EQF,

You said "If I conclude that a really bad earthquake is about to occur I will usually drop everything and try to evaluate my precursor data and circulate a warning But I have found that there is not presently enough time to both evaluate those data for expected low destruction value earthquakes and do basic research."

If you concluded there was going to be an earthquake, I would assume you would have already looked at your data, right? Otherwise, there would be no reason to do so.

I say I have to disagree with your assumption that you are a professional. No one is a professional at anything unless they have experience and you have no experience at delivering earthquake predictions in the acceptable form. Saying an earthquake "might" occur in a given location is not a prediction, it is speculation.

I do not wish to be rude, but if you have time to post here regularly and tell us what you are doing or intend to do, why wouldn't you have time to prepare a "formal" earthquake prediction? It takes less than 2 minutes.

Regarding this statement "Regarding your suggestion that I circulate those gravity research data to people around the world, I am in the process of and have been doing that for some time now. But as I said in another note, just producing those charts in the first place takes a tremendous amount of time. And this latest one that I am trying to generate represents a real problem. It is so large that my chart production programs have so far refused to process all the data. So I will have to generate the chart in sections or find some other way to produce it."

You already said your other program worked, so why is it necessary to add anything more to it? You have said repeatedly that you have the answer and that anyone could go to your web site and use the information and would be able to use this data to form their own opinions. So far, it doesn't appear that it is that simple or that beneficial, because no one here who has commented on it finds it has any use. You must have concluded the same since you don't appear to have made any earthquake forecasts using it. Or have you?

You cannot put a bandaid on this program of yours after you have stated imphatically that it works, when there has been no demonstration that it does.

Frankly, EQF, I would prefer to hear Dennis Gentry's reports on his home brew equipment that reveals some liklihood of an earthquake occurring with no promises of success than to hear repeatedly about your program which you tell us works and yet fail to demonstrate it does.

You are either going to have to make a prediction to show that it does work or give it up and go back to the drawing board and try another angle.

Petra