EQF;

> The reason that he won’t talk with you is probably because you are totally and in my opinion, unreasonably opposed to the concept that earthquakes can be predicted etc.

I hope not because it isn't true. I'd love to find a good predictor but I do insist on strict testing. Petra is mad at me because 1) she failed the test and 2) I didn't give her a formal report.

> You admit it yourself every time you state that you are trying to poke holes in any earthquake forecasting theories that are out there. And I personally believe that your logic and conclusions when you do that are inaccurate. There have been some amazingly accurate forecasts made over the years. And you keep ignoring that fact.

I take offense at that. Bias is the last thing anyone wants to be accused of in this business and I resent being accused of it.

yes there have been some incredible hits, the Myanmar quake for one, but that proves nothing. Any odds can be beaten by chance but a real method will do it consistently.

> Scientists cannot deal with that type of bias. In my case I just ignore it as a price of doing business. But most other scientists would not.

And no one should but I find it on your end, not mine.

> In any case, if you know of any way of contacting Dr. Whiteside I would be interested in hearing about that. He is one of the relatively few experts in the area of earthquake science who seems to have an open mind to the various possibilities. And he could be contributing a lot to making more rapid progress with earthquake forecasting science.

Only Petra knows and she's not likely to help.

Roger