Quite noble goals...no doubt.

It's the "If it can be shown..." part that is the next logical step in the process. Without this step, the prediction process is likely labeled just another of many...with unremarkable results.

You have made a guess on your accuracy. If it is as you have claimed then why not give the details and independent verification to third parties so that it may be verified?

To move to the next step, all you need do is post your predictions somewhere in advance of the earthquake. No other 'help' need be requested.

People will have answers about your method(s) when you make such postings. Roger is likely to evaluate it to see how well you do over and above random chance. All you need do is just add somebody (like Roger) to your circulated warnings and the evaluation may be made after a suitable number of predictions have been made. This would be such a simple thing to do. If you don't do this is it because you fear that the results do not exceed random chance ? Only you know the answer to this one.

Regarding computer programs...these may be good in hypothesis testing and also in facilitating others (amateurs and others alike) in getting involved. Like they say...sometimes one more pair of eyeballs makes all the difference.

Just look at the case Petra cited about the lady who owned a geyser and her observations regarding it's behavior relative to large earthquakes. Her eyeballs made a contribution to the subject.

The question for you is "Can you suffer the scrutiny ?" Or better yet: "Can you bear to suffer the consequence that your method(s) only result in predictions which score no better than random chance?"

==>What time could you save if you knew the answer ?

In summary, with a few keystrokes (adding Roger to your distribution list) you could know for sure whether you are indeed helping the cause Or are in fact getting yourself labeled as another "earthquake crank", etc. (per Richter).

My comments are intended to be constructive and I hope you see them that way in the same regard. To the extent that people allow "pseudo science" into the equation / forum there is both a risk of "reward" (if properly scientifically pursued) or a risk of alienation and a banning to the realm of "pseudoscience" if the work is never allowed to be subjected to the proper evaluation.

You can step up to the plate and make it happen EQF or you can remain trapped in your dreams and hopes...it's for you to decide. Obviously, however, there are others (like myself for example) who will try and extract the fruits of your efforts or show the pitfalls.... This process is critical to any advancement which I think you understand.

Best Regards,

& Just my .02 worth

p.s. (In short I believe more blunt skeptics would call this the "put up or shut up" stage....)