Petra:

Its going to feel very much like I'm picking on you. I am not. I am, however, deeply confused.

I've read your latest posting three times now and I am still a little lost as to what you are saying. You've posted a prediction that is stated in the broadest possible terms. The chances of you "hitting" are - by default -significantly higher than if you were to narrow your area for this quake. Your time line is also quite lenghty and bumps your chances even further.

It would still be pretty cool if a M7 occured on "the west coast" during your window, but my problem is that it would not necessarily indicate a success for your predictive method. I do not have a predictive method, yet I could easily make a prediction that has as much chance as yours does. I get gut feelings all the time and refer to them jokingly as the GFPM (Gut Feeling Prediction Model). I am horribly wrong constantly.

Your effort doesn't seem to contain any more science than mine does. You may be looking at several pre-cursors, listening for ear tones, etc. - but by being so broad in your prediction, you negate the ability of any scientist to say "Hey...there might something there worth looking into." Why? Because you've presented a prediction that could come true simply by accident and you have not been willing to give the necessary details to establish a basis for analyzing your accuracy.

Peeople dream of plane crashes all the time. Is it any mystery that somebody dreams of a plane crash the night before it happens? No. Will it be any big deal if your M7 hits on "the west coast" within a month? Not really.

So, can you REALLY put your method to the test and answer the "necessary" and "helpful" details questions posed by John?

Respectfully,

Russell