Hello Don. I'll agree, even as the resident skeptic, that it probably is not a coincidence. But, it is about 100+ km out of the center of the window, and is therefore outside of the 65 km radius. You mention things migrating north out of southern California. There was not much going on in southern California during the time period, but do you think we might see some activity move towards the north (are your data related to such migrations)? Also, it is a lot of work to put out a paper, but you might work towards doing this. If you stop posting and have not explained your technique, and have not published it, you will not have much long-term impact. If you just explain your technique and don't publish it, if it works you are liable to have someone else use it and not credit it (we are mostly honorable, but probably not all). So, I can make the same offer to you that I made to Lowell: I can help you put together a paper to the extent that I have time (Petra has my email address-I do not use the "aol" address anymore). This is under the assumption that there is some easy way of representing the "data" and the resulting quakes, like graphs (rather than statistics and probablities etc.). A problem would be whether the "data" would show up for larger (M3) earthquakes-those down around M2 become difficult to evaluate...
Back to my own manuscript (faulting in Santa Monica Bay). It is a mess right now-but I'm rewriting it.... Chris