What else is new
Posted by EQF on October 21, 2003 at 17:47:06:

John,

First, what I have found is that other researchers are often willing to share somewhat confidential information on the subject of earthquake forecasting as long as it does not create problems for them. So I not only try to keep some of the information I am sent confidential just as you undoubtedly do but also keep the names of the people who sent it to me confidential. That policy produces good results. Someone who is I personally feel is one of the most important and influential earthquake researchers on the planet once basically told me during a telephone conversation that “We are willing to share confidential information with you because we know from years of experience that you can be trusted.” Trust is invaluable in this science.

Second, why are you expecting me to answer your questions when you are not answering mine?

In note 19710 and again in 19777 I asked if you had any comments on the concept of generating and using synthetic ocean tide height data to match earthquakes with precursors, and earthquakes with earthquakes. And the 19710 note was actually a response to one of your earlier notes. So, why no answers?


Follow Ups:
     ● scientists like information, not mysticism - John Vidale  19:03:07 - 10/21/2003  (19810)  (1)
        ● Attempts at explanation - EQF  00:21:44 - 10/22/2003  (19820)  (1)
           ● too vague - John Vidale  09:13:20 - 10/22/2003  (19824)  (1)
              ● Re: too vague - Roger Hunter  18:48:14 - 10/22/2003  (19835)  (0)