HERES FOR ALL TO SEE ROMINO'S PREDICTIONS -ACTUAL QUAKES LOCATED BY CSEM-DENNIS'S EVALUATION-AND MY COMMENTS (IN CAPITAL LETTERS ) IN BETWEEN.IS THERE SOME LOGIC IN THIS WORLD?
********************************************************
Antonio Romino's Prediction #33,Signals Received on May/4/00
Location : Lat41.5N/Long14E (Appennino Molisano)
Magnitude : 3.0 (1MM) and 2.5 (0.5MM)
Window : Jun 1 - 10
% of Chance : 50%
---------------------------------------------
Antonio Rominios Prediction #34, Signals Received on May/11/00
Location : Lat 40.5N/Long 15.5E ( Cosentino)
Magnitude : 4.0 (1MM)
Window : Jun 6 - 16
% of Chance : 50%
---------------------------------------------
Prediction #35, Signals Received on May/15/00
Location : Lat 44.2N/Long11.9E ( Appennino Emiliano )
Magnitude : 3.3 (0.5MM)
Window : Jun 10 - 20
% of Chance : 50%
------------------------------------------------
Prediction #36, Signals Received on May/16/00
Location : Lat 41.5N/Long 13.5E ( Appennino Molisano-Monti tiburtini )
Magnitude : 4.2 (1MM)
Window : Jun 11 - 21
% of Chance : 50%
********************************************************Here are the ACTUAL largest Italian Earthquakes for these periods listed by CSEM at http://www.emsc-csem.org :

-2000/06/09 05:06:07.2 46.4N 10.6E 10G Ml=3.3 M LED NORTHERN ITALY

-2000/06/10 02:44:30.0 44.4N 7.4E
M= 3.6 M LDGM NORTHERN ITALY

-2000/06/11 22:55:31.1 43.1N 12.6E 10 Ml=4.3 M SED CENTRAL ITALY

-2000/06/12 03:30:06.6 44.3N 12.2E 10 Ml=3.2 M SED NORTHERN ITALY

-2000/06/16 11:57:16.0 45.4N 11.9E 10G Ml=4.0 A LED NORTHERN ITALY
********************************************************
Posted by Dennis Gentry in Santa Clarita on June 16, 2000 at 17:40:20:

In Reply to: Antonio Romino and Dennis Gentry-Evaluation posted by Dr.G.Chouliaras on June 16, 2000 at 06:53:34:

From outward appearances, it would seem that you are trying to say that Antonio's predictions had no chance of failing. Well, lets look at the events you listed versus the predictions (I'll call the 5 quakes you listed as Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4, and Q5 in the order that you had them listed):

Prediction #33:
Q1 and Q2 are the only quakes in the time window. The closest quake to the predicted location was 130 miles away but was outside of the time window.

USING THE METRIC SYSTEM WHICH IS INTERNATIONALY ACCEPTED IN SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH, THE PREDICTED LAT-LONG FOR EVENT 33 WAS 41N.5-14E AND Q1 AND Q2 OCCURED AT 46.4N 10.6E AND 44.4N 7.4E RESPECTIVELY THAT MAKES Q2 THE CLOSEST EVENT (AROUND 40 KM AWAY) SO LETS CONSIDER IT A "SUCCESS" AND Q1 A "FAILURE" =50% AS IT WAS GIVEN BY GOOD OLD ANTONIO WHO KNOWS THAT THE AREA HAS BEEN UNDERGOING SEISMIC ACTIVITY FOR SOME TIME NOW (I SUSPECT THAT ANTONIO MUST BE USING SEISMOLOGY ALSO !)

Prediction #34:
All listed quakes were in the time window, but the closest quake to the predicted location was 230 miles away.

THE PREDICTED LOCATION WAS Lat 40.5N/Long 15.5E AND 4 EVENTS OCCURED IN THE TIME WINDOW WHY DO YOU CHOSE THE CLOSEST ? PREDICTION 35 IS A COMPLETE FAILURE ADMIT IT !

Prediction #35:
Q2 through Q5 were in the time window with Q4 at 20 miles away from the predicted location and off by .1 on the magnitude. But since Antonio didn't give a radius around the predicted location, it still doesn't count. The window hasn't closed on this prediction yet.

Prediction #36:
Only Q3 thru Q5 are within the time window but the closest of the listed quakes is 120 miles away from the prediction location and off by .1 on magnitude. Since the predicted magnitude was 4.2 this wasn't bad. But 120 miles is too far away to call it a hit. The window hasn't closed on this prediction yet.

HOW CAN YOU USE THE SAME EARTHQUAKES ON DIFFERENT PREDICTIONS GIVEN BY ANTONIO ? ARE YOU SERIOUSLY TRYING TO FOOL SOMEONE OR HAVE YOU LOST TOUCH WITH REALITY ? Q2 WAS GIVEN IN PREDICTIONS 33, 34,35-Q3 ON 34, 35, 36 AND SO ON.
LETS GET SERIOUS BUDDY I HAVE FAITH IN EARTHQUAKE PREDICTION BUT THERE MUST BE SOME SCREENING INVOLVED INORDER TO AVOID WAISTING MY TIME.

As to the "Snake Statistics", you previously said M4's occur every day in Greece. After further discussion we found this not to be true. Even if it was a figure of speach, it still misrepresented the actual facts. That is the kind of thing that I am adamantly against.

WELL I CANT SAY THAT YOU DID MUCH BETTER AS ON CAN CONCLUDE FROM THE ABOVE. AT LEAST I ADMITTED THAT I WAS EXAGURATING BUT NOT ON YOUR LEVEL OFCOURSE. NICE MANNERS WOULD HELP
BEST REGARDS