Here is the most recent prediction made by EQF. This is for the San Simeon quake. No where can you find anything saying San Simeon. All it refers to is the West Coast. Now I don’t know about anyone else, but the West Coast is one heck of a big area.

http://www.earthwaves.org/wwwboard/messages/20024.html

http://www.earthwaves.org/wwwboard/messages/20045.html

An exceptionally accurate earthquake forecast !!!
Posted by EQF on December 23, 2003 at 01:51:05:
The formatting in this report might not look too good. It is the best I can do at the moment.

On November 8, 2003 the following note was posted here:

Earthquake activity expected

http://www.earthwaves.org/wwwboard/messages/20024.html

On December 13 the following note was posted:
Seismic Activity expected

http://www.earthwaves.org/wwwboard/messages/20416.html

And on December 18 the following note was posted:
Large numbers of Ear Tone signals

http://www.earthwaves.org/wwwboard/messages/20493.html

In the November 8 note I stated that some people thought that some West Coast seismic activity might be possible. That actually included me. I have also been telling people that I have not been watching for anything catastrophic and did not intend to worry too much about this one.
After a lengthy period of quiet a strong warning signal was detected on 2003/11/07 05:56:00 UTC. I thought that it could be significant. And in addition to posting that November 8 note here I circulated a formal warning to different organizations and governments around the world.

The following is why I am stating that this was an exceptionally accurate forecast:

The data processing procedures which I use with my forecasting program compare warning signals with past earthquakes. They assign probabilities to each past earthquake based on how well it matched the warning signal. And they then generate a table listing the highest probability earthquakes. The score range is 0 to 14 with 14 being the highest rating.

The following is probability table that was generated when I ran that November 7 warning signal through my programs:

PR Probability Rating

EDF Earthquake Data Fingerprint Numbers – Columns 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

SEM Sun – Earth – Moon angle

Warning Signal Data

## 32 21 75 61 16 03/11/07
05:56:00 UTC

PR EDF
Date Mag Lon Lat Location
SEM

12 30 17 76 59 13 02/05/24
3.3 74 45 NEW YORK
160

12 36 20 78 57 13 01/07/03
3.9 117 34 CALIFORNIA 156

14 34 20 79 62 15 02/05/24
3.8 121 37 CALIFORNIA 157

11 30 21 88 77 32 02/03/16
4.6 119 34 CALIFORNIA
31

11 33 24 6 79 34 02/05/14
3.5 123 39 CALIFORNIA
29

11 30 22 93 76 30 02/09/08
5.1 -144 -3 PAPUA NEW GUINEA 26

11 32 21 93 78 35 03/05/04
5.8 -77 39 CHINA
34

My data processing programs compare those EDF number for the earthquakes with the ones for the warning signal(s).

Here is the earthquake that just occurred followed by the one which received the highest rating in that table.

2003/12/22 19:15:56 35.71N 121.10W 6.5 CENTRAL CALIFORNIA
2002/05/24 17:44:01 36.55N 121.13W 3.8 CENTRAL CALIFORNIA
(NEIS data)

Remember, several thousand earthquakes occurring around the world during the past decade or so were compared with those warning signal data and given a probability rating. And a score of 14 for that earthquake as compared with 12 for the next highest one is impressive. And the fact that my data processing procedures identified that one earthquake as being the best match out of all of the earthquakes in my database is in my opinion extraordinary!

The following earthquake also received a high score in my tests based on a signal detected on December 13:

2001/08/11 12:01:31 39.89N 120.58W 3.9 NORTHERN CALIFORNIA

The following are some additional data for this earthquake. Note – I believe that these data are accurate. However there is no guarantee of that, especially with the ocean tide crest and trough location data.

2003/12/22 19:15:56 35.71N
121.10W 7.6 6.5 CENTRAL CALIFORNIA

At that time:

23.43S 109.00W Subsolar Point lat and lon

26.85S 119.00W Sublunar Point lat and lon

26.00S 116.00W Gravity Point lat and lon

Ocean tides crests or troughs occurred in the Los Angeles area at:

2003/12/22 15:32:00 and 2003/12/22 22:52:00 UTC

Solid Earth Tide crest and trough location data for:

UTC 2003/12/22 19:15:56 35.71N 121.10W

Height

46W 117W (121W) 173E 65E

-219 -57 ( -58) -213 395

Vertical Acceleration

47W 117W (121W) 174E 65E

1103 320 ( 325) 1073 -1976

I ran two dozen Ear Tones times that people sent me during the past few months through my programs. And here are the highest probability West Coast earthquake locations which it identified. The most recent one on that list is the earthquake which just occurred.

EQ Date
Mag lon lat PR

2003/12/22 6.5 121W 36N 12

2003/12/15 3.8 129W 44N 11

2003/11/12 5.7 113W 29N 13

2003/08/03 4.2 123W 39N 12

2003/05/26 3.7 120W 37N 11

2003/11/08 3.5 119W 35N 12

2002/09/21 4.2 123W 48N 11

2002/05/01 4.8 129W 44N 11

2002/02/22 5.7 115W 32N 11

I myself detected other signals such as Ear Tones which matched that earthquake. They are not being listed here as it would require too much effort.

The following is a Wave Chart based on the warning signal which was detected on November 7. As can be seen, it did a good job of identifying a higher probability date for the earthquake.

http://www.freewebz.com/eq-forecasting/images/305.html

COMMENTS
A frequent response to this type of note is “You didn’t forecast that earthquake because you didn’t say exactly when, where, what magnitude” etc.

My responses to that are the following:

First, at the moment my primary goal is not to generate perfect forecasts but to instead let other people know that they need to check for some approaching seismic activity. And if people had been able to do that after seeing my warnings then perhaps some of what resulted from that earthquake might have been avoided.

Second, no one would consider it to be reasonable to demand that a single weather forecaster without any help accurately predict all of the weather taking place around the world. So, why would anyone expect one person to be able to accurately predict every important earthquake in every detail, especially since the forecasts are being generated and circulated for free? At this time I believe that accurate, reliable forecasts require the efforts of multiple parties.

Third, that earthquake matched the November 7 signal and a number of other signals. I have not yet been able to determine if it matched the even stronger signals which were detected on November 9 and 20, and December 13.