Hi Roger,

It is difficult for me to understand what you are trying to accomplish. My data are discussing “apples” for example. But you appear to be constantly trying to run evaluation tests on “oranges.” In part for that reason yours tests have no application to my data.

Once again and for the hundredth time, here is what the Chart A data are telling people.

The Chart A data are available for anyone to see who can access the Internet. But they are primarily intended for use by other earthquake forecasters and disaster mitigation personnel around the world. One of the best ways to tell if an earthquake is approaching is to compare data from a number of different forecast methods. If more than one method points to some area then it could be a good idea to start looking around to see if an earthquake could be headed for that area.

My data are one of those types of information that people can evaluate. And it has taken me quite a few years and a lot of computer programming work to develop the formats that I am presently using to display the data. At the present time they could hardly be simpler and easier to understand and evaluate.

THE CHART A PICTURE FILES

If there is a line peak group at say 120 W on recent Time Windows on Chart A then that indicates that my computer programs believe that some strong seismic activity could be headed for some fault zone on the 120 W longitude line.

There are quite a few groups and individuals that are collecting and evaluating various types of precursor data for earthquakes occurring around 120 W. And the hope is that one or more of the other groups will see that my Chart A data are in good agreement with theirs. And they will help sound the alarm for a possible approaching earthquake in that area.

The most recent Chart A picture files showed line peak groups starting to appear around 84 W. And if there had been any groups evaluating precursor data for 84 W then they might have combined my data and theirs and concluded that that recent Costa Rica earthquake was approaching. However, I am not aware of any groups that are watching that area. But, there are quite a few watching the U.S. West Coast. So, some of them might also spot some approaching seismic activity for 120 W or wherever.

The recent Chart A picture files also showed line peak groups around 141 E. But everyone already expects that there will be strong aftershocks in that area. So they hardly need to be warned about that type of activity unless the aftershocks are going to be high magnitude.

THE YEAR CHART PICTURE FILES

Earthquake forecasters and researchers looking that Chart A data would need to answer two critically important questions.

1. If a line peak group appears at say 120 W, how likely is it that a powerful earthquake will then occur at that longitude?

2. If a powerful earthquake is getting ready to occur at 120 W longitude, how likely is it that Chart A will display line peak groups aroud 120 W before the earthquake occurs?

To answer those questions I have created the Year Chart picture files. They provide a comparison between my EM Signal data projections for possible approaching earthquakes with records of powerful earthquakes that did actually occur. And they go from the present back to the beginning of 2001.

So, researchers can put together a list of earthquakes that occurred at 120 W (or any longitude they wish) and then look at the Year Charts and determine if there were line peak groups at 120 W around the time a given earthquake occurred at that longitude.

One of the most interesting aspects of this for researchers around the world could be with trying to decide why a line peak group might occur at some longitude. No powerful earthquake occurs there. And the line peaks eventually disappear from that area.

One explanation would be that at times, the fault zone stabilizes temporarily as the sun and the moon shift positions relative to the Earth. And no new EM Signals are generated for a while. That might happen several times before a major earthquake. And it does eventually occur at that longitude as might have happened with that 9 magnitude March 11, 2011 earthquake in Japan.

Another explanation would be that the signals are still being generated. But, a more powerful earthquake is getting ready to occur at another longitude. And its EM Signals overpower the ones for the first earthquake. So they just “appear” to disappear. My computer programs normally amplify the strongest EM Signal to full scale. So weaker ones might no longer be visible at times. Later after the more powerful earthquake occurs, the original EM Signal related line peaks start to reappear at that first longitude.

ACCURACY

I personally feel that the Year Chart data look reasonably good for some areas such as the U.S. West Coast. Areas closer to where I live probably generate more easily detected signals.

On the negative side, the data seem to have a problem with earthquakes having magnitudes higher than 7.5 And my original theory was that after a certain amount of strain has collected in a fault zone, it will no longer generate the types of signals that I am working with.

A more refined theory that I am presently evaluating proposes that the actual reason is that earthquakes with a 7.5 or higher magnitude generally occur in fault zones where the plates are pressing against one another and then sinking beneath one another. And those “strike” types of fault zone interactions are not very efficient for generating the types of signals that I work with. Fault zones that try to slip sideways past one another do a better job of generating the signals.

Yet another theory proposes that signal generating efficiency could rely on the orientation of the fault zone. Ones running north and south might be better at generating signals than ones running east and west.

All of those types of theories can be proposed and checked by anyone visiting my Web pages. They can even download my computer programs and work with the original data themselves. I myself have been primarily occupied with just getting the computer programs to work. And I have not had a lot of time to look at the data themselves to see what they might be indicating.

IMPORTANT DATA

An excuse that some people use for not working with my data is that they don’t want to waste their time working with forecasting methods that have not been accepted by every scientist on the planet. And that attitude is probably common among earthquake researchers in Japan.

Well, some of those people might have been among the 25,000 who reportedly perished when that recent powerful earthquake occurred in Japan. And I have to ask,

“What could possibly have been more important to them then spending time on an effort that might have enabled them to save their own lives?”

Earthquakes don’t occur where I myself live. I am doing this work in the hopes of saving the lives of other people. We know that there will be future powerful and destructive earthquakes on the U.S. West Coast. And if people living there are not interested in spending time on trying to learn how to predict earthquakes where they live and perhaps save their own lives, then what can anyone else do for them?

As the popular saying goes,

“You can lead a horse to water. But you can’t make him drink.”

These are personal opinions.