Chris,

I'm not qualified to comment on your paper as you describe it. However, this statement seemed odd to me:

"Some on this page are convinced that their methods are correct. But, for various reasons, they are unable to make a convincing scientific argument that their methods are plausible. So, we are left with evalations of predictions to show whether or not there is any there, there."

You are not being specific, but I will assume you mean such predictions as Don's, Shan's and Petra's. And I assume by evaluation you are referring to Roger's method(s).

Yet on this board several times Roger has stated unequivocally that his statistical method cannot be used in cases where predictions give differing probabilites. That precludes any valid evaluation of the predictions made by these three. His method has no mathematical or scientific validity in these cases.

In spite of that he then "evaluated" Don's predictions. When you stated that you had no understanding of what he was doing, Roger replied that he was "fumbling" around trying to come up with an evaluation despite the basic limitation that invalidates evaluation of predictions with varying probabilities. Shortly after that, he suddenly applied a new method, "the Monte Carlo method" which he also did not explain. John Vidale agreed that that "evaluation" did not eliminate the possibility that Don's results were pure chance.

Now, since there has been no explanation of how such evaluations can now suddenly effectively evaluate predictions with varying probabilities, and since you have stated several times you do not understand the statistical method of the evaluations, I wonder how you can state that we must fall back on such evaluations in order to assess the predictions.

It seems you are making such a statement blindly, more a statement of faith than a scientific one.