Dr.G.Chouliaras; I fail to see your point
Posted by Dennis Gentry in Santa Clarita on June 16, 2000 at 17:40:20:

From outward appearances, it would seem that you are trying to say that Antonio's predictions had no chance of failing. Well, lets look at the events you listed versus the predictions (I'll call the 5 quakes you listed as Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4, and Q5 in the order that you had them listed):

Prediction #33:
Q1 and Q2 are the only quakes in the time window. The closest quake to the predicted location was 130 miles away but was outside of the time window.

Prediction #34:
All listed quakes were in the time window, but the closest quake to the predicted location was 230 miles away.

Prediction #35:
Q2 through Q5 were in the time window with Q4 at 20 miles away from the predicted location and off by .1 on the magnitude. But since Antonio didn't give a radius around the predicted location, it still doesn't count. The window hasn't closed on this prediction yet.

Prediction #36:
Only Q3 thru Q5 are within the time window but the closest of the listed quakes is 120 miles away from the prediction location and off by .1 on magnitude. Since the predicted magnitude was 4.2 this wasn't bad. But 120 miles is too far away to call it a hit. The window hasn't closed on this prediction yet.

As to the "Snake Statistics", you previously said M4's occur every day in Greece. After further discussion we found this not to be true. Even if it was a figure of speach, it still misrepresented the actual facts. That is the kind of thing that I am adamantly against.

Dennis


Follow Ups:
     ● MY POINT IS THAT YOU FAIL TO SEE - Doc  05:57:46 - 6/17/2000  (3113)  (2)
        ● Re: MY POINT IS THAT YOU FAIL TO SEE - Pat In Petaluma  19:22:53 - 6/17/2000  (3118)  (0)
        ● Yes, I guess our methods are different - Dennis Gentry in Santa Clarita  10:48:27 - 6/17/2000  (3114)  (1)
           ● Re: Yes, I guess our methods are different - Canie  17:52:18 - 6/17/2000  (3116)  (0)