Hi 2 Cents,

Great questions!

How does anyone prove to anyone else that whatever method they are pursuing for prediction is working or not ?

There is only one standard here, repeated results.

Is the ones and twos notice of a successful prediction after the fact going to be convincing enough ?

After the fact predictions are never acceptable.

What standards do scientists use to convince each other of their claims?

Only this formula is accepted when making predictons: Date, time, place, magnitude and a reason why the quake would occur above random chance.

Shouldn't one who wishes to make claims be aware of these standards in order to be taken seriously ?

Yes. And this is where our Roger can be of assistance. I don't know how many predictions Don made last year, but Roger ran some stats on the results and he can add them here. The point being that Don followed the precise format which is acceptable in making those predictions. So, with Rogers help we can see how he faired out. I know its greater than 50%, but I have forgotten the exact details.

We should all remember that any prediction method will fall under intense scutiny by anyone who is a serious investigator. The VAN case is a classic one and interesting because of the time in which this occurred. Today we can come here and post a prediction in advance of a quake. It is registered, and the material cannot be doctored after the fact. But at the time of VAN in the early days, they used telegrams to notify each other of their predictions and the science community had a problem with that.

We also have to consider it is not more beneficial to make 100 predictions a year and have fewer hits than to make 10 a year and have greater success. One just simply has to meet the mark time and again for years. It is only in long term positive results which will yeild a title of the best predictor.

On a personal note, after trying to format ear tone experiences into the required delivery of a prediction, the information for the greater part is not accurate enough to be given serious consideration. There is one ingredient in the use of this method which is not present today and that is the timing mechanism. It is not so difficult to determine the location within 40 miles, but as to when this quake will arrive remains elusive.

The problem is that earthquake faults can deliver the same noise, which I believe is from rocks breaking, but it does not mean that the fault is ready to let go into a full fledged earthquake at that time. If one can imagine a fault which is 20km deep and there is movement in the deeper section, but only in a small degree, it is not sufficient to trigger the quake. But you cannot tell from the sound whether it is going to happen now or not. I know 3 people who have heard a sound we call deep, dark and ugly. Its for a segment of the SAF south of Cholame and north of the Grapevine and one day when that segment breaks its going to be a deep earthquake in a place which does not have a heavy rock substructure. So we must wait until more sounds come from the same place to know we are getting closer to the time of the big event. But had any of us tried to predict a quake on those sounds, all of us would have been wrong.

So Roger, you can now add the results of Dons long term delivery of predictions and we can see from work done right here how it went.

Petra