Re: Let's get back to earthquakes
Posted by Barbara on June 18, 2006 at 08:03:33:

I'm with you -- let's get back to earthquakes. The high melodrama, perceived injustices and blowing things out of proportion -- by one person -- are staggering beyond belief.

As for your analysis, I don't understand why you are only counting 9 cases in the 5-day window around the full or new moon. Why not 15 (9+5+1)? Why not 15/23 = 65% instead of 9/23 = 39%?

I am not a fan or proponent of Jim Berkland or his methods so I am not speaking in his defense, but why are you only counting the earthquakes that fall outside the 3-day window, but inside the 5-day window? If you are going to count that way, then you should adjust the chance of success formula to ((5-3)*16)/224 = 14%.

What am I missing, Roger?

Barbara


Follow Ups:
     ● Re: Let's get back to earthquakes - Roger Hunter  09:12:43 - 6/18/2006  (38446)  (3)
        ● Re: Let's get back to earthquakes - marc / berkeley  13:59:20 - 6/18/2006  (38466)  (1)
           ● Re: Let's get back to earthquakes - Roger Hunter  14:21:55 - 6/18/2006  (38470)  (1)
              ● Re: Let's get back to earthquakes - marc / berkeley  14:34:32 - 6/18/2006  (38472)  (1)
                 ● Re: Let's get back to earthquakes - Roger Hunter  14:51:27 - 6/18/2006  (38473)  (1)
                    ● Re: Let's get back to earthquakes - marc / berkeley  11:36:33 - 6/19/2006  (38520)  (1)
                       ● Re: Let's get back to earthquakes - Roger Hunter  12:31:50 - 6/19/2006  (38524)  (0)
        ● Re: Let's get back to earthquakes - Barbara  10:41:09 - 6/18/2006  (38452)  (1)
           ● Re: Let's get back to earthquakes - Roger Hunter  14:24:14 - 6/18/2006  (38471)  (0)
        ● Re: Let's get back to earthquakes - Russell  10:20:24 - 6/18/2006  (38450)  (1)
           ● Re: Let's get back to earthquakes - Roger Hunter  10:39:44 - 6/18/2006  (38451)  (1)
              ● Re: Let's get back to earthquakes - Russell  11:04:55 - 6/18/2006  (38455)  (0)