Yes, I agree with your assessment inasmuch as to where we want to eventually get to.

But do you really think that being able to predict a quake down to a knats ass is really necessary in order to show that you may be on to something?

Don't you think that it may be possible that once somebody can demonstrate that they may be on to something that the scientific community, with all its equipment and knowledge that the average joe doesn't have, might be able to improve on what that somebody has discovered and get it down to a knats ass?

I've already shown/demonstrated that you don't need to be specific on your predictions in order to achieve statistical significance. It is harder to do, but it is doable.

Roger Musson had once posted out here that he was waiting to see if I could hit on a big local event. I had a chance not too long ago and screwed up with the Hector quake where I predicted a much smaller quake. I was right on the location and time window but 1.5 short on the magnitude. Right now I can't say whether or not I could have done a better job due to my limited monitoring time. But time will tell with improvements in that area.