Chris, I have said the following in general terms in the past. And I will say it more directly in this note. Trust me on this. I know what I am talking about. These are personal opinions.

You and John and the other people posting notes here do not have the types of technical backgrounds which are needed in order for you to discuss much of what I am talking about and other subjects being discussed here as authorities on the subject matter. Even having an advanced degree in geology is not enough. I am not a top expert in these areas either. But I have done a considerable amount of research in them. And I can at least discuss them in an effective manner with true experts in these fields.

There are two areas of science which I and some of the other people are discussing.

(1) Electromagnetics. This science involves understanding how electrical and magnetic phenomena work. You have to understand both DC and AC applications including AC applications for frequencies ranging from below 1 cycle per second up to millions of cycles per second. You have to understand how electric and magnetic fields can be generated by and can interact with the sun and material in the Earth’s crust and with material in outer space and with the Earth’s magnetic field.

This knowledge is necessary because many of the earthquake precursors which are being studied by researchers around the world are electromagnetic in nature. And you cannot effectively measure or work with them if you are not something of an expert in this science. For example, I am now talking with two groups of researchers who appear to monitoring the same electromagnetic precursor. One appears to be monitoring its electric component. The other appears to be monitoring its magnetic component. Until yesterday neither group was apparently even aware that the other group even existed. And I am now attempting to get them together so that they (and I) can compare notes.

I myself have done an extensive amount of work with different types of electromagnetic applications over the years. So I can easily talk with experts in this field. But even with all that experience I really have to sit back and think for a while in order to understand some of what other researchers are telling me.

(2) Data evaluation. This is an area of science which involves comparing different types of data and determining that the effects or phenomena involved are linked with one another. Roger has some formal training in this area in the use of statistics. My own experience is more along the lines of being able to identify and do research on these links just by looking at what is being studied. And I am really good at this. I have been doing the work for quite a few years.

Two of these approaches to forecasting earthquakes to which this definitely applies are my own forecasting efforts and Shan’s sun shadow based forecasting procedure. You cannot evaluate either of them unless you are extremely good in that second area of science. And with my procedure you cannot evaluate it unless you are also an expert in that first area. To a much lesser extent that also applies to Shan’s procedure.

It doesn’t matter how much you know about geology, how many degrees you have, how many years you have been in college, or how many technical papers you have published or read regarding earthquake forecasting. If you want to be able to evaluate some of the most important technology which is being discussed here then you have to be an expert in both of those areas of science.

There are people who are doing this work such as Donald who might not be true experts in these fields. However they are working as researchers rather than judges on whether the technology has any potential. And anyone who knows a little about science and who has some common sense can be an effective researcher.

The problem is that with many of the opinions being expressed here people are proposing that they are qualified to be judges when they really don’t have the required background.

In the past I myself have said that I don’t really know if Shan’s forecasting procedure works. I have never had time to thoroughly examine his data. My interest in it has to do with the fact that it is relatively simple and inexpensive. If it does work then it might enable tremendous number of people living in poor areas of developing nations to forecast some of their own destructive earthquakes. And for that reason by itself it is definitely worth investigating.

Finally, you cannot point to work which other people have done in those two areas of science and say that it supports your own opinion. You have to be an expert in those areas yourself. One of the reasons it the fact that there are always exceptions to any rule. And you have to be an expert to know how and when they apply to some situation.