michael,
Just a rough calculation...I just used the distance between Ridgecrest and Mammoth (150 miles), assumed it is the diameter of a circle, calculated area and divided by surface area of the earth. In reality, I probably should have used it as a radius, then it would be .038%.

It's just an insignificant number.

I think the real issue, and one that Dennis and others have pointed out numerous times, is that what he and others are doing is an inexact "art". There is no clear understand of any of the mechanisms involved in the "signals", "indicators", whatever, other than an observation on the part of Dennis and others over the course of many years and many observations that they tend to line up at something (to him and others) significantly higher than random. It's kind of hard to refine something like this when your observation events occur very randomly only a few times a year.

We all want to measure things and have some quantification, but trying to apply laser measurements to something where we don't even understand the mechanisms involved won't get us there because the state of the "art" isn't there yet. It reminds me of the old saw - measure it with a micrometer, mark it with chalk, and cut it with an axe - except the tool we are using to make the laser cut right now is a 40 bottom plow behind a Steiger. When Dennis started, he used to be lucky to get the tractor in the right section of land. Now he is cutting a pretty straight line in an 80 acre field, but still far from the laser surgery measurements we want to apply to his results.

Suggestions for how to measure or quantify? No, I don't have any, unfortunately. I'm not a statistician or analyst - just a programmer who sees bits and patterns and data flows and can pick out the things that are above random and turn them into objects, classes and executables - but the "art" needs both types right now... people who can intuitively recognize patterns and flows, as well as those who know how to quantify - and those are usually different people.
Bill