I don't see where he predicted the Indonesian earthquake....the way I read the link, Japan, maybe, but he posted this in September

OK...Roger, John, Petra preducted quakes and in the last year she has had some hits and Roger evaluated that (?4 of 6?) were way better than chance. What should be hert next step? My suggestion would to very carefully make predictions on this page for the next year....only predict things she is most sure of. Be specific about the prediction (lat, long, nearest town, where that town is in the state/world). Then, maybe 2 weeks after each prediction, repost the prediction with a self-evaluation (with the nearest quake). Then, after a year, have Roger evaluate the record. If it is still good.....one of us (John, me(...see if a Physicist like the ones at UCSB working on quakes would be interested in looking into this (I think the UCSB Physicists are Langon and Calson or something like that...).

OK Petra...see I'm taking you seriously, which is not the same as saying I am convinced. People I don't take seriously I am liable to ignore...so, if you get questions and criticisms from me it is because it is interesting, as opposed to a waste of time...

As for Don's past predictions with the "data"...they were hard to follow because there were many more of them and most were small...and while you had an interesting near miss (on location) with a M4.9), I did not see anything as striking as Petra's Parkfield prediction. I could be wrong, but I saw Lowell's very high success rate evaluations as both stretching it in at least some cases, and as self evaluation, if my guess that he was part of the group providing the "data". Correct me if I am wrong.
Chris