence. And they were available there all along on my Web site for months before the earthquake.

On the contrary, I know from my statistical background that any odds can be beaten by chance and you should know it too.

> We live in a universe where there is just one set of rules for everyone. When people chase after an inaccurate set of rules they invariably wind up just wasting their time.

That's ok, I'll still keep an eye on you.

> There can't be any doubt that my data are showing that earthquakes can be predicted. And the fact that I don't yet understand everything about them and might never be able to explain them all is not a legitimate reason to say that they are invalid.

As a matter of fact that's the default position in science; false until proven otherwise.

> If you want to waste your remaining days chasing after inaccurate information then that is up to you. Earthquakes don't occur near where I live. And if people who ARE threatened by earthquakes around the world don't have enough sense to try to determine if there might be any forecasting methods out there that could save them when an earthquake occurs then they will have no reason to complain when buildings start falling around them during an earthquakes before which they never had any type of warning.

True enough but what evidence do you have that your method works?

> The real Eye Opener for me in all of this has been seeing how so many scientists around the world are willing to "battle to the death" to protect ideas that make things easy for them such as saying that "Earthquakes can't be predicted" even though those statements are totally wrong and represent a major threat to human life.

It's absolutely true until someone proves otherwise. Which you have not done.

Roger