Lowell:

In the past, mention had been made regarding a paper which is on it's way to being published after a review of some sort. Also, months ago I had posted that I had found an archived message from this forum (from "Pat" I believe) who mentioned that some scientists were doing well using FFA related methods. This was dated perhaps more than a year ago....

Since a paper had been referred to, yet no paper has come forth as yet, it leads one to such speculations as to "why not" as I have made. This fact is somewhat addressed by Roger's post about possibly overtaking their (?) efforts in this forum.

Obviously, you have presented numerous statistics lending credence to the FFA concept using a particular set of ring distances (from where ?). This is applauded. However, in view of the evidence you have presented (several hundred cases) and the fact that the paper has not been published the idea that the data is insufficient (perhaps in quantity ==> confidence) surfaced.

It seems likely that other reasons (for that paper not being published) may be at work here as well.

In any case, Roger's point is well taken. Given the line of thinking, the statistics you have shown thusfar, and the projected accumulation rate of more stats...it may be that the ground covered in someone's paper will be exceeded...perhaps in quantity of stats if nothing else. This would tend to eclipse any paper and may be a case where "this forum" beat so and so's paper to the first published finish line.

The other question that arises is "What justification is used to withheld the statistical data including map" ? (Especially if someone's bacon gets tossed in the fire because a warning is withheld ?). Since the effort referred to by "pat" (if this is the same one ...using FFA) has been going on for over a year and appears to show some encouraging results...where's the announcement of the partial success ? The other day some USGS folks (I think) got some publicity for forecasting 2 out of 3 larger quakes in S. CA...surely a few hundred cases (as you referred) would warrant the same level of attention (it would seem).

Also, the issue regarding "publishing" is more along the lines of communicating useful information for saving lives rather than along the lines of somebody (or group) scoring some atta-boys for coming up with something (not that they shouldn't). So this is where the emphasis is....

I don't believe your Coke analogy is correct in this case.

Just more .02 worth

p.s. (sorry about the word drop-outs and typo's...sometimes my fat typing fingers lag my speech rate...and I don't proof read before sending the post...)