> I think doing this visually like this will be far more powerful than fancy statistics.
*****************

I agree that visulization makes things stick out more than they might otherwise and may be a good way to get a quick inkling if something is going on...(and be wary of any possible illusions too).

However, IMO, there's no escaping doing the statistics work. You may think you see something in the animation but it must present itself also in the stats. Also, the maximum amount of data should always be used when available. ==>So...you can run but you can't hide (from doing the stats work).

The way to go for a full blast approach, as you probably know, is to use the '73 onward database and compare historical probability to actual post-events occuring within "x" days after the main event (and using whatever distance rings/shadow zones you want).

Then...Let The Games Begin ...as the first flank assualt from the Naysayers will be along the lines of proving by what theoretical construction that FFA can manifest at great distances (> 550-600 kms say). [I think we had a conversation on this forum awhile back and Lowell provided some reasoning along these lines in support of FFA (>500+ km)]. That's not to say that such a credible theory is not lurking around in the shadows ... but only that that it seems the easiest point of attack from a critics standpoint.

IOWs, if you have a correlation then to persuade others that the theory explains the correlations it will also have to come with some pretty good sized claws.
(For someone working in the field of Geology/Seismology I would think that that must come to the Games "Loaded for Bear"...else short work will be made of them).

Of course, this assumes that the statistical work has shown a "significant" difference over historical probability. Indications seem to suggest it along with some of Lowell's posts to the same effect/along the same lines.

I've a suspicion that somebody has done this work and awhile ago (thus the NEIC 103 lines on their quake maps) but that the effort was quietly tabled after seeing the condundrum that the perps ( :-) An institional "status quo" term) would have to overcome in convincing the main stream.

Maybe "somebody" is on their way to publishing something (as Lowell may have referred to in the past) but it appears that, if so, then it might be awhile before we see it. Also, myself and Roger did ask Lowell for the reference work which he mentioned (regarding this outside group's success rate) but I don't think he's responded yet on that.

Anyway, it doesn't appear that anybody anywhere (aside from maybe the outside group that approached Lowell) is doing anything with this in a formal study sense....

Just my $.02 worth