|
in case anyone is tempted to take EQF seriously |
It's prudent to remember that, despite the grandiose claims - No one seismologist with any level of knowledge or responsibility has ever agreed that there is any predictive power in the methods that EQF endorses. He and all his alleged colleagues are without names or verifiable credentials. No statistically sound survey of his methods has ever been submitted to a scientific journal, nor even offered on his web page. EQF has claimed not only wildly improbable statements like "considering what I have seen, if the SUN SHADOWING forecasting method you have developed did not detect the approach of that December 7, 2012 Japan earthquake then I would have been quite surprised!", but also claims to have solved problems of how to fix the US Federal budget, how to solve the energy crisis, how to safely build nuclear reactors, and how to restructure the US government. Just a little perspective. Follow Ups: ● Re: in case anyone is tempted to take EQF seriously - Roger Hunter 10:46:22 - 12/9/2012 (80749) (1) ● Re: in case anyone is tempted to take EQF seriously - Island Chris 06:22:48 - 12/10/2012 (80750) (1) ● Question– December 11, 2012 - EQF 00:25:52 - 12/11/2012 (80757) (2) ● EQF in a nutshell - John Vidale 10:06:17 - 12/11/2012 (80760) (0) ● Re: Question– December 11, 2012 - Roger Hunter 08:15:11 - 12/11/2012 (80759) (2) ● Re: Question– December 11, 2012 - Island Chris 06:52:51 - 12/12/2012 (80768) (1) ● Re: Question– December 11, 2012 - EQF 01:13:05 - 12/13/2012 (80774) (0) ● Re: Question– December 11, 2012 - EQF 03:39:43 - 12/12/2012 (80766) (0) |
|