Search Result 34
From: ajones@bingsuns.cc.binghamton.edu (ajones@bingsuns.cc.binghamton.edu)
Subject: Re: EQ Prediction for 96/02/01 - Daryl P475
Newsgroups: sci.geo.earthquakes
View complete thread (6 articles)
Date: 1996/02/02

Daryl P475 (darylp475@aol.com) wrote:

: EQ Prediction for 96/02/01 UTC:
[snip
]
: Dennis Gentry
: Daryl P475@aol.com gentryd@nyc.pipeline.com
-------------------------------------------------------

As many of you know, I have been following Dennis Gentry's
(DarylP475@aol.com) predictions since February. For each prediction I make
an estimate of what I think the probability of success is based on just
random guessing. He had one miss followed by 12 hits. However, since
then, he has had three straight misses which takes him out of the
statistically significant range.

He has just issued a new prediction for February 2 through February 4.
This one is for a shorter period than most of his previous predictions,
is for fewer rings, and is for a larger magnitude event. These three
factors combine to give this prediction a much lower possibility of
a hit by chance. Using catalogs from 1960 through 1995 and a method
previously documented here and combining with the chance of a Northridge
aftershock, I compute the probability of success as 3%. In each of
the four rings the probabilities are: 0.5%, 0.3%, 1.4%, 0.2%. The
probability of a Northridge aftershock is 0.4%.

Here is a summary of Dennis's predictions that I have been following.

Dates Prob Success?
1995/02/21 - 03/02 80% No
1995/03/07 - 03/17 80% Yes
1995/04/04 - 04/14 50% Yes
1995/04/09 - 04/19 66% Yes
1995/04/24 - 05/01 90% Yes
1995/06/06 - 06/14 58% Yes
1995/06/20 - 06/26 77% Yes
1995/06/23 - 06/30 45% Yes
1995/08/29 - 09/01 60% Yes
1995/08/29 - 09/07 90% Yes
1995/09/26 - 10/03 74% Yes
1995/10/07 - 10/14 57% Yes
1995/11/15 - 11/23 63% Yes
1996/01/09 - 01/17 64% No
1996/01/17 - 01/19 17% No
1996/01/20 - 01/31 47% No
1996/02/02 - 02/04 3% Still open

Alan Jones

Message 3 in thread
From: Darrell Gentry (gentryd@nyc.pipeline.com)
Subject: Re: EQ Prediction for 96/02/01 - Daryl P475
Newsgroups: sci.geo.earthquakes
Date: 1996/02/03

In article <4es29j$7u9@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, Daryl P475 writes:

>This prediction is based on information from that other post
>(included below). In that other post I had talked about
>secondary indicators and them going quiet. Well, tonight
>they are quiet so we are getting close.
>


Looks like the secondary indicator was right and I was wrong.

I had noticed the secondary indicator going quiet at about
6:30 PM PST Thursday evening (2/1/96) and posted the prediction
around 8PM PST. Then the San Clemente event goes off as follows:

Event Date and Time : 02-FEB-1996 04:58:35.6 gmt (01-FEB 20:58:35.6
pst)
Preliminary Magnitude: 3.1 MLG
Preliminary Location : 33 deg. 3.1 min.
-117 deg. 48.6 min. -6.0 km depth

Event ID #: 3252907 , 40 phases used, RMS = 0.47 ERH = 0.66 ERZ =
39.56

28 mi. SSW of SAN CLEMENTE


This prediction was based on a combination of my 1/20/96 signal and
the continuation of this secondary indicator. Since this secondary
indicator was a lot stronger then what I am accustomed to I assumed
that it was coinciding with the 1/20/96 signal.

This is the first time that I've posted a prediction based on what a
secondary indicator was doing and not from my primary indicator.

Other secondary indicators are active so this prediction may still
be a go though I may be stretching it. Will just have to wait and
see what happens, if anything at all.

At least I'll be getting one thing out of this which is another help
in determining direction for future predictions.

After this prediction expires I won't try and play around with it
if any new info comes in. This particular sequence (1/9 and 1/20
predictions) is getting a little frustrating since its not happening
like normal.

Dennis

Message 5 in thread
From: Daryl P475 (darylp475@aol.com)
Subject: Re: EQ Prediction for 96/02/01 - Daryl P475
Newsgroups: sci.geo.earthquakes
Date: 1996/02/05

OK everybody, it looks like I've got another miss.

I still believe that this event is still building and taking its time
in letting go. But instead of re-issuing the prediction I'll only
pass along what I know (which I should have done after the 1/9/96
prediction).

I think this event is still building because of prior knowledge of my
ex-mentor and how long it took for Landers and Northridge to go off
from the first time the signal was picked up.

Ever since I had started this, all events have gone off within 10 days
of the original signal. I continued with this time table even though
things had happened differently with the other person. Another
reason for continuing with my 10 day time table is my method is not
the same as this other person. I may be, for the first time,
experiencing this longer time table.

If this is the longer time table, it should go by 3/9/96 (if not within
the next few days) at 5.0 or above and possibly 6.0 or above.

It may be (as the 1/9 and 1/20 signal were of a new pattern) that this
isn't a signal from an impending quake. If so, then I will have
learned something new.

As far as the prediction experiment, that is off. With 4 misses in
a row, the experiment is too far gone to recover from. So Alan,
their is no need for you to be posting any more probabilities. Your
free to do what you want.

My whole purpose to posting these predictions is to give people a
chance to decide for themselves how they want to procede. I don't
believe in this informing the goverment so that the government can
decide on whether to inform the public or not. Would they?

I'll still continue posting predictons when I get signals for those
that are interested.

Those of you who are not interested, you know how to either use the
killfile or skip over that particular message (if your not doing it
already).

Guess that's 'nuff for now,
Dennis