|
Update and Recommendations |
These are personal opinions. What I believe are probably precursor signals are still being detected. One of the strongest I have detected this year was logged at 2003/11/09 02:18:00 UTC. I believe that this would be 6:18 PM on November 8, 2003 on the U.S. West Coast. Recommendations: 1. My earthquake time windows and locations are not 100% dependable. And I am recommending that people who are interested in this subject matter try contacting some of their local earthquake precursor data collection groups. Such researchers can often be found at universities etc. Tell them that someone has reported detecting what that person believes were some approaching earthquake related electromagnetic energy field fluctuations on November 7 and 8. Ask them if they have been detecting anything unusual during the past few days. If this possible earthquake is going to occur in some area where people are monitoring precursor signals then I believe that there should be some additional, easily spotted evidence of its approach. 2. Also ask them if you can pass their data along to other people. And if there are any responses, positive or negative and the researchers say that circulating their data is permissible then you might try posting a note here or perhaps sending me a note about it by e-mail. You can try using the e-mail address at the bottom of the following Web page: http://www.freewebz.com/eq-forecasting/index.html Follow Ups: ● Update - EQF 21:43:14 - 11/9/2003 (20049) (2) ● Update - EQF 20:25:19 - 11/10/2003 (20056) (3) ● Update - "All Clear" circulated - EQF 11:49:24 - 11/17/2003 (20133) (0) ● Re: Update - Don in Hollister 20:55:59 - 11/10/2003 (20059) (1) ● Forecasting approaches - EQF 17:44:04 - 11/11/2003 (20067) (1) ● Re: Forecasting approaches - Don in Hollister 23:50:00 - 11/11/2003 (20073) (0) ● some clarification? - John Vidale 20:31:51 - 11/10/2003 (20058) (1) ● Latest theories - EQF 17:06:55 - 11/11/2003 (20064) (2) ● not very convincing - John Vidale 20:01:43 - 11/11/2003 (20071) (1) ● Come now, get serious - EQF 08:58:50 - 11/12/2003 (20077) (1) ● a few basics - John Vidale 10:47:50 - 11/12/2003 (20078) (1) ● Basics indeed! - EQF 12:13:31 - 11/12/2003 (20079) (1) ● Re: Basics indeed! - Don in Hollister 13:32:02 - 11/12/2003 (20080) (1) ● Re: Basics indeed! - EQF 16:56:13 - 11/12/2003 (20084) (2) ● challenging Don's credentials? - John Vidale 21:17:31 - 11/12/2003 (20090) (1) ● Re: challenging Don's credentials? - EQF 01:26:10 - 11/13/2003 (20095) (0) ● Re: Basics indeed! - Don in Hollister 17:29:05 - 11/12/2003 (20085) (1) ● Re: Basics indeed! - EQF 18:11:09 - 11/12/2003 (20087) (1) ● Re: Basics indeed! - Don in Hollister 19:17:17 - 11/12/2003 (20089) (1) ● Re: Basics indeed! - EQF 01:22:59 - 11/13/2003 (20094) (1) ● Re: Basics indeed! - Don in Hollister 02:46:49 - 11/13/2003 (20098) (1) ● a scientist - chris in suburbia 09:35:54 - 11/13/2003 (20104) (0) ● Re: Latest theories - Roger Hunter 17:37:55 - 11/11/2003 (20066) (1) ● Celestial data - EQF 17:59:12 - 11/11/2003 (20068) (1) ● Re: Celestial data - Roger Hunter 18:18:55 - 11/11/2003 (20069) (1) ● Re: Celestial data - EQF 19:42:16 - 11/11/2003 (20070) (0) ● Not a good sign - EQF 05:23:20 - 11/10/2003 (20054) (0) ● Forecast credibility - EQF 21:08:03 - 11/9/2003 (20047) (0) ● Thanks - Todd 17:40:53 - 11/9/2003 (20046) (1) ● Re: Thanks - EQF 21:31:33 - 11/9/2003 (20048) (0) |
|