Hi Chris. That’s okay. It wasn’t posted for you to make sense. It was posted to show that to a certain degree earthquakes can be predicted. The professional scientists sure aren’t doing anything. For all the instruments in the Parkfield area Petra was the only one who saw something that was going to be larger then what is normally seen.

She missed the magnitude. Big deal. The scientist missed the whole quake. The next time she hears the same sound from the Parkfield area she will be a little closer to the magnitude.

The data I use gives me the most probable location and time frame. It doesn’t however give me the magnitude. There is only way I can get that and so far I haven’t seen anything that would indicate a large magnitude. Didn’t see anything before the Parkfield quake so I’m not to hopeful for the Bay Area.

If and when I make another prediction for the Bay Area for an M=2.6 to M=3.9 and an M=7.0 strikes then that is bad news. However I won’t have to look for the problem of getting the location and time as I already have that. I may never find the magnitude and the truth be known I don’t expect to. Just because you and others don’t understand it, or don’t believe earthquakes can be predicted isn’t going to stop me or others like me from trying. The understanding of others isn’t required, but it would be a help however it isn’t required, or needed. Take Care…Don in creepy town