You do realize that Brian's "Dart Board" methodology, combined with your characterization of its performance as "the most successful earthquake prediction program going," argue strongly against the validity of the other methods, including your own, don't you? Brian's purpose, in fact, is to debunk methods based on pseudo-science, and to demonstrate that a surprisingly good record can be established using nothing more than knowledge of where active faults and aftershock zones are. In short, his methodology is just a slightly modified "null hypothesis," and its outperformance essentially means that your method (for instance) is less than what would be expected from chance guessing.

Mike Williams in Arroyo Grande, CA