Yes, a site specific prediction methodology is an ultimate goal. But a person/methodology has to be able to walk before it can run.

I'm curious as to why you think that I think that people can't hear pending earthquakes? You probably don't know, but in the past I had corresponded with Charlotte King who is very adept at this sort of thing. She was also part of an experiment back in DC that tried to determine whether her hearing and other symtoms were related to earthquakes. She had a pretty good hit rate, but somehow that study and its results have conviently disappeared. Later on she was also tested by some other doctors who, in running their tests, put her into extreme pain. So, all in all, it appears to have been a curiosity by the scientific community with no real intention of trying to improve on that finding. Either that or they did find something and are keeping it secret. Do you really want to go through what Charlotte went through?

You talk about my methodology where I say if its close it will be one magnitude and if its further away it will be a larger magnitude. Now think real hard and try and see how that could be used to be more site specific. I'll give a hint. How do they triangulate quakes using the data from seismometers?

In regards to being site specific, emergency response teams would themselves be in just as much trouble as everybody else and would need the same assistance that everybody else needed. The only way around this is to have emergency response teams at the ready in surrounding areas. A relative of mine who is/was part of emergency response watches this board from time to time and maybe could add a little input here.

As to scientific protocals, a prediction only needs location, magnitude, and time. There is nothing that requires a prediction be down to the knats ass in any of these things. Anybody who expects this kind of result, either now or in the future, is totally out of alignment with reality. Either that or they are trying to keep quakes from being predicted.