EQF:

I think the crux of the matter is credibility when attempting to pursuade somebody of something.

One important aspect of credibility in this line of pursuit is repeatability of results.

Asking contructively, what can you offer in terms of credibility? You have said that this problem is "bewilderingly complex". This statement in and of itself kind puts the squeeze on your credibility a little as an earthquake predictor.

Normally, in a scientific investigation, one first gets enough background knowledge about the subject to be conversant in like terms, etc with others in the field (though admittedly just being a geologist or seismologist will only get you so far in solving this problem IMO). This is the first step to credibility. After all, you wouldn't want the butcher down the street to do brain surgery on you now would you?

The next step is use that knowledge to formulate (or extend existing) hypotheses regarding what is causing earthquakes to happen. A question here is how much of what you read and hear do you accept ? This can be a major pitfall if you accept what somebody else says without delving into more of it yourself...though it is a trade space of sorts since nobody has enough time to verify everybody else's findings.

It appears that you use sun/moon/tide data along with "ear tone" type data. Can any other variables / parameters be identified that might also contribute to earthquakes? If so, then what are they and can they be isolated as relevant or discounted as irrelevant (or a small contributor) to the earthquake process? How do you go about this narrowing down process ?

A process of testing the hypothesis by examining historical data (where available) and gathering new data also follows. How well does the hypothesis fit the predictions indicated by it? Does it work sometime but not in others ? How do you know ? What statistical tests should be performed (that are considered proper and valid by others) ? Do you know what these are ? If not you may not be "credible".

If the predictive results of the hypothesis fails to result in above average results then maybe the hypothesis needs to be re-worked. This iterative process can go on literally forever....

The acid test of making accurate predictions consistently is the first goal. If you can convince yourself first that you have above average results, then you may possibly be in a position to call attention to your work to others including scientists, gov't officials, etc.

One step to help others believe you (if you don't have the accepted background credentials) is to discuss it with someone who has (credentials). They will request your data and then look for consistency in making above average accuracy in predictions.

Without this data, you don't stand a chance (and some argue that even with "some" data you still don't stand a chance).

I see that you have some data and that is a good beginning. The question is does it show that earthquakes can be predicted consistly and with confidence? If not, you should be in the mode of gathering more data, refining your hypothesis (maybe), and repeating this until you get to a successful "acid test" point. Discussing it with others may also bring in new thoughts and ideas and be synergistic in reaching the goal...(and more quickly too).

You may also wish to define a halting point too (for a given hypothesis). For example, if I check/study 1000 cases and can't show success then I will discard this hypothesis and seek another (or whatever).

Until you reach a point of demonstrated successful predictions which may be authenticated by others in advance of the earthquake(s), you will have No credibility and therefore no means to convince anybody. In fact, given the history of earthquake predictions, you may have already been labelled variously as a crank, charlatan, or "publicity seeker" (Words of Richter, 1950's)...until you provide irrefutable data and results to the contrary.

My advice to you is to focus on developing your hypothesis (or extending other's) and devloping a track record. Until then I can bet that most of the mail you send to gov't officials etc. is probably discarded as junk. Some might even argue that you are continuing to fuel fire on the laughing targeting those who have tried and continue to try and solve this problem (despite your good intentions).

IMO, It's something to think about.

Just my $.02 worth