Hi All. Since 1965, when the gap hypothesis was introduced, 17 major earthquakes have occurred within previously identified gaps. Although the locations and approximate magnitudes of these events were foretold, these successes were not true earthquake predictions in the sense that the times of occurrence were not stated reliably in advance. The existence of the gap does not in itself signify that an earthquake is imminent, but only that the potential for one is higher than in adjacent areas. The most recent large gap-filling earthquake was the magnitude 7.1 event on 17 Oct. 1989 near Loma Prieta, California. The site was clearly identified in the scientific literature as a seismic gap 20 years before the event.

The same thing applies to the ear tone data. It’s not ready to go public. If someone tries to use it now and doesn’t have any success with it how well is it going to be accepted when it is ready to be used?

The same thing applies to the data I was using. It’s true that I made some pretty good calls. However each one of them, the ones that I missed, the ones there were near misses and the ones that were 100% correct had one flaw. Any one of them could have been a major quake and I had no way of knowing that. The law of probability almost assured me of a correct magnitude. Sooner or later that law will turn on you and no matter how good you are at getting the location and time of the expected quake the magnitude of the expected quake is going to be a lot higher then forecasted.

That is why it is essential not to go public with something until it has been proven. Posting on boards such as this is one thing, but to approach governments with an earthquake prediction based on a method that hasn’t gone through the rigors of testing and being tested is in my opinion very foolish. Going public with an unproven method is setting that method up for failure no matter how well it performs. Take Care…Don in creepy town