Don;

Let me state my position on this.

You are assuming that the combined efforts of many different fields might come up with valid quake predictions. That's fine but it's your hypothesis.

In science, we assume the opposite; that the null hypothesis is true by default.

Thus the burden of proof is yours. You gather the evidence and present your case, we do our best to tear it down. If it survives, you may be onto something.

This approach is seen as hostility in some quarters. It's not; it's evolution in action. It's the way the system works and it works very well.

I know you know all this but some of the lurkers may not.

Thanks,

Roger