Re: Earthquake Predictions, Forecasts, Percentages, and the Scientific Method
Posted by Roger Hunter on March 12, 2009 at 06:29:35:

Michael;

> Then you also have the Jim Berkland's of the world. Here you have a guy that has some sort of experience in geology at least, usually making scientific predictions from what I can see, and you have a wealth of data, predictions and results, that cannot be analyzed by anybody because it is not in form that permits any sort of sane analysis. A whole lot of effort going on there, but nothing to show for it because no third party can verify or disprove his results.

Why do you say that?

I've done it and published it.

Roger


Follow Ups:
     ● Re: Earthquake Predictions, Forecasts, Percentages, and the Scientific Method - Michael Tolchard  09:48:13 - 3/12/2009  (74856)  (1)
        ● Re: Earthquake Predictions, Forecasts, Percentages, and the Scientific Method - Roger Hunter  10:27:22 - 3/12/2009  (74859)  (1)
           ● Re: Earthquake Predictions, Forecasts, Percentages, and the Scientific Method - Skywise  23:16:04 - 3/12/2009  (74881)  (1)
              ● Re: Earthquake Predictions, Forecasts, Percentages, and the Scientific Method - Roger Hunter  09:29:18 - 3/13/2009  (74883)  (1)
                 ● Re: Earthquake Predictions, Forecasts, Percentages, and the Scientific Method - Skywise  20:13:20 - 3/13/2009  (74888)  (1)
                    ● Re: Earthquake Predictions, Forecasts, Percentages, and the Scientific Method - Roger Hunter  20:42:15 - 3/13/2009  (74889)  (1)
                       ● Re: Earthquake Predictions, Forecasts, Percentages, and the Scientific Method - Skywise  00:03:54 - 3/14/2009  (74890)  (0)