You wrote:

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.

USING THE METRIC SYSTEM WHICH IS INTERNATIONALY ACCEPTED IN SCIENTIFIC
RESEARCH, THE PREDICTED LAT-LONG FOR EVENT 33 WAS 41N.5-14E AND Q1 AND Q2
OCCURED AT 46.4N 10.6E AND 44.4N 7.4E RESPECTIVELY THAT MAKES Q2 THE CLOSEST
EVENT (AROUND 40 KM AWAY) SO LETS CONSIDER IT A "SUCCESS" AND Q1 A "FAILURE"
=50% AS IT WAS GIVEN BY GOOD OLD ANTONIO WHO KNOWS THAT THE AREA HAS BEEN
UNDERGOING SEISMIC ACTIVITY FOR SOME TIME NOW (I SUSPECT THAT ANTONIO MUST BE
USING SEISMOLOGY ALSO !)

My reply:
Earlier I had asked Antonio whether or not the coordinates were in decimal. He replied in the affirmative. So what I did was convert the decimal to minutes. Hence:

Predicted area: Lat41.5/Long14E
which becomes: Lat41.30/Long14E

Q1 was at: Lat46.4N/Long10.6E
which becomes: Lat46.24N/Long10.36E

Q2 was at: Lat 44.4N/Long7.4E
which becomes: Lat 44.24N/Long 7.24E

Then, on my Mac I have a program called Map that takes input in only degrees and minutes (hence my need for conversion), that gives me the distance, in miles, between the two coordinates. Q1 was 380 miles and Q2 was 390 miles. Now if you'd like me to convert the miles to kilometers, I could do that too. But you know it'll be more.

Now if the coordinates given by Antonio and the coordinates given for the quakes are not in decimal please tell me so. Maybe I'll need to change my conversion routine. If these coordinates are not in decimal we'll then need to know which catalogs are in decimal and which aren't. I'd already been counseled on the USGS catalogs being in decimal.

You also wrote:
OW CAN YOU USE THE SAME EARTHQUAKES ON DIFFERENT PREDICTIONS GIVEN BY ANTONIO
? ARE YOU SERIOUSLY TRYING TO FOOL SOMEONE OR HAVE YOU LOST TOUCH WITH REALITY
? Q2 WAS GIVEN IN PREDICTIONS 33, 34,35-Q3 ON 34, 35, 36 AND SO ON.
LETS GET SERIOUS BUDDY I HAVE FAITH IN EARTHQUAKE PREDICTION BUT THERE MUST BE
SOME SCREENING INVOLVED INORDER TO AVOID WAISTING MY TIME.

My reply:
Since, according to the method I was using, none of these predictions were hits, I see no problem with using all of them in comparison. Now if a quake was a hit on one prediction, then yes I would exclude it from consideration for any other prediction. So yes, lets get serious.

As to your methods, all you did was list the predictions and the quakes. You didn't say which predictions you considered hits and which were not hits and why. Don't you think you should supply that little piece of information? Or were you just trolling?

Dennis