Hi All,

I wanted to make a simple point about being more specific when making predictions and how so often people leave out important details, which in the end does make a significant different for the forecaster. This is not meant to be derogatory, but simply make a point.

Our fellow board member, EQF told us recently he had accepted credit for his Japan prediction with the parameters in longitude of 134E to 143E and no latitude was given which came as a 5.1 near Honshu on 5/17/03. Today's quake was at 38.89N by 141.51E.

So after seeing the 7.0 in Japan, I thought perhaps EQF had laid claim to the wrong earthquake and had he waited a few days he might have had a better success with the second quake than the first. How unfortunate.

So I took the parameters of the quake on 5/17/03 and measured the distance by statue miles to today's 7.0 quake and found that they were 362.5 miles apart. This is why one must make their predictions as specific as possible and in this case without a latitude listed and no window, or magnitude, one cannot really claim success to either quake, but given a wide acceptance standard, either quake would have fallen into his prediction by longitude alone.

Only the predictor knows based upon their method whether the quake that arrives is the correct quake they were looking for, so while we may read the prediction or forecast, only one person really has the answer when they are not specific in making the forecast.

I feel for EQF, this was a missed opportunity and I hope in the future, if possible, a full prediction with all of the standards used will allow all of us to realize when true success has been achieved.

As 2003 seems to be an active seismic year so far, I think plenty of opportunities will arise for all of us to hone in on our skills and make some useful predictions.

Petra