the problem
Posted by John Vidale on February 24, 2003 at 14:00:02:

EQF

Your problem is once again visible. You assume your hunch was advance warning of the event in China. However, to the rest of us, it's clear
that there is no way to check this, and earthquakes of this magnitude happen often, so it is probably a coincidence.

You seem to assume that an earthquake about to strike a city provides a different signal than earthquakes in the rest of the world, an idea that has no basis in fact. Why didn't the M6.7 last
week in Alaska fulfill your "prediction"?

There is value in objectively testing predictions, or even just stating the prediction before the earthquake, which hasn't been done here yet.

John


Follow Ups:
     ● Re: the problem - Don in Hollister  15:05:22 - 2/24/2003  (18147)  (1)
        ● definitely lacks credibility - John Vidale  15:34:42 - 2/24/2003  (18148)  (1)
           ● Re: definitely lacks credibility - Roger Hunter  18:30:11 - 2/24/2003  (18154)  (0)