Hi Canie. Okay lets look at that. Following are two definitions. The first one is from a dictionary; the second is the definition of hypothesis used in science.

hy·poth·e·sis
n., pl. -ses (-sçz').
A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.
Something taken to be true for the purpose of argument or investigation; an assumption.
The antecedent of a conditional statement.

In science, a statement of a possible explanation for some natural phenomenon. A hypothesis is tested by drawing conclusions from it; if observation and experimentation show a conclusion to be false, the hypothesis must be false.

As it can be seen the first definition could be used, as there is an understanding that it is a tentative explanation, but isn’t the only explanation, nor is it fact.

The second has to be done in such a manner for all to see, test, etc. I have to be able to take his data and come to the same conclusion. There is no way this can be done as he will not show how its done, or make a prediction using his data before the quake occurs.

Based on his reluctance to make a public prediction there is no other option then to say it doesn’t work for whatever reason. His claim to being able make an earthquake prediction using his data is worthless and means nothing without proving it.

This is just my humble opinion. Take Care…Don in creepy town