Hi Chris:

Thanks for the comments.

ref: "But, if not presented in some kind of mainstream scientific way, it might be a waste of money, because no one who matters will pay any attention."

+ Some speculations and hypothesis may preclude the regular statistical evidence presentation approaches demanded by some scientific journals. Sometimes the tying together of numerous observations (from peer reviewed journal articles etc.) builds up enough excitement and steam in order to get funding to actually pay for and get the statistical evidence (which can then be presented 'in some kind of mainstream scientific way'). As a result of this requirement for publication in some journals (where a decent amount of statistics are required in order to get presented) some "good observations and ideas" must find some other venues in order to "surface" to that same audience (as you mentioned).

ref: "...who are interested in his work and might be good as co-authors-but would have to provide some work to do this."

+ Gee...I hope that, in general, that the process does not Require that a co-author situation is the only way to get published (by that route) but rather that it is an option. It sounds like you might be saying that the odds of publication are better by co-authoring (?)

ref: "Even Don's predictions might not be publishable without a physical mechanism/hypothesis (I'm reserving jusgement on these). "

+ Pardon me but this seems quite backwards...I would think a steady stream of mostly successful predictions would be of interest by and of themselves. A presentation of which may trigger the required discussion for developing a physical mechanism / hypothesis. The "safe" approach of only publishing highly developed data with theory seems to go astray of the scientific method (where curiousities maybe posted but without offering explanations). I know for a fact that many articles have statements at the end along the lines of "these data do not fit any known or accepted model or theory"....

ref: "a lot of patterns of earthquake occurrence that could be considered precursory."

+Yes...I could see the "identify (far?)foreshocks" idea here... This example is heavily themed in the plate-tectonics/seismology way of thinking about the earthquake process. It seems that paradigms which do not follow such a theme will likely be forced into some type of self-publication realm just in order to get out there (and which may explain the same observations...)

I think it's great that you are looking for a way to facilitate things especially given your background in the SCA fault system. I also think it is great that you seem to be keeping an open mind and are withholding judgement in some areas. I wonder how many of your other peers have a similar mindset...?

I believe, though, that perhaps the instituional environment (which you are aware of) may have set a standard for what can be published. This standard sets the criteria for what could/ should be pursued as defined by statistics/theory that is "doable" (or seemingly plausible). This also seems to restrict what regions of speculation (subjects) are allowed. OTOH, others may have a more wide open approach that recognizes that "forward motion" may still be made without actually having a statistical basis in hand as yet but which stretches the boudaries of current thinking into new areas. I understand though that at least some type of thoughts / thinking must be presented linking things together (lacking lots of statistical data)....

Regarding "eartones"...more "connecting the dots" must be done in order to move anywhere to the next level of getting something published (in the science journals). Even a rudimentary set of data will probably have to be collected from many sources and over a long period of time ...just to get ones foot in the door. On the other hand, the impetus to follow up and do this work would be expected to be lacking from geologists/seismologists who have other interests (more related to rocks/faults, etc.) and who may control funding. So this area of study may have potential to contribute significantly but the burden will fall initially on those sensitives who quietly keep journals with the hope that someday somebody will pull it all together (to create the statistical evidence). Actually JOB's Syzygy site is moving along these lines (provided they keep and allow others to examine their archives...). Of course Canie and EQF are also trying to push this area along...there may be others as well.

So,IMHO, the bottom line is that "stale" theories are still being funded but yet those "pie in the sky" areas which could break the problem wide open by funding some whom are outside the mainstream are not getting the required support. The process whereby speculative ideas cannot be aired into the "mainstream" science journals virtually guarantees continued failure in the eq. pred. arena (for the next thousand years if nothing changes). Luckily, as you mentioned, other publishing venues are available but with the cost risk placed upon the initiator...no doubt gambling some $'s...without any assurance of not losing $'s and time. You'd think if the pay-off was large there would be more openess to sharing the risk of pursuing these pie-in-the-sky areas (which aren't so far out there after all...we may see...).

ref: "Seeber and Armbruster -They were able to record in great detail the migration of earthquakes towards the hypocenter of the following Duzce (sp?) M>7 earthquake."

Did they offer an explanation as to why such a migration happened ? Perhaps, there is a pie-in-the-skier" who may have an explantion (which is testable) but who doesn't have enough resources to build the statistical evidence. If this were the case, it seem very unlikely that such a person could get their work into the 'mainstream science' publications. Again, I am not 'busting on you', I am merely pointing out how the scientific process is short-circuited in some areas (perhaps due to some prior squirmishes in the past which have gotten everybody to walk the safe path at the expense of walking with blinders on?).

"Correct process method ==> Correct follow-up and hopefully outcome"

I appreciate your 3D visualization idea. Sometimes seeing the same data in a different context is very eye-opening.

Feel free to read this over several visits (didn't realize I was gonna write so much).

Again, thanks for your input and I hope you've taken my comments as constructive...speaking generally to the scientific process deficiencies and how sometimes a little smoke can be from a very big fire (brewing)...but without coming in on the right runway....

-Just my 2cents worth.