mb,

Those goals are all well and good. But what good does it do to issue forecasts that most people will ignore?

Every documentary that I've watched has always pitted the scientific community against the person claiming to make accurate predictions and making that person look bad.

Until you can make your predictions (myself included) more specific (i.e. location/time/magnitude) the scientific community followed by the general populace will ignore you defeating your purpose.

The only way that the scientific community might open their eyes towards your predictions is to make them measurable. By being vague, they can't be measured against historical seismicity in order to calculate probability of getting a hit by chance. Statistics is something that is used in all walks of life in order to validate that there may be something in whatever is being measured including the introduction of new drugs.

Once you reach the 95th percentile after a series of predictions, that will start getting their attention. I had reached that platueau once and was getting a lot of attention from the scientific community. Things went sour after that and I lost that attention. You need to show that you can achieve that level of consistency and maintain it.

Without doing this, you are just blowing smoke in the wind.

I speak from experience.

Dennis