Hi EQF,

You said: "What I have found is that if an earthquake does not occur within a week of the time that I detect some precursor signals, it is likely to then occur some multiple of about 7 days from the time the signals were detected. But I could never really understand why that is the case. Those new data charts show fairly clearly why those time relationships exist. Certain earthquake triggering forces occur in cycles which are multiples of roughly 7 days. And those time cycles do not all match one another. For example, the moon gravity strength cycle does not match the sun – Earth – moon angle cycle."

If you want to evacuate an area thinking a potential damaging earthquake may arrive, you need to be right more times than wrong, correct? Your statement above leaves a lot of room for error because it has not been fully tested as no predictions have been issued. Any product untested has no valid merits, be it a candybar for color, taste, wrapping appearance and saleability or an earthquake prediction theory left untested.

However, one must recognise that a 5.0 quake in one area may be sufficient to kill many people, yet in other area's it is no more than a few seconds on a roller coaster.

To not acknowledge that this is the case means one might be living in a fools paradise. To discern between a 5.0 and a 7.0 first is an important step, but secondly, to discern correctly when and where and what time frame is what has kept scientists on the go for many years.

While we have to afford you credit for attempting to work on a program you have created, in its current untested state, it has no record, is not being fully tested because there have been no predictions issued and therefore, no one can place any emphasis on its viability because it has none.

If you remain confident of its ability, then you have to test it and in that the proof as to whether it works or not will answer the question as to its merits or lack thereof.

Petra