Hi Canie and Chris. The problem with charts and graphs such as this is that convey what the maker of them wants them to convey. If you make the statement that you don’t agree with them, or don’t see anything there that is any use they can always say that they are to complex for you to understand.

Whenever you ask them to make a prediction about a future quake they will more often as not have some reason at the moment for not doing so. They may even make a statement such as with the signals I detect it appears that about half the time the expected earthquake occurs within a week. The other half it may be delayed for weeks or months until the fault zone has stored more strain energy and the triggers are once again in the right position to trigger the earthquake. In this they are correct, but you still don’t have a date and location of the expected quake. I could say that next month there will be an M>6.0 quake in Southern California. If it doesn’t occur then we will have to wait for the following month for conditions to be right again and hope there is enough strain that the quake can occur. Of course if it doesn’t occur then I can always say that the expected strain didn’t occur.

You only get to see the charts that were produced after the quake and not before. This way you only get to see what they want you to see. They won’t make a public prediction and in not doing so you never get to see the failures.

Just my personal opinion. Take Care…Don the skeptic one