EQF,

You write this:

"I have developed these complex computer programs ... almost impossible to explain to people. I myself do not really know why it works. It was developed by using some basic logic and then making adjustments to the program operation until it began producing good numbers."

and this:

"they appear to do a moderately good job of telling where an expected earthquake might occur perhaps 1/3 of the time. With a lot of work I can get them to do moderately well with another 1/3 of the expected earthquakes. With the last 1/3 they do not yet produce very good results."

but have never demonstrated any of these thirds. The way the scientific method works is that you would present a scientific demonstration that your method works. If people with some programming skills are interested, they first reproduce your results then extrapolate them.

One of my papers about a numerical method (J.E. Vidale, 1990, Finite-difference calculation of traveltimes in three dimensions, Geophysics, 55, p 521-526) inspired four different reviewers to each create from scratch a several-thousand-line computer code to test my claim, which held up so my paper was published. If you can convince people you're on to something, they check it, but you haven't.

Paid or unpaid, there is a scientific method. I've personally checked Berkland's claims, because they are specific and plausible.

John