Hi Mary,

I probably didn't express my point very well last night. Let me try again.

To answer your question in a nutshell, "Not at all." Your point about ear tones is well taken.
I think we are talking about two different things: "scoring" and (for lack of a better way of putting it), "sensitives' training ground."

As per "scoring," the controversy here could easily be cleared up by labeling one's prediction as one for an aftershock, if applicable, and duly tightening one's parameters.

I also think it fair that some allowances be made for predicting an aftershock vs. a separate earthquake.

Obviously, we have to assume the largest quake in a sequence is the main shock until time proves otherwise.

Also, there are countless variables to consider in determining whether a quake is an aftershock or an unrelated event, such as networks of faults (as you point out), terrain, depth of hypocenters, types of fault movement, type of rock, distance in time and space from the main shock to the aftershock, and so on.

It seems to me that forecasting aftershocks subsequent to a large earthquake is viable *if* the forecaster sets appropriately tight parameters in terms of location, size, and time, and also notes that his/hers is a prediction for an aftershock.

Undoubtedly, sensitives will continue to hear/feel/intuit their symptoms, and those should most definitely be noted. Actually, forecasts of aftershocks seem a great training ground for sensitives of all kinds, but again, the standards such a predictor should be held to must be greater than most.

A few years ago, I read somewhere that the odds of a sizable aftershock occurring approximately 21 minutes after a main shock is statistically more likely to occur than not. A prediction for such a quake, therefore, wouldn't hold a lot of import in my book.

As the odds of correctly predicting an aftershock diminish over time, someone predicting an aftershock over a year from a main shock (especially if that prediction were within a tighter window than usual) should be given credence.

No forecaster should be precluded from predicting an unrelated new quake in the region of a main event, but I'd think such a prediction would have to be held up to pretty tight scrutiny to ensure it was truly unrelated.

Forgive me if I'm not making much sense this morning. I have a bad cold and the meds are making my thinking fuzzy. Not at my sharpest right now.

Still, I have to maintain that predictions of aftershocks within, say, a month of a main quake are pretty meaningless unless the forecaster's parameters are exceedingly tight and it is clear the predictor is calling for an aftershock. Unless there is something highly unusual about the main event, we all know aftershocks are as inevitable as weather.

Pinning them down, however, by use of ear tones, animal behavior, etc. seems extremely useful to me. In fact, I'd have to tip my hat to you and say that aftershock sequences might be the very best way to prove a correlation between ear tones and other means of prediction and seismicity. You have raised a very interesting point.

As for the "scoring" issue, predicting the inevitable and then claiming it a "hit" seems detrimental to one's overall credulity, especially if one is trying to promote a new scientific methodology.

At any rate, I hope my response makes sense. Maybe it's time I go back to bed.

Cathryn