Got the point but system to be tuned
Posted by R.Shanmugasundaram on August 31, 2005 at 02:47:13:

Roger,

Thanks for the comment. I believe nobody in the board / world sucessfully come out of your evaluation.
Most of the experts opined that the quake prediction is impossible. Its becomes true until the way of
such evaluation persist. Till this time nobody claims a perfect prediction including Don who is difficult
to fix the magnitude for his predicitions.

In this particular case, I have predicted the quake around 786 KMs and 31 KMs away from the epi center of
Honshu and Andaman Island quakes respectively. But the time frame and the magnitude were fixed fall within the
limitation. Perhaps I dont know how to feed you to understand properly.That is my part of ignorance, I accept.

Please note that on nobody claim the predicitions with 100% till now. My method is very simple and need to be
developed to full fill your needs in due course with proper tune up by experts group those who will come forward.
May be it touches not only 100% accuracy (even gold refining is reaches only 99.99% to my knowledge) but also
predict the value of devastation with number of casualities suppose if you wish.


Shan


Follow Ups:
     ● Re: Got the point but system to be tuned  - Roger Hunter  07:05:29 - 8/31/2005  (27864)  (1)
        ● Re: Got the point but system to be tuned  - R.Shanmugasundaram  08:48:04 - 8/31/2005  (27867)  (1)
           ● Re: Got the point but system to be tuned  - Roger Hunter  08:24:45 - 9/1/2005  (27914)  (1)
              ● Re: Got the point but system to be tuned  - R.Shanmugasundaram  02:27:17 - 9/2/2005  (27930)  (0)
     ● Re: Got the point  - Ara  03:52:22 - 8/31/2005  (27863)  (1)
        ● Need explanation - R.Shanmugasundaram  08:04:53 - 8/31/2005  (27865)  (1)
           ● Need explanation - Ara  07:09:29 - 9/1/2005  (27913)  (1)
              ● Explanation - R.Shanmugasundaram  11:07:29 - 9/1/2005  (27915)  (1)
                 ● Re: Explanation - Ara  06:42:52 - 9/2/2005  (27935)  (1)
                    ● Re: Explanation - R.Shanmugasundaram  03:23:04 - 9/3/2005  (27945)  (0)