Chris,

Thanks for your comments.

>Besides some problems in his geology ("lava at the core of the earth which moves the earth plates with huge force and tend to stabilize its actual position.")

Yes, but the explanation need not literally be correct. We should reflect on the past: it was once erroneously said that continents were "floating". Yet Shan's theoretical ideas do not seem internally consistent or necessary either. So I am not saying they are persuasive.

"it simply seems impossible for there to be a couple cm shift in the normal path of the shadow across a few feet (1 m). So, the method seems simple enough, it just does not seem that it can work."

And also the Chinese endorsement on Shan's site (by Chen) does not really answer this. Rather it seems to be an intimation that IF Shan is correct, then many current ideas will be wrong.

"I think it has to be some local effect..."

Assuming you are right, and yet still giving Shan a best-case scenario, there would be some local effect that was somehow a precursor, for unknown reasons.

Roger is apparently going to do his thing (though he has said evaluation is not possible when predictions have different probabilistic values) but to me it just seems intuitively obvious that Shan's predictions alone are unconvincing.

He has to explain his method in precise detail. He must also explain exactly what "adjustments" he is making to his concept when he gets near-misses or total-misses.

Otherwise, he is not worth trying to figure out anymore. That's my opinion.