You Hit The Nail On The Head
Posted by Don in Hollister on August 08, 2004 at 07:55:31:

Hi Chris. You have hit the nail right on the head. EQF is making claims for which he/she has never shown any proof of being able to do as he/she claims. Proof. That is all I'm asking for. Nothing more, nothing less. This bit about not wanting to start a panic just doesn't wash. If anyone truly wants to warn people then how are you going to do it without telling them?

No self-respecting Government is going to accept a prediction from someone who doesn't have a documented track record of quake prediction. They aren't going to accept any program without first seeing that it works. They aren't going to spend time and effort on something that has never been proven to work. They have to see how many predictions were made. How many of those were correct, how many were wrong, and how many were close, etc.

I would be the first to applaud him, even do hand stands despite the fact that I would probably break my neck doing it. I have repeatedly asked him to explain to me how his program works. To date he has never done this. Why?

If he wants to be believed then he is going to have to be up front with his claims. He is going to have to prove them. There is only one kind of proof that is acceptable. He is going to have to make his predictions and let the facts fall where they may. He is going to have to let the record speak for it self. No one is going to give him the time of day until as such time he does this. Take Care…Don in creepy town


Follow Ups:
     ● Re: You Hit The Nail On The Head - Cathryn  13:43:09 - 8/9/2004  (22394)  (1)
        ● Re: You Hit The Nail On The Head - EQF  14:48:02 - 8/9/2004  (22400)  (1)
           ● Re: You Hit The Nail On The Head - Cathryn  16:18:19 - 8/9/2004  (22401)  (1)
              ● A past prediction - EQF  16:34:04 - 8/9/2004  (22402)  (8)
                 ● A past prediction - Roger Hunter  21:52:33 - 8/9/2004  (22421)  (0)
                 ● How about your prediction 7 months later? - John Vidale  19:04:02 - 8/9/2004  (22417)  (0)
                 ● How about your prediction 6 months later? - John Vidale  18:58:10 - 8/9/2004  (22415)  (0)
                 ● How about your prediction 3 months earlier? - John Vidale  18:40:51 - 8/9/2004  (22413)  (0)
                 ● How about your prediction 2 months earlier? - John Vidale  18:31:42 - 8/9/2004  (22411)  (2)
                    ● Re: How about the most recent one? - Don in Hollister  21:08:43 - 8/9/2004  (22419)  (0)
                    ● Re: How about your prediction 2 months earlier? - Cathryn  18:59:27 - 8/9/2004  (22416)  (0)
                 ● Re: A past prediction - Cathryn  17:14:09 - 8/9/2004  (22405)  (0)
                 ● that prediction missed, and didn't use orbital data - John Vidale  17:03:02 - 8/9/2004  (22404)  (2)
                    ● Willing to play devil's advocate - Cathryn  17:59:43 - 8/9/2004  (22409)  (0)
                    ● Re: that prediction missed, and didn't use orbital data - Cathryn  17:36:23 - 8/9/2004  (22406)  (1)
                       ● google "groups" - John Vidale  17:44:49 - 8/9/2004  (22407)  (1)
                          ● I meant button, of course (nm) - John Vidale  17:45:51 - 8/9/2004  (22408)  (1)
                             ● Re: I meant button, of course (nm) - Cathryn  18:38:02 - 8/9/2004  (22412)  (0)
                 ● Re: A past prediction - Cathryn  16:53:10 - 8/9/2004  (22403)  (1)
                    ● Re: A past prediction - EQF  23:49:03 - 8/9/2004  (22422)  (0)