Re: repetitive but eminently sensible
Posted by Petra Nova Challus on November 21, 2003 at 17:11:17:

Hi Canie,

I believe my prior posts were mostly misunderstood. I was asking EQF to give me an answer to a question. I wanted to know very briefly what he expected foreign governments to do with his information. He only answered in stating he did not have time to debate the issue. I didn't want to have a debate, just an answer.

Yes, you are right, my ear tone program does not have all of the answers yet. We have one huge stumbling block yet to solve. But some of it works in a small way. The last forecast I gave for Eureka did arrive, but the magnitude was way to low. But the window and the location were correct. Some people think that Eureka has 3.0 quakes all of the time, but it doesn't. And California as a whole doesn't even have 10 a week on average. And some places rarely have 3.0 quakes. I don't pay any attention to smaller quakes anymore as they are far to numerous and way to easy to peg.

But you know the method of how this is done is within your archives. Every single part of it is here already. When I've posted about it most people did not comment or show any interest in it at all. So I stopped trying to explain something that is yet flawed and not completely documentable. But I do admit that it is not finished and not really ready to be taken seriously on a regular basis.

And on a last note, I have once tried to warn people in a foreign country, but not through the government,but through a trusted journalist. He sent the information discreetly though his contacts and it was received well, though never materialized. I was treated by most quite respectfully, nay one who went round the bend and eventually acquiesed and agreed that my intentions were honest. I won't ever do it again. My goal was to warn people but not to cause panic and my goal was met.

Petra


Follow Ups:
     ● Re: repetitive but eminently sensible - Canie  19:30:00 - 11/21/2003  (20206)  (0)