Hi John - I haven't yet browsed the geoForecaster's site to know if they have posted their methods - but I will go on your word that it isn't there.

I know the scientific community likes to have papers published and methods there in black and white so they can be reviewed by their peers. This does lend some credibility problems if they have not published those methods. It creates a mystery around the product and does question any legitimacy to their predictions.

Its my guess that they are doing this for monetary reasons and may not be too concerned about the scientific community - Time will tell if their methods work.

We do have history here in the archives - On the main page we have a form for entering a prediction that asks for location, range, magnitude and date - We don't ask for depth (which Richter suggests) - there were a number of predictions made and they were evaluated - I would suggest taking a look at them - The word Prediction is bold in the first line of the thread before the poster's name - Don in Hollister used this company's data to make the predictions. I think it was mostly latter half of 2001.

I also like cold hard facts - so please don't think everyone feels the same as one or two around here - we have over 400 hits a day usually - not all post.

Canie